Public Choice

, Volume 156, Issue 3–4, pp 467–490 | Cite as

Media proliferation and partisan selective exposure



The number of Internet news media outlets has skyrocketed in recent years. We analyze the effects of media proliferation on electoral outcomes assuming voters may choose news that is too partisan, from an informational perspective, i.e., engage in partisan selective exposure. We find that if voters who prefer highly partisan news—either because they are truly ideologically extreme, or due to a tendency towards excessive selective exposure—are politically “important,” then proliferation is socially beneficial, as it makes these voters more likely to obtain informative news. Otherwise, proliferation still protects against very poor electoral outcomes that can occur when the number of outlets is small and the only media options are highly partisan. Our model’s overall implication is thus that, surprisingly, proliferation is socially beneficial regardless of the degree of selective exposure.


Media bias Media competition Internet media Selective exposure Blogs Elections 

JEL Classification

D72 D81 D83 L82 



We thank Nathan Larson, Alessandro Lizzeri, Matthew Nagler, Ruben Enikolopov and participants at the 2010 Econometric Society World Congress, 2010 Western Economic Association Conference and numerous seminars for helpful comments. Jimmy Chan acknowledges the support of Shanghai Dongfang Xuezhe Program, 211 Project for the Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, and the Shanghai Leading Academic Discipline Program, Program No. B801.


  1. Anand, B., Di Tella, R., & Galetovic, A. (2007). Information or opinion? Media bias as product differentiation. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 16(3), 635–682. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andina-Díaz, A. (2007). Reinforcement vs. change: the political influence of the media. Public Choice, 131(1), 65–81. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baum, M. A., & Groeling, T. (2008). New media and the polarization of American political discourse. Political Communication, 25(4), 345–365. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baum, M. A., & Kernell, S. (1999). Has cable ended the golden age of presidential television? The American Political Science Review, 93(1), 99–114. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernhardt, D., Krasa, S., & Polborn, M. (2008). Political polarization and the electoral effects of media bias. Journal of Public Economics, 92(5–6), 1092–1104. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Besley, T., & Prat, A. (2006). Handcuffs for the grabbing hand? Media capture and government accountability. American Economic Review, 96(3), 720–736. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chan, J., & Suen, W. (2008). A spatial theory of news consumption and electoral competition. Review of Economic Studies, 75(3), 699–728. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coyne, C. J., & Leeson, P. T. (2004). Read all about it! Understanding the role of media in economic development. Kyklos, 57(4), 21–44. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DellaVigna, S., & Kaplan, E. (2007). The Fox News effect: media bias and voting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 699–728. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar
  11. Drezner, D. W., & Farrell, H. (2008). Introduction: blogs, politics and power: a special issue of Public Choice. Public Choice, 134(1), 1–13. Google Scholar
  12. Duggan, J., & Martinelli, C. (2011). A spatial theory of media slant and voter choice. Review of Economic Studies, 78(2), 640–666. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Durante, R., & Knight, B. (2012). Partisan control, media bias, and viewer responses: evidence from Berlusconi’s Italy. Journal of the European Economics Association. doi: 10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01060.x. Google Scholar
  14. Garrett, R. K. (2009). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication, 59(4), 676–699. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gasper, J. T. (2009). Reporting for sale: the market for news coverage. Public Choice, 141(3), 493–508. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2006). Media bias and reputation. Journal of Political Economy, 114(2), 280–316. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2011). Ideological segregation online and offline. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(4), 1799–1839. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 19–39. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kendall, T. D. (2010). Strategic political commentary. Public Choice, 142(1), 151–175. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leeson, P. T. (2008). Media freedom, political knowledge, and participation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22(2), 155–170. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leeson, P. T., & Coyne, C. J. (2005). Manipulating the media. Institutions and Economic Development, 1(2), 67–92. Google Scholar
  23. Massing, M. (2009). The news about the Internet. The New York Review of Books. August 13, 2009. Google Scholar
  24. Mullainathan, S., & Shleifer, A. (2005). The market for news. American Economic Review, 95(4), 1031–1053. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Munger, M. C. (2008). Blogging and political information: truth or truthiness? Public Choice, 134(1), 125–138. Google Scholar
  26. Mutz, D. C., & Martin, P. S. (2001). Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: the role of mass media. The American Political Science Review, 95(1), 97–114. Google Scholar
  27. Nagler, M. G. (2007). Understanding the Internet’s relevance to media ownership policy: a model of too many choices? The B. E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy (Topics), 7(1). Art. 29. Google Scholar
  28. Nie, N. H., Miller, D. W. III, Golde, S., Butler, D. M., & Winneg, K. (2010). The world wide web and the US political news market. American Journal of Political Science, 54(2), 428–439. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Obama, B. H. (2010). Remarks by the President at University of Michigan Spring Commencement, May 1, 2010.
  30. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: what the Internet is hiding from you. Baltimore: Penguin. Google Scholar
  31. Pew Research Center (2008). 2008 Pew Research Center for the people and the press news consumption and believability study. Google Scholar
  32. Pew Research Center (2010). A pro-government, socially liberal generation: Democrats’ edge among millennials slips. Google Scholar
  33. Prat, A., & Strömberg, D. (2011). The political economy of mass media (Working paper). Google Scholar
  34. Prescott, E. C., & Visscher, M. (1977). Sequential location among firms with foresight. The Bell Journal of Economics, 8(2), 378–393. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Prior, M. (2005). News vs. entertainment: how increasing media choice widens gaps in political knowledge and turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 577–592. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: how media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  37. Radcliff, B. (1993). The structure of voter preferences. The Journal of Politics, 55(3), 714–719. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simon, H. A. (1987). Satisficing. In: The new Palgrave: a dictionary of economics (Vol. 4, pp. 243–245). London: Macmillan. Google Scholar
  39. Strömberg, D. (2004). Mass media competition, political competition, and public policy. Review of Economic Studies, 71(1), 265–284. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stroud, N. J. (2008). Media use and political predispositions: revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 30(3), 341–366. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics, 515Shanghai University of Finance and EconomicsShanghaiChina
  2. 2.School of Public PolicyOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations