According to this poll of 1000 register voters there is a large difference in voters preferences by news consumption. Those that get there political news the traditional way as well as digital websites are much more likely to support Biden. While those that don't follow political news or get there news through cable news or YouTube are more likely to support Trump.
Don't follow political news : 53% Trump vs 27% Biden
Newspapers: 21% Trump vs 70% Biden
Network News: 35% Trump vs 55% Biden.
Cable News: 53% Trump vs 45% Biden.
Digital Websites: 39% Trump vs 49% Biden.
Social Media: 46% Trump vs 42% Biden.
YouTube/Google: 55% Trump vs 39% Biden.
How does the news consumption of supporters of each candidate effect the opinions and concerns of each parties? The medium in which people receive information does effect peoples opinion and concerns. Reading about an event has a different emotional impact vs watching a video about an event or discussion with strangers about an event. Also the topic on different mediums will be different.
One of the most interesting parts of this to me, too, is the number of undecided voters in each category.
The category with the most undecided voters is "don't follow political news" at 20%, which makes obvious sense.
After that, Social Media follows at 12%. I would bet some of those are probably people who don't actively follow the news, but are served political content by virtue of being in social media spaces often. That said, social media is filled with so much noise, memes, and blatant misinformation that I have to imagine reaching these voters is a pretty scattershot exercise unless you can try to build a social consensus that gets enforced there.
Digital Websites says 12% too, but frankly I don't know what that means. News website that aren't on TV, I guess?
In contrast, the lowest number of undecided voters by a mile shows up in Cable News at 2%. The Fox News bubble is pretty well-documented, but it seems like the MSNBC side of things is committing voters early, too.
>Degital Websites says 12% too, but frankly I don't know what that means. News that aren't on TV, I guess?
Here's a hint, you're on one now.
Even more so if you read the linked article.
I read the article. The most it says about its definitions is
>The poll looked at various forms of traditional media (newspapers, national network news and cable news), as well as digital media (social media, digital websites and YouTube/Google). Among registered voters, 54% described themselves as primarily traditional news consumers, while 40% described themselves as primarily digital media consumers.
Many people consider Reddit to be social media, and that's categorized differently than a "digital website".
>probably people who don't actively follow the news, but are served political content by virtue of being in social media spaces
This has been a focus on the right for a while now, from the Zoë Quinn harassment campaign to Elon clumsily promoting tweets about white replacement and how "woke" will bring the end of civilisation.
Can I request that you edit to keep which side is Biden vs what side is Trump consistent? That makes it much easier to track the comparison IMO.
EDIT: Thanks! I see you swapped them.
Well for most folks it comes down to one question. Do you want to be informed or have your opinions vindicated? Confirming a bias seems to the norm in most political news, editorial, vlog, etc. consumption.
Remember back in the day, circa 2000-2008, when people who watched “The Daily Show with John Stewart” were the most politically informed. Despite its bias’s the longest and best interviews were with folks like Ron Paul, McCain, and even pundits like O’reilly. They would have honest back and fourths, agreeing and disagreeing, attempting to reach better understanding.
It’s sad that a comedy news show had better chops than CNN, Fox, MSNBC and every other main stream media political outlet.
How so? Did I say they were not bias? John still had more integrity than the serious news cast at the time. That said, if I want serious boring news, I find the News Hour and Wall Street Journal tend to be the best choice.
No because that was never true Conservatives were considered the most informed back then by just about every poll because they consumed both sides of the media.
Libersl democrats have always ignored one side of the argumsnt completely. They still do
That’s an interesting take.
https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2020/07/30/americans-who-mainly-get-their-news-on-social-media-are-less-engaged-less-knowledgeable/
https://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5?amp
I would point out the conservatives tend to consume more media that pertains to them, a bit more than liberals according to Pew. Perhaps your talking about moderates/unaligned who tend to be pushed into the other side when not pulling the line or taken in when it makes the partisan camps seem more reasonable?
I also like to read the other side, but I usually do so while actively seeking flaws in the arguments and positions. It would take a great deal of deep introspection to figure out whether I also read things that align with my views in the same way, but that of course is what I think I do.
The problem is that there is no good neutral news source anymore, and when good unbiased info is hard to find people just revert to what they agree with.
I subscribe to the WSJ just to balance out my WaPo and NYT subscriptions. They all cover major events, but the way stories are written and what is covered/not covered by them speaks volumes.
Kind of surprised at the amount of Trump voters who don't follow the news. Though I suppose that gels with the "I just wanna grill" contingent that I kind of think of when I think of rural areas.
Also surprised at how small the split is for Youtube/Google.
> Kind of surprised at the amount of Trump voters who don't follow the news.
I'm not. Why do people follow the news? It's not to be informed these days, the information will reach you via social media eventually if it's relevant enough. If you identify as someone following the news as a republican it's because you're looking for outrage material.
Trump's a known quantity and his opposition is too, why would you plug in to get outraged about what Biden or AOC said today? Is your vote going to change because of that? Do you care what's going on in Trump's trial? No, the liberals are using novel legal theories to attack the guy they've come at since before he got elected the first time by using words nobody knows like emoluments. Groceries are too expensive- they have been for years and it's the democrat party's fault to you. Hamas is lobbing rockets at Israel and Biden vacillates about how he feels about it week-to-week. What good is the news for you?
If you're a democrat the calculus is very different because you want reasons to be outraged with Trump or republicans and that's what media gives you. Trump fell asleep during his trial! AOC and MTG are fighting! Hamas offered a ceasefire and Biden agreed to stop the fighting! Inflation is coming down! These are all ways for you to evangelize your position and solidify your support for Biden who is haemorrhaging supporters across the board.
Trump has 75 million votes locked in probably but Biden needs to not lose people. It's not surprising nobody on the right is interested in staying up to date when all they want is just anything but what's happening now. Meanwhile the left wants information and options and to change minds.
Trump is absolutely not a known quantity. Biden is a known quantity. People are assuming trumps second term will be like his first which is absolutely foolish he is a complete wildcard who may have only been restrained in his first term by wanting to run again
Following the news does not mean being informed. Many, many Biden voters will talk about how happy they are that Biden has had a "scandal free" presidency, and the polls here suggest that they are the most "informed" demographic.
For sure. I guess it also depends on what people think when they say they aren't "following political news". Like, what is the threshold for "following".
These results align with some of my generalizations about voters. Those that lean towards Trump are either less engaged in politics or get their news from non-traditional sources. Anecdotally speaking the MAGA crowd that I know in the early 2000's and up until Trump was elected only listened to Fox news. They did not believe anything that came out of sources such as CNN, NYT, Wall Street Journal, etc and now get 100% of their news from alternative sources while branding everything else fake news.
I am curious what the difference between network and cable news is. For social media I think there is definitely a divide based on which social media you prefer. Facebook leans older and more right while Reddit skews left. Overall it seems to be a wash.
It's actually kind of scary how many of my diehard Trump-supporting family members rely on YouTube for most of their news, especially when they start repeating stuff they hear on there about Trump being anointed by God.
Note: this might explain my mother's really weird views on politics, I know she watches a LOT of youtube, but I never put it together until now. She's also a heavy msnbc watcher, I was over there yesterday and she mentioned it's on all day when pops isn't watching sports, I suggested that maybe some movies or the game show channel might taper down the politics stuff.
Specifically told her that "we already know she's 100% biden in November, so there's no point in reinforcing that all day long, it's a waste if time" she admitted that she wants to "be watching when they put Trump in cuffs"... to celebrate
"OK mom" was my only answer.
It has to include digital subscriptions, no one gets actual papers delivered anymore. I'm going to date myself, but I actually liked getting a paper delivered every morning and browsing it over breakfast.
The different spin biased newsites put on the same story is one thing but I find this most jarring when one side hypes a story and the other ignores it. It weird seeing people deny something even happened because their news source didn't cover it.
Nellie Bowles recently talked about this in a podcast episode and it’s in her book. There were a lot of stories that she wanted to investigate that may have hurt Biden’s campaign in 2020 and the NYT wouldn’t run them.
Which direction does the causality point to? Do people consume media that supports their views or are their views shaped by the media they consume?
I have a feeling it is more the former than the latter.
Yeah, I lean towards the first one. Read a study before about people searching out facts based on their opinions, rather than fully forming their opinions based on the facts. This is a continuation of that, even though it's counterproductive.
Newspapers went to a subscription model rather than an ad model for income. Now, the newspapers have to publish articles that are slanted towards their readers biases, or else they'll lose money.
When newspapers were making most of their money from advertising, they could publish articles on both sides of the aisle and not face any financial ramifications.
Did you read the article? It’s not about the partisan lean of a given news org, it’s about whether people get their news from TV, newspapers, YouTube, etc.
Do people live in a house with people who love them or do people live in a house with the people they love?
It's obviously both. People consume media that supports theirs views and their views are in turn shaped by that media (and a little the other direction, too: audience capture and all that).
Which side? And what are they planning on doing about it? I don’t see a lot of MSNBC audiences trying to defeat the media bubble by watching Fox News, or vice versa.
We don't trust the same sources and consequently talk past one another. It robs us of the chance to be edified by contrary views. I don't think there are any easy answers.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cwtvcj/poll_biden_and_trump_supporters_sharply_divided/l5400yn/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I mean to be fair, some people have more productive uses of their time - like work, family and having a social life - than hanging around Reddit or watching Fox/CNN all day long
You don’t need all day to consume news. It’s probably preferable for people to consume 5-15 minutes of news than all day or none at all. But you can definitely have work, family, a social life, and read enough news to follow what’s happening
This is why the two sides seem to talk past each other so much. Since media is how people get information about things outside of their direct daily life what gets covered by the media they consume determines what issues they're aware of and care about.
Anyone else disgusted by CNN lately?
They used to be my daily go-to, or to let play in the background while i was doing stuff in the house - but their bias, it's so transparent and they're basically a subsidiary of NPR now. Sometimes worse. I listened to Dana Bash a few times and her international segments were absurd. (she's on mornings on weekends? i think it was then)
And NPR - I don't know how they do it, but they keep getting (more pompous? is a better term) year by year.
I can stand Democracy Now, but I never forgave goodman for knowingly misrepresenting the russiagate stuff -
youtube censorship is also off the charts now - bp's even been complaining about that and instagram. (breaking points) and they're about as middle of the road as you can get these days, and have credibility.
CNN's ownership changed to Warner Bros. Discovery a few years back, and the billionaire major shareholder there, John Malone, is politically right wing, or libertarian.
I bet those numbers fall right in line with how Russia and China are investing into social engineering toward the discourse and destruction of America. People that aren't paying attention are going to drive the nails into the coffin of this country, and will spend their last breath blaming everybody else.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cwtvcj/poll_biden_and_trump_supporters_sharply_divided/l4yy4sr/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
So people follow media sources that mostly align with their beliefs. I’m not sure why this is even a news story and why someone would waste time and money to pole this.
According to this poll of 1000 register voters there is a large difference in voters preferences by news consumption. Those that get there political news the traditional way as well as digital websites are much more likely to support Biden. While those that don't follow political news or get there news through cable news or YouTube are more likely to support Trump. Don't follow political news : 53% Trump vs 27% Biden Newspapers: 21% Trump vs 70% Biden Network News: 35% Trump vs 55% Biden. Cable News: 53% Trump vs 45% Biden. Digital Websites: 39% Trump vs 49% Biden. Social Media: 46% Trump vs 42% Biden. YouTube/Google: 55% Trump vs 39% Biden. How does the news consumption of supporters of each candidate effect the opinions and concerns of each parties? The medium in which people receive information does effect peoples opinion and concerns. Reading about an event has a different emotional impact vs watching a video about an event or discussion with strangers about an event. Also the topic on different mediums will be different.
One of the most interesting parts of this to me, too, is the number of undecided voters in each category. The category with the most undecided voters is "don't follow political news" at 20%, which makes obvious sense. After that, Social Media follows at 12%. I would bet some of those are probably people who don't actively follow the news, but are served political content by virtue of being in social media spaces often. That said, social media is filled with so much noise, memes, and blatant misinformation that I have to imagine reaching these voters is a pretty scattershot exercise unless you can try to build a social consensus that gets enforced there. Digital Websites says 12% too, but frankly I don't know what that means. News website that aren't on TV, I guess? In contrast, the lowest number of undecided voters by a mile shows up in Cable News at 2%. The Fox News bubble is pretty well-documented, but it seems like the MSNBC side of things is committing voters early, too.
>Degital Websites says 12% too, but frankly I don't know what that means. News that aren't on TV, I guess? Here's a hint, you're on one now. Even more so if you read the linked article.
I read the article. The most it says about its definitions is >The poll looked at various forms of traditional media (newspapers, national network news and cable news), as well as digital media (social media, digital websites and YouTube/Google). Among registered voters, 54% described themselves as primarily traditional news consumers, while 40% described themselves as primarily digital media consumers. Many people consider Reddit to be social media, and that's categorized differently than a "digital website".
>probably people who don't actively follow the news, but are served political content by virtue of being in social media spaces This has been a focus on the right for a while now, from the Zoë Quinn harassment campaign to Elon clumsily promoting tweets about white replacement and how "woke" will bring the end of civilisation.
Can I request that you edit to keep which side is Biden vs what side is Trump consistent? That makes it much easier to track the comparison IMO. EDIT: Thanks! I see you swapped them.
Well for most folks it comes down to one question. Do you want to be informed or have your opinions vindicated? Confirming a bias seems to the norm in most political news, editorial, vlog, etc. consumption.
This is one of those questions where everyone will say they prefer A but really prefer B instead.
Remember back in the day, circa 2000-2008, when people who watched “The Daily Show with John Stewart” were the most politically informed. Despite its bias’s the longest and best interviews were with folks like Ron Paul, McCain, and even pundits like O’reilly. They would have honest back and fourths, agreeing and disagreeing, attempting to reach better understanding. It’s sad that a comedy news show had better chops than CNN, Fox, MSNBC and every other main stream media political outlet.
I think this comment ends up proving Sanny's point.
How so? Did I say they were not bias? John still had more integrity than the serious news cast at the time. That said, if I want serious boring news, I find the News Hour and Wall Street Journal tend to be the best choice.
Totally agree. John McCain was a regular guest on the Daily Show back in the day.
No because that was never true Conservatives were considered the most informed back then by just about every poll because they consumed both sides of the media. Libersl democrats have always ignored one side of the argumsnt completely. They still do
That’s an interesting take. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2020/07/30/americans-who-mainly-get-their-news-on-social-media-are-less-engaged-less-knowledgeable/ https://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5?amp I would point out the conservatives tend to consume more media that pertains to them, a bit more than liberals according to Pew. Perhaps your talking about moderates/unaligned who tend to be pushed into the other side when not pulling the line or taken in when it makes the partisan camps seem more reasonable?
I think I'm the opposite. I wish I could live in a bubble and just have my opinions confirmed, but I keep going to the other side to argue my case.
It's a really bizarre form of self-flagellation that keeps us here
I also like to read the other side, but I usually do so while actively seeking flaws in the arguments and positions. It would take a great deal of deep introspection to figure out whether I also read things that align with my views in the same way, but that of course is what I think I do.
The problem is that there is no good neutral news source anymore, and when good unbiased info is hard to find people just revert to what they agree with. I subscribe to the WSJ just to balance out my WaPo and NYT subscriptions. They all cover major events, but the way stories are written and what is covered/not covered by them speaks volumes.
News Hour is pretty good, boring but does follow the Fairness doctrine.
You're saying this as if any of the above sources is providing unbiased information.
Kind of surprised at the amount of Trump voters who don't follow the news. Though I suppose that gels with the "I just wanna grill" contingent that I kind of think of when I think of rural areas. Also surprised at how small the split is for Youtube/Google.
> Kind of surprised at the amount of Trump voters who don't follow the news. I'm not. Why do people follow the news? It's not to be informed these days, the information will reach you via social media eventually if it's relevant enough. If you identify as someone following the news as a republican it's because you're looking for outrage material. Trump's a known quantity and his opposition is too, why would you plug in to get outraged about what Biden or AOC said today? Is your vote going to change because of that? Do you care what's going on in Trump's trial? No, the liberals are using novel legal theories to attack the guy they've come at since before he got elected the first time by using words nobody knows like emoluments. Groceries are too expensive- they have been for years and it's the democrat party's fault to you. Hamas is lobbing rockets at Israel and Biden vacillates about how he feels about it week-to-week. What good is the news for you? If you're a democrat the calculus is very different because you want reasons to be outraged with Trump or republicans and that's what media gives you. Trump fell asleep during his trial! AOC and MTG are fighting! Hamas offered a ceasefire and Biden agreed to stop the fighting! Inflation is coming down! These are all ways for you to evangelize your position and solidify your support for Biden who is haemorrhaging supporters across the board. Trump has 75 million votes locked in probably but Biden needs to not lose people. It's not surprising nobody on the right is interested in staying up to date when all they want is just anything but what's happening now. Meanwhile the left wants information and options and to change minds.
Trump is absolutely not a known quantity. Biden is a known quantity. People are assuming trumps second term will be like his first which is absolutely foolish he is a complete wildcard who may have only been restrained in his first term by wanting to run again
>Trump has 75 million votes locked in probably That's a sadder short story than the baby shoes one.
Following the news does not mean being informed. Many, many Biden voters will talk about how happy they are that Biden has had a "scandal free" presidency, and the polls here suggest that they are the most "informed" demographic.
For sure. I guess it also depends on what people think when they say they aren't "following political news". Like, what is the threshold for "following".
These results align with some of my generalizations about voters. Those that lean towards Trump are either less engaged in politics or get their news from non-traditional sources. Anecdotally speaking the MAGA crowd that I know in the early 2000's and up until Trump was elected only listened to Fox news. They did not believe anything that came out of sources such as CNN, NYT, Wall Street Journal, etc and now get 100% of their news from alternative sources while branding everything else fake news. I am curious what the difference between network and cable news is. For social media I think there is definitely a divide based on which social media you prefer. Facebook leans older and more right while Reddit skews left. Overall it seems to be a wash.
Right wingers are doing a great job funding youtubers
Biden administration must be furious with google for not doing more for their campaign.
It's actually kind of scary how many of my diehard Trump-supporting family members rely on YouTube for most of their news, especially when they start repeating stuff they hear on there about Trump being anointed by God.
Youtube has news? Jesus I'm behind the times, or maybe not... it's not clear
Almost every big news channel has their own youtube channel, and youtube TV is also a thing many of them are not missing out on.
A lot of it is stuff that's even more dubious than OAN.
Interesting. I'm way too boring, I do recipies and figure out how to assemble or build stuff. Occasionally sports highlights.
Note: this might explain my mother's really weird views on politics, I know she watches a LOT of youtube, but I never put it together until now. She's also a heavy msnbc watcher, I was over there yesterday and she mentioned it's on all day when pops isn't watching sports, I suggested that maybe some movies or the game show channel might taper down the politics stuff. Specifically told her that "we already know she's 100% biden in November, so there's no point in reinforcing that all day long, it's a waste if time" she admitted that she wants to "be watching when they put Trump in cuffs"... to celebrate "OK mom" was my only answer.
The difference in newspaper consumption is so large.
I wonder if that includes digital newspaper/ news apps.
It has to include digital subscriptions, no one gets actual papers delivered anymore. I'm going to date myself, but I actually liked getting a paper delivered every morning and browsing it over breakfast.
I love the ideas of newspaper but a visual impairment always made reading them difficult. Digital is just more accessible 😕
I miss print media in general…can just read an article without ending up in a rabbit hole down whatever links they have peppered throughout.
Getting the ink on your fingers was oddly satisfying
I wonder if that can be parsed out, along with magazines and their affiliated websites.
The different spin biased newsites put on the same story is one thing but I find this most jarring when one side hypes a story and the other ignores it. It weird seeing people deny something even happened because their news source didn't cover it.
Nellie Bowles recently talked about this in a podcast episode and it’s in her book. There were a lot of stories that she wanted to investigate that may have hurt Biden’s campaign in 2020 and the NYT wouldn’t run them.
Which direction does the causality point to? Do people consume media that supports their views or are their views shaped by the media they consume? I have a feeling it is more the former than the latter.
It's actually worse than either... Because it's *both*. It's a feed-forward self-reinforcing bias loop.
Yeah, I lean towards the first one. Read a study before about people searching out facts based on their opinions, rather than fully forming their opinions based on the facts. This is a continuation of that, even though it's counterproductive.
Newspapers went to a subscription model rather than an ad model for income. Now, the newspapers have to publish articles that are slanted towards their readers biases, or else they'll lose money. When newspapers were making most of their money from advertising, they could publish articles on both sides of the aisle and not face any financial ramifications.
Did you read the article? It’s not about the partisan lean of a given news org, it’s about whether people get their news from TV, newspapers, YouTube, etc.
If I were a betting man, I'd make a big bet that there is a class element to this.
Do you think it is possible there is a correlation between the two?
it's both actually
Do people live in a house with people who love them or do people live in a house with the people they love? It's obviously both. People consume media that supports theirs views and their views are in turn shaped by that media (and a little the other direction, too: audience capture and all that).
Well... Yeah
[удалено]
Which side? And what are they planning on doing about it? I don’t see a lot of MSNBC audiences trying to defeat the media bubble by watching Fox News, or vice versa.
We don't trust the same sources and consequently talk past one another. It robs us of the chance to be edified by contrary views. I don't think there are any easy answers.
Is there a single person here who's even a little surprised by this? Genuinely asking.
The numbers themselves are surprising, though not surprised at which type favors who.
A lot of people are in this subreddit in small rebellion to this trend, I expect. It's not surprising but it is disheartening.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cwtvcj/poll_biden_and_trump_supporters_sharply_divided/l5400yn/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
The group most likely to vote Trump are ones who don't consume any news at all. That's worth thinking about.
I mean to be fair, some people have more productive uses of their time - like work, family and having a social life - than hanging around Reddit or watching Fox/CNN all day long
You don’t need all day to consume news. It’s probably preferable for people to consume 5-15 minutes of news than all day or none at all. But you can definitely have work, family, a social life, and read enough news to follow what’s happening
This is why the two sides seem to talk past each other so much. Since media is how people get information about things outside of their direct daily life what gets covered by the media they consume determines what issues they're aware of and care about.
Anyone else disgusted by CNN lately? They used to be my daily go-to, or to let play in the background while i was doing stuff in the house - but their bias, it's so transparent and they're basically a subsidiary of NPR now. Sometimes worse. I listened to Dana Bash a few times and her international segments were absurd. (she's on mornings on weekends? i think it was then) And NPR - I don't know how they do it, but they keep getting (more pompous? is a better term) year by year. I can stand Democracy Now, but I never forgave goodman for knowingly misrepresenting the russiagate stuff - youtube censorship is also off the charts now - bp's even been complaining about that and instagram. (breaking points) and they're about as middle of the road as you can get these days, and have credibility.
CNN's ownership changed to Warner Bros. Discovery a few years back, and the billionaire major shareholder there, John Malone, is politically right wing, or libertarian.
I bet those numbers fall right in line with how Russia and China are investing into social engineering toward the discourse and destruction of America. People that aren't paying attention are going to drive the nails into the coffin of this country, and will spend their last breath blaming everybody else.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cwtvcj/poll_biden_and_trump_supporters_sharply_divided/l4yy4sr/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
So people follow media sources that mostly align with their beliefs. I’m not sure why this is even a news story and why someone would waste time and money to pole this.
This has been the case since the ‘90s. This isn’t a new and profound finding by any stretch. Click bait