Scholars and pundits often blame shows on FOX and MSNBC for polarizing America. But according to a new book partisan programming actually has very little influence on the public at large.
In “Changing Minds or Changing Channels? Partisan News in an Age of Choice” political scientists Martin Johnson and Kevin Arceneaux found that while highly opinionated shows like the O’Reilly Factor or the Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell have all the right ingredients to provoke and convince, their ability to shape viewpoints is very limited.
In a series of experiments sponsored by the National Science Foundation, Johnson and Arceneaux found that, in terms of influence, these left-leaning or right-leaning shows function as little more than preaching to the choir.
“We’re not saying this media has no effect at all. All we’re saying is that it has a substantially smaller effect than a lot of people think, because when a person picks up the remote control and turns on Fox, chances are he’s already a conservative,” said Johnson, professor and chair of the Department of Political Science at the University of California, Riverside.
The four top-rated partisan news programs attract only three percent of the American television audience, and are composed almost entirely of those who already identify with strong partisan points of view. Most Americans simply choose to watch something else.
Freedom of Choice
According to Johnson, a factor many researchers overlook is that today’s television viewers are active participants enjoying a vast array of choices, and not, as some studies have cast them, passive receivers at the mercy of media’s message.
“For hundreds of years there’s been an operative assumption that information that is published, broadcast or transmitted in some way has pretty extensive and dramatic effects on people—a direct translation of content to effects. Part of what we think about people and what we try to examine is that people bring themselves to the content that they consume,” Johnson said.
Thanks to cable and the Internet, Johnson believes our growing menu of choices proves just as important as the rise of partisan news shows when determining influence.
Forty years ago, when television was limited to about six channels, the media message had a far greater reach. Today, however, with a seemingly unlimited number of options catering to a wide spectrum of interests, the influence of a one-sided show is considerably diluted.
One notable consequence that comes with more choice is that viewers can easily ignore all news programming. Compared to the 1970s when most channels had news at 6:00 whether you liked it or not, today’s television viewers have several avenues of escape.
“What we’re finding here is that people tuning out of politics altogether is probably a bigger problem,” Johnson said.
Partisan Impact
Partisan programs that focus more on style, (emotional outbursts and accusations) than substance, have also been blamed for misinformation. But Johnson and Arceneaux found that sitcoms, reality shows, and other types of entertainment programming may play a much bigger role in dumbing down the American viewer.
Researchers found that those who chose to watch Sean Hannity or Hardball with Chris Matthews were far more knowledgeable about politics than those who avoid the news, or kept to more moderate news broadcasts.
That doesn’t mean partisan media is harmless. Johnson cited the name calling and spreading of inflammatory rumors that characterize the shows.
“It doesn’t have to be massively influential to be ethically improper,” he said.
