THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

The Hostile Media Effect in Lebanon:

Differences in Perceptions of Western and Arabic Sources

Nicole van Batenburg

10510028

Master’s Thesis Graduate School of Communication Master’s Programme Political Communication Supervisor: Penny Thibaut Sheets 28/02/2019 THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

Abstract The hostile media effect -defined as the tendency for individuals with a strong preexisting attitude on an issue to perceive media coverage as biased against their side and in favor of their opponents’ point of view- has mostly been studied in the context of traditional media (i.e., print and radio) within a specific nation. Nowadays, however, globalization of media is more actual than ever. Polarization, fragmentation and mediatization of society have increasingly become prevalent, yet little is known about the effects of these developments on people’s perception of foreign news sources. This study investigated whether a news can create a HME in a global setting, and if this effect is moderated by political ideology or political engagement. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions in which they read an identical article about Middle-Eastern affairs, but the news source was varied between a Western, non- Western or Lebanese . Results indicated the existence of a HME between a Western and Lebanese news source, independent of participants’ political ideology or political engagement. No results were found for the existence of a HME between a Western and Non- Western news source, nor between a Non-Western and Lebanese news source. Overall, this study highlights the importance of studying the HME on a global scale, and calls for more research into its consequences and implications for the fragmentation of the global media landscape.

Keywords: hostile media effect, political ideology, political engagement, source credibility, media use, selective exposure

2

THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

The Hostile Media Effect in Lebanon: Differences in Perceptions of Western and Arabic News Sources Nowadays, the messages sent by news outlets are not necessarily the messages received by the audience. News consumers may process information in different ways; it’s these differences that can produce diverse perceptions and interpretations of content (Bauer, 1973). Even when a message is framed in an objective or neutral way, people tend to be skeptical about information from media sources such as and television. Credibility, liking, quality and representativeness of the source are some examples of criteria used by news receivers (D'Alessio & Allen, 2000; Gunter, 1992; Sundar, 1999). Not only these criteria affect how people perceive a message; a person’s own ideology, values, beliefs, knowledge or involvement in an issue or group that is covered in the news also affects people’s interpretation of a news article (Christen, Kannaovakun & Gunther, 2002; Duck, Terry & Hogg, 1998; Eveland & Shah, 2003; Groseclose & Milyo, 2005; Morris, 2007; Vallone, Ross & Lepper, 1985). In this master thesis, a well-known theory in the field of political communication will be tested in an online experiment. The hostile media phenomenon, which is related to the perception of news and the tendency for individuals with a strong preexisting attitude on an issue to perceive media coverage as biased against their side and in favor of their antagonists’ point of view, will be the central theory of this study (Vallone, Ross & Lepper, 1985). In 1985, a study of Vallone, Ross and Lepper found evidence for the existence of the hostile media effect phenomenon for the first time by focusing on the Israel-Palestine conflict. In their study, pro-Israeli and pro-Arab participants viewed the same news report discussing the conflict; each group perceived the report as biased in favor of the opposing side. Moreover, within both partisan groups, greater knowledge of the crisis was associated with stronger perceptions of media (Vallone et al., 1985). Also, Gunther (1992) found that people who identified strongly with a particular group were more likely to think that the newspaper they were most familiar with gave unfavorable coverage to that group than were people who did not strongly identify with that group. Hostile media effect studies have found that people with strong opinions about the topic of a news story believe the coverage favors the other side of the issue, rather than their own opinions (Giner- Sorolla & Chaiken, 1994). In addition to these findings, many other studies found support for the existence of the hostile media effect (Arpan and Raney, 2003; Vallone et al., 1985; Gunther & Liebhart, 2006; Lee, Kim, & Coe, 2018; Reid, 2012). . The hostile media effect could be explained by the selective exposure theory, that states individuals tend to favor information from a source

3

THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE that reinforces their pre-existing views while avoiding contradictory information (Vallone et al., 1985). In addition to the studies mentioned above, other studies such as Reid (2012) and Lee et al., (2018) have examined the existence of the hostile media effect in relation to news source as well. Both studies found differences in hostile media perceptions between Democrats and Republicans within the United States of America. This study, however, tried to shine new light on the hostile media effect phenomenon by investigating it in a foreign-versus-domestic setting as it includes different international news papers. To date, the HME has been studied almost entirely in the context of traditional media (e.g., television news, hard-copy newspapers) within a specific nation, especially in the United States. The present study focuses on potential cross-border effects, and will be derived from what we already know from earlier studies and understudied contexts (e.g., Gunther & Liebhart, 2006; Gunther & Schmitt, 2004; Hartmann & Tanis, 2013; Matheson & Dursun, 2001; Reid, 2012). This experimental study focuses on the potential existence of the hostile media effect between foreign and domestic news sources—specifically, Western and Middle-Eastern news sources. Furthermore, it investigates whether the relationship between news source and hostile media effect is moderated by political engagement and political ideology, as previous studies would suggest. This current research aims to combine the elements described above: with a focus on a Lebanese case, the potential existence of the hostile media effect between Western, non-Western and local news sources in a politically dynamic country will be tested. It is expected the hostile media effect will occur depending on the news source, but the political ideology and political engagement of the Lebanese respondents will also be taken into account. All taken together, this research is guided by the following central research question: Do foreign news sources (versus domestic news sources) behind a news article prompt hostile media perceptions, and is this effect moderated by political ideology and political engagement?

Objectivity, mediatization and polarization in the media landscape. First, I would like to address the importance of both objectivity in as well as the mediatization of cultures and societies, a theory that states that the media shapes and frames the processes and discourse of political communication and the society in which this communication takes place (Schultz, 2004; Hjavard, 2008). Although objectivity is predominantly supported in the Western democratic debate as being of high value to news reporting, the and people working in the media field are becoming more aware of various problems that it raises (Westernstahl, 1983). Western scholars

4

THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE argue that journalism can be seen as an important profession in order to achieve a perfectly functioning modern democracy. For instance, Stromback (2005) states that journalism needs democracy for its freedom and independence, and that democracy needs journalism to ensure that flow of information. Moreover, journalism is needed for public discussions about political issues and it should function as a watchdog against the abuse of power. The media landscape should allow journalists to work in a way it allows them to fulfill their job as disseminator, interpreter, mobilizer and adversary (Skovgaard, Albæk, Bro, & de Vreese, 2015). However, in the current century the audience have more options for news consumption because of the growth of cable television and Internet outlets like never before. This development has provided a more fragmented media environment where audiences have more options for news consumption, in which news outlets with certain partisan perspectives have emerged and competed for audiences’ attention in this new environment (Fletcher & Nielsen, 2017). Today, we are witnessing an evolution towards a more complex economic, technological, cultural, social, political and ecological relations across continents, and toward potential or actual global crises such as climate change or the nuclear threat (van Leuven & Berglez, 2015). We live in a world that has become radically interconnected, interdependent and communicated in the complex formations and flows of news journalism. The consequences of decisions made in one country, make themselves felt in other countries or regions all over the world. The boundary between domestic and foreign coverage is decreasing, and news reporting should reflect these interconnections and the complexity of our current society. Journalism is becoming more and more global and is considered as a practice that differs from traditional foreign correspondence (Berglez 2008, 2013; Van Leuven & Berglez, 2015). In addition, the media in democratic countries have always been positioned somewhere between the political system and the economic system, which makes dealing with the developments in the universal media landscape even more of a challenge (Stromback, 2008). The political system forms the institutional and regulatory boundaries within which the media are required to operate, whereas the markets and the dynamics between supply and demand shape what it is possible for commercial media companies to do to remain profitable (Hamilton, 2004). As a consequence, polarization of the media landscape–the division into two sharply contrasting groups or sets of opinions or beliefs–is taking place, on a universal basis as well. At the end of the day, ideologically and unambiguous content increasingly attracts viewers and listeners who share the hosts’ political learnings, thus reinforcing partisan views and contributing to political

5

THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE polarization. These are important concerns, especially in a heated political climate in which escalation seems to be close. With this emergence of more partisan media, but the inability to know how many and what kind of people are exposed to which messages, it is hard to tell in what way people interpret the news they are consuming. Even though journalists are trying their best to stick to their core values, they cannot control the news consumption of the public (Gunther, McLaughlin, Gotlieb & Wise, 2016; Prior, 2013). In sum, because of the occurrence of fragmentation, mediatization and polarization in the media landscape, it is important to look at the potential occurrence of the HME in a more global perspective. As supported by multiple empirical studies, polarization has already occurred on a big scale in the United States, but it is crucial to diminish more division between e.g., the Western and Arab world as well (Eveland & Shah, 2003; Prior, 2013; Lee, 2005; Watts, Domke, Shah & Fan, 1999; Vigna & Kaplan, 2007; Morris, 2007). By executing HME research that is focused on other areas in the world, it might still be possible to think about solutions to fight against more universal fragmentation. In the following section, the previous literature and research about the hostile media effect, source credibility, political ideology and political engagement will be addressed. This information is used to formulate a total of nine hypothesizes and to answer the central research question of this study. Hostile Media Effect in Relation to News Source. Many researchers have described the hostile media effect as the process by which some news consumers rate supposedly neutral stories as biased against their point of view, and/or in favor of someone else’s point of view (Arceneaux, 2012; Christen et al, 2002; Arpan & Raney, 2003; Giner-Sorolla & Chaiken, 1994; Lee, Kim & Coe, 2018; Eveland & Shah, 2003; Gunther & Liebhart, 2006; Gunther & Schmitt, 2004; Gunther, Miller & Liebhart, 2009; Vallone et al., 1985). Moreover, additional research such as the study from Gunther & Chia (2001) has shown that a similar hostile media effect arises even when the content in question is obviously biased as opposed to neutral. In their study, as well as in a study conducted by Coe et al., (2008), a “relative” hostile media effect is evident, such that partisans whose side is favored, view the content as somewhat less biased in their favor as compared to those on the other side of the issue. Furthermore, the study of Gunther and Liebhart (2006) evaluated the contributions of reach and source to the hostile media effect among American participants who were against genetically modified organisms. They found that both reach and source independently produced a HME. When the author of the content was a student, the participants in both group were virtually identical in

6

THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE their perceptions. These uniform perceptions appeared as well when the context was a composition unlikely to reach any audience beyond the classroom. However, when either the author was a or the context was a nationally circulated news article, partisan perceptions diverged conspicuously. Under those circumstances, participants on opposing sides saw identical information as significantly biased in opposite directions–a direction counter to their own point of view. A more recent study of Lee et al. (2018), examined whether the characteristics of those who share news articles on social media influence the hostile media effect. Consistent with the hostile media effect, results showed that both Republicans and Democrats believed that a news article shared by a Twitter user from an opposing political party was more biased than one shared by a Twitter user from a similar political party. In addition, Ariyanto, Hornsey and Gallois (2007) found that participants perceived a news story as more hostile when it was attributed to a media source portraying another religious group than when it was attributed to a media source portraying their own religious group. Lastly, the study of Reid (2012) focused on the HME in relation to source among American Republicans and Democrats. The experiment showed that Democrats perceived less bias when the author of a news article was a Democrat and more bias when the author was Republican. These results were interpreted as evidence that source can override content as, when partisans’ identity is salient, their perception of bias will be motivated by group attachments rather than a reasoned consideration of actual content (Reid, 2012). It has been argued that one underlying mechanism of the HME phenomenon is “selective categorization”. This mechanism proposes that opposing partisans see the same content but disagree about the valence of that content. According to this mechanism, each group, relative to the other group, will categorize individual passages within the text as less sympathetic to its own side and more supportive of the opposing point of views (Schmitt, Gunther & Liebhart, 2004; Vallone et al., 1985; Giner-Sorolla & Chaiken, 1994). In essence, each group sees a different stimulus, filtered through the lens of their partisanship. This mechanism follows from the social judgement theory, founded by Sherif and Hoveland (1961). This theory predicts that partisans, or those with high issue involvement, will have wider “latitudes” of message rejection and will thus find more of the views in the media to be disagreeable or biased than will non-partisans, from whom the news is likely to fall into either a latitude of acceptance or of noncommitment (Fieldman, 2011).

7

THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

In this experimental study, the focus will lie on the impact of a different source on the HME in a more global context. Since many of the abovementioned studies found proof for the source as generating the HME, news source will be manipulated in this study as well. Here, three different news sources will be used. The choice for three different sources instead of two–which has been done by most previous studies–is substantiated by two theories: (1) Edward Said’s orientalism (1987), and (2) the ability of someone to identify – ingroup/outgroup- with the outlet due to cultural, demographical, or physical resemblance with the news source and topic of the article (Lee et al., 2018; Reid, 2012). Said’s Orientalism refers to a general patronizing Western attitude towards Middle Eastern, Asian, and North African societies, and has been discussed in many academical studies (Said, 1979; 1985; Ibrahim, 2003). Briefly, it can be understood with the following citation about Middle Eastern, Asian, and North African societies: “The West essentializes these societies as static and undeveloped–thereby fabricating a view of Oriental culture that can be studied, depicted, and reproduced. Implicit in this fabrication, is the idea that Western society is developed, rational, flexible, and superior (Ranjan, 2015, p.87).” Even though Western journalists aim to cover these area in an objective way, they have to deal with enormous personal and professional challenges since it is one of the most difficult regions in the world to cover. It is faced with volatile and highly charged situations and attitudes from the West. However around the globe try to construct an objective and identical media agenda, it seems to be unattainable not to frame events according to their own home-grown narratives (Hafez, 2011). Predominantly, the Arab perspective remains misunderstood and stereotyped today. Many American publications and television news networks have adopted and accepted the official Israeli viewpoint to explain the ongoing violence in the area (Ibrahim, 2003). As a consequence, founders set up Al Jazeera to counter the dominant Western viewpoint of Arabs and Arabic culture throughout the 20th century. Arabs depended on the BBC and CNN International- but were frustrated they had to listen to the Western viewpoints about themselves (Seib, 2005). Therefore, it is expected this newspaper will be seen as more reliable than CNN by the Lebanese participants; it takes their perspective into account as well (ingroup). Moreover, since the Internet allows everyone to read whatever they want to read, this study assumes that Lebanese participants are aware of these Western stereotypes towards their origins. By using three sources, a Western (CNN: very far from their homeland), a non-Western (Aljazeera: relatable because of the Arabic founders of this outlet), and a Lebanese news source (An-Nahar: a completely Lebanese news source,

8

THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE located in Beirut), these universal occurrences are taken into account during designing this original HME research. The Importance of Source Credibility. Early research on source credibility assumed that credibility is a fixed, objective trait of the source (Hovland & Weiss, 1951). In recent research, credibility of a news source has been better understood as a contextual, subjective assessment of the audience (Feldman, 2011). Audience perception of credibility is considered as the fundamental factor determining the success of a given news outlet. News consumers who consider news outlets more rather than less credible, tend to rely on those media, and such reliance can lead to greater exposure to mass media (Wanta & Hu, 1994). As mentioned in the previous paragraph, the HME rests on the basic idea that people tend to perceive neutral stimuli as biased against their own position (Vallone et al., 1985). In this experimental study, we also consider the conceptualization of HME by scholars Hartmann & Tanis (2013), Matheson & Dursum (2001) and Reid (2012). These scholars define the HME as an intergroup phenomenon, because someone’s “own” position is not held in isolation but in relation to salient group affiliations. Specifically, the hostile media effect is assumed to be a form of intergroup bias in which people evaluate their (salient) ingroups more positively than the associated outgroups (Lee et al., 2018). This perception assumes that HME can be contingent upon whether a news story comes from a source representing one’s ingroup or outgroup. When people are exposed to news content that clearly signals group affiliation, their group identity becomes salient. As a result, they might perceive and evaluate content through the vision of their group identity (Reid, 2012). In short, audience members tend to believe that news content is unbiased (or less biased) when they believe that the media are an ingroup source. However, when they believe that news content is from a media that is an outgroup source, they tend to be more biased (Ariyanto et al., 2007; Arpan & Raney, 2003; Coe et al., 2008). I hypothesized the following:

H1: Perceived hostile will be greater towards a Western source that reports about Hezbollah, than towards a non-Western news media source that reports about Hezbollah H2: Perceived hostile media bias will be greater towards a Western news media source that reports about Hezbollah, than towards a Lebanese news media source that reports about Hezbollah

9

THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

H3: Perceived hostile media bias will be greater towards a non-Western news media source that reports about Hezbollah, than towards a Lebanese news media source that reports about Hezbollah

The Importance of Political Ideology. In this study, political ideology refers to involvement with the topic of the news article; more specifically participants’ degree of identification with the Lebanese political party Hezbollah. An ideology can be defined as “the shared framework of mental models that groups of individuals possess that provide both an interpretation of the environment and a prescription as how that environment should be structured” (Parsons, 1951, p.24). Jost, Federico and Napier (2009) summarize political ideology as a set of beliefs about the proper order of society and how it can be achieved. The concept political ideology, which can be associated with the term ‘state of partisanship’ appeared to be a frequent moderator for the hostile media effect in previous studies. In this case, the ‘state of partisanship’ can be described as the level of affiliation or connection someone feels towards the norms and values of a certain political ideology (Arpan & Raney, 2003; Christen et al., 2002; Dalton, Beck & Huckfeldt, 1998; Eveland et al., 2003; Feldman, 2011; Gunther & Liebhart, 2006; Gunther et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2018; Morris, 2007; Mutz, 2001; Reid, 2012; Valone et al., 1985). For instance, the study of Dalton et al., (1998) found that both Republicans and Democrats tend to perceive that media and reporters are biased against their own opinion, and the source of the news influences these perceptions. Also, the study from Kim and Billings (2017) found that participants with strong nationalism perceived a news coverage about an international sporting event as more hostile than those with weak feelings of nationalism. Further, the impact of strength of nationalism on HME was amplified when the news was reported in a foreign newspaper as opposed to a domestic newspaper. These findings suggest that the HME will be stronger for Lebanese participants who share a political ideology in line with Hezbollah. As Hezbollah–considered an organization that engaged in the Lebanese parliamentary election and nowadays has its representative ministers in the cabinet (El Zein & Abusalem, 2016)–represents the Lebanese population with a more nationalistic political ideology, political ideology is expected to moderate the relationship between news source and hostile media effect. Accordingly, we hypothesized:

10

THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

H4: The effect of H1 is moderated by political ideology, such that the positive effect of a Western news media source on hostile media bias (as compared to a non-Western news media source) will be greater for participants who are more supportive of Hezbollah than those who are not H5: The effect of H2 is moderated by political ideology, such that the positive effect of a Western news media source on hostile media bias (as compared to a Lebanese news media source) will be greater for participants who are more supportive of Hezbollah than those who are not H6: The effect of H3 is moderated by political ideology, such that the positive effect of a non-Western news media source on hostile media bias (as compared to a Lebanese news media source) will be greater for participants who are more supportive of Hezbollah than those who are not

The Importance of Political Engagement. Political engagement is also assumed to affect the relationship between news source and hostile media effect. Political engagement is similar to political participation, however, it also includes variables such as political interest and political knowledge (or the motivation to increase political knowledge). According to Zaller (1990), someone who is highly engaged knows the major political figures and their policy positions, understands the norms that govern the political system, and keeps current on new political developments. Zaller states that “citizens who are more politically aware are more likely to develop stable attitudes on major issues, to align their attitudes on the conventional liberal-conservative continuum, and to coordinate their issue preferences with their party attachments and voting decisions” (Zaller, 1990, p.135). Political engagement is reflected through different behaviours; besides taking part in formal electoral actions, such as voting, it also includes non-electoral political behaviors such as joining a demonstration. Additionally, since the Internet has become an important political arena, political engagement also involves political activity online, such as commenting on or sharing of a political post (Moy & Hussain, 2011; de Vreese & Boomgaarden, 2006). Zaller (1990) also implies that someone who is more politically aware will be more likely to express opinions and more likely to be stable in their attitude reports. In these particular senses, a more-aware person should have more crystallized attitudes. When a person is strongly engaged in politics and supports a certain ideology, it is expected this person is more skeptical towards

11

THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE opposing parties with a different ideology than their own. Also, as mentioned in the introduction, individuals tend to favor information from a source that reinforces their pre-existing views while avoiding contradictory information (Vallone et al., 1985). Because Hezbollah’s nationalistic ideology (Harik, 2005), which includes a strong believe that Israel should not be recognized as a state, is not in line with the democratic ideologies of the West, the following hypotheses were formulated:

H7: The effect of H1 is moderated by political engagement, such that the positive effect of a Western news media source on the hostile media bias (as compared to a non-Western news media source) will be stronger among those heavily involved in politics than among those not heavily involved in politics. H8: The effect of H2 is moderated by political engagement, such that the positive effect of a Western news media source on the hostile media bias (as compared to a Lebanese news media source) will be stronger among those heavily involved in politics than among those not heavily involved in politics. H9: The effect of H3 is moderated by political engagement, such that the positive effect of a non-Western news media source on hostile media bias (as compared to a Lebanese news media source) will be stronger among those heavily involved in politics than among those not heavily involved in politics.

Method Research Design This study employed an online experiment that had a one-way between-subjects design with the independent variable news source and dependent variable hostile media effect. This factor consisted of three conditions: (1) CNN (Western), (2) Aljazeera (non-Western), and (3) An- Nahar (local Lebanese). CNN was chosen because of its large coverage of universal humanitarian crises from a western perspective, and indirect power it has when it comes to foreign policy making (Robinson, 1999). Aljazeera was chosen to represent the non-Western category, because this outlet was founded with the aim to counter the Western viewpoint of Arabs and Arabic culture by media outlets such as CNN an BBC (Seib, 2005). An-Nahar was chosen to represent the third category. This news source is a leading Arabic-language daily newspaper published in Lebanon, which was launched for the first time on the 4th of August,

12

THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

1933 (Kraidy, 2011). The moderating variables were political engagement (continuous) and political ideology (categorical: Hezbollah supporters and Hezbollah opponents). The web-based experiment was conducted between January 24th and February 8th, 2019.

Figure 1. Relationship between news source condition and hostile media effect dependent on the moderating effects of political ideology and political engagement.

Participants The survey was undertaken by 371 participants, however 196 participants did not complete the questionnaire and were therefore removed. Another 15 participants had to be removed from the dataset because they failed the manipulation check. No participants failed the attention check. Furthermore, participants were required to speak English at a sufficient level and be at least eighteen years old. In total, 159 participants remained, of which 44.3% were female. Age ranged from 18 to 59, with a mean age of 27.42 (SD = 8.52). Furthermore, 84.2% of participants have lived in Lebanon for their entire/most of their lives.

Procedure Because of limited financial resources, a combination of a convenience sample and snowball sampling was used, despite its limitations regarding generalisation. The survey was disseminated to Lebanese civilians via social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn, whereby other Lebanese people were asked to share it as well.

13

THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

First, participants had to answer various demographic questions and questions about their media consumption. Next, they were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions. Each participant had to read an identical news article attributed to one of the 3 different news sources. The source of the news article was either from (1) CNN, (2) Aljazeera, or (3) An-Nahar. Random assignment was successful, as randomization checks showed that there were no significant differences between the three groups, regarding age: F(2, 154) = 0.79 p = .454, partial η2 = .01, gender: χ2(2) = 3.06, p = .22, φ = .14, time spent in Lebanon: χ2(8) = 5.89, p = .620, φ = .19. average media use frequency: F(2, 156) = 2.25, p = .109, partial η2 = .03, and average media trust: F(2, 156) = .91, p = .407, partial η2 = .01. Lastly, participants were asked about their political engagement and political ideology. Regarding their media consumption, most participants reported that they daily receive their news from news websites (47.8%) or talking to friends, family or co-workers (50.3%). Less frequent (less than once a month or never) they use media resources such as print newspapers (76.7%) or radio (56.6%). The top three most used news resources were social media (47.8%), news websites (28.3%), and TV (13.8%). Moreover, regarding participants’ trust in media resources, participants reported having the most trust in print newspapers (M = 3.16), whereas they reported having the least trust in social media (M = 2.74).

Stimulus materials The news article in all three conditions (new sources: CNN, Aljazeera and An-Nahar) covered the same content and topic. It was adapted from an original article published by CNN on December 8th, 2018. The title: ‘Israel says army uncovered second Hezbollah tunnel during operation’ stayed completely intact; only a CNN, An-Nahar, or Aljazeera logo was added next to the title of the article. Furthermore, the names of the news reporters, source references, and lay- out including font and style differed between the three conditions (see Appendix I). Advertisements and pictures from the original article were removed. The article reported about Hezbollah tunnels that were discovered during an Israeli operation. The article was written in a neutral tone, not controversial. In order to make sure the article was not perceived as too biased against or in favor of Hezbollah, the opinion of the researcher’s Lebanese contacts was asked in advance. The news source was manipulated between the three conditions. As a manipulation check for source recognition, participants were asked if they remembered which news source had published the article. Furthermore, to check

14

THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE whether the participants had actually read the news article, an attention check was included by asking participants’ whether they remembered the topic of the news article.

Measures Political engagement. First, in order to measure the moderating variable of political engagement, participants were asked to rate to what extent they were interested in politics. This was measured on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (very interested) to 5 (not interested at all). Next, participants were asked about the number of elections they had voted in, which was again measured on a 5-point Likert scale, consisting of the answer options 1 = all of them, 2 = some of them, 3 = one of them, 4 = never voted in any of them =, and 5 = I am not allowed to vote. Afterwards, they were asked to rate to what extent they had participated in the following three political activities: (1) contributing money to a political party, (2) taking part in a or demonstration, (3) persuading others to vote for a certain candidate. Answers were measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (yes, very often) to 5 (no, never). In order to not confuse the participants, the numbers were not visible: they had to pick from an answer options that was written out completely. Lastly, participants were asked if they had ever worked for a political party or candidate, with answers ranging from 1 (yes, I’m currently working for one) to 5 (no, never). These six indicators were found to be internally consistent (α = .71). Next, they were averaged to form a final political engagement index. All the questions to measure political engagement were inspired by the study of Eveland and Shah (2003), but tailored to the topic of this study. Political ideology. In order to measure participants’ political ideology, they were asked to indicate their position regarding several aspects of Hezbollah’s activities. These questions were adopted from Haddad (2006). The ideology has been reduced to opinions about Hezbollah instead of political ideology in general, because Hezbollah was covered in the news article. Responses were measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly positive) to 7 (strongly negative). The first item was designed to express respondents’ overall level of support for the party. The next four operational items pertained to their support regarding (1) Hezbollah militants’ use of violence against the state, (2) Hezbollah’s desire to confront people who do not support their ideology, and (4) Hezbollah’s participation in the Syrian civil war.

15

THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

These five indicators were also found to be internally consistent (α = .86). Next, they were summed and averaged to form a total political ideology index score in which a lower score indicated a more positive attitude Hezbollah’s activities. Hostile Media Effect. After reading the news article, participants were asked to answer three questions that examined perceptions of bias in the article against Hezbollah. Previous research into the HME was used to develop questions, now tailored to the topic of this study (e.g., Arpan & Raney, 2003; Kim, 2016). Three items examined participants’ perception of bias against Hezbollah: (1) the overall portrayal of the news article was biased against/in favour of Hezbollah, (2) the news reporter was biased against/in favour of Hezbollah, and (3) the news organization behind the article was biased against/in favour of Hezbollah. Responses were measured on a 7- point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly biased against Hezbollah) to 7 (strongly in favour of Hezbollah). The three indicators were found to be internally consistent (α = .82). Next, they were combined and averaged to create a final hostile media effect score, in which a lower score indicates participants perceived the article as greater biased against Hezbollah. All questionnaires can be found in the Appendix.

Data Analysis Prior to conducting analyses for the formulated hypotheses, the assumptions of linearity, independence of observations, normality of estimation error and homogeneity of variances were tested. Next, to test the hypothesis a one-way ANOVAs was conducted that examined whether participants who were presented with different news sources differed from each other in perceived hostile media bias against Hezbollah. Next, to test the following hypotheses, several moderation models, using template Model 1 (simple moderation) in PROCESS, were conducted to test whether the relationship between news sources (CNN vs. An-Nahar, CNN vs. Aljazeera, An-Nahar vs. Aljazeera) and hostile media effect was moderated by political ideology or political engagement, such that hostile media bias would be greater for participants with more support for Hezbollah/were more politically engaged.

Results Table 1 showes the correlations and descriptive statistics for the key variables in this study.

16

THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

First, assumptions were checked and results showed that the residuals of the hostile media effect variable were normally distributed, with skewness 0.22 (SE = 0.19), and kurtosis 0.58 (SE = .383), and a non-significant Shapiro Wilks test, W(159) = .99, p = .157. Levene’s test indicated an equality of variances for the hostile media effect variable across the news sources: CNN and An-Nahar (F = .02, p = .094), CNN and Aljazeera (F = 3.45, p = .07), and An-Nahar and Aljazeera (F = 2.64, p = .107). In other words, there were no significant differences in variances across the three groups; they are homogeneous. Next, a one-way between subject ANOVA was conducted to examine the effect of news source on perceived hostile media effect for the CNN, An-Nahar, and Aljazeera news source conditions. There was a marginally significant effect of news source on hostile media effect, F(2,156) = 2.89, p = .058, η2 =.036. Post hoc comparisons using Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean perceived hostile media bias against Hezbollah score for the CNN news source condition (M = 2.80, SD = 0.98) was significantly different than the An-Nahar news source condition (M = 3.33, SD = 1.06), p = .045 However, the Aljazeera news source condition (M = 3.06, SD = 0.98) did not significantly differ from the CNN news source condition (p = .450) and the An-Nahar news source condition (p = .447). Taken together, participants who were presented the CNN news source perceived more bias against Hezbollah than participants who were presented the An-Nahar news source. Results do suggest that participants’ hostile media bias was smallest after viewing the Aljazeera news article as compared to the CNN news article and the An-Nahar news article, but these differences were not statistically significant. The following three models examined whether political ideology moderated the relationship between media news source and hostile media effect. A first moderation model was computed to examine the effect of political ideology on the relationship between news source (CNN vs. An-Nahar) and hostile media effect. The overall model was marginally significant, F(3, 101) = 2.48, p = .066, R2 = .07. The main effect of news source was significant, b = 0.53, t(101) = 2.62 , p = .01, whereas the main effect of political ideology was not significant, b = -.00, t(102) = -.03, p = .978. Furthermore, the interaction between news source and political ideology was also not significant, b = .10, t(101) = .63, p = .527. A second moderation model was computed to examine the effect of political ideology on the relationship between news source (CNN vs. Aljazeera) and hostile media effect. The overall model was not significant, F(3, 103) = 89, p = .448, R2 = .03. The main effect of news source was not significant, b = .14, t(103) = 1.21, p = .227, and the main effect of political ideology was not significant, b = .03, t(103) =.41, p = .684. Furthermore, the interaction between news source and political ideology was also not significant, b = .08, t(103) = 1.08, p = .283.

18

THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

A third moderation model was computed to examine the effect of political ideology on the relationship between news source (An-Nahar vs. Aljazeera) and hostile media effect. The overall model was not significant, F(3, 102) = .80, p = .494, R2 = .02. Neither the main effect of news source, b = -.25, t(102) = -1.09 , p = .280, nor the main effect of political ideology, b = .08, t(102) = .88 , p = .383, was significant. The interaction between news source and political ideology was also not significant, b = -.06, t(102) = .35, p = .731. The following three models examined whether political engagement moderated the relationship between media news source and hostile media effect. A fourth moderation model was computed to examine the effect of political engagement on the relationship between news source (CNN vs. An-Nahar) and hostile media effect. The overall model was marginally significant, F(3, 101) = 2.63, p = .054. The main effect of news source was significant, b = .53, t(101) = 2.65, p = .01. The main effect of political engagement, however, was non-significant, b = -.12, t(101) = -.94, p = .350. The interaction effect between news source and political engagement was also non-significant, b = -.02, t(101) = -.08, p = .933. A fifth moderation model was computed to examine the effect of political engagement on the relationship between news source (CNN vs. Aljazeera) and hostile media effect. The overall model was non-significant, F(3, 103) = .56, p = .645. Both main effects of news source and political engagement were non-significant, b ≤ .13, p ≥ .244. The interaction effect between news source and political engagement was also non-significant, b = .05, t(103) = .33, p = .740. Lastly, a sixth moderation model was computed to examine the effect of political engagement on the relationship between news source (An-Nahar vs. Aljazeera) and hostile media effect. The overall model was non-significant, F(3, 102) = .55, p = .651. Both main effects of news source and political engagement were non-significant, b ≤ -.26, p ≥ .262. The interaction effect between news source and political engagement was also non-significant, b = .11, t(102) = .38, p = .706. Based on the significant correlation between gender and political engagement, differences in political engagement between men and women were investigated in an exploratory manner. A one-way ANOVA showed that men and women statistically differed in political engagement, F(1, 156) = 14.64, p < .001, η2 =.086. Women appeared to score higher on political engagement (M = 3.82, SD = .67) than men (M = 3.35, SD = .85). As a score closer to zero indicated greater political engagement, this indicates that overall, men were more politically engaged than women. Conclusion & Discussion The present study was designed to investigate the hostile media effect in a more global perspective. The main goal of this experimental research was to answer the question: Do foreign

19

THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE news sources (versus domestic news sources) behind a news article prompt hostile media perceptions, and is this effect moderated by political ideology and political engagement? Returning to the hypotheses posed at the theoretical section of this study, it is now possible to state that as predicted, the HME bias against Hezbollah was greater for participants who were presented the Western news article than participants who were presented the Lebanese news article, regardless participants political partisanship. Therefore, this study supports previous research about the source as an important predictor for the HME and extends our knowledge of the HME in a global perspective (Arceneaux, 2012; Christen et al, 2002; Arpan & Raney, 2003; Giner-Sorolla & Chaiken, 1994; Lee, Kim & Coe, 2018; Eveland & Shah, 2003; Gunther & Liebhart, 2006; Gunther & Schmitt, 2004; Gunther et al., 2009; 2016, Vallone et al., 1985; Reid, 2012; Lee, 2018). However, the study did not find any substantial differences between participants presented the Western news source and those presented the non-Western news source, or between participants presented the Lebanese news source and those presented the Aljazeera Non-Western news source. Furthermore, the results did not show the expected moderating effect of political ideology (Hezbollah supporter vs. Hezbollah opponent) on the relationship between news source and HME. Regarding the moderator political engagement on the HME, also no meaningful findings were found. The moderation considering political ideology was expected because of the fact Hezbollah’s ideology and their media discourse aims to mobilize the followers in Lebanon and the supporters in the Arab and Muslim Worlds against Israel (El Zein & Abusalem, 2016). Since Israel was part of the topic of the news article, the non- significant outcomes of this analyses are eye-opening. Also because Hezbollah has been on the US State Department’s list of terrorist groups since the 1980s, which puts Hezbollah supporters into a difficult position and enhances their negativity towards an American news outlet such as CNN (Harik, 2005), this non-significant result was unexpected. One potential reason for the outcome might be the small group of pro-Hezbollah participants in this study and how they were found, which leads into the first limitation regarding the sampling method of this study. The findings in this report are subject to some limitations and need to be acknowledged. Firstly, a convenience sample was used. Especially regarding generalization of the results, convenience sampling is not the most suitable way to obtain a representative sample (Etikan et al., 2016). The survey was undertaken by 371 participants, of whom 212 participants did not complete the questionnaire or failed the requirements and were therefore removed. Moreover, because of the snowballing method, most participants were students of the American University in Beirut, as well as their relatives. Since Beirut appears to be more liberal compared to the more conservative south and western parts of Lebanon (Salamey, 2013), more participants

20

THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE ended up being opponents of Hezbollah. In further research, it would be interesting to focus more in dept on the attitude towards the Western world of pro-Hezbollah participants in order to understand their personal perception and ideology, regardless Hezbollah’s overall political ideology. The sample size and characteristics of the participants in this study might support the finding why this pro-Hezbollah sample showed less HME towards the CNN article even though the opposite was expected. In addition, the sample consisted participants who were able to understand English and were therefore already an exceptional group of the Lebanese population. Further experimental investigations such as this study should be executed in Arabic, because this might motivate non-English speakers and more conventional Lebanese people to take part as well. This may also motivate the older generation to participate and benefit to the average age of the participants in this study, because the average age in this study was relatively young (Mean age = 27.4). Another limitation can be found in the fact that no control group was used in this experimental design. This could have been an interesting addition to the study, because it rules out other factors which may have influenced the final results of this experiment. For instance, by adding another category in which the name of the news source would not be visible at all, followed by some questions about participants opinion and perceptions of the article, the influence of the content in itself could be measured and taken into account as well. However, due to limited access to enough participants, it was decided not to add another fourth category or a pre-experiment (Gravetter & Forzano, 2018). Notwithstanding these limitations, the study does provide interesting knowledge, which can serve as a base for future studies on this topic. Altogether, this research found proof for the existence of a hostile media effect between a Western and a domestic news source. The current findings add to a growing body of literature in the field of political communication. Furthermore, they enhance our understanding of the importance of examining the hostile media effect in this fragmented, dynamic and constantly changing universal media landscape of the 21st century (Stromback, 2008; Prior, 2013; Van Leuven & Berglez, 2015). The results of this experiment support the fact that polarization and fragmentation on a universal level is happening. We -as political communication researchers- should be aware of these changes in the media landscape since these developments might rather harm than benefit democracy.

21

THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

References Amin, H. (2002). Freedom as a value in Arab media: Perceptions and attitudes among journalists. Political Communication, 19(2), 125-135. DOI:10.1080/10584600252907407 Amin, H. Y., & Boyd, D. A. (1993). The impact of the home video cassette recorder on Egyptian film and television consumption patterns. Communications, 18(1), 77-88. DOI:10.1515/comm.1993.18.1.77 Ariyanto, A., Hornsey, M. J., & Gallois, C. (2007). Group allegiances and perceptions of media bias: Taking into account both the perceiver and the source. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(2), 266-279.DOI:10.1177/1368430207074733 Arceneaux, K., Johnson, M., & Murphy, C. (2012). Polarized political communication, oppositional media hostility, and selective exposure. The Journal of Politics, 74(1), 174-186. DOI:10.1017/s002238161100123x Arpan, L. M., & Raney, A. A. (2003). An experimental investigation of news source and the hostile media effect. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(2), 265–281. DOI:10.1177/107769900308000203 Bauer, R. A. (1973). The audience. In: I. S. Pool & W. Schramm (Eds.), Handbook of communication (pp. 141-152). Chicago: Rand McNally. Brady, H. E., Verba, S., & Schlozman, K. L. (1995). Beyond SES: A resource model of political participation. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 271-294. DOI:10.2307/2082425 Cambridge Dictionary (2018). ‘Hostile’ meaning. Retrieved November 9th, 2018, from: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hostile Christen, C. T., Kannaovakun, P., & Gunther, A. C. (2002). Hostile media perceptions- Partisan assessments of press and public during the 1997 United Parcel Service strike. Political Communication, 19(4), 423-436. DOI:10.1080/10584600290109988 Coe, K., Tewksbury, D., Bond, B. J., Drogos, K. L., Porter, R. W., Yahn, A., & Zhang, Y. (2008). Hostile news: Partisan use and perceptions of cable news programming. Journal of Communication, 58(2), 201-219. DOI:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00381.x D'Alessio, D., & Allen, M. (2000). Media bias in presidential elections: A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 50(4), 133-156. DOI:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02866.x Dalton, R. J., Beck, P. A., & Huckfeldt, R. (1998). Partisan cues and the media: Information flows in the 1992 presidential election. American Political Science Review, 92(1), 111- 126. DOI:10.2307/2585932 Della Vigna, S., & Kaplan, E. (2007). The Fox News effect: Media bias and voting. The

22

THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1187-1234. DOI:10.1162/qjec.122.3.1187 Duck, J. M., Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1998). Perceptions of a media campaign: The role of social identity and the changing intergroup context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(1), 3-16. DOI:10.1177/0146167298241001 El Zein, H., & Abusalem, A. (2016). Mobilisation in Hezbollah’s military arm media discourse: creating and maintaining a public sphere in Lebanon, in D. Dejica & M. Cernicova-Buca (Eds.), Professional Communication and Translational Studies: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference, 26-27 March 2015. Timisoara, Romania. Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American journal of theoretical and applied statistics, 5(1), 1-4.

DOI: 10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11 Eveland Jr, W. P., & Shah, D. V. (2003). The impact of individual and interpersonal factors on perceived news media bias. Political Psychology, 24(1), 101-117. DOI:10.1111/0162-895X.00318 Feldman, L. (2011). Partisan differences in opinionated news perceptions: A test of the hostile media effect. Political Behavior, 33(3), 407-432. DOI:10.1007/s11109-010-9139-4 Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. K. (2017). Are news audiences increasingly fragmented? a cross- national comparative analysis of cross-platform news audience fragmentation and duplication. Journal of Communication, 67(4), 476-498. DOI:10.1111/jcom.12315 Gibson, R., & Cantijoch, M. (2013). Conceptualizing and measuring participation in the age of the internet: Is online political engagement really different to offline? The Journal of Politics, 75(3), 701-716. DOI:10.1017/S0022381613000431 Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chaiken, S. (1994). The causes of hostile media judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30(2), 165-180. DOI:10.1006/jesp.1994.1008 Groseclose, T., & Milyo, J. (2005). A measure of media bias. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(4), 1191-1237. DOI:10.1162/003355305775097542 Gravetter, F. J., & Forzano, L. A. B. (2018). Research methods for the behavioral sciences. Cengage Learning.

Gunther, A. C. (1992). Biased press or biased public? Attitudes toward media coverage of social groups. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56(2), 147-167. DOI:10.1086/269308 Gunther, A. C., & Chia, S. C. Y. (2001). Predicting pluralistic ignorance: The hostile media perception and its consequences. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(4),

23

THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

688-701. DOI:10.1177/107769900107800405 Gunther, A. C., & Liebhart, J. L. (2006). Broad reach or biased source? Decomposing the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 56(3), 449-466. DOI:10.1111/j.1460- 2466.2006.00295.x Gunther, A. C., & Schmitt, K. (2004). Mapping boundaries of the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 54(1), 55-70. DOI:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02613.x Gunther, A. C., McLaughlin, B., Gotlieb, M. R., & Wise, D. (2016). Who says what to whom- Content versus source in the hostile media effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research,29(3), 363-383. DOI:10.1093/ijpor/edw009 Gunther, A. C., Miller, N., & Liebhart, J. L. (2009). Assimilation and contrast in a test of the hostile media effect. Communication Research, 36(6), 747-764. DOI:10.1177/0093650209346804 Hamilton, J. (2004). All the news that's fit to sell: How the market transforms information into news. Princeton, NJ: Press. Harik, J. P. (2005). Hezbollah: The changing face of terrorism. Ib Tauris. Hafez, K. (2011). Global journalism for global governance? Theoretical visions, practical constraints. Journalism, 12(4), 483-496. DOI: 10.1177/1464884911398325 Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [white paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), 635-650. DOI:10.1086/266350 Hansen, G. J., & Kim, H. (2011). Is the media biased against me? A meta-analysis of the hostile media effect research. Communication Research Reports, 28(2), 169-179. DOI:10.1080/08824096.2011.565280 Hjarvard, S. (2008). The mediatization of society. Nordicom review, 29(2), 102-131. DOI:10.1515/nor-2017-0181 Ibrahim, D. (2003). Individual perceptions of international correspondents in the Middle East: An obstacle to fair news?. Gazette (Leiden, Netherlands), 65(1), 87-101. DOI:10.1177/0016549203065001141 Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307-337. DOI:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163600 Kim, M. (2016). The role of partisan sources and audiences' involvement in bias

24

THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

perceptions of controversial news. Media Psychology, 19(2), 203-223. DOI:10.1080/15213269.2014.1002941 Kim, Y., & Billings, A. C. (2017). A hostile sports media? Perceived nationalism bias in online sports coverage. Electronic News, 11(4), 195-210. DOI:10.1177/1931243117701524 Kalb, M., & Saivetz, C. (2007). The Israeli—Hezbollah war of 2006: The media as a weapon in asymmetrical conflict. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 12(3), 43- 66. DOI:10.1177/1081180X07303934 Kraidy, M. M. (2011). The rise of transnational media systems. Comparing media systems beyond the Western world, 177-200. Lasswell, H. D. (1927). technique in the world war (p. 2). Cambridge, MA: MIT press. DOI:10.1037/h0065150 Lee, T. T. (2005). The liberal media myth revisited: An examination of factors influencing perceptions of media bias. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49(1), 43-64. DOI:10.1207/s15506878jobem4901_4 Lee, T. K., Kim, Y., & Coe, K. (2018). When social media become hostile media: An experimental examination of news sharing, partisanship, and follower count. Mass Communication and Society, 21(4) 1-23. DOI:10.1080/15205436.2018.1429635 Morris, J. S. (2007). Slanted objectivity? Perceived media bias, cable news exposure, and political attitudes. Social Science Quarterly, 88(3), 707-728. DOI:10.1111/j.1540- 6237.2007.00479.x Moy, P. & Hussain, M.M. (2011). Media Influences on Political Trust and Engagement. In G. Edwards, L. Jacobs & R. Shapiro (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of American Public Opinion and the Media (220-235). Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199545636.003.0014 Mutz, D. C. (2001). Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 97-114. Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. The Free Press, Glencoe, 101, 5-6. DOI:10.2307/2572350 Perloff, R. M. (1989). Ego-involvement and the third person effect of televised news coverage. Communication Research, 16(2), 236-262. DOI:10.1177/009365089016002004 Prior, M. (2013). Media and political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 101-127. DOI:10.1146/annurev-polisci-100711-135242

25

THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades' evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243-281. DOI:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x Ranjan, P. (2015). Edward Said’s ‘Orientalism’: A Post-Colonial Culture Study. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 20(9), 85-88. Reid, S. A. (2012). A self-categorization explanation for the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 62(3), 381-399. DOI:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01647.x Robinson, P. (1999). The CNN effect: can the news media drive foreign policy?. Review of international studies, 25(2), 301-309. Salamey, I. (2013). The government and politics of Lebanon. Routledge. Said, E.W. (1979). Orientalism. Vintage. Said, E. W. (1985). Orientalism reconsidered. Race & Class, 27(2), 1-15. DOI:10.1177/030639688502700201 Schmitt, K. M., Gunther, A. C., & Liebhart, J. L. (2004). Why partisans see mass media as biased. Communication Research, 31(6), 623-641. DOI:10.1177/0093650204269390 Schulz, W. (2004). Reconstructing mediatization as an analytical concept. European Journal of Communication, 19(1), 87-101. DOI:10.1177/0267323104040696 Seib, P. (2005). Hegemonic no more: Western media, the rise of Al‐Jazeera, and the influence of diverse voices. International studies review, 7(4), 601-615. Simon Haddad (2006) The origins of popular support for Lebanon's Hezbollah, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 29(1), 21-34. DOI:10.1080/10576100500351250 Stolle, D., Hooghe, M., & Micheletti, M. (2005). Politics in the supermarket: Political as a form of political participation. International Political Science Review, 26(3), 245-269. DOI:10.1177/0192512105053784 Skovsgaard, M., Albæk, E., Bro, P., & de Vreese, C. (2013). A reality check: How journalists’ role perceptions impact their implementation of the objectivity norm. Journalism, 14(1), 22-42. DOI:10.1177/1464884912442286 Strömbäck, J. (2005). In search of a standard: Four models of democracy and their normative implications for journalism. Journalism Studies, 6(3), 331-345. DOI:10.1080/14616700500131950 Suleiman, Y. (2003). The Arabic language and national identity. Edinburgh University Press. Van Leuven, S., & Berglez, P. (2016). Global journalism between dream and reality: A

26

THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

comparative study of The Times, Le Monde and De Standaard. Journalism Studies, 17(6), 667-683. DOI:10.1080/1461670X.2015.1017596 De Vreese, C. H., & Boomgaarden, H. (2006). News, political knowledge and participation: The differential effects of news media exposure on political knowledge and participation. Acta Politica, 41(4), 317-341. DOI:10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500164 Vallone, R. P., Ross, L., & 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. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.577 Wanta, W., & Hu, Y. W. (1994). The effects of credibility, reliance, and exposure on media agenda-setting: A path analysis model. Journalism Quarterly, 71(1), 90-98. DOI:10.1177/107769909407100109 Watts, M. D., Domke, D., Shah, D. V., & 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. DOI:10.1177/009365099026002003 Westerstahl, J. (1983). Objective news reporting : General premises. Communication Research, 10(3), 403–424. DOI:10.1177/009365083010003007 Zaller, J. (1990). Political awareness, elite opinion leadership, and the mass survey response. Social Cognition, 8(1), 125-153. DOI:10.1521/soco.1990.8.1.125

Table 2 Items Measuring Political Engagement (α = .71) Item M SD 1. To what extent are you interested in politics? 2.52 1.31 2. Thinking about the national elections since you were old enough to vote, 3.16 1.30 how many elections have you voted in? 3. Did you ever contribute money – to an individual candidate, a party group, a 4.73 0.74 political action group, or any other organization that supported candidates? 4. Have you ever taken part in a protest, march, or demonstration on some 3.19 1.39

27

THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

national or local issue? 5. Did you ever try to persuade others to vote for a certain candidate or party? 3.50 1.51 6. Did you ever work for a party or political candidate? 4.28 1.24

Table 3 Items Measuring Political Ideology (α = .86) Item M SD 1. In general, my own position toward the party of Hezbollah is... 4.97 1.71 Indicate how positive/negative you feel about the following Hezbollah activities: 2. Hezbollah militants’ use of violence against the state 5.53 1.85 3. Hezbollah’s desire to confront people who do not support their ideology 5.68 1.72 4. Hezbollah’s use of violence during political 5.79 1.69 5. Hezbollah’s participation in the Syrian civil war 5.14 2.01

28

THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

Table 4 Items Measuring Hostile Media Effect (α = .82) Item M SD 1. Would you say that the portrayal of Hezbollah in this news article was strictly 3.06 1.35 neutral, or was it biased in favour of one side or the other? 2. Would you say that the reporter who wrote the story is strictly neutral, or is the 3.20 1.21 reporter biased in favour of or against Hezbollah? 3. Would you say that the news organization responsible for this article is strictly 2.92 1.43 neutral, or is it biased in favour of or against Hezbollah?

Table 5 Total Means and Standard Deviations of Key Variables per Stimulus Condition

Condition: CNNa An-Naharb Aljazeerac

M SD M SD M SD

1. Political engagement 3.56 (.86) 3.55 (.79) 3.58 (.79)

2. Political ideology 5.65 (1.59) 5.36 (1.19) 5.20 (1.55)

3. Hostile media effect 2.80 (.98) 3.33 (1.06) 3.06 (1.31)

Notes: aN = 53 (33♂, 20♀). bN = 52 (30♂, 21♀, 1 missing). cN = 54 (25♂, 29♀).

29

THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

Appendix I: News source stimuli

30

THE HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

31