We live in an age of media saturation, where with a few clicks of the remote—or mouse—we can tune in to programming where the facts fit our ideological predispositions. But what are the political consequences of this vast landscape of media choice? Partisan news has been roundly castigated for reinforcing prior beliefs and contributing to the highly polarized political environment we have today, but there is little evidence to support this claim, and much of what we know about the impact of news media come from studies that were conducted at a time when viewers chose from among six channels rather than scores. Through a series of innovative experiments, Kevin Arceneaux and Martin Johnson show that such criticism is unfounded. Americans who watch cable news are already polarized, and their exposure to partisan programming of their choice has little influence on their political positions. In fact, the opposite is true: viewers become more polarized when forced to watch programming that opposes their beliefs. A much more troubling consequence of the ever-expanding media environment, the authors show, is that it has allowed people to tune out the news: the four top-rated partisan news programs draw a mere three percent of the total number of people watching television. Overturning much of the conventional wisdom, Changing Minds or Changing Channels? demonstrate that the strong effects of media exposure found in past research are simply not applicable in today’s more saturated media landscape.
Feldman, Stanley. 1988. “Structure and Consistency in Public Opinion: The Role of Core Beliefs and Values.” American Journal of Political Science 32(2):416–440. Feldman, Stanley, and Christopher Johnston. 2014.
The New Social Age -- The End of Reality -- The Hype Machine -- Your Brain on Social Media -- A Network's Gravity is Proportional to Its Mass -- Personalized Mass Persuasion -- Hypersocialization -- Strategies for a Hypersocialized World -- ...
Changing minds or changing channels? Partisan news in an age of choice. University of Chicago Press. 28. Arceneaux, K., & Johnson, M. (2013). Changing minds or changing channels? Partisan news in an age of choice.
See Dan Nimmo, Popular Images of Politics (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1974), 100–102. 64. ... George F. Bishop, Robert G. Meadow, and Marilyn Jackson-Beeck (New York: Praeger, 1978), 101. 67. Ibid. Also see Roger Desmond and ...
Remember that we don’t change our minds overnight, it happens in gradual stages that can be powerfully influenced along the way. This book provides insights that can broaden our horizons and shape our lives.
Purves , Dale , George J. Augustine , David Fitzpatrick , Lawrence C. Katz , AnthonySamuel LaMantia , James 0. McNamara , and S. Mark Williams , ed.s ( 2001 ) . Neuroscience . Sunderland : Sinauer Associates .
27. Diana C. Mutz, Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 16. 28. Kevin Arceneaux and Martin Johnson, Changing Minds or Changing Channels?
Arceneaux and Johnson, Changing Minds or Changing Channels?; Markus Prior, “Mass Media and Political Polarization,” Annual Review of Political Science 16 (2013): 101–127; James G. Webster, The Marketplace of Attention: How Audiences ...
Huddy and Cassese, “On the Complex and Varied Political Effects.” 97. Deborah Jordan Brooks and Benjamin A. Valentino, “A War of One's Own: Understanding the Gender Gap in Support for War,” Public Opinion Quarterly 75 (2011): 270–286.
Changing minds or changing channels? Partisan news in an age of choice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Hallin, D.C. and Mancini, P., 2004.Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics.