Bridge asked readers to swap news sources for a week. The world answered. (slideshow)


SLIDESHOW: Use the arrow above or swipe to see some of our favorite quotes from the News Bubble Swap.

On a Friday in April, Kayla Miller of Marquette, Mich., performed a painful purge on her iPhone. She dropped news notifications for multiple news sources and signed off of social media. In their place, Miller added news feeds for three sources she was unfamiliar with.

Miller was one of more than 200 people spread across all corners of Michigan, 36 states and six nations to accept Bridge Magazine’s challenge: spend a week looking at the world through the news sources of people with different political views. Their responses ranged from horror (“Propaganda straight from Goebbels”), to relief (“it wasn’t as scary as I expected”).

The reaction of Miller, who just graduated from Northern Michigan University, was typical. She said she felt “disappointment and sadness” reading news sources that included The Federalist the New York Post and Glenn Beck that were more conservative than her normal news diet.

Yet like many participants, Miller also ended the exercise feeling something that seems rare today: political empathy.

“I know that many of these people … believe what they (want), which many times is diametrically opposed to what I want, is what’s best for the U.S.” Miller wrote to Bridge. “I want to broaden my news reading to even more sites and from different perspectives. I hope everyone can learn that lesson.”

The reader news swap was prompted by an April 6 Bridge article in which a Troy conservative and two Ann Arbor liberals swapped news feeds for a week. It didn’t go well. That story is part of Bridge Magazine’s Michigan Divided project, in which we are following 11 Michigan families and residents with different backgrounds and political views. They agreed to participate as an experiment in piercing the political and cultural bubbles they, and many of us, live in.

You can read about their experiences here.


A small notice at the bottom of that story offered readers a chance to try a news swap themselves: Bridge would match them with someone with a different politically-leaning news bubble for a week.

The response was overwhelming: 236 people asked to participate in a news swap. People from Maine to Hawaii and Marquette Michigan to Phnom Penh, Cambodia signed up (Readers in France, Canada, the U.K. and Australia also volunteered).  

Because there were more left-leaning than conservative volunteers, many participants could not be matched with their ideological counterpart, so they were given news feeds considered politically opposite by All Sides Bias Ratings, a site that, through reader input, places news sources on an ideological scale. For example, Bridge matched the  Washington Post, with its centrist to Democrat-leaning editorial page stance, with the editorially conservative Washington Times, and the liberal comedy news show The Daily Show with clips of conservative comedian and pundit Dennis Miller on the Fox News show The O’Reilly Factor.

Ryan Lewis

Ryan Lewis: “‘Stop listening to your normal sources, listen to these others’ wound up painting a clearer picture of where my sources end.” (Courtesy photo)

“The manner in which this was done turned out to be more interesting than I would have suspected,” wrote Ryan Lewis of Plainwell, a town north of Kalamazoo. “‘Stop listening to your normal sources, listen to these others’ wound up painting a clearer picture of where my sources end. If I had simply added a few other sources to my news diet, I think it’s more likely I wouldn’t have noticed any insights.”

A generation ago, such an exercise wouldn’t have been necessary, since Americans had many of the same news sources; they were more likely to subscribe to the same daily newspapers, or watch one of three network evening newscasts. There was no Fox News or MSNBC. There was no Huffington Post or Breitbart.  

Today, conservatives and liberals can browse a media buffet and curate the sources that match their worldview. “There’s no way to fix this divide,” wrote Rachel Spires of Dallas, Texas. “The fundamental beliefs of people are so diametrically opposed that the only solutions are for one side to drag the other kicking and screaming into the future or split up the country and each govern the way we want and see whose ideas fare better.”

Trent Varva

Trent Varva: “The bubbles are real and they are thick” (Courtesy photo)

“The bubbles are real and they are thick,” wrote Trent Varva, a recent college grad and current stay-at-home dad in Northville, Mich. who normally reads The Atlantic and Vox. “It’s really no wonder that the American public is so divided and struggles to even agree on basic facts when the narrative that guides the media on either side is so polarized.”

Some participants received an unexpected benefit from the news swap: time away from the news.

“I wanted to do the experiment right, so I didn’t go onto Facebook and told my friends not to send me news articles,” wrote Adaliz Merced-Colon of Abilene, Texas, a liberal Puerto Rican national whose husband serves in the U.S. Air Force. “I didn’t realize how much of my routine I spent just consuming news: listening to NPR as I drove my son to school, or on my Alexa, all the notifications I get from different sources. I ignored them all week and only read the three sources assigned (Glenn Beck, Washington Times and the Associated Press) and it was a less stressful week.”

Adaliz Merced-Colon

Adaliz Merced-Colon: “I didn’t realize how much of my routine I spend consuming news.” (Courtesy photo)

“Many of the articles I read got me thinking because they were presented in a way I hadn’t seen before,” said Chris Jansen of Longmont, Colorado, who cited a New York Post profile of Environmental Protection Agency head Scott Pruitt that “put a positive spin .. where in most of the news I had read about him (in his normal news sources), he has been widely criticized.”

Lorin Burgess of Ann Arbor, Mich., had a similar experience. “I learned there are serious conservative thinkers,” wrote Burgess, whose sources for the week included the Washington Times and Fox News, “and despite disagreeing with their core assumptions, I thought their writing was clear and well thought-out.”

“I learned there are serious conservative thinkers, and despite disagreeing with their core assumptions, I thought their writing was clear and well thought-out.” - Lorin Burgess, Ann Arbor, Mich.

Varva told Bridge by email he is still reading the conservative news sources assigned to him for the experiment last month, which included the New York Post and the Daily Caller. “I will continue to endeavor to pierce my own bubble more frequently than I have in the past, as difficult as it may be,” Varva said.

Kayla Miller

Kayla Miller: “It opened my eyes to just how small some perspectives can be.” (Courtesy photo)

Miller, the recent NMU grad and former executive editor of the campus newspaper The North Wind, said the exercise opened her eyes in ways she didn’t expect.

“It opened my eyes to just how small some perspectives can be, and how important it is to broaden our worldview and look outside our own way of life,” Miller said.

“Participating in experiments such as this give us the perfect opportunity to really reflect, analyze and make clear decisions on what information we are putting into our minds.”

Facts matter. Trust matters. Journalism matters.

If you learned something from the story you're reading please consider supporting our work. Your donation allows us to keep our Michigan-focused reporting and analysis free and accessible to all. All donations are voluntary, but for as little as $1 you can become a member of Bridge Club and support freedom of the press in Michigan during a crucial election year.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Dear Reader: We value your thoughts and criticism on the articles, but insist on civility. Criticizing comments or ideas is welcome, but Bridge won’t tolerate comments that are false or defamatory or that demean, personally attack, spread hate or harmful stereotypes. Violating these standards could result in a ban.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.


Barry Visel
Tue, 05/16/2017 - 9:12am

Just curious, where does "All Sides Bias Ratings" place Bridge?

Leon L. Hulett
Tue, 05/16/2017 - 10:23am

I place "All Sides Bias Ratings"as leaning left.
I place Bridge as Left.

Tue, 05/16/2017 - 11:30am

If you want non-partisan news, you have to hire a diverse group of employees, and those employees have to discuss a story before it is written. Not an easy or inexpensive task given the time and resource constraints of most news outlets. I doubt many writers worth an ounce of salt would roll over and just write what the boss dictated they should write.

From reading the bios of Bridge writers, I'd say it is 90% liberal.

And an interesting ad that a radio station used 60 years ago, "when you hear it, it's news; when you read it, it's history" May not apply to today's internet, but still applies to the big city printed papers.

Nancy Derringer
Tue, 05/16/2017 - 11:37am

I hope you're not under the impression Bridge writers don't talk to their editors before they write. As one of the former, I can assure you we do. 

Tue, 05/16/2017 - 3:29pm

Did no conservatives volunteer for this round or did they not offer any follow-up feedback? It's discouraging in a way to see so many liberals willing to check their own biases and consider other perspectives when the conservatives are apparently just checking out and burrowing deeper into their own bubbles.

Jill Kroll
Tue, 05/16/2017 - 6:07pm

I'm disappointed by the story. You had over 200 volunteers but only shared the comments from six of them, with no attempt to compile all the other comments and summarize them. Even though more liberals participated I'd like to hear the comments from the few conservatives that did participate. Did they share the reaction of the six individuals quoted? I hope you will share more of the comments.

Tue, 05/16/2017 - 6:44pm

Mr. French,

“May 16, 2017 | Ron French
It wasn’t always comfortable. But more than 200 brave souls from around the country (and six nations) switched to news feeds with a different political viewpoint. A few have yet to switch back.”
You seem to have a different threshold for ‘bravery.’ Where you feel it is heroic to turn off one media outlet and turn on another, I see those who go off to war to defend the right of people choosing what they listen to, what they say, and what they think as heroic.

I watch CNBC [daytime, a micro MSNBC] with a some of FOX [national], I often watch ABC [evenings local in into national] and a some FOX [national], I read what Bing, Google post such as from the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, I read from what Huffington Post shares [on AOL], listen to PBS and FOX on the radio and for a different perspective with a bit of humor I periodically listen to Rush Limbaugh. You tell me what I should stop listening to and reading, and what I should listen to for a week or so.
I will do that if you will allow me to critique [how credible and why, how factual, how emotional, it’s political bent] what I hear and see. And then let me return to my more standard fair allowing me make similar critiquing. And let others judge what I say and think. There is no fear, no hesitation about what I listen to for when I listen I evaluate, think about what is presented and why, how it is presented and why. I am comfortable putting my views out for public comment and conversation. I am also comfortable answering question about me you might have to better decide how you want to design listen/reading practices.

Kevin Grand
Wed, 05/17/2017 - 11:27am

This should be interesting.

Sat, 05/20/2017 - 6:30pm

No interest, I guess I can't be saved.

I wonder if a reoccurring article that a half a dozen or so with diverse perspectives pick a 'news' show or blog and each independently critiqued each show/blog, to help other see how and why people look at the news and media differently.
Do you think offering people side by side views from different perspectives of the same reporting and being able to be part of a conversation about the perspectives might help people become more appreciative of diversity of perspective?

Wed, 05/17/2017 - 3:13pm

I find it very interesting how the different wings view and get their news. Maybe those on the right are more involved making a living or raising their family so they tend to get information in bits from talk radio which allows multi tasking as they go about their day? Further the left seems more dependent on government actions for driving their idea of advancement leading their attention to outlets advocating or at least focusing on this action, (Bridge!!!). Where for the Right this source and interest is a little more diffused and less subject to protest and whining. There's a long time notion that where you make your living explains much of your politics and interests.

Wed, 05/17/2017 - 3:32pm

Where are the comments and insights from the conservatives who volunteered for this experiment? It would be helpful if you told us how many there were (instead of just saying that there were more left-leaning participants). Why not a single quote from them?

Sun, 05/21/2017 - 7:37am

Actually, I'd like to know who didn't switch back? Liberals? Conservatives? Both? How many?

Sun, 05/21/2017 - 12:32pm

I, too, would like a breakout on the "more than 200" who took the invitation. Were any of them conservative?

Fri, 07/07/2017 - 5:56pm

I did participate in this. While I watch different news sources, I tend to be more conservative. I also research stories if there is a bias or opinion included, regardless of who wrote it. It is amazing how much information is intentionally left out in order to support the author's leanings.