Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 2
  • Print publication year: 2015
  • Online publication date: November 2015

12 - Partisan Media and Electoral Polarization in 2012: Evidence from the American National Election Study

from PART IV - POLARIZATION IN THE MEDIA

Summary

After widening for several decades, partisan divisions among ordinary Americans over issues, ideology, evaluations of leaders, and, in notable instances, perceptions of political, economic, and scientific realities, reached new extremes during Barack Obamae's presidency. These trends coincided with the proliferation of partisan news and opinion outlets enabled by the spread of cable television, talk radio, and the Internet, raising the question of how these two phenomena might be related. The 2012 American National Election Study (ANES) offered a unique perspective on this question by asking, along with its usual battery of political questions, whether respondents attended to any of 34 specific television, radio, newspaper, and Internet sources of news and opinion programs. These sources are distinguishable as conservative, liberal or mainstream, allowing the analysis of the relationship between the ideological and partisan leanings of the sources voters reported using and their political beliefs, attitudes and behavior. The results of this analysis support several conclusions:

• As expected, most people who do attend to partisan media chose sources that could be relied on to confirm rather than challenge their existing attitudes and opinions; partisans showed a clear preference for sources of news and opinion that reliably fit their biases.

• Modal opinions, beliefs, and behaviors varied strongly with variations in the use of partisan media. Media choice was strongly related to voters’ assessments of Barack Obama, the Affordable Care Act, gun control, and climate change, as well as their to comparative affect toward Obama and Romney and their parties, their presidential choice, and their expectations about who would win the White House.

• These relationships were not merely an artifact of voters selecting congenial partisan media; even after controlling statistically for the effects of a variety of variables that would predict selective exposure to partisan media, actual exposure continued to have a significant effect on attitudes, beliefs, and reported behavior. The conservative media were particularly influential in this regard. Voters’ use of partisan and ideologically slanted media outlets thus contributed appreciably to (as well as reflected) the high levels of partisan polarization of opinions of the presidential candidates, parties, and issues in 2012.

• The effects of partisan media use varied in ways that systematically echoed variations in the emphasis of partisan messages and thus were most pronounced on issues where conservative and liberal media took clear and emphatic contrary positions – particularly regarding Obama.

Abramowitz, Alan I. 2010. The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
American National Election Study. 2013. User's Guide and Codebook for the Preliminary Release of the ANES 2012 Time Series Study. Ann Arbor, MI, and Palo Alto, CA: the University of Michigan and Stanford University.
Arceneaux, Kevin, and Johnson, Martin. 2013. Changing Minds or Changing Channels? Partisan News in an Age of Choice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Baumer, Donald C., and Gold, Howard J.. 2010. Parties, Polarization, and Democracy in the United States. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
Bishop, Bill. 2008. The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded Americans Is Tearing Us Apart. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Bradberry, Leigh, and Jacobson, Gary C.. 2013. “Does the Tea Party Still Matter? Tea Party Influence in the 2012 Elections.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, August 29–September 1.
Fiorina, Morris P., with Adams, Samuel. 2009. Disconnect: The Breakdown of Representation in American Politics. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Fiorina, Morris P., Adams, Samuel J., and Pope, Jeremy C.. 2006. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. New York: Longman.
Gaines, Brian J., Kuklinski, James H., Quirk, Paul J., Peyton, Buddy, and Verkuilen, Jan. 2007. “Same Facts, Different Interpretation: Partisan Motivation and Opinion on Iraq,” Journal of Politics 69 (4): 957–974.
Granberg, Donald, and Brent, Edward. 1983. “When Prophecy Bends: The Preference-Expectation Link in U.S. Presidential Elections, 1952–1980,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 (3): 477–491.
Greenfield, Rebecca. 2012. “How Pundits Are Explaining Their Totally Wrong Election Predictions,” The Atlantic Wire, November 7. Retrieved from http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/11/how-pundits-are-explaining-their-totally-wrong-election-predictions/58796/. Accessed August 19, 2013.
Hare, Christopher, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2013. “An Update on the Presidential Square Wave,” Voteview Blog, January 18. Retrieved from http://voteview.com/blog/?p=735. Accessed July 8, 2013.
Hetherington, Marc J., and Weiler, Jonathan D.. 2009. Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Iyengar, Shanto, and Hahn, Kju S.. 2009. “Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use,” Journal of Communication 59 (1): 19–39.
Jacobson, Gary C. 2013a. “Barack Obama and the Nationalization of Electoral Politics in 2012.” Presented at the Conference on the Confirming U.S. Presidential Election of 2012, Mershon Center, the Ohio State University, October 10–11.
Jacobson, Gary C. 2013b. “Partisan Polarization in American Politics: A Background Paper,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 43 (December): 688–708.
Jacobson, Gary C. 2011a. A Divider, Not a Uniter: George W. Bush and the American People, edition. New York: Pearson Longman.
Jacobson, Gary C. 2011b. “Polarization, Public Opinion, and the Presidency: The Obama and Anti-Obama Coalitions.” In Rockman, Bert A. and Rudalevige, Andrew, eds., The Obama Presidency: Appraisals and Prospects. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 94–122.
Jacobson, Gary C. 2010. “Perception, Memory, and Partisan Polarization on the Iraq War,” Political Science Quarterly 125 (Spring): 1–26.
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, and Cappella, Joseph N.. 2008. Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jones, David. 2002. “The Polarizing Effects of New Media Messages,” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 14 (2): 158–174.
Kull, Steven, Ramsay, Clam, and Lewis, Evan. 2003. “Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War.” Political Science Quarterly 118 (Winter): 563–598.
Kunda, Ziva. 1990. “The Case for Motivated Reasoning,” Psychological Bulletin 108 (3): 636–647.
Levendusky, Matthew. 2013. How Partisan Media Polarize America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levendusky, Matthew. 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lodge, Milton, and Taber, Charles S.. 2001. “Three Steps Toward a Theory of Motivated Political Reasoning.” In Lupia, Arthur, McCubbins, Mathew D., and Popkin, Samuel L., eds., Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Morales, Lymani. 2012. “U.S. Distrust in Media Hits New High.” Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/157589/distrust-media-hits-new-high.aspx, September 12.
Mutz, Diana C. 2006. Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Prior, Markus. 2007. Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stroud, Natalie Jomini. 2011. Niche News: The Politics of News Choice. New York: Oxford University press.
Tabor, Charles S., and Lodge, Milton. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in Evaluation of Political Beliefs,” American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 755–769.