The ET Election Index - April 2019
May 20, 2019·1 comment·et election index
The news you're reading about the 2020 election may not be presenting facts as much as abstractions of facts, shaped by increasingly consistent language across outlets. Media coverage of candidates like Biden and Sanders shows strong narrative cohesion, while coverage of others varies wildly. But the real question isn't whether outlets are biased, it's whether the words they choose to describe candidates and issues are guiding you toward conclusions before you've encountered the actual evidence.
• Language patterns in election coverage have become remarkably consistent. When multiple outlets describe candidates using the same phrases and frameworks, something deeper than independent reporting is happening. This consistency strengthens over time, making the narrative harder to distinguish from fact.
• The candidates receiving the most uniform coverage aren't necessarily the ones getting the most favorable coverage. Biden's articles used nearly identical language in April, yet that language was predominantly negative. Sanders showed equal linguistic consistency, but his coverage aligned with broader election narratives in ways Biden's did not.
• Media coverage of candidates falls into clusters that suggest who journalists think the election is actually about. Sanders' language usage aligned most closely with the broader election narrative. Biden's and Buttigieg's coverage diverged significantly from the overall story being told, despite high volume.
• A candidate's popularity in polls doesn't match their alignment with media narratives. Despite leading in polling, Biden's coverage was linguistically disconnected from how outlets discussed major election issues. His narrative arc didn't fit the shape of the larger 2020 story emerging in newsrooms.
• The metrics reveal something troubling: media treatment appears systematically more aligned with progressive platforms and less favorable to centrist ones. This isn't measured by obvious bias indicators but by the underlying linguistic architecture of how candidates and their positions are being discussed.
Subscribe Today to Read More
Unlock instant access to this and hundreds of other evergreen essays that explore the world of narrative through hard science and human wisdom.
- Make more informed decisions as an investor and citizen.
- See through the nudges of Big Politics and Big Media.
- Become a better consumer of news.
- Maintain your autonomy of mind in a swarm of narratives.
- Join a community of more than 100,000 truth-seekers.
Looking for Deeper Insights?
Unlock exclusive market intelligence, trade ideas, and member-only events tailored for investment professionals and active investors with Perscient Pro.
VISIT PRO
DISCLOSURES
This commentary is being provided to you as general information only and should not be taken as investment advice. The opinions expressed in these materials represent the personal views of the author(s). It is not investment research or a research recommendation, as it does not constitute substantive research or analysis. Any action that you take as a result of information contained in this document is ultimately your responsibility. Epsilon Theory will not accept liability for any loss or damage, including without limitation to any loss of profit, which may arise directly or indirectly from use of or reliance on such information. Consult your investment advisor before making any investment decisions. It must be noted, that no one can accurately predict the future of the market with certainty or guarantee future investment performance. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.
Statements in this communication are forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements and other views expressed herein are as of the date of this publication. Actual future results or occurrences may differ significantly from those anticipated in any forward-looking statements, and there is no guarantee that any predictions will come to pass. The views expressed herein are subject to change at any time, due to numerous market and other factors. Epsilon Theory disclaims any obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statements or views expressed herein. This information is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of any offer to buy any securities. This commentary has been prepared without regard to the individual financial circumstances and objectives of persons who receive it. Epsilon Theory recommends that investors independently evaluate particular investments and strategies, and encourages investors to seek the advice of a financial advisor. The appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor's individual circumstances and objectives.
Comments
While I deeply appreciate this much-needed lens into the co-evolution of political dynamics and the memetic structures they spawn, I worry about your use of the broader concept of “cohesion” in reference to memetically-precipitated tails wagging behavioral dogs.
Despite the fact that this inverted feedback mechanism exists, it is but one reason why such narratives would show up as “cohesive”, as measured by this metric. Namely, assuming narratives possess a tie to reality–however tenuous–we must separate the degree to which narrative “cohesion” represents accurate distillations of underlying behavioral patterns as opposed to self-fulfilling fabrications.
Else, we risk cynically blinding ourselves to the fact that narratives do in fact emerge from an underlying reality, even when that process of emergence has been co-opted by people and institutions who understand how to consciously transform digitally-meditated rhetoric into a form of supernormal stimuli (Missionaries in ET-lexicon, I suppose). Cohesion may represent primary signal in connection with the underlying dynamical reality, or it may represent a cynically manipulated simulacra of this signal. And while you rightfully encourage skepticism of the latter, this metric establishes a frame by which the latter is assumed to always overshadow the former. Interestingly enough, this tension appeared (to me, at least) as the root of most of the caveats / ambiguity that emerged during yesterday’s ET Live.
The rationale behind my concern is best summarized by your own identification of the need for an “attention” metric as proxy for the degree to which collective focus possesses the tendency to fuse conceptual structures beyond the threshold of pragmatic utility (at least from the consumer’s POV).
Essentially, I’m making the claim that by making invisible the contribution of meaningful underlying pattern to narrative cohesion, the “cohesion” metric appears to violate the spirit of the the attention metric as presently formulated. In my view this is a critical flaw along the “cohesion” dimension, and will likely bias reader / viewer perception of your analyses too strongly toward the notion that the tail not only wags the dog, but has in fact devoured it whole. I suspect at times it’s tempting to believe this, but am not convinced of its pragmatism.
Aside from that–and as alluded to earlier–this is basically the only part of the election cycle to whose unfolding I look forward. Keep up the amazing work.
In Service to the Pack,
Matthew
Continue the discussion at the Epsilon Theory Forum...