Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-8p65j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-28T04:54:35.957Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - The Polarizing Effects of Partisan and Mainstream News

from PART IV - POLARIZATION IN THE MEDIA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2015

By
Natalie Jomini Stroud  and
Alexander Curry
Edited by
James A. Thurber  and
Antoine Yoshinaka
Natalie Jomini Stroud
Affiliation:
University of Texas at Austin
Alexander Curry
Affiliation:
University of Texas at Austin
James A. Thurber
Affiliation:
American University, Washington DC
Antoine Yoshinaka
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Buffalo
Get access

Summary

  1. • Strong partisans gravitate toward like-minded partisan media.

  2. • Like-minded media use can polarize attitudes and, in some instances, so can the use of counter-attitudinal media.

  3. • An experiment using NBC, MSNBC, and Fox News coverage of the Keystone XL Pipelinee's environmental impact shows that media coverage affects attitudes and beliefs.

  4. • Drawing from inoculation theory, like-minded news polarized attitudes, and watching a combination of like-minded and mainstream news coverage did little to reduce polarization.

On January 31, 2014, the U.S. Department of State released its “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL Project.” The report garnered substantial attention. Would the pipeline have a devastating environmental impact as some groups had alleged? Or was the effect minimal and offset by the prospect of a reliable source of oil and an influx of new jobs? If you learned about this report from television, your answer to these questions would depend on which outlet you watched. According to Fox News, the report concluded that the environmental impact would be minimal. MSNBC, however, highlighted the environmentally damaging effects of not only the tar sands that would travel through the pipeline, but also the natione's continuing dependence on oil. NBC News noted that there would be some environmental impact, but it would be minimal and that although jobs would be created, there wouldne't be many and they would be short term. All three outlets covered exactly the same report, but each was unique in its coverage.

The Keystone Pipeline report is an illuminating case study of how information is presented in todaye's fragmented media environment. Partisan outlets have decidedly different takes on the daye's news and events. Based on these divergent portrayals, audiences may rely on unique sets of facts to support polarized attitudes and opinions about important political matters. It is precisely this topic that we tackle in this chapter. To begin, we briefly describe evidence regarding partisan selective exposure, the selection of politically like-minded media. Our review lays the groundwork for why partisan media are relevant for understanding polarization. Next, we present an overview of research on how the media affect partisans’ political beliefs, opinions, and attitudes. Equipped with this background, we turn to the Keystone Pipeline report and present original data on how people react to the coverage. Our case study illustrates the mediae's ability to polarize beliefs and attitudes.

Type
Chapter
Information
American Gridlock
The Sources, Character, and Impact of Political Polarization
 , pp. 337 - 354
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

An, C., and Pfau, M.. 2004. “The Efficacy of Inoculation in Televised Political Debates.” Journal of Communication 54 (3): 421–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arceneaux, K., and Johnson, M.. 2013. Changing Minds or Changing Channels? Partisan News in an Age of Choice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banas, J.A., and Rains, S.A.. 2010. “A Meta-analysis of Research on Inoculation Theory.” Communication Monographs 77 (3): 281–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berelson, B.R., Lazarsfeld, P.F., and McPhee, W.N.. 1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Compton, J. 2013. “Inoculation Theory.” In Dillard, J.P. and Shen, L., eds., The SAGE Handbook of Persuasion, edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 220–236.Google Scholar
Compton, J., and Pfau, M.. 2004. “Use of Inoculation to Foster Resistance to Credit Card Marketing Targeting College Students.” Journal of Applied Communication Research 32 (4): 343–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dilliplane, S. 2011. “All the News You Want to Hear: The Impact of Partisan News Exposure on Political Participation.” Public Opinion Quarterly 75 (2): 287–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, L. 2011. “The opinion factor: The effects of opinionated news on information processing and attitude change.” Political Communication 28 (2): 163–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger, L. 1962. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, R.K. 2009. “Politically Motivated Reinforcement Seeking: Reframing the Selective Exposure Debate.” Journal of Communication 59 (4): 676–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, R.K., Carnahan, D., and Lynch, E.K.. 2011. “A Turn toward Avoidance? Selective Exposure to Online Political Information, 2004–2008.” Political Behavior 35 (1), 113–134.Google Scholar
Garrett, R.K., Gvirsman, S.D., Johnson, B.K., Tsfati, Y., Neo, R., and Dal, A.. 2014. “Implications of Pro- and Counterattitudinal Information Exposure for Affective Polarization.” Human Communication Research 40 (3), 309–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, R.K., and Stroud, N.J.. 2014. “Partisan Paths to Exposure Diversity: Differences in Pro- and Counterattitudinal News Consumption.” Journal of Communication 64 (4): 680–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentzkow, M., and Shapiro, J.M.. 2011. “Ideological Segregation Online and Offline.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 126 (4): 1799–1839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groeling, T. 2008. “Who's the Fairest of Them All? An Empirical Test for Partisan Bias on ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 38 (4): 631–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, W., Albarracín, D., Eagly, A.H., Brechan, I., Lindberg, M.J., and Merrill, L.. 2009. “Feeling Validated Versus Being Correct: A Meta-analysis of Selective Exposure to Information.” Psychological Bulletin 135 (4): 555–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivanov, B., and Miller, C.H.. 2011. “Boosting the Potency of Resistance: Combining the Motivational Forces of Inoculation and Psychological Reactance.” Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Communication Association, New Orleans, LA, November.
Iyengar, S., and Hahn, K.S.. 2009. “Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use.” Journal of Communication 59 (1): 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamieson, K.H., and Cappella, J.N.. 2008. Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Knobloch-Westerwick, S. 2012. “Selective Exposure and Reinforcement of Attitudes and Partisanship before a Presidential Election.” Journal of Communication 62 (4): 628–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., and Meng, J.. 2009. “Looking the Other Way: Selective Exposure to Attitude-Consistent and Counterattitudinal Political Information.” Communication Research 36 (3): 426–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levendusky, M. 2013. How Partisan Media Polarize America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, W-K., and Pfau, M.. 2007. “Can Inoculation Work against the Spiral of Silence? A Study of Public Opinion on the Future of Taiwan.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 19 (2): 155–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lumsdaine, A.A., and Janis, I.L.. 1953. “Resistance to “Counterpropaganda” Produced by One-sided and Two-sided “Propaganda” Presentations.” Public Opinion Quarterly 17: 311–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, W.J. 1964. “Inducing Resistance to Persuasion: Some Contemporary Approaches.” In Berkowitz, L., ed., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 1. New York: Academic Press, 191–229.Google Scholar
Muddiman, A., Stroud, N.J., and McCombs, M.. 2014. “Media Fragmentation, Attribute Agenda Setting, and Political Opinions about Iraq.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 58 (2): 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noelle-Neumann, E. 1974. The Spiral of Silence. Journal of Communication 24: 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrocik, J.R. 2009. “Measuring Party Support: Leaners Are Not Independents.” Electoral Studies 28 (4): 562–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfau, M., Kenski, H.C., Nitz, M., and Sorenson, J.. 1990. “Efficacy of Inoculation Strategies in Promoting Resistance to Political Attack Messages: Application to Direct Mail.” Communication Monographs 57 (1): 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfau, M., Roskos-Ewoldsen, D., Wood, M., Yin, S., Cho, J., Lu, K-H., and Shen, L.. 2003. “Attitude Accessibility as an Alternative Explanation for How Inoculation Confers Resistance.” Communication Monographs 70 (1): 39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfau, M., Tusing, K.J., Koerner, As. F., Lee, W., Godbold, L.C., Penaloza, L. et al. 1997a. “Enriching the Inoculation Construct: The Role of Critical Components in the Process of Resistance.” Human Communication Research 24 (2): 187–215.Google Scholar
Pfau, M., Tusing, K.J., Lee, W., Godbold, L.C., Koerner, A., Penaloza, L. et al. 1997b. “Nuances in Inoculation: The Role of Inoculation Approach, Ego-Involvement, and Message Processing Disposition in Resistance.” Communication Quarterly 45 (4): 461–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, M. 2013. “Media and Political Polarization.” Annual Review of Political Science 16 (1): 101–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sears, D.O., and Freedman, J.L.. 1967. “Selective Exposure to Information: A Critical Review.” Public Opinion Quarterly 31 (2): 194–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroud, N.J. 2011. Niche News: The Politics of News Choice. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroud, N.J. 2010. “Polarization and Partisan Selective Exposure.” Journal of Communication 60 (3): 556–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroud, N.J. 2008. “Media Use and Political Predispositions: Revisiting the Concept of Selective Exposure.” Political Behavior 30 (3): 341–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroud, N.J., Muddiman, A., and Lee, J.K.. 2014. “Seeing Media as Group Members: An Evaluation of Partisan Bias Perceptions.” Journal of Communication 64 (5): 874–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabo, E.A., and Pfau, M.. 2002. “Nuances in Inoculation: Theory and Applications.” In Dillard, J.P. and Pfau, M., eds., The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 233–258.Google Scholar
Taber, C.S., and Lodge, M.. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannenbaum, P.H., and Norris, E.L.. 1965) “Effects of Combining Congruity Principle Strategies for the Reduction of Persuasion.” Sociometry 28 (2): 145–157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tsfati, Y., Stroud, N.J., and Chotiner, A.. 2013. “Exposure to Ideological News and Perceived Opinion Climate: Testing the Media Effects Component of Spiral-of-Silence in a Fragmented Media Landscape.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 19 (1): 3–23.Google Scholar
Vallone, R.P., Ross, L., and Lepper, M.R.. 1985. “The Hostile Media Phenomenon: Biased Perception and Perceptions of Media Bias in Coverage of the Beirut Massacre.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49 (3): 577–585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watts, M.D., Domke, D., Shah, D.V., and Fan, D.P.. 1999. “Elite Cues and Media Bias in Presidential Campaigns: Explaining Public Perceptions of a Liberal Press.” Communication Research 26 (2): 144–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyer, R.S. Jr. 1974. Cognitive Organization and Change: An Information Processing Approach. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×