Political Behavior

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 441–464

The Messenger Overwhelming the Message: Ideological Cues and Perceptions of Bias in Television News

Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Survey research has demonstrated that citizens perceive ideological bias in television news, specifically with regard to CNN and Fox News Channel (FNC), which allegedly represent the liberal and conservative viewpoint, respectively. In this paper I argue that attaching the CNN and FNC labels to news stories sends an ideological cue to the viewer regarding the content of the story. Utilizing an experimental design that allows manipulation of the network attribution of actual FNC and CNN content, I am able to demonstrate that the CNN and FNC labels function as ideological signals to the viewer, with this signal being most pronounced among ideologues whose views are supposedly at odds with those attributed to the network.

Keywords

Television news Ideological bias Heuristics 

References

  1. Alterman, E. (2003). What liberal media? The truth about bias and the news. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, W. L., & Entman, R. (2000). Mediated politics: Communication in the future of democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Carmines, E. G., & Kuklinski, J. (1990). Incentives, opportunities, and the logic of public opinion in American political representation. In J. A. Ferejohn, & J. H. Kuklinski (Eds.), Information and democratic processes. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  4. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in Persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of Persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Oslon, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The ontario symposium 5 (pp. 3–39). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. (1989). Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the Persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman, & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  7. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent, (pp. 206–261). Chicago: Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
  8. Dalton, R. J., Beck, P, & Huckfeldt, R. (1998). Partisan cues and the media: Information flows in the 1992 election. American Political Science Review, 92, 111–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Entman, R. M. (1989). How the media affect what people think: An information processing approach. Journal of Politics, 51, 347–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gitlin, T. (2000). Inside prime time. Berkley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. Goldberg, B. (2001). Bias: A CBS insider exposes how the media distort the news. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Graber, D. (1980). Mass media and American politics. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
  13. Groseclose, T., & Milyo, J. (2005). A measure of media bias. Quarterly Journal of Economics 120, 1191–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hastorf, A., & Cantril, H. (1954). They saw a game: A case study. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 129–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Iyengar, S., Peters, M. D., & Kinder, D. R. (1982). Experimental demonstrations of the ‘Not-So-Minimal’ consequences of television news programs. American Political Science Review 76, 848–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Joslyn, M. R., & Ceccoli, S. (1996). Attentiveness to TV news and opinion change in the fall 1992 election. Political Behavior, 18, 141–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kerlinger, F. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  20. Kuklinski, J. H., & Hurley, N. L. (1994). On hearing and interpreting political messages: A cautionary tale of citizen cue-taking. Journal of Politics, 56, 729–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lau, R. R, & Redlawsk, D. P. (1997). Voting correctly. American Political Science Review, 91, 585–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maitre, H. J. (1994). The tilt to the news: How American journalism has swerved from the ideal of objectivity. In George McKenna, & Stanley. Feingold (Eds.), Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial political issues (9th ed., pp. 58–64). Guilford, Connecticut: Dushkin Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  23. Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 301–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller, M. C. (2002). The Bush dyslexicon: Observations on a national disorder. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
  25. McGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  26. Mondak, J. J. (1993a). Public opinion and heuristic processing of source cues. Political Behavior, 15, 167–187 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mondak, J. J. (1993b). Source cues and policy approval: the cognitive dynamics of public support for the reagan agenda. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 186–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mondak, J. J. (1994). Cognitive heuristics, heuristic processing, and efficiency in political decision making. In M. X. D. Carpini, L. Huddy, & R. Y. Shapiro (Eds.), Research in micropolitics (pp. 117–142). Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press Inc.Google Scholar
  29. Ottati, V. C. (1990). Determinants of political judgments: The joint influence of normative and heuristic rules of inference. Political Behavior, 12, 159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ottati, V. C, & Wyer Jr. R. S. (1990). The cognitive mediators of political choice: toward a comprehensive model of political information processing. In J. A. Freejohn, & J. H. Kuklinski (Eds.), Information and democratic processes (pp. 186–216). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  31. Ottati V., Fishbein, M., & Middlestadt, S. E. (1988). Determinants of voters’ beliefs about the candidates’ stands on issues: the role of evaluative bias heuristics and the candidates’ expressed message. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 517–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of Persuasion. In Leonard B. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 19, 124–181.Google Scholar
  33. Riggle, E. D., Ottati, V. C., Wyer Jr. R. S., Kuklinski, J, & Schwarz, N. (1992). Bases of political judgments: The role of stereotypic and nonstereotypic information. Political Behavior, 14, 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Robinson, M., & Sheehan, M. (1983). Over the wire and on TV. Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  35. Robinson, M. J., & Clancey, M., (1985). Teflon politics. Public Opinion, 17, 14–18.Google Scholar
  36. Sniderman, P. M., Richard, B., & Philip, T. (1991). Reasoning and choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Tversky, A., & Kahneman D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vallone, R. P., Ross, L, & Lepper, M. R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beiruit massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 577–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Walsh, K. C. (2003). Talking about politics: Informal groups and social identity in American life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  40. Weaver, P. H. (1972). Is television news biased? The Public Interest, 26, 57–74.Google Scholar
  41. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceWestern Kentucky UniversityBowling GreenUSA

Personalised recommendations