Online Polarization and Violence in the United States: A Computational Analysis of Viewer Comments on Partisan News Coverage of President Donald Trump’s First Assassination Attempt
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026
Online Polarization and Violence in the United States: A Computational Analysis of Viewer Comments on Partisan News Coverage of President Donald Trump’s First Assassination Attempt
This study analyzes 15,000 user comments from ideologically distinct news platforms—Fox News (right-leaning), ABC News (left-leaning), and BBC News (centrist)—to investigate how political ideology shapes emotional expression and engagement following the July 2024 assassination attempt on President Donald Trump in Pennsylvania. We examine whether right-leaning comments exhibit elevated anger and hate speech, whether left-leaning comments show greater empathy and positive affect, and how emotional intensity influences engagement metrics such as likes and shares. Using computational science methods, we trace the evolution of emotional tone and toxicity over time, focusing on affective polarization triggered by a high-salience violent event. Our findings reveal that ideological alignment amplifies engagement with congruent emotional content, reinforcing echo chambers and intensifying online hostility. We address gaps in understanding how ideological echo chambers amplify polarized emotions and online hostility following a high-profile violent event, emphasizing the place of emotions in contemporary political communication and digital news consumption.
AlswaidanN.MenaiM. E. B. (2020). A survey of state-of-the-art approaches for emotion recognition in text. Knowledge and Information Systems, 62(8), 2937–2987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-020-01449-0
4.
AndersonC. (2006). The long tail: How endless choice is creating unlimited demand. Random House.
5.
AngusD.BrunsA.HurcombeE.HarringtonS.TanX. Y. (2023). Computational communication methods for examining problematic news-sharing practices on Facebook at scale. Social Media+ Society, 9(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305123119688
6.
AskerD.DinasE. (2019). Thinking fast and furious: Emotional intensity and opinion polarization in online media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(3), 487–509. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz042
7.
BarnesR.MulcahyR.RiedelA. (2025). Push notifications and news snacking: The impact of Mobile news alert framing on reader engagement. New Media & Society, 27(3), 1486–1506. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231196580
BerelsonB. (1959). The state of communication research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 23(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1086/266840
11.
BodeL. (2012). Facebooking it to the polls: A study in online social networking and political behavior. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(4), 352–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2012.709045
12.
BogadoN.De ConinckD.DuqueM.SchwartzS. (2024). Depolarized by the media? The role of heterogeneous and homogeneous traditional and digital media diets in issue polarization around COVID-19 in the United States. Health Communication, 39(13), 3238–3246. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2024.2312614
13.
BoukrichaH.WachsmuthI.CarminatiM. N.KnoeferleP. (2013). A computational model of empathy: Empirical evaluation. In 2013 Humaine association conference on affective computing and intelligent interaction (pp. 1–6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACII.2013.7
14.
ButlerM.LarsonA. (2025). Images of violence: An analysis of visual frames in U.S. nightly national broadcast news coverage of black lives matter protests. Western Journal of Communication, 89(3), 559–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2025.2456469
15.
CappellaJ. N. (2017). Vectors into the future of mass and interpersonal communication research: Big data, social media, and computational social science. Human Communication Research, 43(4), 545–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12114
16.
ChaffeeS.HochheimerJ. L. (1985). The beginnings of political communication research in the United States: Origins of the “limited effects” model. In RogersE. M.BalleF. (Eds.), The media revolution in America and Western Europe (pp. 60–95). Ablex.
17.
ChanC. H.Schatto-EckrodtT.GruberJ. (2024). What makes computational communication science (ir) reproducible?Computational Communication Research, 6(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.5117/ccr2024.1.5.chan
18.
CorriganL. M. (2017). 50 years later: Commemorating the life and death of malcolm X. Howard Journal of Communications, 28(2), 144–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2017.1288179
19.
CulverK. B.McLeodD. M. (2023). “Anti-riot” or “anti-protest” legislation? black lives matter, news framing, and the protest paradigm. Journalism & Media, 4(1), 216–230. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia4010015
20.
CushionS.McDowell-NaylorD.ThomasR. (2021). Why national media systems matter: A longitudinal analysis of how UK left-wing and right-wing alternative media critique mainstream media (2015–2018). Journalism Studies, 22(5), 633–652. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2021.1893795
21.
DahlR. A. (1956). A preface to democratic theory. University of Chicago Press.
22.
DavidsonT.WarmsleyD.MacyM.WeberI. (2017). Automated hate speech detection and the problem of offensive language. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 11(1), 512–515. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v11i1.14955
23.
de Benedictis-KessnerJ.BaumM. A.BerinskyA. J.YamamotoT. (2019). Persuading the enemy: Estimating the persuasive effects of partisan media with the preference-incorporating choice and assignment design. American Political Science Review, 113(4), 902–916. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055419000418
24.
DeFosterR.SwalveN. (2018). Guns, culture or mental health? Framing mass shootings as a public health crisis. Health Communication, 33(10), 1211–1222. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2017.1350907
25.
DeliaJ. (1987). Communication research: A history. In BergerC. R.ChaffeeS. (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 20–98). Sage.
26.
de-Lima-SantosM.-F.CeronW. (2022). Racism, death, and protests in Brazil: Digital and traditional news coverage of black awareness day after a racism crime on Twitter. Online Media & Global Communication, 1(4), 771–793. https://doi.org/10.1515/omgc-2022-0030
27.
De ZúñigaH. G.MarnéH. M.CartyE. (2023). Abating dissonant public spheres: Exploring the effects of affective, ideological, and perceived societal political polarization on social media political persuasion. Political Communication, 40(3), 327–345.
DienlinT.JohannesN.BowmanN. D.MasurP. K.EngesserS.KümpelA. S.LukitoJ.BierL. M.ZhangR.JohnsonB. K.HuskeyR.SchneiderF. M.BreuerJ.ParryD. A.VermeulenI.FisherJ. T.BanksJ.WeberR.EllisD. A.De VreeseC. (2021). An agenda for open science in communication. Journal of Communication, 71(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz052
30.
EiseleO.HeidenreichT.LitvyakO.BoomgaardenH. G. (2023). Capturing a news frame–comparing machine-learning approaches to frame analysis with different degrees of supervision. Communication Methods and Measures, 17(3), 205–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2023.2230560
31.
Enck-WanzerS. (2009). All’s fair in love and sport: Black masculinity and domestic violence in the news. Communication & Critical/Cultural Studies, 6(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/14791420802632087
32.
EndersA. M.ArmalyM. T. (2019). The differential effects of actual and perceived polarization. Political Behavior, 41(3), 815–839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9476-2
33.
FlaxmanS.GoelS.RaoJ. M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 298–320. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw006
34.
FletcherR.RobertsonC. T.NielsenR. K. (2021). How many people live in politically partisan online news echo chambers in different countries?Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media, 1, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.51685/jqd.2021.020
González-BailónS. (2017). Decoding the social world: Data science and the unintended consequences of communication. MIT Press.
37.
GroelingT. (2013). Media bias by the numbers: Challenges and opportunities in the empirical study of partisan news. Annual Review of Political Science, 16(1), 129–151. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-040811-115123
GuoL.MaysK.ZhangY.WijayaD.BetkeM. (2021). What makes gun violence a (less) prominent issue? A computational analysis of compelling arguments and selective agenda setting. Mass Communication & Society, 24(5), 651–675. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2021.1898644
HartR. P.ShawD. R. (Eds.), (2001). Communication in U.S. elections: New agendas. Rowman & Littlefield.
42.
HeddingK. J.RipkaK. (2018). What’s political Twitter talking about? Setting the media agenda for the 2016 presidential debates among influential left, center, and right political media. The Agenda Setting Journal, 2(2), 168–190.
43.
HendersonL.Tukachinsky ForsterR.KaliliL.GuilloryS. (2022). Visual framing effects of news coverage of police use of deadly force on intergroup relationships. Howard Journal of Communications, 33(1), 24–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2021.1927261
44.
HerbstS. (1993). Numbered voices: How opinion polling has shaped American politics. University of Chicago Press.
45.
HeseltineM. (2025). Asymmetric polarization in online media engagement in the United States congress. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 30(1), 299–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612231211800
46.
HmielowskiJ. D.HutchensM. J.BeamM. A. (2020). Asymmetry of partisan media effects? Examining the reinforcing process of conservative and liberal media with political beliefs. Political Communication, 37(6), 852–868. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1763525
47.
HutchinsonB.SalibaE.DiMartinoJ. (2024). After trump assassination attempt, questions swirl about what happened. ABC News.
48.
HwangH.KimY.HuhC. U. (2014). Seeing is believing: Effects of uncivil online debate on political polarization and expectations of deliberation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58(4), 621–633.
49.
InterianR.MarzoR. G.MendozaI.RibeiroC. C. (2023). Network polarization, filter bubbles, and echo chambers: An annotated review of measures and reduction methods. International Transactions in Operational Research, 30(6), 3122–3158. https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.13224
50.
IyengarS.LelkesY.LevenduskyM.MalhotraN.WestwoodS. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
51.
IyengarS.SoodG.LelkesY. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038
52.
KaurM.VermaR.OtooF. N. K. (2021). Emotions in leader’s crisis communication: Twitter sentiment analysis during COVID-19 outbreak. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 31(1–4), 362–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2020.1829239
53.
KimJ.RojasH. (2025). How does political communication relate to perceived extremity of partisans and their divides? From communication to polarization perceptions to political engagement. Communication Studies, 76(1), 48–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2024.2392909
KleinO.HardwickeT. E.AustF.BreuerJ.DanielssonH.MohrA. H.IJzermanH.NilsonneG.VanpaemelW.FrankM. C. (2018). A practical guide for transparency in psychological science. Collabra: Psychology, 4(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.158
56.
KteilyN.HodsonG.BruneauE. (2016). They see us as less than human: Metadehumanization predicts intergroup conflict via reciprocal dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(3), 343–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000044
LeesJ.CikaraM. (2020). Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(3), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0766-4
60.
LepirdC. S.NgL. H. X.WuA.CarleyK. M. (2024). What news is shared where and how: A multi-platform analysis of news shared during the 2022 US midterm elections. Social Media+ Society, 10(2), 20563051241245950.
61.
LevenduskyM.MalhotraN. (2016). Does media coverage of partisan polarization affect political attitudes?Political Communication, 33(2), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2015.1038455
LewisJ.CushionS. (2019). Think tanks, television news and impartiality: The ideological balance of sources in BBC programming. Journalism Studies, 20(4), 480–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670x.2017.1389295
LyonsB.MontgomeryJ. M.ReiflerJ. (2024). Partisanship and older Americans’ engagement with dubious political news. Public Opinion Quarterly, 88(3), 962–990. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfae044
66.
MacdonaldM.HuaW.RussellA. (2024). Constrained communication and negativity bias: Gendered emotional appeals on Facebook. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 45(2), 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477x.2023.2198051
67.
MasonL. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press.
68.
McLaughlinB.DunnJ. A.VelezJ. A.HunterJ. (2023). There must be a villain: Political threats, narrative thought, and political violence. Communication Quarterly, 71(1), 64–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2022.2109978
69.
McQuailD. (1994). Mass communication theory: An introduction (3rd ed.). Sage.
70.
MinB.BaiY.WangR. Y.GrzesloJ.JayakarK. (2022). Voting in local and national elections: The role of local and national news consumption and news media preference. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 30(2), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2020.1856108
MokL.InzlichtM.AndersonA. (2023). Echo tunnels: Polarized news sharing online runs narrow but deep. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 17, 662–673. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v17i1.22177
73.
MukerjeeS.Majó-VázquezS.González-BailónS. (2018). Networks of audience overlap in the consumption of digital news. Journal of Communication, 68(1), 26–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx007
74.
MukerjeeS.ShenC. (2025). The antecedents and manifestations of political polarization in visual media: Key questions and future directions. Political Communication, 42(1), 208–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2024.2446348
75.
MunafòM. R.NosekB. A.BishopD. V.ButtonK. S.ChambersC. D.du SertN. P.SimonsohnU.WagenmakersE. J.WareJ. J.IoannidisJ. P. A. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021
76.
NandwaniP.VermaR. (2021). A review on sentiment analysis and emotion detection from text. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 11(1), 81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-021-00776-6
77.
NeumanW. R. (2016). The digital difference: Media technology and the theory of communication effects. Harvard University Press.
OkekeD. E. (2025). Race, violence in the US, and digital (news) discourse: A corpus-based critical discourse analysis of Jordan Neely’s racialization. Communication, Culture & Critique, 18(4), 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1093/ccc/tcaf040
83.
OkekeD. E. (2026). “What I know, and it is very obvious, homosexuality is coming here”: On same-sex marriage blessings, religious (Catholic) journalism, postcolonial queer theory, and “de-queering” Africa. Howard Journal of Communications, 1, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2025.2612076
84.
OkekeD. E.AllenM. R.IbiwoyeC.MbayeO.OkekeA. O. (2025). Safe sex practices and social support typologies in digital spaces: Assessing Nigerian gay men’s sexual health information exchange on social media. Health Communication, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2025.2542925
85.
OkekeD. E.MudambiA.WeegeR. M. (2025). Nigerian queer visibility on social media: Navigating religious homophobic discourses in digital spaces. Feminist Media Studies, 25(6), 1414–1432. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2025.2514062
86.
OvergaardC. S. B. (2024). Perceiving affective polarization in the United States: How social media shape meta-perceptions and affective polarization. Social Media + Society, 10(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051241232662
87.
PriorM. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. Cambridge University Press.
RozadoD.Al-GharbiM.HalberstadtJ. (2023). Prevalence of prejudice-denoting words in news media discourse: A chronological analysis. Social Science Computer Review, 41(1), 99–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393211031452
90.
RuggeriK.VećkalovB.BojanićL.AndersenT. L.Ashcroft-JonesS.AyacaxliN.Barea-ArroyoP.BergeM. L.BjørndalL. D.BursalıoğluA.BühlerV.ČadekM.ÇetinçelikM.ClayG.Cortijos-BernabeuA.DamnjanovićK.DugueT. M.EsbergM.Esteban-SernaC.LeesJ. (2021). The general fault in our fault lines. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(10), 1369–1380. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01092-x
ShahD. V.CappellaJ. N.NeumanW. R. (2015). Big data, digital media, and computational social science: Possibilities and perils. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659(1), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716215572084
96.
SmithM. A.HaenschenK. (2024). Contextualizing representations of violence in #blackLivesMatter coverage with inductive computational content analysis. Mass Communication & Society, 27(6), 1609–1635. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2024.2347317
97.
SparksJ. F.HmielowskiJ. D. (2023). At the extremes: Assessing readability, grade level, sentiment, and tone in US media outlets. Journalism Studies, 24(1), 24–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670x.2022.2142646
98.
StollA.WilmsL.ZiegeleM. (2023). Developing an incivility dictionary for German online discussions–a semi-automated approach combining human and artificial knowledge. Communication Methods and Measures, 17(2), 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2023.2166028
99.
StroudN. J. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. Oxford University Press.
100.
StroudN. J.CurryA. L.PeacockC. (2022). The effects of news site design on engagement and learning. Journalism Practice, 16(6), 1226–1246.
101.
SunsteinC. R. (2007). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton University Press.
van AtteveldtW.AlthausS.WesslerH. (2021). The trouble with sharing your privates: Pursuing ethical open science and collaborative research across national jurisdictions using sensitive data. Political Communication, 38(1–2), 192–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1744780
106.
van AtteveldtW.PengT.-Q. (2018). When communication meets computation: Opportunities, challenges, and pitfalls in computational communication science. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(2–3), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2018.1458084
107.
WeaverD. H.WillnatL.WilhoitG. C. (2019). The American journalist in the digital age: Another look at US news people. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 96(1), 101–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699018778242
108.
WidmannT. (2021). How emotional are populists really? Factors explaining emotional appeals in the communication of political parties. Political Psychology, 42(1), 163–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12693
109.
WilliamsB. A.Delli CarpiniM. X. (2011). After broadcast news: Media regimes, democracy, and the new information environment. Cambridge University Press.
110.
WillnatL.OganC.ShiJ. (2023). Media use and affective political polarization: What shapes public perceptions of immigrants’ deservingness?Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 67(2), 183–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2023.2173196
111.
WojcieszakM.de LeeuwS.Menchen-TrevinoE.LeeS.Huang-IsherwoodK. M.WeeksB. (2023). No polarization from partisan news: Over-time evidence from trace data. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 28(3), 601–626. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612211047194
112.
YadenD. B.GiorgiS.JordanM.BuffoneA.EichstaedtJ. C.SchwartzH. A.UngarL.BloomP. (2024). Characterizing empathy and compassion using computational linguistic analysis. Emotion, 24(1), 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001205
YarchiM.BadenC.Kligler-VilenchikN. (2021). Political polarization on the digital sphere: A cross-platform, over-time analysis of interactional, positional, and affective polarization on social media. Political Communication, 38(1–2), 98–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1785067
115.
ZampieriM.MalmasiS.NakovP.RosenthalS.FarraN.KumarR. (2019). Predicting the type and target of offensive posts in social media. In Proceedings of the 2019Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long and Short Papers) (pp. 1415–1420). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1144
