Political Behavior

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 407–432 | Cite as

Partisan Differences in Opinionated News Perceptions: A Test of the Hostile Media Effect

  • Lauren FeldmanEmail author
Original Paper


The proliferation of opinion and overt partisanship in cable news raises questions about how audiences perceive this content. Of particular interest is whether audiences effectively perceive bias in opinionated news programs, and the extent to which there are partisan differences in these perceptions. Results from a series of three online experiments produce evidence for a relative hostile media phenomenon in the context of opinionated news. Although, overall, audiences perceive more story and host bias in opinionated news than in non-opinionated news, these perceptions—particularly perceptions of the host—vary as a function of partisan agreement with the news content. Specifically, issue partisans appear to have a “bias against bias,” whereby they perceive less bias in opinionated news with which they are predisposed to agree than non-partisans and especially partisans on the other side of the issue.


Cable news Opinionated news Hostile media effect Selective perception Media bias 



Funding for this research was provided by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation as part of the Carnegie-Knight Initiative on the Future of Journalism Education. The author is extremely grateful to Vincent Price, Joseph Cappella, and Michael Delli Carpini for their advice and encouragement throughout the project, and to the anonymous reviewers for their feedback on previous versions of this manuscript.


  1. Arpan, L. M., & Peterson, E. (2008). Influence of source liking and personality traits on perceptions of bias and future news source selection. Media Psychology, 11, 310–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baum, M. A., & Gussin, P. (2007). In the eye of the beholder: How information shortcuts shape individual perceptions of bias in the media. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 3, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (2008). Echo Chamber. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Carpenter, M. (2006). Anchor Olbermann counts on commentary to boost MSNBC’s ratings. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved from
  5. Carroll, J. S. (2004, May 16). Pseudo-journalists betray the public trust. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from,1,3379470.story?page=1&coll=la-news-comment-opinions&ctrack=2&cset=true
  6. Carter, B., & Steinberg, J. (2006, March 29). Anchor-advocate on immigration wins viewers. The New York Times. Retrieved from
  7. Coe, K., Tewksbury, D., Bond, B. J., Drogos, K. L., Porter, R. W., Yahn, A., et al. (2008). Hostile news: Partisan use and perceptions of cable news programming. Journal of Communication, 58(2), 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. D’Alessio, D. (2003). An experimental examination of readers’ perceptions of media bias. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80, 282–294.Google Scholar
  9. 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, 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Entman, R. M. (2005). The nature and sources of news. In G. Overholser & K. H. Jamieson (Eds.), The press (pp. 48–65). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Entman, R. M. (2007). Framing bias: Media in the distribution of power. Journal of Communication, 57, 163–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eveland, W. P., Jr., & Shah, D. V. (2003). The impact of individual and interpersonal factors on perceived news bias. Political Psychology, 24, 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gaziano, C., & McGrath, K. (1986). Measuring the concept of credibility. Journalism Quarterly, 63, 451–462.Google Scholar
  14. Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chaiken, S. (1994). The causes of hostile media judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gunther, A. C. (1992). Biased press or biased public? Attitudes toward media coverage of social groups. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 157–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gunther, A. C., Christen, C. T., Liebhart, J., & Chia, S. (2001). Congenial public, contrary press, and biased estimates of the climate of opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 295–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gunther, A. C., & Liebhart, J. L. (2006). Broad reach or biased source? Decomposing the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 56, 449–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gunther, A. C., & Schmitt, K. (2004). Mapping boundaries of the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 54, 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hamilton, J. T. (2005). The market and the media. In G. Overholser & K. H. Jamieson (Eds.), The press (pp. 351–371). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hastorf, A. H., & Cantril, H. (1954). They saw a game: A case study. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49(1), 129–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Horrigan, J. B., & Smith, A. (2007, June). Home broadband adoption 2007. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from
  22. Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59, 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jamieson, K. H., Hardy, B., & Romer, D. (2007). The effectiveness of the press in serving the needs of American democracy. In The American Democracy Project (Ed.), A republic divided (pp. 21–51). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kann, P. (2006, November 1). Press freedom—and press responsibilities. Remarks at the Knight- Bagehot Anniversary Dinner. Retrieved from
  26. Kaplan, R. L. (2002). Politics and the American press: The rise of objectivity, 1865–1920. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Keppel, G., & Wickens, T. D. (2004). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Lee, T. (2005). The liberal media myth revisited: An examination of factors influencing perceptions of media bias. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49, 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee, T. (2008). Bias in the news. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication. doi: 10.1111/b.9781405131995.2008.x.
  30. Lemann, N. (2006, March 27). The wayward press: Fear factor. The New Yorker. Retrieved from
  31. McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail’s mass communication theory (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Niven, D. (2002). Tilt? The search for media bias. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  33. Paletz, D. L., Koon, J., Whitehead, E., & Hagens, R. B. (1972). Selective exposure: The potential boomerang effect. Journal of Communication, 22, 48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pew Research Center. (2008, August 17). Key news audiences now blend online and traditional sources. Retrieved from
  35. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2006, July 30). Online papers modestly boost newspaper readership. Retrieved from
  36. Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2005). The state of the news media 2005: An annual report on American journalism. Retrieved from
  37. Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2007). The state of the news media 2007: An annual report on American journalism. Retrieved from
  38. Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2010). The state of the news media 2010: An annual report on American journalism. Retrieved from
  39. Pronin, E., Gilovich, T., & Ross, L. (2004). Objectivity in the eye of the beholder: Divergent perceptions of bias in self versus others. Psychological Review, 111, 781–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Robinson, R. J., Keltner, D., Ward, A., & Ross, L. (1995). Actual versus assumed differences in construal: “Naïve realism” in intergroup perception and conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 404–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ross, L., & Ward, A. (1996). Naïve realism in everyday life: Implications for social conflict and understanding. In T. Brown, E. S. Reed, & E. Turiel (Eds.), Values and knowledge. The Jean Piaget Symposium Series (pp. 103–135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Schmitt, K. M., Gunther, A. C., & Liebhart, J. L. (2004). Why partisans see mass media as biased. Communication Research, 31, 623–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Stelter, B. (2008, October 20). Fresh face on cable, sharp rise in ratings. New York Times. Retrieved from
  45. Stroud, N. J. (2008). Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 30, 341–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Survey Sampling International. (2007). Global panel book. Fairfield, CT: Author.Google Scholar
  47. Tsfati, Y. (2003a). Does audience skepticism of the media matter in agenda setting? Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 47, 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tsfati, Y. (2003b). Media skepticism and climate of opinion perception. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15, 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tsfati, Y., & Cappella, J. (2003). Do people watch what they do not trust? Communication Research, 30, 504–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tuchman, G. (1972). Objectivity as strategic ritual: An examination of newsmen’s notions of objectivity. The American Journal of Sociology, 77, 660–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Turner, J. (2008). The messenger overwhelming the message: Ideological cues and perceptions of bias in television news. Political Behavior, 29, 441–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. (2007, July 3). Q2 2007 program ranker. Retrieved from
  53. 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, 40, 577–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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, 144–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zanna, M. P., Klosson, E. C., & Darley, J. M. (1976). How television news viewers deal with facts that contradict their beliefs: A consistency and attribution analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 6(2), 159–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of CommunicationAmerican UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations