Why we stopped listening to the other side: how partisan cues in news coverage undermine the deliberative foundations of democracy

IF 0.8 Q3 COMMUNICATION
F. Arendt, Temple Northup, Michaela Forrai, Dietram A. Scheufele
{"title":"Why we stopped listening to the other side: how partisan cues in news coverage undermine the deliberative foundations of democracy","authors":"F. Arendt, Temple Northup, Michaela Forrai, Dietram A. Scheufele","doi":"10.1093/joc/jqad007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Recent theorizing on deliberative democracy has put political listening at the core of meaningful democratic deliberation. In the present experiment (N = 827), we investigated whether news media can improve diverse political listening in the United States via a reduction in party cue salience. Although Republican (Democratic) participants showed a strong preference for listening to speeches given by Republican (Democratic) politicians when party cues were highly salient, this bias in selective political listening was reduced or even absent when news items provided no or only low-salience cues. Conditional process analysis indicated that (automatically activated) implicit and (overtly expressed) explicit party attitudes mediated this effect. There are important implications: Current journalism practices tend to exacerbate tribal us-vs-them thinking by emphasizing partisan cues, nudging citizens toward not listening to political ideas from the other political camp. A more helpful news-choice architecture tones down partisan language, nudging citizens toward more diverse political listening.","PeriodicalId":53925,"journal":{"name":"Fonseca-Journal of Communication","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fonseca-Journal of Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqad007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent theorizing on deliberative democracy has put political listening at the core of meaningful democratic deliberation. In the present experiment (N = 827), we investigated whether news media can improve diverse political listening in the United States via a reduction in party cue salience. Although Republican (Democratic) participants showed a strong preference for listening to speeches given by Republican (Democratic) politicians when party cues were highly salient, this bias in selective political listening was reduced or even absent when news items provided no or only low-salience cues. Conditional process analysis indicated that (automatically activated) implicit and (overtly expressed) explicit party attitudes mediated this effect. There are important implications: Current journalism practices tend to exacerbate tribal us-vs-them thinking by emphasizing partisan cues, nudging citizens toward not listening to political ideas from the other political camp. A more helpful news-choice architecture tones down partisan language, nudging citizens toward more diverse political listening.
为什么我们不再听取对方的意见:新闻报道中的党派暗示如何破坏民主的协商基础
最近关于协商民主的理论将政治倾听置于有意义的民主协商的核心。在本实验中(N = 827),我们调查了新闻媒体是否可以通过减少政党线索显著性来改善美国的多样化政治倾听。尽管共和党(民主党)参与者在政党线索高度突出时,对听共和党(民主党)政客的演讲表现出强烈的偏好,但当新闻项目不提供或只有低显著性线索时,这种选择性政治倾听的偏见减少甚至不存在。条件过程分析表明,(自动激活的)内隐态度和(公开表达的)外显态度介导了这种效应。这其中蕴含着重要的含义:当前的新闻实践往往会通过强调党派线索,促使公民不听取其他政治阵营的政治观点,从而加剧“我们对他们”的部落思维。一个更有帮助的新闻选择架构淡化了党派语言,推动公民更多元化地倾听政治。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
25.00%
发文量
14
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信