“Gay Marriage” Issue Shows Siloed Media Consumption

Fascinating story from our friends at "The Fix" on the issue of "gay marriage," which is now supported by a majority of Americans:

Here's what (most) amazing to us. Only among those who strongly favor same-sex marriage are a majority aware that a majority of the country supports that position. Equally fascinating is that just more than one in five (22 percent) of those who oppose gay marriage believe a majority of the country supports it.  And those numbers are even smaller (19 percent) among those who strongly oppose same sex marriage.

How to explain such a disconnect?  By self-sorting within the electorate and the silo-ing of media consumption. That is, increasingly people live in homogenous communities with people who share similar likes, dislikes and, yes, political persuasions.  And, not surprisingly, the way in which they consume information, too, has become increasingly isolated/isolating.  Liberals watch Rachel Maddow, read liberal blogs and listen to liberal radio/podcasts. Conservatives listen to Rush Limbaugh, watch Fox News Channel and read conservative blogs. The twain never meet. They are ships passing in the political night.

Follow the link for a great graphic outlining the vast differences between how people think they view "gay marriage."

 

13 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

    Yet another consequence of the breakdown of the American media. Thanks for sharing.

    • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

      How do you blame the media for the viewers self-selecting to only listen to news they'll agree with? That's the media responding to the audience, not leading it.

      And how often do you watch Fox News?

      • VoyageurVoyageur says:

        in my case, I watch Fox Business News quite a bit, it has the best market coverage and a nice habit of leaving the indexes running during the ads.   Yes, you have to put up with a lot of Obama was born on Mars and Health Care is Communism rants, but the market coverage is pretty good. 

      • Um, not really.

        Limbaugh and FOX were created as a way to increase RW influence in the media. Limbaugh's show was subsidized for years in order to create a conservative radio market. They have grown themselves. Liberal talk/opinion media are largely a reaction to that.

        I don't tend to watch FOX News, but that could be because studies show I'm better off not getting any info from media at all than by getting it from FOX.

        I do regularly surf Google News to see what's aggregating, which includes all points of view.

        • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

          Limbaugh's show is still effectively subsidized…the company takes huge losses on it, as ad revenues continue to decline.

          At some point, he'll become such a  liability that they'll have to find another person to spout his vile nonsense. Unfortunately, there are plenty of candidates out there.

        • BlueCat says:

          I get all the Fox news I need watching Jon Stewart making fun of them.

          • langelomisteriosolangelomisterioso says:

            You'd believe that Fux Noise would eventualy get tired of being patsys for both Stewart and Colbert unless. old wrinkled Rupie and Jabba the Ailes are operating under the principle that any publicity is good  and that is the only chance they'll get for exposure to that demographic.

        • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

          I think I prefer Fox to the sanctimonious talking heads on MSNBC. Rachael Maddow is incredibly painful to watch as she takes 15 minutes of build up how upset we all need to be before she gets to the actual news "outrage" of the day.

          Fox is equally bad but they do it a lot better.

          • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

            -100, Dave…can't go there.

          • BlueCat says:

            I also find Maddow often painful to sit through but only because she goes over and over and over the same material on her way to a point as if we aren't going to get anything that isn't repeated ad nauseam. She has a knack for turning a half hour of material into an hour show and that does bores me. However she is always absolutely solid on her facts and shows her sources. Documents backing up a stat or fact or allegation appear on screen so you know exactly where her info comes from. 

            You can complain about her style (I just did) but the fact remains that you're going to get a lot of unchecked non facts, half truths and blatant lies on Fox while Maddow offers exceptionally diligent research and factual reliability.  As for sanctimony, how you can say Fox talking heads are less sanctimonious than anyone is quite baffling. Maddow isn't nearly as sanctimonious. Tedious, yeah. 

  2. itlduso says:

    There are no gays in Fox Land (kind of like Sochi).

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.