Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
Comparative Corrective Action: Perceived Media Bias and Political Action in 17 Countries
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Barnidge, Matthew Rojas, Hernando Beck, Paul A. Schmitt-Beck, Rüdiger |
| Copyright Year | 2019 |
| Abstract | The corrective action hypothesis predicts that people will take political action in response to media content they perceive to be biased against them, and evidence has accumulated in favor of it. However, research has not yet investigated the hypothesis in comparative context. This study fills that gap in the literature, relying on the Comparative National Election Project (N1⁄4 23,527), and analyzing data from 17 countries. Results show evidence of an overall positive relationship between perceived media bias and political action, and they also show evidence that this relationship varies in strength between countries. Moreover, press freedom partially explains this variation. Results are discussed in light of the theory of corrective action and recent trends in political participation worldwide. Global publics expect unbiased political coverage, yet many people consider news organizations in their country to be biased against their point of view (Mitchell, Simmons, Matsa, & Silver, 2018). These perceptions of bias have consequences for political behavior: Perceived media bias may spur action directed towards correcting the public record. In response to this observation, scholars have put forward the corrective action hypothesis, which predicts that people will take some sort of political action in response to media content they perceive to be biased against them (Rojas, 2010; Rojas, Barnidge, & Abril, 2016; Sun, Pan, & Shen, 2008). While evidence has accumulated in support of the hypothesis (e.g., Chung, Munno, & Moritz, 2015; Feldman, Hart, Leiserowitz, Maibach, & Roser-Renouf, 2017; Hart, Feldman, Leiserowitz, & Maibach, 2015; Kim, 2015; Lim & Golan, 2011; Lin, 2014; Wei All correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Matthew Barnidge, PhD, The University of Alabama, Box 870172, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA. E-mail: mhbarnidge@ua.edu International Journal of Public Opinion Research VC The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The World Association for Public Opinion Research. All rights reserved. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edz043 D ow naded rom http/academ ic.p.com /ijpor/advance-articleoi/10.1093/ijpor/edz043/5620395 by m bai109@ gm a.com on 11 N ovem er 2019 & Golan, 2013), research has not yet investigated the role of media and political systems in shaping the relationship between perceived media bias and political action. This study fills that gap in the literature, undertaking a cross-national analysis of the relationship between perceived media bias and political participation in 17 countries. Relying on the Comparative National Election Project (CNEP), a collection of surveys conducted in countries around the world during election years (N1⁄4 23,527), this study tests the relationship between perceived media bias and political participation, accounting for the role of press freedom in shaping this relationship. Perceived Media Bias People process information in light of their previous beliefs (Lord, Ross, & Lepper, 1979), and research has identified a wide range of these perceptual biases, including the “hostile media perception,” or the tendency for partisans on both sides of a political or social issue to see ostensibly neutral media content as biased against their point of view (Vallone, Ross, & Lepper, 1985). In explaining the phenomena, Gunther (1992) has argued that it should be understood as a “relational variable—an audience response to media content,” (p. 147). In other words, perceptions of media bias are more a function of someone’s ideology and levels of trust in media rather than an objective assessment of media content (Perloff, 2015). Scholars have recently argued for a conceptual distinction between the perception of bias and biased perception (e.g., Barnidge et al., 2017; Gunther, 2015). Biased perception—including the hostile media phenomenon—refers to the identifiable misperception of media content. The original hostile media study (Vallone et al., 1985) certainly falls under this rubric, as do a host of subsequent studies that have observed the phenomenon in a variety of informational contexts (e.g., Arpan & Raney, 2003; Gunther, Miller, & Liebhart, 2009; Giner-Sorolla & Chaiken, 1994; Perloff, 1989). By contrast, research on perceived bias focuses on perception regardless of whether it is accurate (e.g., Barnidge et al., 2017; Dalton, Beck, & Huckfeldt, 1998; Eveland & Shah, 2003; Kaye & Johnson, 2016). This study adopts the latter perspective, observing perceptions of media bias independently of whether those perceptions are right or wrong, because research conducted across different countries suggests that perceived media bias is on the rise and trust in media is decreasing (Edelman, 2017; Inglehart et al., 2014). |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| DOI | 10.1093/ijpor/edz043 |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://matthewbarnidge.files.wordpress.com/2019/11/23-ijpor-aol.pdf |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor%2Fedz043 |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
