I. Introduction

Research shows that over the previous decade, political polarization, the divergence of political attitudes towards ideological extremes, has been increasing significantly. Media, among others, is a particularly outlying cause for this partisan polarization as it is responsible for creating echo chambers that insulate people from opposing views on current events. In the case of the United States, according to a Harvard study, the direct cause of this is the rise of 24-hour private-partisan cable news over the past four decades. (Cable news refers to nothing more than the umbrella term for various television news broadcasts). The authors of the study noted comparatively that in the countries where political polarization had fallen in the last four decades, public broadcasting received mostly public funding as opposed to private funding, thus proving the direct impact of private news on the formation of partisan views. Similarly, in India, changes in media ownership likely has played a role in this transformation, as more and more Indian media outlets have been acquired by corporate conglomerates generally run by prominent Indian families with individual political loyalties.

‍

‍

In India, a country where the central axis for political homophily is religion and caste, social media platforms have also played an incredibly prominent role in creating major information dissemination inconsistencies. 

These platforms are distinguished by their rapid communication of content and ultimately, news. The sheer volume of politically motivated content an Indian citizen is exposed to on average is immense: a 2019 CSDS-Lokniti and Konrad Adenauer Stiftung survey determined that one in every three Indian citizens on social media consumes some form of political content daily or regularly. Major social media platforms like WhatsApp, Twitter, and Facebook claim more than 500 million users in the country, a significant amount of media penetration in urban and increasingly in rural areas as well. Political misinformation and propaganda are rampant on these platforms due to a lack of effective safeguards, with parties with specific political agendas relying on the fundamental reality that a voter bank will believe whatever they are most exposed to. According to the 2017 CSDS-Lokniti survey, one-sixth of India’s WhatsApp users were part of a WhatsApp group either managed by a political party or its leader. A question of ethics arises here, of whether such platforms should bear ethical responsibility for such content, which will be discussed later on in the paper. The impact of each of these three platforms will also be discussed individually later on. 

Other forms of journalism, such as radio, exert a very similar impact on political division in India. However, due to the introduction of digital media, their impact has become far less significant. Therefore, for the purposes of this project, the primary focus will center on cable news and social media platforms due to their wider dissemination and pronounced influence on public discourse and the formation of partisan opinions. A December 2021 report — titled ‘The Future of the News in India’ — noted that "a digital-first landscape is emerging for news." These platforms have witnessed a surge in adoption and engagement in recent years. The immediacy and extensive reach of cable news and social media render them particularly potent in shaping political narratives and exacerbating polarization. We begin by analyzing each of these forms of media individually. 

‍

II. Cable News 

Cable and network television news remain the primary sources of political information for people over the age of thirty. This paper posits that consuming news with a particular slant towards one political agenda alters the consumer’s political behavior, and the existence of slanted news could lead to a divisive feedback loop: an "echo chamber" where partisans can reinforce and strengthen their initial biases. The central new results in a Stanford paper show that in the United States, the right-wing news channel Fox News’ effect in presidential elections grew from 2000 to 2008 because of an increasing viewership as well as an increasingly conservative slant on Fox News and that the cable news channels can explain an increase in political polarization of similar size to that observed in the US population over this period. In the case of Fox News, one may argue that it caters specifically to an already right-wing electorate rather than informing the public with a right-wing slant. However, the results of this paper estimate that removing Fox News from cable television during the 2000 election cycle would have reduced the overall Republican presidential vote share by 0.46 percentage points, which could mean the difference between winning or losing a Presidential election. From this, we can infer that its reach extended beyond its already right-wing viewers and succeeded in altering public opinion to an extent. Furthermore, this research estimated that cable news could increase polarization and explain about two-thirds of the increase among the public in the United States, and we can conclude that this increase depends on both the persuasive effect of cable news and, of course, the existence of tastes for like-minded news. 

These findings could have large effects not only on vote shares, but can also raise or decrease an individual’s response to political content not in line with their preconceived ideologies, affecting their level of political information and engagement with politics, and hence their inclination to even turn out in elections. The graph below shows this increasing divide in the United States as compared to the United Kingdom. 

‍

‍

In India, electorates are more exposed to media than ever before, with NES data corroborating that the media's penetration into Indian society has increased significantly in recent years due to the proliferation of smartphones and cheap data, creating an upward trend in news/information/entertainment consumption. The percentage of voters who watch news daily went up from 19% in 1996 to 46% in 2014. The number of TV news channels increased to 393 in 2014 from 241 in 2009. According to Census of India figures, TV ownership increased from 32% in 2011 to 47%. 

‍

Given that there is statistical evidence of an increase in TV ownership, the burden of proof now falls on this paper to prove the correlation between this increase in cable news exposure and political polarization in India. We use the following evidence to characterize the degree of division that one can attribute to slanted cable news consumption, to measure the effects of cable news on elections, and to assess the positioning strategies of the cable news channels: With this increase in access to television, there has been a simultaneous and directly proportional increase in polarised viewpoints as evidenced both in and after the 2014 Lok Sabha Elections (characterized and distinguished from previous elections by being referred to as the first ‘media’ elections), where the electorate was largely divided into two groups: the right-wing, conservative BJP or the left-wing Congress, and were targeted by dozens of national and regional television news channels to the extent that the country witnessed a ‘media blitzkrieg.’ The BJP alone bought 2000 prominent spots a day across Hindi, English, and regional news, general entertainment, and sports channels. As mentioned previously, most of the leading media companies are owned by large conglomerates that are still controlled by the founding families and that invest in a vast array of industries other than media. Both Republic TV and ZEE News, for instance, were previously/are still controlled by Rajya Sabha MPs: it is evident that personal ideology affects news, resulting in propaganda and disinformation for personal power or profit. 

Another evidence of this phenomenon is the intense political rhetoric and instances of riots and clashes, such as the Muzaffarnagar riots in 2013 and the violence in Delhi in 2020, which highlight the divided fault lines in the country, to which news coverage and social media was a significant contributor. 

Comparatively, in the United States, A Pew study interestingly quantifies this disparity between consistent right-wing conservatives and left-wing liberals as follows: 

‍

Those with consistent conservative views: 

1. Are tightly clustered around a single news source, far more than any other group in the survey, with 47% citing a conservation news source (Fox News) as their main source for news about government and politics. 

2. Express greater distrust than trust of 24 of the 36 news sources measured in the survey. At the same time, 88% of consistent conservatives trust Fox News. 

3. Are more likely to have friends who share their own political views. Two-thirds (66%) say most of their close friends share their views on government and politics. 

‍

By contrast, those with consistently liberal views: 

1. Are less unified in their media loyalty; they rely on a greater range of news outlets, including some – like NPR and the New York Times– that others use far less. 

2. Express more trust than distrust of 28 of the 36 news outlets in the survey. NPR, PBS, and the BBC are the most trusted news sources for consistent liberals. 

3. Are more likely than those in other ideological groups to block or "unfriend" someone on a social network – as well as to end a personal friendship – because of politics. 

‍

Thus, the data highlights the influence of cable news on selective exposure, confirmation bias, and the formation of echo chambers among individuals with consistent conservative and liberal views. The findings demonstrate that those with consistently conservative views tend to be ‘tightly clustered around a single news source’ and express distrust for the ‘other side.’ This concentration of viewership reinforces their ideological perspectives and may perpetuate conservative narratives. 

‍

Moreover, conservatives tend to convey greater levels of distrust toward most of the news sources surveyed. This heightened skepticism toward other news outlets reinforces their reliance on a single outlet, further solidifying their echo chamber. Interestingly, consistent liberals express greater trust than distrust toward a wider majority of the news outlets surveyed, including NPR, PBS, and the BBC, which are the most trusted sources among this group. This suggests that consistent liberals may be more open to varied perspectives from a broader spectrum of news sources. However, the data also reveals that consistent liberals display a lack of eagerness to engage. They are more likely to take actions such as blocking or "unfriending" someone on social media due to political differences and even ending personal friendships over politics, indicating a higher degree of ideological intolerance and a higher preference to surround themselves with like-minded individuals. Overall, the findings of this PEW study underscore how cable news can contribute to selective exposure, confirmation bias, and the formation of silos, particularly among those with consistently conservative views or consistently liberal views. 

‍

In India, there are similar consistencies in cable news consumption, as shown below: 

‍

‍

Scholars are increasingly concerned about the negative impact of ideological rhetoric expressed on the Internet through various platforms. Among online media outlets, social media, in particular, has attracted considerable attention in regards to its potential for not only spreading disinformation and rhetoric, but also for contributing to increasing sectarianism of views on the Internet as it creates networks among those sharing similar beliefs. The ideological fragmentation of these outlets contributes to the division of public opinion. Social and digital media usership has increased by 606% from 142 million to 862.08 million from 2015 to 2023 and given that these platforms foster networks among people with similar beliefs, such partisanship is an evident byproduct. It is crucial to undertake an in-depth examination of individual media platforms and their unique impact on shaping ideological divisions and biases. By delving into an individual granular analysis, we can better comprehend how these platforms contribute to the propagation and reinforcement of polarised viewpoints among different segments of society. 

‍

1. Facebook: 

Historically, Facebook's impact on political discourse has been significant, both in India and the United States. According to a PEW study consistent conservatives on Facebook are twice as likely as the average user to see politically aligned opinions that reinforce their own views (47% vs. 23%), highlighting the presence of echo chambers. Research published in the journal Science confirms the influential role of social media platforms like Facebook in intensifying "political sectarianism.” Another study in the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences in August 2021 suggests that social media often acts as a key facilitator to polarization as incendiary posts tend to receive more interaction. A paper based on a study of over 17,000 Americans found that Facebook's content-ranking algorithm limits users' exposure to news outlets with contrasting viewpoints. Internal Facebook documents, as reported by The Wall Street Journal, reveal that the company's management has rejected all proposed reforms despite recognizing the harmful effects of its platform. The algorithm was modified in 2018 with the intention of addressing these issues. However, it inadvertently increased divisiveness on the platform even further. Furthermore, a Facebook study indicates that polarization extends to the social network itself. On average, a Facebook user has approximately five politically like-minded friends for every friend with differing views. 

An internal Facebook report reported the experience of a test user in India who created a new account to see what it was like to experience Facebook as an Indian living in Kerala, India. For the next three weeks, the account operated by a simple rule: it followed all the recommendations generated by Facebook’s algorithms to join groups, watch videos, and explore new pages on the site. The resulting content was an inundation of hate speech, misinformation, and celebrations of violence. This test user symbolizes the experience of over 340 million users in the country. In July 2020, the Delhi Minorities Commission released a report on how hate speech on social media, and specifically Facebook, fuelled the religious. 

‍

‍

Violence in North East Delhi during that year. India represents Facebook’s largest market, amplifying the challenges the company faces in understanding and addressing its political impact, which it recognizes as its responsibility, with Facebook’s Public Policy Director, Shivnanth Thukral, explaining that if it is clear that certain content violates the platform’s community guidelines, it is taken down immediately. In case of user complaints, they are mandated to acknowledge within 24 hours and have to respond within 14 days. 

2. Whatsapp: 

WhatsApp is India’s most downloaded application. With more than 200 million active users—more than the combined population of France, Germany, Austria, and Poland—Whatsapp has emerged as a powerful political tool. In recent years, political parties in India have focused on increasingly leveraging WhatsApp to reach various constituencies. In such an environment, it is essential to study the quality of information circulating on these platforms to voters as they exercise their franchise. An Oxford study collected and analyzed data from a total of 116 public WhatsApp groups across different parties. 

The results proved that the proportion of polarising political news and information in circulation over social media in India is worse than all of the other country case studies that the researchers had analyzed, except the US Presidential election in 2016. As mentioned previously, an important example of this is the spread of disinformation and fake news that became a trigger for the Muzaffarnagar riots in Uttar Pradesh just eight months ahead of the federal elections. In many ways, WhatsApp is an ideal medium for spreading fake news and rumors due to its technological features, such as free usage, end-to-end encryption (which makes it difficult to trace the origin of a message), its support for multimedia content, ease of use and forming groups for communication. Since the content shared by individuals or in groups comes from someone known, there is a strong tendency to trust the source. The other factors that contribute to its position are the usage pattern, especially in India. Given that a large number of users from urban areas are first-time Internet users and thus not cognizant of fake news or practiced in media literacy, they become easily convinced that any news on the application is true, particularly with the case of the ‘forwarding’ technology and since there are limited mechanisms to verify or regulate the content being shared. One of the strengths of the application is the use of less reliance on the literary strength of a user. A user could communicate in any media (text, audio, video, or pictures). This has also caused its popularity among large sections of Indian society, which do not have good literacy rates and access to/information about other media and sources to verify the news. Later in the paper, Professor Rahul Verma of Ashoka University explains the exact proliferation process of media, beginning with the upper echelons of society and trickling down to the masses. 

‍

3. Twitter: 

Among all the social media, Twitter is the most pivotal online platform that is extensively used for political debate. 69% of the top 10% of most prolific tweeters on the platform say they have tweeted about politics, and one-third of all tweets from US adults are political. “Twitter has emerged as a key platform on which anyone with a smartphone can engage in political discourse,” observed Michelle Nguyen in her article Twitter’s Role in Politics in The Northwestern Business Review. She noted that economic access is a large cause: while a TV ad can cost millions of dollars, a single tweet can reach the same number of people just as quickly for a negligible fraction of the cost. Given the ease of widespread communication with the click of a button and the app’s worldwide popularity, most Indian politicians, parties, and organizations now have Twitter handles and use them to disseminate sensationalized and provocative news. An Indian study showed a clear tendency of homophily was observed in the retweet networks on Twitter. Same-party mentions, which reflect support and agreement, were significantly higher than cross-party mentions, which reflect disagreement. 

In another study titled “The echo Chamber effect on social media,” published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, the researchers analyzed more than 100 million posts collected between 2010 and 2018 about controversial topics such as abortion, gun control, and vaccination. They found that compared with Reddit users, Twitter users were more likely to interact with information disseminated by users with similar viewpoints. The results showed that the aggregation of users in homophilic clusters dominates online interactions on Twitter. In particular, the topic of abortion on Twitter shows a strong correlation between the leaning of a user and the average leaning of their nearest neighbors. 

‍

Thus, in both the United States and India, Twitter breeds political homophily through algorithmic means, which are conducive to the formation of echo chambers through selective sharing and amplification, anonymity, campaigns, media manipulation, and disinformation. 

‍

4. Case studies in other Social Media: 

In a video essay on Youtube, which has gained significant traction on the media platform, social science and media commentator Olivia “Liv" Sun recounts her own experience with indoctrination into the far-right, a polarization that was created due to the selective media exposure she received on Youtube. Sun’s narrative sheds light on the influential role of selective media exposure encountered on YouTube, contributing to her political homophily. Her account underscores the significance of algorithms and recommendation systems that prioritize engagement, as Sun found herself unwittingly trapped in an echo chamber where the content she consumed predominantly reinforced her existing views with reactionary and incendiary videos of far-right commentators. The persuasive nature of YouTube’s recommendation system serves as a potent catalyst for ideological divisions and echo chamber creation. Sun explains that this constant barrage of recommended videos and the ideology-reinforcing comments on these videos affected her political opinions to the extent that her political views completely pivoted from left-leaning and liberal to far-right and conservative. This aligns with research in media studies, emphasizing the interplay of selective exposure and confirmation bias in shaping individuals’ media consumption habits and deepening political polarization. Sun’s experience is not unique. It is a typical example of the alt-right pipeline, also referred to as the alt-right rabbit hole. This conceptual framework explains the phenomenon of internet radicalization towards the alt-right movement. It elucidates a process wherein individuals progressively become exposed to alt-right or similar far-right ideologies due to consuming provocative right-wing political content. This model suggests that this exposure occurs due to the interconnected nature of political commentators and online communities, enabling individuals to come across more extreme groups. The most well-documented manifestation of this process is observed on YouTube (like Sun recounted), where it is facilitated through an “Alternative Influence Network,” in which various right-wing scholars, pundits, and internet personalities interact with one another to boost the performance of their content. These algorithms recommend content similar to what users engage with, inadvertently leading them down rabbit holes of similar content.

Furthermore, the alt-right pipeline has been linked to tragic incidents such as the Christchurch mosque shootings, wherein a far-right extremist cited the internet as instrumental in shaping his beliefs. The informal nature of radicalization within this pipeline allows individuals to lead seemingly everyday lives offline while harboring extreme ideologies. Additionally, harassment campaigns against perceived opponents of the alt-right movement are another common consequence of radicalization. 

In an Op-Ed in the Washingtonian titled ‘What Happened After My 13-Year-Old Son Joined the Alt-Right,’ an anonymous author’s recollection highlights the power of selective exposure to online content on Reddit in shaping her son’s ideological transformation at a tender age. The allure of anonymity and a sense of belonging within alt-right communities created an environment conducive to his radicalization, with online spaces such as Reddit forums serving as information bubbles that reinforced extremist beliefs and limited exposure to contrasting viewpoints. The author’s son warns others to be skeptical of such exclusionary online communities. He blames big tech, media companies, and their algorithms for contributing to the problem of radicalization. 

‍

Therefore, social media platforms like Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, and others have had a significant impact on political polarization. While these platforms do provide opportunities for information sharing, community building, and public discourse, they also possess characteristics that can exacerbate division in society. The algorithms employed by these platforms and personalized recommendations contribute to chambers where individuals are primarily exposed to content they already agree with. This limited exposure to diverse viewpoints hampers the exchange of ideas and fosters an environment where people are less likely to engage in civil discourse. The selective sharing and amplification of social media content reinforces pre-existing biases and contributes to the spread of biased or misleading information. This phenomenon is particularly concerning when it comes to sharing false or manipulative information during political campaigns, as discussed above, as it can distort public perceptions and deepen polarization. The anonymity and impersonal nature of interactions on social media platforms can also lead to more aggressive behavior and the propagation of extreme viewpoints. Hostile discussions, trolling, and harassment have become more prevalent, making it increasingly difficult for individuals with differing opinions to find common ground and engage in constructive dialogue.

Moreover, the viral nature of hashtags, trends, and campaigns on these platforms can contribute to the formation of opposing camps, where individuals with different political perspectives engage in heated debates that further entrench their positions. This phenomenon intensifies political polarization and creates an atmosphere of “us versus them,” creating false dichotomies and hindering the potential for finding common solutions to societal challenges. While it is important to acknowledge that social media platforms alone do not create political polarization, they serve as powerful amplifiers and catalysts of existing divisions. The responsibility lies not only with the platforms themselves but also with users to foster a more balanced and constructive online discourse. 

‍

III. Conclusion

A majority of respondents to a survey conducted alongside this paper mentioned socialization in the form of mindshare, conversations with their peers, friends, family, or teachers, and general opinion as their source of political information prior to the media explosion in Indian politics. Other common responses included traditional and modern media forms like newspapers and television. Post-2014, media has become the main platform for such socialization, resulting in 100% of respondents agreeing to the statement that they receive political information through it in some form. 

‍

After conducting both independent research and collecting primary data via interviews with professionals and surveys, the project focused on examining the effect of both modern media platforms (such as WhatsApp, Facebook, and Twitter) and traditional media on political polarization. The findings and analysis indicate the following significant conclusions: 

‍

1. Traditional Media’s Influence on Political polarization: 

The research highlighted the impact of traditional media outlets on political polarization. While the dominance of modern platforms is apparent, traditional media in the form of journalism, newspapers, and some forms of cable news still hold influence and contribute to polarization. Biases in reporting, selective coverage, the creation of ‘news deserts’, and sensationalism can shape public opinion and reinforce partisan divisions. Additionally, the project identified a correlation between media consumption habits and political polarization, with individuals gravitating towards media outlets that align with their ideological leanings through statistics as well as through survey results and the opinions of media professionals. 

‍

2. Modern Media Platforms and Political polarization: 

The project revealed that modern media platforms, including WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter, and the ideology-rampant YouTube, play a crucial role in shaping political polarization, as 100% of survey respondents revealed that they view political information on these platforms. These platforms offer individuals the ability to express their opinions, share information, and connect with like-minded individuals. However, this unrestricted, algorithmic communication creates echo chambers of opinion. This phenomenon intensifies polarization by reinforcing existing views and reducing exposure to diverse perspectives. 

‍

3. Social Media Amplification of Extreme Views: 

The project revealed that social media platforms have a tendency to amplify extreme views, thereby intensifying political polarization. Due to the algorithmic design of these platforms, content that evokes strong emotions or controversy tends to receive higher engagement and visibility. This amplification effect can lead to misinformation and the dissemination of extreme content, further dividing individuals along ideological lines. The project emphasized the need to address this amplification bias within social media algorithms such as Facebook and Twitter to mitigate the impact on political polarization and promote more balanced discourse. 

‍

4. Bias and Filter Bubbles: 

The paper explored the tendency of individuals to seek out and accept information that confirms their existing beliefs while dismissing or discrediting opposing viewpoints. This bias is amplified by the algorithms used by modern media platforms, which prioritize content based on user preferences, creating filter bubbles that further limit exposure to diverse perspectives. 

5. Distrust in Media: 

The project found that trust in media institutions influences the level of political polarization. The erosion of trust in the ‘other side’ fueled by perceptions of bias and misinformation is synonymous with the rise of media sources that cater to specific ideological viewpoints. This fragmentation of trust exacerbates sectarianism as individuals gravitate towards sources that reinforce their preconceived notions, further isolating them from alternative viewpoints. 

‍

IV. Recommendations for Mitigating polarization 

Based on the paper’s findings, several recommendations can be made to mitigate political polarization: 

‍

1. Promoting Media Literacy: 

Journalist Anubha Bhonsl recommended that enhancing media literacy and mindfulness can equip individuals with the skills to critically evaluate information, identify bias, and recognize the dangers of echo chambers. This empowers individuals to consume media more discerningly and seek out diverse and alternative viewpoints. 

‍

2. Algorithmic Transparency and Regulation: 

Encouraging transparency in algorithms used by social media platforms can help users understand and mitigate the impact of filter bubbles. Additionally, implementing responsible regulations to combat the spread of misinformation and reduce algorithmic bias can be instrumental in promoting a more balanced media ecosystem. 

‍

3. Diverse and Inclusive Media Representation: 

Promoting diversity and inclusivity in media representation can help counter polarization by providing a broader range of perspectives and fostering empathy and understanding across ideological divides. Professor Rahul Verma recommended the encouragement of more discourse across the aisle and across different political spectrums. Promoting online and offline civil discourse can foster respectful engagement and constructive dialogue among individuals with differing opinions. Platforms and communities can play an active role in encouraging productive conversations and discouraging inflammatory rhetoric. 

‍

In conclusion, the project's research indicates that both modern and traditional media platforms contribute to political polarization. The findings highlight the role of bias, distrust in media, echo chambers, and the absence of media literacy. By implementing the recommendations outlined above, there is potential to mitigate polarization and foster a more informed and inclusive public discourse. 

‍

V. Glossary

Political polarization: Political polarization is the divergence of political attitudes from the center towards ideological extremes. 

1. Partisan: prejudiced in favor of a particular cause or political ideology. 

2. Selective Exposure: Selective exposure occurs when individuals search for information and show systematic preferences towards ideas that are consistent, rather than inconsistent, with their beliefs. 

3. Echo Chamber: Defined as a bounded, enclosed media space that has the potential to both magnify the messages delivered within it and insulate them from rebuttal. 

4. Media Literacy: The ability to critically analyze stories presented in the mass media and to determine their accuracy or credibility. 

5. Slant: Slant in the news refers to the bias towards a particular side or ideology. If information or a system is slanted, it is made to show favor toward a particular group or opinion. 

6. Homophily: the tendency for people to seek out or be attracted to those who are similar to themselves. Homophilic clusters refer to groups of these people. 

7. Sectarianism: Sectarianism is the division and hostility based on differences in religion, ethnicity, or politics within a society. It often leads to conflicts and discrimination between different groups.