IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2601.20912.html

Clear Messages, Ambiguous Audiences: Measuring Interpretability in Political Communication

Author

Listed:
  • Krishna Sharma
  • Khemraj Bhatt

Abstract

Text-based measurement in political research often treats classi6ication disagreement as random noise. We examine this assumption using con6idence-weighted human annotations of 5,000 social media messages by U.S. politicians. We 6ind that political communication is generally highly legible, with mean con6idence exceeding 0.99 across message type, partisan bias, and audience classi6ications. However, systematic variation concentrates in the constituency category, which exhibits a 1.79 percentage point penalty in audience classi6ication con6idence. Given the high baseline of agreement, this penalty represents a sharp relative increase in interpretive uncertainty. Within messages, intent remains clear while audience targeting becomes ambiguous. These patterns persist with politician 6ixed effects, suggesting that measurement error in political text is structured by strategic incentives rather than idiosyncratic coder error.

Suggested Citation

  • Krishna Sharma & Khemraj Bhatt, 2026. "Clear Messages, Ambiguous Audiences: Measuring Interpretability in Political Communication," Papers 2601.20912, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2601.20912
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2601.20912
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2010. "What Drives Media Slant? Evidence From U.S. Daily Newspapers," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(1), pages 35-71, January.
    2. Lau, Richard R. & Sigelman, Lee & Heldman, Caroline & Babbitt, Paul, 1999. "The Effects of Negative Political Advertisements: A Meta-Analytic Assessment," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(4), pages 851-875, December.
    3. Jonathan B. Slapin & Sven‐Oliver Proksch, 2008. "A Scaling Model for Estimating Time‐Series Party Positions from Texts," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(3), pages 705-722, July.
    4. Jerry Hausman, 2001. "Mismeasured Variables in Econometric Analysis: Problems from the Right and Problems from the Left," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 57-67, Fall.
    5. Benoit, Kenneth & Conway, Drew & Lauderdale, Benjamin E. & Laver, Michael & Mikhaylov, Slava, 2016. "Crowd-sourced Text Analysis: Reproducible and Agile Production of Political Data," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 110(2), pages 278-295, May.
    6. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro & Michael Sinkinson, 2011. "The Effect of Newspaper Entry and Exit on Electoral Politics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 2980-3018, December.
    7. Page, Benjamin I., 1976. "The Theory of Political Ambiguity," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 70(3), pages 742-752, September.
    8. Bound, John & Brown, Charles & Mathiowetz, Nancy, 2001. "Measurement error in survey data," Handbook of Econometrics, in: J.J. Heckman & E.E. Leamer (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 59, pages 3705-3843, Elsevier.
    9. Steven Callander, 2008. "Political Motivations," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 75(3), pages 671-697.
    10. Navin Kartik, 2009. "Strategic Communication with Lying Costs," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(4), pages 1359-1395.
    11. Shepsle, Kenneth A., 1972. "The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and Electoral Competition," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 66(2), pages 555-568, June.
    12. Daniel J. Hopkins & Gary King, 2010. "A Method of Automated Nonparametric Content Analysis for Social Science," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 229-247, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martin Haselmayer & Marcelo Jenny, 2017. "Sentiment analysis of political communication: combining a dictionary approach with crowdcoding," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(6), pages 2623-2646, November.
    2. Stephens-Davidowitz, Seth, 2014. "The cost of racial animus on a black candidate: Evidence using Google search data," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 26-40.
    3. David A. M. Peterson, 2009. "Campaign Learning and Vote Determinants," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 445-460, April.
    4. Burkhard Schipper & Hee Yeul Woo, 2012. "Political Awareness and Microtargeting of Voters in Electoral Competition," Working Papers 124, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    5. Bernhardt, Lea & Dewenter, Ralf & Thomas, Tobias, 2023. "Measuring partisan media bias in US newscasts from 2001 to 2012," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    6. Nichole Szembrot, 2017. "Are voters cursed when politicians conceal policy preferences?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 173(1), pages 25-41, October.
    7. Dewenter, Ralf & Dulleck, Uwe & Thomas, Tobias, 2018. "The political coverage index and its application to government capture," Research Papers 6, EcoAustria – Institute for Economic Research.
    8. Federico Vaccari, 2023. "Influential news and policy-making," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 76(4), pages 1363-1418, November.
    9. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro & Michael Sinkinson, 2014. "Competition and Ideological Diversity: Historical Evidence from US Newspapers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(10), pages 3073-3114, October.
    10. Cagé, Julia, 2017. "Media Competition, Information Provision and Political Participation: Evidence from French Local Newspapers and Elections, 1944," CEPR Discussion Papers 12198, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Julia Cagé, 2014. "Media Competition, Information Provision and Political Participation," Sciences Po Economics Publications (main) hal-03602440, HAL.
    12. Blattman, Christopher & Jamison, Julian & Koroknay-Palicz, Tricia & Rodrigues, Katherine & Sheridan, Margaret, 2016. "Measuring the measurement error: A method to qualitatively validate survey data," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 99-112.
    13. Zhang, Han, 2021. "How Using Machine Learning Classification as a Variable in Regression Leads to Attenuation Bias and What to Do About It," SocArXiv 453jk, Center for Open Science.
    14. Giovanni Compiani & Yuichi Kitamura, 2016. "Using mixtures in econometric models: a brief review and some new results," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 19(3), pages 95-127, October.
    15. Bastianin, Andrea & Castelnovo, Paolo & Florio, Massimo, 2018. "Evaluating regulatory reform of network industries: a survey of empirical models based on categorical proxies," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 115-128.
    16. Caroline Le Pennec & Vincent Pons, 2023. "How do Campaigns Shape Vote Choice? Multicountry Evidence from 62 Elections and 56 TV Debates," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(2), pages 703-767.
    17. Alexander A. Schuessler, 2000. "Expressive Voting," Rationality and Society, , vol. 12(1), pages 87-119, February.
    18. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/16juu6v6rg8rq8nl0u1grb4jm6 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Piolatto, Amedeo & Schuett, Florian, 2015. "Media competition and electoral politics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 80-93.
    20. Cornelius A. Rietveld & Pankaj C. Patel, 2022. "A critical assessment of the National Entrepreneurship Context Index of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor," Papers 2204.05749, arXiv.org.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2601.20912. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.