Why perceived political bias on TV does not inevitably lead to a polarized audience. The case of NRK and TV2 in Norway
-
Anders Todal Jenssen
und
Toril Aalberg
Abstract
This paper investigates whether political polarization of the TV audience is emerging also in a typical democratic corporatist system. The study is motivated by the claim put forward by several US scholars, who argue that in today’s high choice information environments, partisans tend to see mainstream media as ‘hostile’ and therefore seek out and select broadcasters who confirm and deepen their worldview (Arceneaux and Johnson, 2013; Iyengar and Hahn, 2009; Tewksbury and Riles, 2015). This demand, they argue, expands the market for partisan TV and contributes to growing political polarization. We ask if there is evidence of a politically polarized Norwegian TV audience, by exploring the relationship between partisan preferences, perceived political bias and selective exposure to TV news. We find that many Norwegians believe that both the public broadcaster and the leading commercial broadcasters are politically biased. Consistent with the “hostile media hypothesis”, people on the right accuse the broadcasters of favoring the parties on the left, whereas people of the left tend to see the broadcasters as favoring the parties on the right, albeit not to the same degree. By using a survey experiment, our study also demonstrates that given the opportunity, the audience does select news stories consistent with their political beliefs from a politically ‘friendly’ broadcaster. However, they also choose news stories consistent with their political beliefs from a perceived hostile news source over politically inconsistent stories from a friendly source. This suggests that ‘friendly’ content triumphs perception of broadcaster bias. Despite widespread perceptions of partisan favoritism in the Norwegian TV market, we find few traces of a politically polarized audience. The main reason for this is that the public broadcaster still draws a wide audience across the political spectrum, as even critics consider this news source as too important and relevant to be ignored.
References
Aalberg, T., & Curran, J. (Eds.) (2012). How media inform democracy: A comparative approach. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203803448Suche in Google Scholar
Aalberg, T., Van Aelst, P., & Curran, J. (2010). Media systems and the political information environment: A cross-national comparison. International Journal of Press/Politics, 15, 255–271.10.1177/1940161210367422Suche in Google Scholar
Aardal, B. (1999). Politikerforakt og politisk mistillit [Contempt for politicians and political distrust]. In B. Aardal (Ed.), Velgere i 90-årene (pp. 166–191). Oslo: NKS-forelaget.Suche in Google Scholar
Aardal, B. (2003). Kritiske velgere [Critical Citizens]. In B. Aardal (Ed.), Velgere i villrede. En analyse av stortingsvalget 2001 (pp. 207–224). Oslo: Damm.Suche in Google Scholar
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., and Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. Oxford, England: Harpers.10.4135/9781446220986.n8Suche in Google Scholar
Albæk, E., Hopmann, D. N., & De Vreese, C. H. (2010). Kunsten at holde balancen. Dækningen af folketingsvalgkampe i tv-nyhederne på DR1 og TV2: 1994–2007. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark.Suche in Google Scholar
Arceneaux, K., & Johnson, M. (2013). Changing minds or changing channels? Partisan news in an age of choice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226047447.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Baron, D. P. (2006). Persistent media bias. Journal of Public Economics, 90(1–2), 1–3610.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.10.006Suche in Google Scholar
Bastiansen, H. G., & Dahl, H. F. (2003). Norsk mediehistorie [Norwegian media history]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Suche in Google Scholar
Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 707–731.10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00410.xSuche in Google Scholar
Blalock, H. M. (1989). Power and conflict. Sage Pubs.Suche in Google Scholar
Brekken, T., Thorbjørnsrud, K., & Aalberg, T. (2012). News substance: The relative importance of soft and de-contextualized news. In T. Aalberg & J. Curran (Eds.), How media inform democracy: A comparative approach (pp. 64–78). New York: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar
Bos, L., & de Vreese Claes, K. S. (2016). Nation binding: How public service broadcasting mitigates political selective exposure. PLoS ONE, 11(5), e0155112.10.1371/journal.pone.0155112Suche in Google Scholar
Curran, J., Coen, S., Soroka, S., Aalberg, T., Hayashi, K., … & Tiffen, R. (2014). Reconsidering ‘virtuous circle’ and ‘media malaise’ theories of the media: An 11-nation study. Journalism, 15(7), 815–833.10.1177/1464884913520198Suche in Google Scholar
Dahl, H. F. (2015). Fra ARK til journalisme [From ARK to journalism]. Retrieved September 20, 2016 from https://www.nrk.no/ytring/fra-ark-til-journalisme-1.12334167.Suche in Google Scholar
D’Alessio, D., & Allen, M. (2000). Media bias in presidential elections: A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 50(4), 133–156.10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02866.xSuche in Google Scholar
Dalton, R. J., Beck, P. A., & Huckfeldt, R. (1998). Partisan cues and the media: Information flows in the 1992 presidential election. The American Political Science Review, 92 (1), 111–126.10.2307/2585932Suche in Google Scholar
Entman, R. M. (2007). Framing bias: Media in the distribution of power. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 163–173.10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00336.xSuche in Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. (1955). The psychology of politics. Transaction publishers.10.4324/9781351303088Suche in Google Scholar
Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, nfw006.10.1093/poq/nfw006Suche in Google Scholar
Garrett, R. K. (2009). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication, 59(4), 676–699.10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01452.xSuche in Google Scholar
Garrett, R. K., Carnahan, D., & Lynch, E. K. (2013). A turn toward avoidance? Selective exposure to online political information, 2004–2008. Political Behavior, 35(1), 113–134.10.1007/s11109-011-9185-6Suche in Google Scholar
Garrett, R. K., Gvirsman, S. D., Johnson, B. K., Tsfati, Y., Neo, R., & Dal, A. (2014). Implications of pro- and counterattitudinal information exposure for affective polarization. Human Communication Research, 40(3), 309–332.10.1111/hcre.12028Suche in Google Scholar
Gnisci, A., van Dalen, A., & Di Conza, A. (2014). Interviews in a polarized television market. The Anglo-American watchdog model put to the test. Political Communication, 31(1), 112–130.10.1080/10584609.2012.747190Suche in Google Scholar
Goldman, S. K., & Mutz, D. C. (2011). The friendly media phenomenon: A cross-national analysis of cross-cutting exposure. Political Communication, 28(1), 42–66.10.1080/10584609.2010.544280Suche in Google Scholar
Groeling, T. (2013). Media bias by the numbers: Challenges and opportunities in the empirical study of partisan news. Annual Review of Political Science, 16(1), 129–151.10.1146/annurev-polisci-040811-115123Suche in Google Scholar
Groseclose, T., & Milyo, J. (2005). A measure of media bias. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(4), 1191–1237.10.1162/003355305775097542Suche in Google Scholar
Hagen, I. (1994). The ambivalences of TV news viewing: Between ideals and everyday practices. European Journal of Communication, 9(2), 193–220.10.1177/0267323194009002005Suche in Google Scholar
Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems. Three models of media and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511790867.003Suche in Google Scholar
Heider, F. (1960). The gestalt theory of motivation. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 145–172). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Hirsti, R. (1991). Partipisken. Kampen om det frie ord i Arbeiderbladet [The party whip. The struggle for free expression in the “workersʼ newspaperˮ Arbeiderbladet]. Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag.Suche in Google Scholar
Holbert, R. L., Garrett, R. K., &Gleason, L. S. (2010). A new era of minimal effects? A response. Journal of Communication, 60(1), 15–34.10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01470.xSuche in Google Scholar
Hopmann, D. N., Van Aelst, P., & Legnante, G. (2012). Political balance in the news: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 13(2), 240–257.10.1177/1464884911427804Suche in Google Scholar
Hopmann, D. N., Van Aelst, P., Salgado, S., & Legante, G. (2016). Political balance. In C. de Vreese, F. Esser & D. Nicolas Hopmann (Eds.), Comparing political journalism (pp. 92–111). New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315622286Suche in Google Scholar
Ihlen, Ø., Allern, S., Thorbjørnsrud, K., & Waldahl, R. (2010). The world on television: Market-driven, public service news. Nordicom Review, 31(2), 31–45.10.1515/nor-2017-0128Suche in Google Scholar
Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 19–39.10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.xSuche in Google Scholar
Jenssen, A. T. (2012). Widening or closing the knowledge gap? The role of TV and newspapers in changing the distribution of political knowledge. Nordicom Review, 33(1), 19–36.10.2478/nor-2013-0002Suche in Google Scholar
Karlsen, R., & Aalberg, T. (2015). Selektiv eksponering for medievalgkampen [Selective exposure during the mediatized campaign]. In B. Aardal & J. Bergh (Eds.), Valg og velgere. En studie av stortingsvalget 2013 (pp. 119–133). Oslo: Cappelen Damm.Suche in Google Scholar
Kuklinski, J. H., & Sigelman, L. (1992). When objectivity is not objective: Network television news coverage of US senators and the “paradox of objectivity”. Journal of Politics, 5(4), 810–833.10.2307/2132313Suche in Google Scholar
Langslett, L. R. (1994). Fra innsiden. Glimt fra et halvt liv i politikken [On the inside. Glimpses from half a life in politics]. Oslo: Cappelen.Suche in Google Scholar
Lelkes, Y. G. (2016). The Polls-review. Mass polarization: Manifestations and measurements. Public Opinion Quarterly, March 15, 1–19.Suche in Google Scholar
Lelkes, Y., Sood, G., & Iyengar, S. (2015). The hostile audience: The effect of access to broadband internet on partisan affect. American Journal of Political Science, 1–16.10.1111/ajps.12237Suche in Google Scholar
LeVine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior. The Journal of Politics, 35(4), 1022–1024.Suche in Google Scholar
Listhaug, O., & Aardal, B. (2011). Politisk tillit – Et mål på demokratiets helsetilstand? [Political trust – an indicator of the well-being of democracy?] In B. Aardal (Ed.), Det politiske landskap (pp. 291–304). Oslo: Damm.Suche in Google Scholar
Lund, E., & Siune, K. (1977). Objektivitet – et spørgsmål om kontekst? [Objectivity – a question of context?] Pressens Årbog 1977 (pp. 192–199). Copenhagen: Dansk pressehistorisk Selskab.Suche in Google Scholar
Midtbø, T. (2011). Explaining media attention for Norwegian MPs: A new modelling approach. Scandinavian Political Studies, 34(3), 226–249.10.1111/j.1467-9477.2011.00270.xSuche in Google Scholar
Minkenberg, M., & Inglehart, R. (1989). Neoconservatism and value change in the USA: Tendencies in the mass public of a postindustrial society. In J. R. Gibbins (Ed.), Contemporary political culture. Politics in a postmodern age (pp. 81–109). London: Sage.Suche in Google Scholar
Mudde, C. (2004). The populist zeitgeist. Government and Opposition, 39(4), 542–563.10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.xSuche in Google Scholar
Müller, J.-W. (2016). What is populism? Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.10.9783/9780812293784-002Suche in Google Scholar
Niven, D. (2001). Bias in the news: Partianship and negativity in media coverage of presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton. Press/Politics, 6(1), 31–46.10.1177/108118001129172215Suche in Google Scholar
Niven, D. (2003). Tilt. The search for media bias. Westport, CT: Praeger.Suche in Google Scholar
Nord, L., & Strömbäck, J. (2003). Valfeber och nyhetsfrossa. Politisk kommunikation i valrörelsen 2002 [Election fever and news drought. Political communication during the 2002 campaign]. Stockholm: Sellin.Suche in Google Scholar
Patterson, T. E., & Donsbach, W. (1996). News decisions: Journalists as partisan actors. Political Communication, 13(4), 453–468.10.1080/10584609.1996.9963131Suche in Google Scholar
Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy. How media choice increases ineqality in political involvement and polarizes elctions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139878425Suche in Google Scholar
Raaum, O. (1999). Pressen er løs! Fronter i journalistenes faglige frigjøring [The press is let loose! Fronts in journalistsʼ professional liberation]. Oslo: Pax Forlag AS.Suche in Google Scholar
Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. Oxford, England: Basic Books.Suche in Google Scholar
Rowland, W. D., & Tracey, M. (1990). Worldwide challenges to public service broadcasting. Journal of Communication, 40(2), 8–42.10.1111/j.1460-2466.1990.tb02259.xSuche in Google Scholar
Sabel, B. (2005). Et hundeliv. Norske journalister fra 1975 til 2005 [A dogʼs life. Norwegian journalists from 1975 until 2005]. Kristiansand: Høyskoleforlaget.Suche in Google Scholar
Slagstad, R. (1998). De nasjonale strateger [The national strategists]. Oslo: Pax.Suche in Google Scholar
Slater, M. D. (2007). Reinforcing spirals: The Mutual Influences of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Communication Theory, 17, 281–303.10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00296.xSuche in Google Scholar
Soroka, S., Andrew, B., Aalberg, T., Iyengar, S., Curran, J., Coen, S., & Tiffen, R. (2013). Auntie knows best? Public broadcasters and current affairs knowledge. British Journal of Political Science, 43, 719–739.10.1017/S0007123412000555Suche in Google Scholar
Starkey, G. (2007). Balance and bias in journalism: Representation, regulation and democracy. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1007/978-0-230-20809-4_2Suche in Google Scholar
Stouffer, S. A. (1955). Communism, conformity, and civil liberties: A cross-section of the nation speaks its mind. New Brunswick, London: Transaction Publishers.Suche in Google Scholar
Sullivan, J. L., Piereson, J., & Marcus, G. E. (1993). Political tolerance and American democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Syvertsen, T., Enli, G., Mjøs, O. J., & Moe, J. (2014). The media welfare state. Nordic media in the digital era. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/nmw.12367206.0001.001Suche in Google Scholar
Tewksbury, D. & Riles, J. M. (2015). Polarization as a function of citizen predispositions and exposure to news on the internet. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(3), 381–398.10.1080/08838151.2015.1054996Suche in Google Scholar
Thomas, W. I. and Thomas, D.S. (1928). The child in America: Behavior problems and programs. New York: Knopf.Suche in Google Scholar
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, 49(3), 577–585.10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.577Suche in Google Scholar
Van Aelst, P., Strömbäck, J., Aalberg, T., Esser, F., de Vreese, C., Matthes, J., … & Stanyer, J. (2017). Political communication in a high-choice media environment: A challenge for democracy? Annals of the International Communication Association, 41(1), 3–27.10.1080/23808985.2017.1288551Suche in Google Scholar
van Kempen, H. (2007). Media-party parallelism and its effects: A cross-national comparative study. Political Communication, 24(3), 303–320.10.1080/10584600701471674Suche in Google Scholar
Waldahl, R., Bruun Andersen, M., & Rønning, H. (2009). TV-nyhetenes verden [The world in the TV news]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Titelseiten
- Articles
- Personalization 2.0? – Testing the personalization hypothesis in citizens’, journalists’, and politicians’ campaign Twitter communication
- Why perceived political bias on TV does not inevitably lead to a polarized audience. The case of NRK and TV2 in Norway
- The role of media within young people’s socialization: A theoretical approach
- The effects of user comments on hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment experiences when watching online videos
- The effects of metaphorical frames on attitudes: The Euro crisis as war or disease?
- Book Reviews
- Southwell, B. G., Thorson, E. A., & Sheble, L. (eds.) (2018). Misinformation and mass audiences. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 307 pp.
- Hindman, M. (2018). The internet trap: How the digital economy builds monopolies and undermines democracy. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. 240 pp.
- Dan, V. (2018). Integrative framing analysis: Framing health through words and visuals. New York, NY: Routledge. 170 pp.
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Titelseiten
- Articles
- Personalization 2.0? – Testing the personalization hypothesis in citizens’, journalists’, and politicians’ campaign Twitter communication
- Why perceived political bias on TV does not inevitably lead to a polarized audience. The case of NRK and TV2 in Norway
- The role of media within young people’s socialization: A theoretical approach
- The effects of user comments on hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment experiences when watching online videos
- The effects of metaphorical frames on attitudes: The Euro crisis as war or disease?
- Book Reviews
- Southwell, B. G., Thorson, E. A., & Sheble, L. (eds.) (2018). Misinformation and mass audiences. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 307 pp.
- Hindman, M. (2018). The internet trap: How the digital economy builds monopolies and undermines democracy. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. 240 pp.
- Dan, V. (2018). Integrative framing analysis: Framing health through words and visuals. New York, NY: Routledge. 170 pp.
