Media fragmentation, because it makes people rely on more partisan media, increases political polarization. As Samuelson wrote, “Today, technology contributes to political polarization.” One of the most notable studies that demonstrate the effects of this polarization is how Fox News influenced conservative voters and helped the Republican Party. In fact, in the year 2000, it is estimated that Fox News increased Republican vote share by about 200,000 votes nationwide; this possibly could have been a deciding factor in the close race. Also, the same study found that the increase came from increasing Republican voter turnout in mostly Democratic districts (DellaVigna). One explanation for this phenomenon is called “nonrational persuasion”
…show more content…
Due to the fact that people discount media that contradicts their position, as polarization increases and people move further right or left of the spectrum, their perception of bias in the media also increases. As perceptions of bias in the media increase, public distrust in the media increases correspondingly. This may be cause for alarm as increasingly more political science research has come to the conclusion that the media plays an important role in a democratic society and governance. As consumers trust less the media less, they often fall back on partisanship as the political world becomes more “ambiguous.” This has potential political consequences as studies have shown that those who watch more news have a greater chance of changing their original presidential preference (Ladd). This issue is most salient with conservative Fox News consumers as exposure to conservative media coupled with the denunciations of the “liberal media” by conservative elites serve to make Fox News’s audience more Republican (Morris). As conservatives become even more conservative, conservative’s “area of rejection” becomes wider as they reject an even larger portion of the media that does not align with …show more content…
In a presidential election there are essentially two viable candidates, the Republican and Democrat candidate, so it is a fair assumption that each candidate should receive about 50% of the total coverage and that tone should be about equal. In a study analyzing the three types of bias previously mentioned in the paper throughout the elections between 1988 and 1996: gatekeeping bias, coverage bias, and statement bias, approximately zero overall bias was found (D’Alessio). In fact, the largest pro-Democratic bias was found in TV network coverage in which 52.7% of airtime was dedicated to Democrats as opposed to 47.3% for Republicans. These findings can be transferred over to the 2012 elections, this is not to say that individual media outlets do not have their own biases; however, there is no evidence of a monolithic liberal media bias. During the general election between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, horserace coverage drove the news (Sides). As one candidate appeared to gain momentum or gain in the polls, positive coverage of the candidate rose correspondingly. This horserace coverage trumped substantial policy issues thus helping to negate ideological preferences of some media outlets. Also, the media root for a good story instead of their ideological position during a presidential campaign (Sides). The media are looking to attract an audience and will
Due to the fact that people discount media that contradicts their position, as polarization increases and people move further right or left of the spectrum, their perception of bias in the media also increases. As perceptions of bias in the media increase, public distrust in the media increases correspondingly. This may be cause for alarm as increasingly more political science research has come to the conclusion that the media plays an important role in a democratic society and governance. As consumers trust less the media less, they often fall back on partisanship as the political world becomes more “ambiguous.” This has potential political consequences as studies have shown that those who watch more news have a greater chance of changing their original presidential preference (Ladd). This issue is most salient with conservative Fox News consumers as exposure to conservative media coupled with the denunciations of the “liberal media” by conservative elites serve to make Fox News’s audience more Republican (Morris). As conservatives become even more conservative, conservative’s “area of rejection” becomes wider as they reject an even larger portion of the media that does not align with …show more content…
In a presidential election there are essentially two viable candidates, the Republican and Democrat candidate, so it is a fair assumption that each candidate should receive about 50% of the total coverage and that tone should be about equal. In a study analyzing the three types of bias previously mentioned in the paper throughout the elections between 1988 and 1996: gatekeeping bias, coverage bias, and statement bias, approximately zero overall bias was found (D’Alessio). In fact, the largest pro-Democratic bias was found in TV network coverage in which 52.7% of airtime was dedicated to Democrats as opposed to 47.3% for Republicans. These findings can be transferred over to the 2012 elections, this is not to say that individual media outlets do not have their own biases; however, there is no evidence of a monolithic liberal media bias. During the general election between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, horserace coverage drove the news (Sides). As one candidate appeared to gain momentum or gain in the polls, positive coverage of the candidate rose correspondingly. This horserace coverage trumped substantial policy issues thus helping to negate ideological preferences of some media outlets. Also, the media root for a good story instead of their ideological position during a presidential campaign (Sides). The media are looking to attract an audience and will