Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Communications

The European Journal of Communication Research

Ed. by Averbeck-Lietz, Stefanie / d'Haenens, Leen


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.744
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.147

CiteScore 2017: 1.49

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.703
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.736

Online
ISSN
1613-4087
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Ahead of print

Issues

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
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Sociology and Political Science Norwegian University of Science and Technology Trondheim Norway
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Toril Aalberg
  • Toril Aalberg Department of Sociology and Political Science Norwegian University of Science and Technology Trondheim Norway
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2019-01-15 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2018-2022

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.

Keywords: perceived political bias; selective exposure; audience polarization; hostile media; public broadcasting

References

  • Aalberg, T., & Curran, J. (Eds.) (2012). How media inform democracy: A comparative approach. New York: Routledge.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.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., and Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. Oxford, England: Harpers.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Baron, D. P. (2006). Persistent media bias. Journal of Public Economics, 90(1–2), 1–36Google Scholar

  • Bastiansen, H. G., & Dahl, H. F. (2003). Norsk mediehistorie [Norwegian media history]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.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.Google Scholar

  • Blalock, H. M. (1989). Power and conflict. Sage Pubs.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.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.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.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.Google Scholar

  • D’Alessio, D., & Allen, M. (2000). Media bias in presidential elections: A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 50(4), 133–156.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.Google Scholar

  • Entman, R. M. (2007). Framing bias: Media in the distribution of power. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 163–173.Google Scholar

  • Eysenck, H. J. (1955). The psychology of politics. Transaction publishers.Google Scholar

  • Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, nfw006.Google Scholar

  • Garrett, R. K. (2009). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication, 59(4), 676–699.Google Scholar

  • Garrett, R. K., Carnahan, D., & Lynch, EK. (2013). A turn toward avoidance? Selective exposure to online political information, 2004–2008. Political Behavior, 35(1), 113–134.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.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 testPolitical Communication, 31(1), 112–130.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Groseclose, T., & Milyo, J. (2005). A measure of media bias. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(4), 1191–1237.Google Scholar

  • Hagen, I. (1994). The ambivalences of TV news viewing: Between ideals and everyday practices. European Journal of Communication, 9(2), 193–220.Google Scholar

  • Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems. Three models of media and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Lelkes, Y. G. (2016). The Polls-review. Mass polarization: Manifestations and measurements. Public Opinion Quarterly, March 15, 1–19.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.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.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Midtbø, T. (2011). Explaining media attention for Norwegian MPs: A new modelling approach. Scandinavian Political Studies, 34(3), 226–249.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.Google Scholar

  • Mudde, C. (2004). The populist zeitgeist. Government and Opposition, 39(4), 542–563.Google Scholar

  • Müller, J.-W. (2016). What is populism? Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.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.Google Scholar

  • Niven, D. (2003). Tilt. The search for media bias. Westport, CT: Praeger.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.Google Scholar

  • Patterson, T. E., & Donsbach, W. (1996). News decisions: Journalists as partisan actors. Political Communication, 13(4), 453–468.Google Scholar

  • Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy. How media choice increases ineqality in political involvement and polarizes elctions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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.Google Scholar

  • Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. Oxford, England: Basic Books.Google Scholar

  • Rowland, W. D., & Tracey, M. (1990). Worldwide challenges to public service broadcasting. Journal of Communication, 40(2), 8–42.Google Scholar

  • Sabel, B. (2005). Et hundeliv. Norske journalister fra 1975 til 2005 [A dogʼs life. Norwegian journalists from 1975 until 2005]. Kristiansand: Høyskoleforlaget.Google Scholar

  • Slagstad, R. (1998). De nasjonale strateger [The national strategists]. Oslo: Pax.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Starkey, G. (2007). Balance and bias in journalism: Representation, regulation and democracy. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.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.Google Scholar

  • Sullivan, J. L., Piereson, J., & Marcus, G. E. (1993). Political tolerance and American democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Thomas, W. I. and Thomas, D.S. (1928). The child in America: Behavior problems and programs. New York: Knopf.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.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.Google Scholar

  • van Kempen, H. (2007). Media-party parallelism and its effects: A cross-national comparative study. Political Communication, 24(3), 303–320.Google Scholar

  • Waldahl, R., Bruun Andersen, M., & Rønning, H. (2009). TV-nyhetenes verden [The world in the TV news]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2019-01-15


Citation Information: Communications, ISSN (Online) 1613-4087, ISSN (Print) 0341-2059, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2018-2022.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in