Here is the abstract of Justin Farrell's paper (he writes like an academic);
"Drawing on large-scale computational data and methods, this research demonstrates how polarization efforts are influenced by a patterned network of political and financial actors. These dynamics, which have been notoriously difficult to quantify, are illustrated here with a computational analysis of climate change politics in the United States. The comprehensive data include all individual and organizational actors in the climate change countermovement (164 organizations), as well as all written and verbal texts produced by this network between 1993–2013 (40,785 texts, more than 39 million words). Two main findings emerge. First, that organizations with corporate funding were more likely to have written and disseminated texts meant to polarize the climate change issue. Second, and more importantly, that corporate funding influences the actual thematic content of these polarization efforts, and the discursive prevalence of that thematic content over time. These findings provide new, and comprehensive, confirmation of dynamics long thought to be at the root of climate change politics and discourse. Beyond the specifics of climate change, this paper has important implications for understanding ideological polarization more generally, and the increasing role of private funding in determining why certain polarizing themes are created and amplified. Lastly, the paper suggests that future studies build on the novel approach taken here that integrates large-scale textual analysis with social networks."
I salute the new empirical work but it raises several questions. I must also admit that I haven't read the whole paper yet because it is behind a firewall.
1. We learn that for profit companies act in their own self interest. Is that surprising? People look to Exxon to sell them gasoline. Do they really look to Exxon for intellectual content? Now, I do agree that to avoid conflict of interest concerns, all authors who take corporate $ need to report their potential conflicts of interest.
2. Does the media have a large causal effect on our beliefs and actions? Who are these susceptible people? When you read the NY Times does it inform your world view or confirm what you already believed? Treatment or selection effects revisited.
3. If the media does have such a large effect on shaping us, why didn't the "greens" launch a counter-revolution? If you say that they didn't have the $ to achieve this, then you haven't been to Hollywood, New York City or Berkeley. If so say that the greens face a free rider problem, then why haven't "green" corporations launched a counter-revolution boosting their narrative? People like Elon Musk and Tom Steyer are trying and investing their money here. Why didn't they start earlier? Why did they permit the "fossil fuels industry" to have the microphone for so long?
4. I thought that Al Gore's movie was watched by millions. Is there a similarly popular anti-global warming movie? I thought that Hollywood releases dozens of crisis movies each year. Is it obvious that the fossil fuel lobby has the higher ground in the fight for the nation's focus?
Here is Justin Farrell's Google Scholar page.
For those economists who are interested in this general theme, read Jesse Shapiro's paper available here.
Abstract A journalist reports to a voter on an unknown, policy-relevant state. Competing special interests can make claims that contradict the facts but seem credible to the voter. A reputational incentive to avoid taking sides leads the journalist to report special interests’ claims to the voter. In equilibrium, the voter can remain uninformed even when the journalist is perfectly informed. The quality of information transmitted is greater on less partisan issues, and communication is improved if the journalist discloses her partisan leanings. I use the model to explain persistent public ignorance on climate change, and I test the model’s implications using data on media coverage, public opinion, and journalism in OECD countries.