When Unfamiliarity Breeds Contempt: How Partisan Selective Exposure Sustains Oppositional Media Hostility

Abstract

Partisans hold unfavorable views of media they associate with the other party. They also avoid out-party news sources. We link these developments and argue that, absent direct experience, partisans assess out-party media based off negative and inaccurate stereotypes. This means cross-cutting exposure that challenges these misperceptions can improve assessments of out-party media. To support this argument, we use survey-linked web browsing data to show the public has hostile views of out-party news sources they rarely encounter. We conduct three survey experiments that demonstrate cross-cutting exposure to non-political or neutral political coverage – forms of news widely available from partisan sources online – reduces oppositional media hostility. These findings explain how perceptions of rampant bias from out-party media coexist with modest differences in the online content major partisan news outlets provide. More broadly, we illustrate how negative misperceptions can sustain animus towards an out-group when individuals avoid direct encounters with them.

Partisan selective exposure in online news consumption: evidence from the 2016 presidential campaign

“…Despite significant change in the media environment, our analysis shows news consumption remains dominated by sources dedicated to conventional journalism. On balance, we suspect that the segregation of the online news audience is more the result of beliefs about outlets' partisan leanings rather than changes in the content of campaign news (see e.g., Peterson and Kagalwala, 2019;Stroud et al, 2014).…”

Changes in perceptions of media bias

“…Those beliefs are informed by their partisan predispositions, how much attention they pay to news about politics, partisan messages (or cues) signaling evaluations of media performance, and the electoral process and outcome. Attitudes toward the media change as new information (or considerations) are brought to bear on the attitude in question (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993; Peterson and Kagalwala, forthcoming; Zaller, 1992). In the case of the 2016 presidential election, these new considerations came in the form of a surprising election outcome and the constant drum-beat of media bias claims emanating from the Trump campaign.…”