We investigate how dominant media networks can manipulate voters in young democracies. During the first presidential election after the democratic transition in Brazil, TV Globo, the largest and most-watched network in the country, unexpectedly manipulated the news coverage of the last debate 2 days before the decisive second round. In a video segment, Globo unfavorably depicted the left-wing candidate, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Using the geographical distribution of broadcaster-specific TV signals and the timing of election events, we identify the effect of the manipulation net of the effect of the debate itself, showing that Globo’s misleading reporting caused Lula to lose millions of votes. Our results showcase how the media can reshape an election in a single stroke, especially where the media is concentrated and politically inexperienced voters have few other sources of information.
AlbertusM.GayV. (2017). Unlikely democrats: Economic elite uncertainty under dictatorship and support for democratization. American Journal of Political Science, 61(3), 624–641. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12277
3.
AlbertusM.MenaldoV. (2018). Authoritarianism and the elite origins of democracy. Cambridge University Press.
4.
BaroneG.D’AcuntoF.NarcisoG. (2015, May). Telecracy: Testing for channels of persuasion. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 7(2), 30–60. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20130318
5.
BenjaminD. J.ShapiroJ. M. (2009, 08) Thin-slice forecasts of gubernatorial elections. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 91(33), 523–536. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.91.3.523
6.
BidwellK.CaseyK.GlennersterR. (2020). Debates: Voting and expenditure responses to political communication. Journal of Political Economy, 128(8), 2880–2924. https://doi.org/10.1086/706862
7.
BoasT. C. (2005). Television and neopopulism in Latin America: Media effects in Brazil and Peru. Latin American Research Review, 40(2), 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1353/lar.2005.0019
8.
BoasT. C. (2010). Varieties of electioneering: Success contagion and presidential campaigns in Latin america. World Politics, 62(4), 636–675. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0043887110000213
9.
BoasT. C. (2013). “Mass Media and Politics in Latin America.” In Constructing Democratic Governance in Latin America, edited by Jorge Domnguez and Michael Shifter. Johns Hopkins University Press.
BrierleyS.KramonE.OfosuG. K. (2020). The moderating effect of debates on political attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 64(1), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12458
12.
CampelloD.ZuccoC. (2020). The volatility curse: Exogenous shocks and representation in resource-rich democracies. Cambridge University Press.
13.
CaseyK. (2022). Snap judgments: Predicting politician competence from photos. The Journal of Politics, 84(2), 698–713. https://doi.org/10.1086/716284
14.
CavgiasA.CorbiR.MeloniL.NovaesL. M. (2023). Replication data for: Media manipulation in young democracies: Evidence from the 1989 Brazilian presidential election. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/DEIRCB
15.
CeciS. (1991). How much does schooling influence general intelligence and its cognitive components?Developmental Psychology, 27(5), 703–722. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.27.5.703
16.
ChiangC.-F.KnightB. (2011). Media bias and influence: Evidence from newspaper endorsements. The Review of Economic Studies, 78(3), 795–820. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdq037
ChongA.La FerraraE. (2009). Television and divorce: Evidence from Brazilian novelas. Journal of the European Economic Association, 7(2–3), 458–468. https://doi.org/10.1162/jeea.2009.7.2-3.458
19.
ContiM. S. (1999). Notícias do planalto. Companhia das Letras.
20.
CoppockA.HillS. J.VavreckL. (2020). The small effects of political advertising are small regardless of context, message, sender, or receiver: Evidence from 59 real-time randomized experiments. Science Advances, 6(36), eabc4046. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abc4046
CPDOC. (2009). Centro de pesquisa e documentação de história contemporânea do Brasil - verbete. Luis Inacio da Silva, Fundacao Getulio Vargas.
23.
Da SilveiraB. S.De MelloJ. M. (2011). Campaign advertising and election outcomes: Quasi-natural experiment evidence from gubernatorial elections in Brazil. The Review of Economic Studies, 78(2), 590–612. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdq012
DellaVignaS.KaplanE. (2006, April). The fox news effect: Media bias and voting (Working Paper No. 12169). National Bureau of Economic Research.
26.
DellaVignaS.KaplanE. (2007). The Fox News effect: Media bias and voting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1187–1234. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.122.3.1187
27.
DiNardoJ.FortinN. M.LemieuxT. (1996). Labor market institutions and the distribution of wages, 1973-1992: A semiparametric approach. Econometrica, 64(5), 1001–1044. https://doi.org/10.2307/2171954
28.
DuchR. M.StevensonR. T. (2008). The economic vote: How political and economic institutions condition election results. Cambridge University Press.
29.
DuranteR.KnightB. (2012). Partisan control, media bias, and viewer responses: Evidence from Berlusconi’s Italy. Journal of the European Economic Association, 10(3), 451–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01060.x
30.
DuranteR.PinottiP.TeseiA. (2019). The political legacy of entertainment TV. American Economic Review, 109(7), 2497–2530. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20150958
31.
EnikolopovR.PetrovaM.ZhuravskayaE. (2011). Media and political persuasion: Evidence from Russia. The American Economic Review, 101(7), 3253–3285. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.7.3253
32.
FerraraE. L.ChongA.DuryeaS. (2012, July). Soap operas and fertility: Evidence from Brazil. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 4(4), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.4.4.1
33.
FerrazC.FinanF. (2008, 05). Exposing corrupt politicians: The effects of Brazil’s publicly released audits on electoral outcomes. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(2), 703–745. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2008.123.2.703
34.
FerrazC.FinanF. (2011). Electoral accountability and corruption: Evidence from the audits of local governments. American Economic Review, 101(4), 1274–1311. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.4.1274
35.
FridkinK. L.KenneyP. J.GershonS. A.ShaferK.WoodallG. S. (2007). Capturing the power of a campaign event: The 2004 presidential debate in Tempe. The Journal of Politics, 69(3), 770–785. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00574.x
36.
FujiwaraT. (2015). Voting technology, political responsiveness, and infant health: Evidence from Brazil. Econometrica, 83(2), 423–464. https://doi.org/10.3982/ecta11520
37.
FujiwaraT.WantchekonL. (2013, October). Can informed public deliberation overcome clientelism? Experimental evidence from Benin. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(4), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.5.4.241
GerberA.GimpelJ. G.GreenD. P.ShawD. R. (2011). How large and long-lasting are the persuasive effects of televised campaign ads? Results from a randomized field experiment. The American Political Science Review, 105(1), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1017/s000305541000047x
41.
GerberA.KarlanD.BerganD. (2009). Does the media matter? A field experiment measuring the effect of newspapers on voting behavior and political opinions. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(2), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.1.2.35
42.
Goodman-BaconA.CunninghamJ. (2019). Changes in family structure and welfare participation since the 1960s: The role of legal services. NBER Working Paper. (w26238).
43.
GreeneK. F. (2011). Campaign persuasion and nascent partisanship in Mexico’s new democracy. American Journal of Political Science, 55(2), 398–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00497.x
44.
GrossK.PorterE.WoodT. J. (2019). Identifying media effects through low-cost, multiwave field experiments. Political Communication, 36(2), 272–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2018.1514447
45.
GrossmanG.MargalitY.MittsT. (2022). “How the ultrarich use media ownership as a political investment.”The Journal of Politics, 84no. 4: 1913–1931.
46.
GuessA. M. (2021). (Almost) everything in moderation: New evidence on Americans’ online media diets. American Journal of Political Science, 65(4), 1007–1022. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12589
47.
HaggardS.KaufmanR. R. (1997). The political economy of democratic transitions. Comparative Politics, 29(3), 263–283. https://doi.org/10.2307/422121
48.
HerzD. (1987). A história secreta da rede globo. Tchê!.
49.
HinichM. J.MungerM. C. (1997). Analytical politics. Cambridge University Press.
50.
HortonJ. J.RandD. G.ZeckhauserR. J. (2011). The online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experimental Economics, 14(3), 399–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-011-9273-9
KallaJ. L.BroockmanD. E. (2018). The minimal persuasive effects of campaign contact in general elections: Evidence from 49 field experiments. American Political Science Review, 112(1), 148–166. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055417000363
KucinskiB. (2002). Mídia e democracia no brasil. Mídia e tolerância: A ciência construindo caminhos de liberdade (pp. 39–50). Editora da Universidade de São Paulo.
56.
LaddJ. M.LenzG. S. (2009). Exploiting a rare communication shift to document the persuasive power of the news media. American Journal of Political Science, 53(2), 394–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00377.x
57.
LawsonC. (2002). Building the fourth estate: Democratization and the rise of a free press in Mexico. Univ of California Press.
58.
LawsonC.LenzG. S.BakerA.MyersM. (2010). Looking like a winner: Candidate appearance and electoral success in new democracies. World Politics, 62(4), 561–593. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0043887110000195
59.
LawsonC.McCannJ. A. (2005). Television news, Mexico’s 2000 elections and media effects in emerging democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 35(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123405000013
60.
Le PennecC.PonsV. (2019). Vote choice formation and the minimal effects of TV debates: Evidence from 61 elections in 9 OECD countries. NBER Working Paper. (w26572).
61.
LevitskyS.LoxtonJ.Van DyckB.DomínguezJ. I. (2016). Challenges of party-building in Latin America. Cambridge University Press.
62.
Lins da SilvaC. E. (1993). ‘The Brazilian case: Manipulation by the media?’, in SkidmoreThomas E. (ed.), Television, politics, and the transition to democracy in Latin America (pp. 137–144). Johns Hopkins University Press.
63.
LoxtonJ.MainwaringS. (2018). Life after dictatorship: Authoritarian successor parties worldwide. Cambridge University Press.
64.
MainwaringS.BizzarroF.PetrovaA. (2018). Party system institutionalization, decay, and collapse. In MainwaringS. (Ed.), Party Systems in Latin America: Institutionalization, Decay, and Collapse (pp. 17–33). Cambridge University Press.
65.
MartinG. J.YurukogluA. (2017, September). Bias in cable news: Persuasion and polarization. American Economic Review, 107(9), 2565–2599. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20160812
66.
Mota GomesI. M. (2009). Les quarante ans du Jornal Nacional, de la Rede Globo de télévision. la relation entre dépendance/indépendance politique et économique du principal journal télévisé brésilien. Le Temps des médias, 13(2), 56–72. https://doi.org/10.3917/tdm.013.0056
67.
MotterP. (2019). A batalha invisível da constituinte: Interesses privados versus caráter público da radiodifusão no brasil. Fundação Oswaldo Cruz.
68.
O’DonnellG.SchmitterP. C. (2013). Transitions from authoritarian rule: Tentative conclusions about uncertain democracies. JHU Press.
69.
PeisakhinL.RozenasA. (2018). Electoral effects of biased media: Russian television in Ukraine. American Journal of Political Science, 62(3), 535–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12355
70.
PortoM. (2003). Mass media and politics in democratic Brazil. In D’Alva KinzoMariaDunkerleyJames (eds.), Brazil since 1985 (pp. 288–313). Institute of Latin American Studies.
71.
PowerT. J.ZuccoC. (2012). Elite preferences in a consolidating democracy: The Brazilian legislative surveys, 1990–2009. Latin American Politics and Society, 54(4), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-2456.2012.00161.x
SimpserA.SlaterD.WittenbergJ. (2018). Dead but not gone: Contemporary legacies of communism, imperialism, and authoritarianism. Annual Review of Political Science, 21(1), 419–439. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-062615-020900
78.
SpenkuchJ. L.ToniattiD. (2018, 05). political advertising and election results. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(4), 1981–2036. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjy010
79.
StrömbergD. (2015). Media coverage and political accountability: Theory and evidence. In Handbook of Media Economics (Vol. 1, pp. 595–622). Elsevier.
TodorovA.N MandisodzaA.GorenA.C HallC. (2005, 07). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308(5728), 1623–1626. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1110589
83.
VoltmerK. (2013). The media in transitional democracies. John Wiley & Sons.
84.
ZallerJ. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
