The Enemy of the People: How Attacking (and defending) the Press Shapes Opinion

• In Event: Attitudes Towards News

Abstract

Verbal attacks on the press are commonplace in contemporary political discourse. Prior work suggests such critiques of the fourth estate can significantly shape perceptions of media bias and decrease feelings of warmth towards the press, particularly when the attack comes from an in-partisan. Drawing on an original survey experiment, I provide an updated look at the effectiveness of politicians’ attacks on the media in the Trump era. Specifically, I randomly assign individuals to read a critique of the press by an in- or out-partisan and measure outcomes beyond just perceptions of bias, including views on journalistic practices (e.g., using anonymous sources), journalists’ watchdog role in democracies, and the power of the FCC. I also randomly assign some treatment groups to read a defense of the fourth estate as a means of better understanding whether or not reporters—who have historically been reluctant to insert themselves in the news—can effectively defend themselves. I hypothesize that press attacks from an in-party political leader will be most effective in shaping views on these new outcome variables, and defenses of the press will be influential regardless of context. I largely find support for my hypotheses. Of particular interest, even Republicans are more sympathetic to the media’s watchdog role in democracy when reminded that many journalists view their core mission as holding politicians accountable.

Author

• Allison M.N. Archer, University of Houston