Digital media and political polarization in the United States: institutional biases and algorithmic structures as drivers of social cleavage
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18255/2412-6519-2026-2-182-197Keywords:
DIGITAL media, political polarization, affective polarization, algorithmic systems, media bias, United StatesAbstract
This article examines the multifaceted influence of digital media on the deepening of political and affective polarization in the United States. The author argues that contemporary digital platforms have ceased to function merely as channels for information dissemination, having transformed into a key infrastructure that shapes the public agenda and intensifies intergroup hostility. The purpose of the study is to identify gaps in current media research and to analyze specific mechanisms that contribute to the reproduction of societal cleavage. The methodology employed is a narrative literature review incorporating historical-chronological and conceptual analysis. The article traces the evolution of media influence theories, from Walter Lippmann's concept of the «pseudo-environment» and Harold Lasswell's propaganda model, through Paul Lazarsfeld's "minimal effects" hypothesis, to the theories of agenda-setting, framing, and the spiral of silence. The author demonstrates how these classical frameworks acquire renewed relevance in the digital age. Particular attention is devoted to phenomena such as echo chambers, filter bubbles, and the hybrid media system. The study emphasizes that the fundamental architecture of digital platforms, designed to maximize user engagement, systematically prioritizes emotionally charged and polarizing content. Algorithmic recommendation and content moderation systems create «rabbit holes» that may radicalize users' views and reinforce self-censorship. The author concludes by identifying significant gaps in the scholarly understanding of these processes, attributable primarily to the opacity of algorithmic systems. The article calls for the development of a comprehensive research model capable of capturing the synergistic effects of various mechanisms, as well as for the introduction of regulatory measures to ensure the accountability of digital platforms, whose unchecked influence poses a threat to democratic institutions.References
Lippmann W. Public Opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1922. 427 p.
Lasswell H. D. Propaganda Technique in the World War. New York: Knopf, 1927. 233 p.
Lazarsfeld P. F., Berelson B., Gaudet H. The People's Choice. New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce, 1944. 178 p.
McLuhan M. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1994. 365 p.
McCombs M. E., Shaw D. L. The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media // The Public Opinion Quarterly. 1972. V. 36, No. 2. P. 176-187. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/267990
Noelle-Neumann E. The Spiral of Silence: A Theory of Public Opinion // Journal of Communication. 1974. V. 24, No. 2. P. 43-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1974.tb00367.x
Narayanan A. Understanding social media recommendation algorithms // Knight First Amendment Institute. 09.03.2023. URL: https://knightcolumbia.org/content/understanding-social-media-recommendation-algorithms (дата обращения: 27.12.2025).
Entman R. M. Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm // Journal of Communication. 1993. V. 43, No. 4. P. 51-58. DOI 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
Li J. Study of U.S. Democratic and Republican Senators' Political Framing Strategies on Abortion Rights Based on Social Identity Theory and Framing Effect // Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences. 2024. V. 39. P. 470-475. DOI 10.54097/88jqsb53 DOI: https://doi.org/10.54097/88jqsb53
Putnam R. D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000. 541 p. DOI 10.1145/358916.361990 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/358916.361990
Sunstein C. Echo Chambers: Bush v. Gore, Impeachment, and Beyond. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. 113 p.
Pariser E. The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. New York: Penguin Press, 2011. 304 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3139/9783446431164
Studying Complex Discursive Systems: Centering Resonance Analysis of Communication / S. Corman, T. Kuhn, R. McPhee, K. Dooley // Human Communication Research. 2002. V. 28, No. 2. P. 157-206. DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00802.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00802.x
Sentiment Analysis on Social Media / F. Neri, С. Aliprandi, F. Capeci, M. Cuadros, T. By // Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM 2012). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society, 2012. P. 919-926. DOI 10.1109/ASONAM.2012.164 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ASONAM.2012.164
Abramowitz A. I. The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010. 224 p.
Iyengar S., Sood G., Lelkes Y. Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization // Public Opinion Quarterly. 2012. V. 76, No. 3. P. 405-431. DOI 10.1093/poq/nfs038 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038
Baym G. Stewart, O'Reilly, and The Rumble 2012: Alternative Political Debate in the Age of Hybridity // Popular Communication. 2014. V. 12, No. 2. P. 75-88. DOI 10.1080/15405702.2014.893583 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15405702.2014.893583
Freelon D., Karpf D. Of Big Birds and Bayonets: Hybrid Twitter Interactivity in the 2012 Presidential Debates // Information, Communication & Society. 2015. V. 18, No. 4. P. 390-406. DOI 10.1080/1369118X.2014.952659 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.952659
Chadwick A. The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. 336 p. DOI 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759477.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759477.001.0001
Chadwick A., Collister S. Boundary-Drawing Power and the Renewal of Professional News Organizations: The Case of The Guardian and the Edward Snowden National Security Agency Leak // International Journal of Communication. 2014. V. 8. P. 2420-2441.
Garrett R. K., Carnahan D., Lynch E. K. A Turn Toward Avoidance? Selective Exposure to Online Political Information, 2004-2008 // Political Behavior. 2013. V. 35, No. 1. P. 113-134. DOI 10.1007/s11109-011-9185-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-011-9185-6
Hong S., Kim S. H. Political Polarization on Twitter: Implications for the Use of Social Media in Digital Governments // Government Information Quarterly. 2016. V. 33, No. 4. P. 777-782. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2016.04.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.04.007
Gillespie T. The Politics of 'Platforms' // New Media & Society. 2010. V. 12, No. 3. P. 347-364. DOI 10.1177/1461444809342738 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342738
Gillespie T. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018. 304 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300235029
Views of American Democracy and Society and Support for Political Violence: First Report from a Nationwide Population-Representative Survey / G. J. Wintemute, S. Robinson, A. Crawford, J. P. Schleimer, A. Barnhorst, V. Chaplin, D. Tancredi, E. A. Tomsich, V. A. Pear // medRxiv. 2022. DOI 10.1101/2022.07.15.22277693
Modeling the Emergence of Affective Polarization in the Social Media Society / P. Törnberg, С. Andersson, K. Lindgren, S. Banisch // PLoS ONE. 2021. V. 16, No. 10. P. e0258259. DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0258259 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258259
Political Sectarianism in America / E. J. Finkel et al. // Science. 2020. V. 370, No. 6516. P. 533-536. DOI 10.1126/science.abe1715 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe1715
The Welfare Effects of Social Media / H. Allcott, L. Braghieri, S. Eichmeyer, M. Gentzkow // American Economic Review. 2020. V. 110, No. 3. P. 629-676. DOI 10.1257/aer.20190658 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20190658
Dubois E., Blank G. The Echo Chamber Is Overstated: The Moderating Effect of Political Interest and Diverse Media // Information, Communication & Society. 2018. V. 21, No. 5. P. 729-745. DOI 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428656 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428656
Bruns A. Are Filter Bubbles Real? Cambridge: Polity Press, 2019. 140 p.
Mason L. A. Cross-Cutting Calm: How Social Sorting Drives Affective Polarization // Public Opinion Quarterly. 2016. V. 80, No. S1. P. 351-377. DOI 10.1093/poq/nfw001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw001
Hetherington M. J., Weiler J. Prius or Pickup?: How the Answers to Four Simple Questions Explain America's Great Divide. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2018. 259 p.
Interindividual Cooperation Mediated by Partisanship Complicates Madison's Cure for "Mischiefs of Faction" / M. Kawakatsu, Y. Lelkes, S. A. Levin, C. E. Tarnita // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2021. V. 118, No. 50. P. e2102148118. DOI 10.1073/pnas.2102148118 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2102148118
Coglianese C., Lai A. Algorithms and Competition in the Digital Economy // University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 2023. V. 171, No. 6. P. 1867-1924.
Reranking Partisan Animosity in Algorithmic Social Media Feeds Alters Affective Polarization / T. Piccardi et al. // Science. 2025. V. 390, No. 6776. P. eadu5584. DOI 10.1126/science.adu5584 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adu5584
Exposure to Opposing Views on Social Media Can Increase Political Polarization / C. A. Bail et al. // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2018. V. 115, No. 37. P. 9216-9221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115
Gorwa R., Binns R., Katzenbach C. Algorithmic Content Moderation: Technical and Political Challenges in the Automation of Platform Governance // Big Data & Society. 2020. V. 7, No. 1. P. 1-13. DOI 10.1177/2053951719897945 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719897945
The Dangers of the Rabbit Hole: Reflections on Social Media as a Portal into a Distorted World of Edited Bodies and Eating Disorder Risk and the Role of Algorithms / J. A. Harriger, J. A. Evans, J. K. Thompson, T. L. Tylka // Body Image. 2022. V. 41. P. 292-297. DOI 10.1016/j.bodyim.2022.03.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2022.03.007
Prem E., Krenn B. On Algorithmic Content Moderation // Introduction to Digital Humanism: A Textbook / Ed. by H. Werthner et al. Cham: Springer, 2024. P. 481-493. DOI 10.1007/978-3-031-45304-5_30 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45304-5_30
Okoronkwo C. Algorithmic Bias in Media Content Distribution and Its Influence on Media Consumption: Implications for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) // International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Review. 2024. V. 7, No. 5. P. 296-310. DOI 10.37602/IJSSMR.2024.7523 DOI: https://doi.org/10.37602/IJSSMR.2024.7523
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Yaroslavl State University

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
