An information-based explanation for partisan media sorting
| Author | Anthony Fowler,Kisoo Kim |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/09516298221122094 |
| Published date | 01 October 2022 |
| Date | 01 October 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
An information-based
explanation for partisan
media sorting
Anthony Fowler
Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois,
USA
Kisoo Kim
Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois,
USA
Abstract
Partisan voters tend to seek political news from media sources that match their predispositions.
Scholars and pundits often attribute this partisan media sorting to psychological biases, and they
typically assume that it leads voters to make worse decisions at the ballot box. To reinterpret this
evidence and provide an alternative explanation, we develop two formal models of media choice—
one in which voters only want to hear good news about their party and another in which voters
only care about making good electoral decisions. Both models predict partisan media sorting, so
sorting does not constitute evidence that voters are poorly informed or that they are driven by
psychological biases. However, the models do produce competing predictions about when voters
will consume more or less news and about whether signals from the news should influence vote
choices. Reassessing the empirical literature, we find some support for both explanations.
Keywords
Media, voting, partisanship, information, confirmation bias, reinterpreting, distinguishing
American voters are purportedly stuck in partisan echo chambers. We’re told that
Democrats read The New York Times, watch MSNBC, listen to NPR, follow
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter, and eat avocado toast in urban cafes, while
Corresponding author:
Anthony Fowler, Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Email: anthony.fowler@uchicago.edu
Article
Journal of Theoretical Politics
2022, Vol. 34(4) 499–526
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/09516298221122094
journals.sagepub.com/home/jtp
Republicans read The Wall Street Journal, watch Fox News, listen to AM talk radio,
follow Donald Trump on Truth Social, and eat hamburgers in roadside diners.
Although this caricature surely overstates the extent of partisan sorting, Americans are
more likely than not to obtain political information from a source that is aligned with
their predispositions.
To the extent that partisans do sort into different media outlets, scholars and pundits
tend to assume that this is bad for democracy and the result of psychological biases of
voters. Studies often refer to confirmation bias or cognitive dissonance, implying that
partisans sort because they’ve already made up their minds on political matters and
want to avoid encountering news stories that conflict with their predispositions. For
example, in an academic study of online political searches, Knobloch-Westerwick
et al. (2015) write that “Such confirmation bias has been considered problematic from
a perspective of normative democratic theory: Ideally, citizens in a democracy seek
diverse information and exposure to opposing views”(p. 172). In a journalistic report
for The Guardian, Grimes (2017) writes that “Echo chambers are dangerous …Across
the political spectrum we must all work harder to analyze our sources of information
and our biases.”
Is partisan media sorting necessarily a sign that voters are doing a bad job? If a voter
only has the time, attention, and resources to read one newspaper or watch one cable news
channel, what kind of source should she select if her goal is to determine which political
candidate is best for her? In this paper, we show theoretically that even if a voter is not
subject to confirmation bias and cares only about identifying and selecting the best can-
didate, she will often prefer ideologically aligned news sources.
Consider a Democratic voter who is trying to decide whether to reelect her incumbent
Democratic governor. The voter cares about both ideology and valence. She knows that
the governor matches her ideological preferences better than the Republican challenger,
but she’s less sure about the general competence of the governor, and she’s hoping to
learn about that by reading the news. If she gets no news, she’s inclined to reelect the
incumbent, but if the governor is doing a bad job, she would prefer the challenger.
There are two newspapers—one with a liberal slant and one with a conservative slant,
but she only has the time to read one. Although both newspapers convey meaningful
information, she knows there is a relative bias. The liberal paper is more likely to say
the Democratic governor is doing a good job, and the conservative paper is more
likely to say the governor is doing a bad job, regardless of whether the governor is
good or bad.
Which newspaper should the voter read? If she reads the conservative paper, she is not
likely to receive much information that will be relevant for her vote. The conservative
paper is likely to say that the Democratic governor is doing a bad job, in which case,
she’ll lower her beliefs about the quality of the governor, but only by a little. If the con-
servative paper says the Democratic governor is doing a good job, she’ll increase her
beliefs about the quality of the governor by a lot. But the voter was already inclined to
support the Democrat anyway, so this change in beliefs is not consequential for her
vote. The liberal paper is likely to say the Democratic governor is doing a good job, in
which case, the voter will increase her beliefs, but only a little. Most importantly, if
the liberal paper says the governor is doing a bad job, this is a very informative signal
500 Journal of Theoretical Politics 34(4)
To continue reading
Request your trial