The second challenges this idea, or at least the notion that it drives polarization in the electorate - very few people are regularly exposed to partisan media, and Congress started polarizing at least a couple decades before the development of partisan cable TV outlets. Partisan viewers are drawn to polarized shows.
Two related posts:
1 - The media make us think we’re more polarized than we really are.
. . . we note that there is reason to suspect that ordinary citizens think the electorate is more divided than it actually is. Work in social psychology finds that humans tend to over-estimate the distinctiveness of rival groups—men and women, blacks and whites, Israelis and Palestinians, and, in our case, Democrats and Republicans. This stems from the underlying psychology of categorization: merely labeling groups makes people see them as more distinctive than they actually are. So when people think about where “Democrats” and “Republicans” stand, they will tend to place Democrats too far to the left, and Republicans too far to the right, which psychologists term “false polarization.”
. . . we find a large degree of false polarization. That is, when we ask subjects about where they think the “average Democratic voter” and “average Republican voter” stand, they think they are further apart than the average Democratic and Republican voters actually are.
We argue that media coverage of the electorate—which tends to emphasize polarization and discord when discussing voters, a finding first noted by Fiorina and co-authors–will exacerbate false polarization. Using a population-based survey experiment, we find exactly this pattern. We randomly assigned some subjects to read media accounts of a polarized electorate and others to read accounts of a more moderate electorate. When subjects are exposed to media coverage suggesting electoral polarization and division, they perceive greater electoral polarization–as measured by where they place typical Republican and Democratic voters on issue scales (readers interested in the details of the analysis can consult our paper). This suggests that media coverage can make people think the U.S. is a politically polarized country even if it is not.
2 - Why you shouldn’t blame polarization on partisan news.
. . . our finding undermines the claim that partisan news media generated congressional polarization: If Fox News is pushing all members to the right, it isn’t polarizing them. In fact, it’s entirely possible that were it not for Fox News in the 1990s, Congress would have reached today’s level of polarization sooner.
Finally, many implicitly assume that partisan news is inherently more polarizing than mainstream news. The idea here is that we are what we consume. Balanced presentations of news moderate political attitudes, while partisan presentations polarize attitudes. It is an intuitive idea but not necessarily an accurate one. People are motivated to defend cherished worldviews, especially in the realm of politics. Many studies illustrate that people are capable of cherry-picking the facts they wish to believe from balanced presentations.
. . . partisan news viewers are more polarized than mainstream news viewers and entertainment program viewers to begin with. People tune into partisan news because they are partisans. Even without partisan news media, these individuals would likely interpret the world through a partisan lens. Those who are most likely to be polarized by exposure to news — mainstream or partisan — tend to watch something else.
The rise of partisan news media is likely a symptom, not a cause, of elite polarization. Partisan media may reinforce partisan strife, but we should look elsewhere for the ultimate cause.
