Why Traditional Media Can't Handle Political Extremes
And What AI Can Do About It
New Cambridge research confirmed what many suspected about how extreme political content spreads through traditional media.
Researchers Diane Bolet and Florian Foos conducted experiments with over 10,000 people across Australia and the UK, exposing them to real interviews with extreme right activists that had aired on Sky News. The results were stark:
"Listening to the unchallenged interview increases people's belief that society has moved in favour of these extreme right views by 2–3 percentage points in Australia, and by 6 percentage points in the UK."
The research found that just 2.5 minutes of exposure to unchallenged “extreme” content shifted personal agreement with those views by 3-5 percentage points.
This research comes amid broader concerns about the mainstreaming of extreme political voices, as evidenced by the sharp rise in hate crime referrals and the increasing presence of extreme actors across both traditional and digital media platforms.
The recent Jubilee "Surrounded" debate illustrates the Cambridge research. Mehdi Hasan, an experienced journalist, was pitted against 20 "far-right conservatives" - one of whom openly identified as a fascist and received applause. Mehdi went on to stop debating the self-identified fascist, later acknowledging his policy to not “platform” extreme voices. While this individual later lost his job, he subsequently raised over $40,000 through crowdfunding, effectively monetising his views through the media appearance .
Traditional "Solutions" Fall Short
The research tested whether challenging extreme voices during interviews helps. While it reduced some harmful effects, it didn't eliminate them:
"While challenging the extreme right activist's claims is more effective than not challenging these claims at all, it does not fully reverse the normalisation process."
This reveals the fundamental flaw in how traditional media handles controversial content: they're forced to choose between ignoring extreme views entirely or giving them a platform that inevitably amplifies them. Providing a challenge merely only helps to amplify the view to a broader audience.
The AI-Powered Alternative
This is precisely why we built Suffrago. Rather than relying on individual journalists to challenge extreme statements in real-time interviews, AI can aggregate and analyse thousands of public opinions, providing the contextual data that explains why people hold certain views.
Instead of asking whether to platform extreme voices or silence them, AI allows us to understand the underlying concerns driving public sentiment and present them alongside relevant data about local conditions, economic factors, and demographic realities.
The Cambridge research proves that exposure without context changes minds. But aggregating voices with intelligent analysis offers a path forward: understanding what people actually think, why they think it, and providing decision-makers with the full picture they need to respond effectively.
Suffrago uses AI to aggregate public opinions and provide contextual insights that help decision-makers understand the voice of the people. Learn more at suffrago.org