Much recent debate in political communication has centered on the influence of ideologically oriented media outlets. Some argue that the current media environment is creating partisan echo chambers, while others contend that today’s political media afford citizens increased contact with a diverse range of opinion. The current study seeks to clarify relationships between political ideology, conservative cable TV news viewing (i.e., FOX News), and liberal cable TV news viewing (i.e., MSNBC), arguing that ideology serves as a suppressor of the relationship between the two seemingly disparate forms of cable TV news consumption. Analyses of primary 2009-2010 statewide survey data (N = 305) reveal the relationship between FOX News and MSNBC consumption to be positive and this association increases substantially once the role of ideology as suppressor is addressed. A secondary analysis of 2010 PEW data (N = 3,006) reveals a strong replication of the primary analysis results.
BaumM. A. (2003). Soft news goes to war: Public opinion and American foreign policy in the new media age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
BaumgartnerJ.MorrisJ. S. (2007). The daily show effect. American Politics Research, 34, 341-367.
3.
BennettS. E. (2002). Predicting Americans’ exposure to political talk radio in 1996, 1998, and 2000. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 7, 9-22.
4.
BennettW. L.IyengarS. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58, 707-731.
5.
BennettW. L.IyengarS. (2010). The shifting foundation of political communication: Responding to a defense of the media effects paradigm. Journal of Communication, 60, 35-39.
6.
BenoitW. L.HolbertR. L. (2008). Conducting communication research at methodological intersections: Replication, multiple quantitative methods, and bridging the quantitative-qualitative divide. Journal of Communication, 58, 615-628.
7.
BenoitW. L.HolbertR. L. (2010). Political communication. In BergerC. R.RoloffM. E.Roskos-EwoldsenD. R. (Eds.), The handbook of communication science (2nd ed., pp. 437-452). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
8.
BergerC. R.RoloffM. E.Roskos-EwoldsenD. R. (2010). What is communication science? In BergerC. R.RoloffM. E.Roskos-EwoldsenD. R. (Eds.), The handbook of communication science (2nd ed., pp. 3-20). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
9.
BergkvistL.RossiterJ. R. (2008). The role of ad likability in predicting an ad’s campaign performance. Journal of Advertising, 37, 85-97.
10.
BilandzicH.BusselleR. W. (2008). Transportation and transportability in the cultivation of genre-consistent attitudes and estimates. Journal of Communication, 58, 508-529.
BollenK. A.LennoxR. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 305-314.
13.
BosterF. J. (2002). On making progress in communication science. Human Communication Research, 28, 473-490.
14.
BucyE. P.NewhagenJ. E. (2004). Media access: Social and psychological dimensions of new technology use. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
ChaffeeS. H.SaphirM. N.GrafJ.SandvigC.HahnK. S. (2001). Attention to counter-attitudinal messages in a state election campaign. Political Communication, 18, 247-272.
16.
CohenJ.CohenP. (1975). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17.
CongerA. J. (1974). A revised definition for suppressor variables: A guide to their identification and interpretation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 35-46.
18.
DarlingtonR. B. (1968). Multiple regression in psychological research and practice. Psychological Bulletin, 69, 161-182.
19.
DugganA. P.DaileyR. M.LePoireB. A. (2008). Reinforcement and punishment of substance abuse during ongoing interactions: A conversational test of inconsistent nurturing as control theory. Journal of Health Communication, 13, 417-433.
20.
EhlenJ.EhlenP. (2007). Cellular-only substitution in the United States as lifestyle adoption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 717-733.
21.
EvelandW. P.Jr. (1997). Interactions and nonlinearity in mass communication: Connecting theory and methodology. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 400-416.
22.
FaberR. J.TimsA. R.SchmittK. G. (1993). Negative political advertising and voting intent: The role of involvement and alternative information sources. Journal of Advertising, 22, 67-76.
23.
FreyD. (1986). Recent research on selective exposure to information. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 41-80.
24.
FriedmanL.WallM. (2005). Graphical views of suppression and multicollinearity in multiple linear regression. American Statistician, 59, 127-136.
25.
GarrettR. K. (2009a). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication, 59, 676-699.
26.
GarrettR. K. (2009b). Echo chambers online? Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 265-285.
27.
HartR. (2003). The Oh Really? factor: Unspinning FOX News channel’s Bill O’Reilly. New York, NY: Seven Stories.
28.
HayesA. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408-420.
29.
HeiderF. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley.
30.
HolbertR. L. (2004). Political talk radio, perceived fairness, and the establishment of President George W. Bush’s political legitimacy. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 9, 12-27.
31.
HolbertR. L. (2005). A typology for the study of entertainment television and politics. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 436-453.
32.
HolbertR. L.BenoitW. L. (2009). A theory of political campaign media connectedness. Communication Monographs, 76, 303-332.
33.
HolbertR. L.GarrettR. K.GleasonL. S. (2010). A new era of minimal effects? A response to Bennett and Iyengar. Journal of Communication, 60(1), 15-34.
34.
HolbertR. L.StephensonM. T. (2002). Structural equation modeling in the communication sciences, 1995-2000. Human Communication Research, 28, 531-551.
35.
HolbertR. L.StephensonM. T. (2003). The importance of indirect effects in media effects research: Testing for mediation in structural equation modeling. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47, 556-572.
36.
HolbertR. L.StephensonM. T. (2008). Commentary on the uses and misuses of structural equation modeling in communication research. In HayesA. F.SlaterM. D.SnyderL. B. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of advanced data analysis methods for communication research (pp. 185-218). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
37.
HollingH. (2006). Suppressor variables. In KotzS. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of statistical sciences (Vol. 13, pp. 8450-8451). New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience.
38.
HorstP. (1941). The role of prediction variables which are independent of the criterion. In HorstP. (Ed.), The prediction of personal adjustment (pp. 431-436). New York, NY: Social Science Research Council.
39.
HoyleR. H.PanterA. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Comments, issues, and applications (pp. 158-176). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
40.
JamiesonK. H.CappellaJ. N. (2008). Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media establishment. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
41.
KattJ. A.McCroskeyJ. C.SivoS. A.RichmondV. P.ValencicK. M. (2009). A structural equation modeling evaluation of the general model of instructional communication. Communication Quarterly, 57, 239-258.
42.
Kennedy-LightseyC. D.MyersS. A. (2009). College students’ use of behavioral alteration techniques as a function of aggressive communication. Communication Education, 58, 54-73.
43.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.MengJ. (2009). Looking the other way: Selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counterattitudinal political information. Communication Research, 36, 426-448.
44.
KobayashiT.IkedaK. (2009). Selective exposure in political web browsing: Empirical verification of “cyber-balkanization” in Japan and the USA. Information, Communication, & Society, 12, 929-953.
45.
KohringM.MatthesJ. (2007). Trust in news media. Communication Research, 34, 231-252.
46.
LaVailK. H.AnkerA. E.ReinhartA.FeeleyT. H. (2010). The persuasive effects of audiovisual PSAs to promote organ donation: The mediating role of psychological reactance. Communication Studies, 61, 46-69.
47.
LavrakasP. J.ShuttlesC. D.SteehC.FienbergH. (2007). The state of surveying cell phone numbers in the United States: 2007 and beyond. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 840-854.
48.
LewisJ. W.EscobarL. A. (1986). Suppression and enhancement in bivariate regression. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 35, 17-26.
49.
LinkM. W.BattagliaM. P.FrankelM. R.OsbornL.MokdadA. H. (2007). Reaching the U.S. cell phone generation: Comparison of cell phone survey results with an ongoing landline telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 814-839.
50.
LynnH. S. (2003). Suppression and confounding in action. American Statistician, 57, 58-61.
51.
MacKinnonD. P.KrullJ. L.LockwoodC. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1, 173-181.
52.
MetzgerM. J. (2000). When no news is good news: Inferring closure for news issues. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 760-787.
53.
MutzD. C. (2002). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 838-855.
54.
MutzD. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
55.
MutzD. C.MartinP. S. (2001). Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. American Political Science Review, 95, 97-114.
56.
PerryD. K. (2007). Does television kill? Testing a period-characteristic model. Media Psychology, 9, 567-594.
57.
Pew Research Center for People and the Press. (2008). Audience segments in a changing news environment: Key news audiences now blend online and traditional sources. Retrieved from http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/444.pdf
58.
PriceV.CappellaJ. N.NirL. (2002). Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion?Political Communication, 19, 95-112.
59.
PriorM. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
60.
SchoolerC.ChaffeeS. H.FloraJ. A.RoserC. (1998). Health campaign channels: Tradeoffs among reach, specificity, and impact. Human Communication Research, 24, 410-432.
61.
SchudsonM. (1998). The public journalism movement and its problems. In GraberD.McQuailD.NorrisP. (Eds.), The politics of the news: The news of politics (pp. 132-149). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
62.
StroudN. J. (2007). Media effects, selective exposure, and Fahrenheit 9/11. Political Communication, 24, 415-432.
63.
StroudN. J. (2008). Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 30, 341-366.
64.
StroudN. J. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. Oxford: Oxford University Pess.
65.
SunsteinC. R. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
66.
TzelgovJ.HenikA. (1991). Suppression situations in psychological research: Definitions, implications, and applications. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 524-536.
67.
ValentinoN. A.BanksA. J.HutchingsV. L.DavisA. K. (2009). Selective exposure in the Internet age: The interaction between anxiety and information utility. Political Psychology, 30, 591-613.
68.
WebsterJ. G. (2005). Beneath the veneer of fragmentation: Television audience polarization in a multichannel world. Journal of Communication, 55, 366-382.
69.
WebsterJ. G. (2007). Diversity of exposure. In NapoliP. M. (Ed.), Media diversity and localism: Meaning and metrics (pp. 309-326). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
70.
WojcieszakM. E. (2009). Three dimensionality taxonomy of iconic, linguistic, and audio messages in television news. Television & New Media, 10, 459-481.
