One of the most pressing challenges in the digital media landscape is understanding the impact of biases on the news sources that people rely on for information. Biased news can have significant and far-reaching consequences, influencing our perspectives and shaping the decisions we make, potentially endangering the public and individual well-being. With the advent of the Internet and social media, discussions have moved online, making it easier to disseminate both accurate and inaccurate information. To combat mis- and dis-information, many have begun to evaluate the reliability of news sources, but these assessments often only examine the validity of the news (narrative bias) and neglect other types of biases, such as the deliberate selection of events to favor certain perspectives (selection bias). This paper aims to investigate these biases in various news sources and their correlation with third-party evaluations of reliability, engagement, and online audiences. Using machine learning to classify content, we build a six-year dataset on the Italian vaccine debate and adopt a Bayesian latent space model to identify narrative and selection biases. Our results show that the source classification provided by third-party organizations closely follows the narrative bias dimension, while it is much less accurate in identifying the selection bias. Moreover, we found a nonlinear relationship between biases and engagement, with higher engagement for extreme positions. Lastly, analysis of news consumption on Twitter reveals common audiences among news outlets with similar ideological positions.
翻译:数字媒体领域最紧迫的挑战之一是了解对人们赖以获取信息的新闻来源的偏见的影响。偏见新闻可能产生重大和深远的后果,影响我们的观点,影响我们的决策,有可能危及公众和个人福祉。随着互联网和社交媒体的出现,讨论已经在线进行,使得传播准确和不准确信息更加容易。为了打击错误和虚假信息,许多人已开始评价新闻来源的可靠性,但这些评估往往只是审查新闻(叙述偏见)的有效性,忽视其他类型的偏见,例如故意选择有利于某些观点(选择偏见)的事件。本文旨在调查各种新闻来源中的这些偏见及其与第三方对可靠性、参与和在线受众的评价的关联性。利用机器学习对内容进行分类,我们在意大利疫苗辩论上建立了一个六年期数据集,并采用了巴耶斯潜藏的空间模型,以查明叙述和选择偏差。我们的评估结果显示,第三方组织提供的来源分类与描述偏见的层面密切关联,而它在确定选择选择偏向性立场(选择选择选择偏向偏向性(选择偏向性偏向)方面则不甚准确得多。此外,我们发现,在选择意识形态立场与极端的媒体之间,我们发现,在选择偏向性立场上没有相同的偏向性。