Loud and Clear: Effects of Homogenous and Extreme Partisan Media Diets Douglas M. Allen and Devra C. Moehler The Annenberg School for Communication University of Pennsylvania [Please do not cite or circulate without permission from the authors] This version: August 20, 2013 Keywords: Public Opinion; Media Effects (Other); Political Psychology; Participation; Quantitative - Survey The explosion of cable television and talk radio programming allows individuals to selectively consume opinionated media from only one side of the political spectrum. Observers worry that media fragmentation along partisan lines polarizes the citizenry. However, unbalanced media consumption may also mobilize individuals to participate in the electoral process. We test the effects of exposure to 73 news and entertainment programs on individuals’ issue polarization and campaign participation using the 2008 National Annenberg Election Survey. We construct a measure of the homogeneity and ideological extremity of a person’s total media diet. Within- subjects and matching analyses indicate that lopsided partisan media diets increase campaign participation, but not polarization. Consumption of loud and clear partisan programming may enhance participatory democracy without sacrificing deliberative democracy. Abstract: 122 words Manuscript: 8415 words Acknowledgements: We are deeply indebted to the guidance and thoughtful feedback provided by Susanna Dilliplane, Ted Brader, Matt Levendusky, Marc Meredith, and Andrew Therriault. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Douglas Allen, Annenberg School for Communication, 3620 Walnut St., Philadelphia, PA, 19104. E-mail: [email protected] LOUD AND CLEAR: EFFECTS OF PARTISAN MEDIA 1 The recent proliferation of media sources provides individuals with more choice than ever before. Increased competition for audiences motivates targeted entertainment programs and partisan news shows that eschew journalistic norms of “objectivity” and balanced reporting in favor of opinionated commentary by openly partisan hosts (Groseclose & Milyo 2005; Mullainathan & Shleifer 2005). These changes in the information environment allow citizens to select a media diet that contains more ideologically homogenous and extreme programming than was possible when more temperate network channels dominated the airwaves. However, selective exposure to likeminded news programming remains uneven and incomplete. Audience ratings show that network news programs still attract much larger audiences than even the most popular cable news shows (Arceneaux & Johnson 2008; Johnson & Arceneaux 2011; Webster 2005), and many cable news consumers report that they watch programming that ostensibly conflicts with their political views.i Nonetheless, a growing body of evidence indicates that a sizeable portion of the population now chooses to consume only biased programming that is compatible with their political views (Iyengar & Hahn 2009; Iyengar, Hahn, Krosnick, & Walker 2008; Levendusky 2012; Stroud 2011; Yanovitzky & Cappella 2001). How does the availability of strident partisan media programming affect citizen attitudes and behaviors? Many observers are concerned that media fragmentation along partisan lines polarizes the citizenry and threatens the democratic system (for example: DellaVigna & Kaplan 2007; Dilliplane 2011; Holbert, Garrett, & Gleason 2010; Jamieson & Cappella 2008; Johnson & Arceneaux 2011; Levendusky 2012; Mutz 2008; Prior 2007; Stroud 2011; Sunstein 2009; Bruce A. Williams & Delli Carpini 2011; Yanovitzky & Cappella 2001). This fear stems from the expectation that exposure to one-sided and zealous media programming increases ideological extremism and balkanizes the population into segregated enclaves. Yet some scholars take a LOUD AND CLEAR: EFFECTS OF PARTISAN MEDIA 2 more optimistic perspective on the implications of media fragmentation for democracy. They argue that exposure to more unified and outspoken partisan views in the media may mobilize citizens to engage in the political process, whereas exposure to more balanced or diverse perspectives may discourage participation (DellaVigna & Kaplan 2007; Dilliplane 2011; Jamieson & Cappella 2008; Nir & Druckman 2008; Stroud 2006, 2007). In this article, we focus on two outcomes thought to be related to consumption of homogenous and extreme partisan programming that are representative of the negative and positive normative implications of partisan media, respectively: (1) issue polarization and (2) participation in campaign activities. The effect of selectively partisan media consumption can only be determined if we have a comprehensive measure of media consumed by each individual. This article contributes to the existing literature by developing a holistic indicator of the homogeneity and extremity of a media diet. Existing research on partisan media tests the independent effects of exposure to a partisan message or media segment,ii a single program or network,iii or a category of partisan media.iv Yet we know that most Americans consume a mix of programming, with varying degrees of bias, sometimes from opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. The net effect of media consumption may depend on the combination of programs consumed. We use public opinion data from the 2008 National Annenberg Election Survey (NAES) to develop a single measure of the homogeneity and extremity of each respondent’s media consumption based on audience composition for 73 different television and political talk radio shows included in the survey.v Our fixed-effects and matching analyses show that more ideologically slanted media diets are associated with greater increases in participation over the course of the campaign than balanced media diets. People who choose strongly biased and like-minded media become more involved in the political process than those who hear only muted calls to action from moderate LOUD AND CLEAR: EFFECTS OF PARTISAN MEDIA 3 mainstream broadcasts, or those who receive mixed signals from both sides of the spectrum. We do not find evidence that exposure to strident and unified partisan voices causes greater polarization of attitudes on prominent issues (the Iraq War, immigration, free trade). Our results suggest that one-sided partisan media consumption may mobilize without polarizing. The next section of this article elaborates on the perspectives outlined above to develop hypotheses about the effects of homogenous and extreme media diets on attitudinal polarization and political participation. We then describe our measurement approach, data and research strategy. We present the results from subject fixed-effects regression analyses followed by the results of matching analyses. We conclude with a discussion of key findings from the research. Why Might Partisan Media Polarize Or Mobilize? To develop expectations about the effects of homogeneous as opposed to heterogeneous media diets we first review the literature on likeminded media, given that individuals with lopsided partisan media diets most likely consume media that agrees with their political predispositions. We develop two hypotheses based on research about the effects of likeminded media. We then draw on studies of crosscutting media to help us theorize about the effects of heterogeneous media diets, including both neutral (i.e. internally diverse programming) and partisan (i.e. externally diverse programming) media from both sides. The rather defined predictions derived from the literature on the effects of likeminded media relative to neutral media become much murkier when we consider crosscutting media. Theoretical ambiguity about the effects of heterogeneous media diets motivates the empirical investigation in this article. LOUD AND CLEAR: EFFECTS OF PARTISAN MEDIA 4 Effects of homogenous media diets Theories of motivated reasoning, persuasion and social identity all suggest that exposure to strident like-minded media will polarize citizens, especially in the absence of crosscutting viewpoints. Partisan television and radio programs are explicitly opinionated. They frame, spin, or slant coverage in order to support a particular perspective, highlighting favorable information while discrediting and denigrating alternative views, organizations and personalities (Jamieson & Cappella 2008; Levendusky 2012). Greater exposure to self-reinforcing messages can increase confidence in one’s views, whereas decreased exposure to dissonant information reduces the likelihood that individuals will reconsider and moderate their views (Mutz 2006). Furthermore, repeated exposure to more ideologically extreme perspectives espoused by political or media elites may persuade viewers to adopt more extreme views themselves (Feldman 2011).vi Social identity theory suggests that media consumers may also envision themselves to be part of a community of like-minded media personalities and audience members. Lack of exposure to individuals with differing interests and perspectives may breed distrust and intolerance of out-group members, causing listeners to reject attitudes associated with the out- group in favor of those perceived to be associated with the in-group (e.g. Gutmann & Thompson 1996). This effect may be especially pronounced when the out-group is frequently denigrated and the in-group praised (Levendusky 2012). In sum, given the nature of our changing media environment, there seem to be sound theoretical reasons to be pessimistic about the future of our democracy: the growth of ideologically slanted media is predicted