The AllSides Media Bias Chart™ helps you to easily identify different perspectives and political leanings in the news so you can get the full picture and think for yourself.
270toWin is independent, not financed or owned by any political party, industry group or lobbyist. We aggregate polls and professional election projections, complementing that with relevant news and original content.
This book examines the volume, distribution, content, and effects of political advertising in congressional and presidential elections. It analyzes from local broadcast stations, Facebook, Instagram, Google, YouTube and other digital content. The role of outside groups in airing ads is examined, including the rise of dark money groups and gaps in existing federal campaign finance laws.
This book examines why political rumors exist and persist despite their unsubstantiated and refuted claims, who is most likely to believe them, and how to combat them.
Through over 70 off-the-record interviews with key campaign staff and consultants, the author uncovers how the industry creates a political environment that is confusing, polarizing, and alienating to voters. Producing Politics explores the role political operatives play in shaping the way that voters understand political candidates, participate in elections, and perceive our democratic process.
This edition of Reference Shelf looks at propaganda and misinformation. Social media posts inciting sectarian violence, government-manipulated misinformation campaigns, for-profit fake news headlines, and well-meaning but gullible individuals promoting conspiracies point up the problems with our current media environment. This volume explores the pollution of our information environment and what we can do about it.
Words That Matter assesses how the news media covered the 2016 election and, more important, what information—true, false, or somewhere in between—actually helped voters make up their minds. Using journalists’ real-time tweets and published news coverage of campaign events, along with Gallup polling data measuring how voters perceived that reporting, the book traces the flow of information from candidates and their campaigns to journalists and to the public.
Electoral disinformation is feared to variously undermine democratic trust by inflaming incorrect negative beliefs about the fairness of elections, or to shore up dictators by creating falsely positive ones. Recent studies of political misperceptions, however, suggest that disinformation has at best minimal effects on beliefs. In this article, we investigate the drivers of public perceptions and misperceptions of election fairness. We link public opinion data from 82 national elections with expert survey data on disinformation and de facto electoral integrity. We show that, overall, people arrive at largely accurate perceptions, but that disinformation campaigns are indeed associated with less accurate and more polarized beliefs about election fairness.
The 2020 election was both a miracle and a tragedy. In the midst of a pandemic posing unprecedented challenges, local and state administrators pulled off a safe, secure, and professional election. This article discusses metrics of success in the adaptations that took place—record-high turnout, widespread voter satisfaction, a doubling of mail voting without a concomitant increase in problems often associated with absentee ballots, and the recruitment of hundreds of thousands of new poll workers. However, a competing narrative of a "stolen election" led to a historically deep chasm between partisans in their trust of the election process and outcome.
This study integrates research on negativity bias and misinformation, as a comparison of how systematic (negativity) and incidental (misinformation) challenges to the news are perceived differently by audiences. Through a cross-country survey, we found that both challenges are perceived as highly salient and disruptive. Despite negativity bias in the news possibly being a more widespread phenomenon, respondents across the surveyed countries perceive misinformation as a relatively bigger threat, even in countries where negativity is estimated to be more prevalent. In conclusion, the optimism of recent research about people’s limited misinformation exposure does not seem to be reflected in audiences’ threat perceptions.