Computational analysis of 140 years of US political speeches reveals more positive but increasingly polarized framing of immigration

Automated stance detection in complex topics and small languages: The challenging case of immigration in polarizing news media

Automated stance detection and related machine learning methods can provide useful insights for media monitoring and academic research. Many of these approaches require annotated training datasets, which limits their applicability for languages where these may not be readily available. This paper explores the applicability of large language models for automated stance detection in a challenging scenario, involving a morphologically complex, lower-resource language, and a socio-culturally complex topic, immigration. If the approach works in this case, it can be expected to perform as well or better in less demanding scenarios. We annotate a large set of pro- and anti-immigration examples to train and compare the performance of multiple language models. We also probe the usability of GPT-3.5 (that powers ChatGPT) as an instructable zero-shot classifier for the same task. The supervised models achieve acceptable performance, but GPT-3.5 yields similar accuracy. As the latter does not require tuning with annotated data, it constitutes a potentially simpler and cheaper alternative for text classification tasks, including in lower-resource languages. We further use the best-performing supervised model to investigate diachronic trends over seven years in two corpora of Estonian mainstream and right-wing populist news sources, demonstrating the applicability of automated stance detection for news analytics and media monitoring settings even in lower-resource scenarios, and discuss correspondences between stance changes and real-world events.

A linguistic analysis of dehumanization toward substance use across three decades of news articles

Introduction

Substances and the people who use them have been dehumanized for decades. As a result, lawmakers and healthcare providers have implemented policies that subjected millions to criminalization, incarceration, and inadequate resources to support health and wellbeing. While there have been recent shifts in public opinion on issues such as legalization, in the case of marijuana in the U.S., or addiction as a disease, dehumanization and stigma are still leading barriers for individuals seeking treatment. Integral to the narrative of "substance users" as thoughtless zombies or violent criminals is their portrayal in popular media, such as films and news.

Methods

This study attempts to quantify the dehumanization of people who use substances (PWUS) across time using a large corpus of over 3 million news articles. We apply a computational linguistic framework for measuring dehumanization across three decades of New York Times articles.

Results

We show that (1) levels of dehumanization remain high and (2) while marijuana has become less dehumanized over time, attitudes toward other substances such as heroin and cocaine remain stable.

Discussion

This work highlights the importance of a holistic view of substance use that places all substances within the context of addiction as a disease, prioritizes the humanization of PWUS, and centers around harm reduction.

Partisan conflict over content moderation is more than disagreement about facts

Social media companies have come under increasing pressure to remove misinformation from their platforms, but partisan disagreements over what should be removed have stymied efforts to deal with misinformation in the United States. Current explanations for these disagreements center on the "fact gap"-differences in perceptions about what is misinformation. We argue that partisan differences could also be due to "party promotion"-a desire to leave misinformation online that promotes one's own party-or a "preference gap"-differences in internalized preferences about whether misinformation should be removed. Through an experiment where respondents are shown false headlines aligned with their own or the opposing party, we find some evidence of party promotion among Democrats and strong evidence of a preference gap between Democrats and Republicans. Even when Republicans agree that content is false, they are half as likely as Democrats to say that the content should be removed and more than twice as likely to consider removal as censorship.