History of Media Effects Blog
The selective exposure theory finds that we are purposefully seeking content that agrees with our points of view. Meanwhile, we will avoid content that we disagree with. You can see selective exposure today when you look at how we curate our social media feeds.
Selective exposure is thriving on social media. I am going to use Twitter as an example. When you begin a Twitter account, it asks you to provide multiple topics of interest. As you may expect, Twitter then feeds you with specific tweets that may be of interest to you. From there, you will begin to like, share, as well as follow other Twitter accounts. While in this example, Twitter has given you a head start, what you begin to do is curate a Twitter feed that shows you precisely what you want to see. I know that I told Twitter I was interested in gaming, politics, US news, and UK news. Twitter provides in my “For you” section tweets related to my interests and suggested accounts to follow. All of this work by Twitter sets up a system for selective exposure. They are pushing me to interact with posts they think I will like in an effort to keep me coming back to their platform. Twitter probably added these elements of selective exposure, as suggested by Sparks' comments on the competitive media environment in study box 3–3.
So Twitter has been working hard getting me to follow the accounts they think will encourage the most engagement. From there, the selective exposure begins. As I peruse my feed, I only see the tweets, articles, and shares from accounts I have chosen to follow. For instance, I have decided not to follow Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, or any other far-right politicians or commentators because I disagree with them. What I see when I log onto Twitter is what I want to see — politically left dialogue. If an account tweets something I disagree with, I could easily decide to unfollow it to lessen my exposure to opposing opinions. Yuen Yiu would call this an echo chamber and a filter bubble, concepts of interacting with agreeable tweets and ignoring disagreeable tweets, respectively. These echo chambers strengthen the polarization of opinion and drive users further away from an open and fair discussion. Selective exposure tells us that we are likely to search for and follow media that agrees with our current opinions. What Twitter does (maybe inadvertently) is push us towards agreeable sources of content but further compels us to a more extreme position.
Another area where selective exposure is prevalent is in the cable-news industry. Fox News and MSNBC are big proponents of selective exposure. It is very uncommon for either outlet to expose their viewers to opposing opinions. Anchors like Rachel Maddow and Tucker Carlson have explicit partisan biases and push issues they think their viewership will appreciate. Of course, they do this to keep their current audience, build on it, and maximize advertisers' profits. Guests of both anchors’ shows usually only affirm their positions and thus confirm their viewers' opinions. I will say that this is not all cable outlets. I regularly find myself unimpressed by CNN contributors' ideas, such as Former Senator Rick Santorum or Kayleigh McEnany. On the other hand, contributors like S.E. Cupp and Ana Navarro have recently become more appealing. However, for me, that is because of their opposition to the Trump administration. During the Biden administration, it's likely that Cupp and Navarro will return to their prior conservative positions in the media. I am a prime target for selective exposure. It’s quite evident that conservative opinions irk me. But I am thankful CNN provides mixed contributors, unlike its competitors. It allows me to consider opposing views and understand the thought process behind them.
Selective exposure affects us in the short- and the long-term. In the short-term, the audience misses out on a balanced argument. Instead, they are exposed to commentary that reaffirms their position and allows them to skip over any cognitive dissonance they could feel from the opposition. Long-term, selective exposure promotes extreme views. Once we believe our opinions are the epicenter of the argument, we begin to see differing opinions as fringe and outrageous. In severe cases, we can start to believe that other people are so far from our reality that they are monstrous. It can cause real damage. I would point to the recent insurrection and the shooting at the congressional baseball game in 2017 as events encouraged by selective exposure.
We all should be aware of our tendency to affirm our prior notions. We have to fight our impulses and listen to those who disagree. This activates our critical thinking and teaches us to disagree politely.
