Echo chamber (media)

The Internet has expanded the variety and amount of accessible political information. On the positive side, this may create a more pluralistic form of public debate; on the negative side, greater access to information may lead to selective exposure to ideologically supportive channels.[2] In an extreme "echo chamber", one purveyor of information will make a claim, which many like-minded people then repeat, overhear, and repeat again (often in an exaggerated or otherwise distorted form)[5] until most people assume that some extreme variation of the story is true.[6]

The echo chamber effect occurs online due to a harmonious group of people amalgamating and developing tunnel vision. Participants in online discussions may find their opinions constantly echoed back to them, which reinforces their individual belief systems due to the declining exposure to other's opinions.[7] Their individual belief systems are what culminate into a confirmation bias regarding a variety of subjects. When an individual wants something to be true, they often will only gather information that supports their existing beliefs and disregard any statements they find that are contradictory or speak negatively upon their beliefs.[8] Individuals who participate in echo chambers often do so because they feel more confident that their opinions will be more readily accepted by others in the echo chamber.[9] This happens because the Internet has provided access to a wide range of readily available information. People are receiving their news online more rapidly through less traditional sources, such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter. These and many other social platforms and online media outlets have established personalized algorithms intended to cater specific information to individuals’ online feeds. This method of curating content has replaced the function of the traditional news editor.[10] The mediated spread of information through online networks causes a risk of an algorithmic filter bubble, leading to concern regarding how the effects of echo chambers on the internet promote the division of online interaction. [11]

It is important to note that members of an echo chamber are not fully responsible for their convictions. Once part of an echo chamber, an individual might adhere to seemingly acceptable epistemic practices and still be further misled. Many individuals may be stuck in echo chambers due to factors existing outside of their control, such as being raised in one.[12]

Furthermore, the function of an echo chamber does not entail eroding a member's interest in truth; it focuses upon manipulating their credibility levels so that fundamentally different establishments and institutions will be considered proper sources of authority.[13]

In recent years, closed epistemic networks have increasingly been held responsible for the era of post-truth and fake news.[14] However, the media frequently conflates two distinct concepts of social epistemology: echo chambers and epistemic bubbles.[13]

An epistemic bubble is an informational network in which important sources have been excluded by omission, perhaps unintentionally. It is an impaired epistemic framework which lacks strong connectivity.[15] Members within epistemic bubbles are unaware of significant information and reasoning.

On the other hand, an echo chamber is an epistemic construct in which voices are actively excluded and discredited. It does not suffer from a lack in connectivity; rather it depends on a manipulation of trust by methodically discrediting all outside sources.[16] According to research conducted by the University of Pennsylvania, members of echo chambers become dependent on the sources within the chamber and highly resistant to any external sources.[17]

An important distinction exists in the strength of the respective epistemic structures. Epistemic bubbles are not particularly robust. Relevant information has merely been left out, not discredited.[18] One can ‘pop’ an epistemic bubble by exposing a member to the information and sources that they have been missing.[12]

Echo chambers, however, are incredibly strong. By creating pre-emptive distrust between members and non-members, insiders will be insulated from the validity of counter-evidence and will continue to reinforce the chamber in the form of a closed loop.[16] Outside voices are heard, but dismissed.

As such, the two concepts are fundamentally distinct and cannot be utilized interchangeably. However, one must note that this distinction is conceptual in nature, and an epistemic community can exercise multiple methods of exclusion to varying extents.

Ideological echo chambers have existed in many forms, for centuries. Some examples of this include:

• The McMartin preschool trial coverage was criticized by David Shaw in his 1990 Pulitzer Prize winning articles, "None of these charges was ultimately proved, but the media largely acted in a pack, as it so often does on big events, and reporters' stories, in print and on the air, fed on one another, creating an echo chamber of horrors."[25] Shaw stated that this case "exposed basic flaws" in news organizations such as "Laziness. Superficiality. Cozy relationships" and "a frantic search to be first with the latest shocking allegation". His regard to mention "Reporters and editors often abandoned" journalistic principles of "fairness and skepticism." And "frequently plunged into hysteria, sensationalism and what one editor calls 'a lynch mob syndrome'" further supports the echo chamber effect and how it alters the coverage of specific types of media.
• The conservative radio host, Rush Limbaugh, and his radio show have been categorized as an echo chamber in the first empirical study concerning echo chambers by researchers Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Frank Capella in their book: Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment (2010)[26]
• The Clinton-Lewinsky scandal reporting was chronicled in Time Magazine's 16 February 1998 "Trial by Leaks" cover story[27] "The Press And The Dress: The anatomy of a salacious leak, and how it ricocheted around the walls of the media echo chamber" by Adam Cohen.[28] This case was also reviewed in depth by the Project for Excellence in Journalism in "The Clinton/Lewinsky Story: How Accurate? How Fair?"[29]
• A New Statesman essay argued that echo chambers were linked to the UK Brexit referendum.[30]
• The subreddit /r/incels and other online incel communities have also been described as echo chambers.[31][32][33]
• Discussion concerning Opioid drugs and whether or not they should be considered suitable for long-term pain maintenance[34]
• Climate change discussions and beliefs on the research presented that suggest the changes in climate currently present are due to human behavior.[23] However, there is a differing stance that seems to have a growing echo chamber on specific media outlets.

However, since the creation of the internet, scholars have been curious to see the changes in political communication.[35] Due to the new changes in information technology and how it's managed, understanding opposing perspectives and reaching a common ground in a democracy has been up for debate.[36] The effects seen from the echo chamber effect has largely been cited to occur in politics as the effects of this fragmenting media exposure method as described in these examples:

• Twitter, as a platform is continuously described as an aid in hindering constructive discussions that would be possible of aiding to these differing, yet coexisting stances due to the interaction that takes place majority of the time reinforcing their similar perspectives.[37] The 2016 presidential election in the United States triggered a stream of discourse about the echo chamber effect.[38] Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton used this platform to their advantage incorporating it into their own campaigning.[39] Constituents were more likely to absorb information about topics such as gun control and immigration that aligned with their preexisting beliefs, as they were more likely to view information they already agreed with.[40]
• Facebook was a reflection of the echo chamber effect during the 2016 presidential election as well due to the more likeliness to suggest posts that are congruent with your standpoints; therefore there was mainly repetition of already stable standpoints instead of a diversity of opinions. Journalists argue that diversity of opinion is necessary for true democracy as it facilitates communication, and echo chambers, like those occurring in Facebook, inhibited this.[38] Some believed echo chambers played a big part in the success of Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential elections.[41]

• Philip McRae, "Forecasting the Future Over Three Horizons of Change ", ATA Magazine, May 21, 2010.
• John Scruggs, "The "Echo Chamber" Approach to Advocacy", Philip Morris, Bates No. 2078707451/7452, December 18, 1998.
  • The Hudson Institute's Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal wonder if they "got it, well, Right".
• "Buying a Movement: Right-Wing Foundations and American Politics," (Washington, DC: People for the American Way, 1996). Or download a PDF version of the full report.
• Dan Morgan, "Think Tanks: Corporations' Quiet Weapon," Washington Post, January 29, 2000, p. A1.
• Jeff Gerth and Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "Drug Industry Has Ties to Groups With Many Different Voices", New York Times, October 5, 2000.
• Robert Kuttner, "Philanthropy and Movements," The American Prospect, July 2, 2002.
• Robert W. Hahn, "The False Promise of 'Full Disclosure'," Policy Review, Hoover Institution, October 2002.
• David Brock, Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative (New York, NY: Three Rivers Press, 2002).
• Jeff Chester, "A Present for Murdoch", The Nation, December 2003: "From 1999 to 2002, his company spent almost $10 million on its lobbying operations. It has already poured $200,000 in contributions into the 2004 election, having donated nearly $1.8 million during the 2000 and 2002 campaigns."
• Jim Lobe for Asia Times: "the structure's most remarkable characteristics are how few people it includes and how adept they have been in creating new institutions and front groups that act as a vast echo chamber for one another and for the media"
• Valdis Krebs, "Divided We Stand," Political Echo Chambers
• Jonathan S. Landay and Tish Wells, "Iraqi exile group fed false information to news media", Knight Ridder, March 15, 2004.
• R.G. Keen: The Technology of Oil Can Delays
• Echo chamber at SourceWatch