Affective Polarization

Do international news headlines lean on high-arousal language? An exploratory lexical pilot (n = 97)

Date: September 2026
Method: Lexical (bag-of-words) headline scoring
Sample: N = 97 headlines, one snapshot
Result: Hypothesis not supported in this sample

1. Framing: the platformization of news

Theoretical framework: Drawing on Oxford Internet Institute (OII) computational-propaganda research and Jose van Dijck's The Platform Society, this pilot tests a hypothesis: that to compete for algorithmic visibility on platforms like Meta and X, newsrooms increasingly optimise headlines for affective intensity (anger, fear, outrage), degrading the epistemic quality of civic information.

To probe it, I built a small, zero-dependency Python script that reads live RSS feeds from major international broadcasters. It tokenises each headline, strips syntax, and scores it against a curated lexicon of high-arousal civic terms to produce an Affective Intensity Score (AIS). This is a simple lexical (bag-of-words) method, not a semantic model — a point that matters for how much weight the result can bear (see Section 3).

2. Result: the hypothesis is not supported (here)

Across the three outlets sampled, average affective intensity was very low, and — the number that matters — 0.0% of headlines crossed the high-arousal threshold at any outlet. On this sample, then, these international broadcasters show no sign of optimising headlines for affective intensity. The small gaps between outlets below (BBC 1.4%, NYT 0.9%, Al Jazeera 0.3%) are noise at this scale, not a ranking of who is most inflammatory.

BBC Asia
1.4%
Avg. Affective Intensity (AIS)
0.0% of headlines hit high-arousal thresholds.
Al Jazeera
0.3%
Avg. Affective Intensity (AIS)
0.0% of headlines hit high-arousal thresholds.
NYT World
0.9%
Avg. Affective Intensity (AIS)
0.0% of headlines hit high-arousal thresholds.

3. Transparency & Epistemic Honesty

Methodological Limitations & Researcher Honesty:

A core tenet of honest measurement is acknowledging the limitations of the tools employed. This pilot uses a lexical (bag-of-words) approach, which lacks semantic nuance and struggles with context and negation (e.g., telling a legitimate state “crisis” apart from sensationalised political “chaos”). The near-zero scores may reflect this bluntness as much as genuinely calm headlines.

Furthermore, this framework currently relies on an English-centric NLP lexicon. Applying this model to South Asian media ecosystems requires training a localized Large Language Model (LLM) on a Bengali linguistic corpus to capture the true epistemic texture of regional disinformation. This pilot proves the structural data pipeline; Phase 2 will demand deep-learning semantic integration.

4. The highest-scoring headlines

Even the top-scoring headlines in the sample score low, and they are flagged only for ordinary hard-news words — “protest,” “attack,” “deadly,” “dead.” That is exactly the bag-of-words weakness from Section 3: the lexicon catches routine news vocabulary, not affective framing.

OutletAffective AIS ScoreHeadline Text (Tokenized)
NYT World12.5%
Hits: protest
Tractors Clog Copenhagen as Farmers Protest Fertilizer Restrictions
NYT World10.0%
Hits: attack
Weeks After Failed Drone Attack, Germany Points Finger at Russia
BBC Asia9.1%
Hits: deadly
Nepal intensifies relief and recovery efforts after deadly floods, UN says
Al Jazeera8.3%
Hits: dead
5 dead, dozens missing after migrant boat found after weeks at sea
NYT World8.3%
Hits: intense
U.S. and Iran Survey the Damage After a Night of Intense Strikes

Open Data & Method

The script is small and dependency-free, so it is easy to rerun and adapt. Because it reads live RSS feeds, rerunning it returns current headlines, not the 97 captured here — the stored dataset is the archived snapshot. As Section 3 notes, the English lexicon and bag-of-words scoring make this a starting scaffold, not a finished measure; a Bengali corpus and a semantic model would be the next step before any claim about South Asian media.

The code and the captured dataset are public on GitHub.

View Code & Dataset on GitHub →