The possibly detrimental consequences of soft news are subject of popular and academic debate. This study investigates how watching particular news genres—soft versus hard—relates to cynicism about politics among Dutch citizens. A nuanced and novel scale measuring relative exposure to soft versus hard news is introduced using nonparametric unidimensional unfolding. The analysis of three public opinion surveys demonstrates a strong relationship between people’s position on this hard versus soft news exposure scale and political cynicism. People who watched relatively more soft news were more cynical about politics than people who watched relatively more hard news. This relationship was not conditional on individuals’ level of political knowledge and interest.
AalbergT.JensenA. T. (2007). Do television debates in multiparty systems affect viewers? A quasi-experimental study with first-time voters. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30, 115-135. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00175.x
2.
AartsK.SemetkoH. A. (2003). The divided electorate: Media use and political involvement. The Journal of Politics, 65, 759-784. doi:10.1111/1468-2508.00211
3.
AdriaansenM. L.TiemeijerW. L. (2011). Defining political trust and cynicism: Dissecting attitudes towards political actors. In AdriaansenM. L. (Ed.), Versatile citizens: Media reporting, political cynicism and voter behavior (Doctoral dissertation) (pp. 25-44). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam School of Communication Research.
4.
AdriaansenM. L.Van PraagP.De VreeseC. H. (2010). Substance matters: How news content can reduce political cynicism. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22, 433-457. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edq033
5.
AlbertazziD.MacDonnellD. (2008). Twenty-first century populism: The spectre of western European democracy. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
6.
AtkinsonJ. (2005). Metaspin: Demonisation of media manipulation. Political Science, 57(2), 17-27. doi:10.1177/003231870505700203
7.
AustC. F.ZillmannD. (1996). Effects of victim exemplification in television news on viewer perception of social issues. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 73, 787-803. doi:10.1177/107769909607300403
8.
BarnettS. (1998). Dumbing down or reaching out: Is it tabloidisation wot done it?The Political Quarterly, 69(B), 75-90. doi:10.1111/1467-923X.00193
9.
BaumM. A. (2002). Sex, lies, and war: How soft news brings foreign policy to the inattentive public. American Political Science Review, 96, 91-110. doi:10.1017/S0003055402004252
10.
BaumM. A. (2003a). Soft news and political knowledge: Evidence of absence or absence of evidence?Political Communication, 20, 173-190. doi:10.1080/10584600390211181
11.
BaumM. A. (2003b). Soft news goes to war: Public opinion and American foreign policy in the new media age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12.
BaumM. A. (2004). Circling the wagons: Soft news and isolationism in American public opinion. International Studies Quarterly, 48, 313-338. doi:10.1111/j.0020-8833.2004.00303.x
13.
BaumM. A. (2005). Talking the vote: Why presidential candidates hit the talk show circuit. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 213-234. doi:10.1111/j.0092-5853.2005.t01-1-00119.x
14.
BaumM. A. (2007). Soft news and foreign policy: How expanding the audience changes the policies. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 8, 115-145. doi:10.1017/S1468109907002502
15.
BeltT. L.JustM. R. (2008). The local news story: Is quality a choice?Political Communication, 25, 194-215. doi:10.1080/10584600801985714
16.
BennettW. L. (2003). The burglar alarm that just keeps ringing: A response to Zaller. Political Communication, 20, 131-138. doi:10.1080/10584600390211145
17.
BeskersA. (2011). Hard nieuws en zacht nieuws in de journalistieke praktijk: Een onderzoek naar de journalistieke denkbeelden, omtrent hard nieuws en zacht nieuws, in een veranderend medialandschap [Hard news and soft news in journalistic practice: An investigation to journalistic conceptions about hard news and soft news in a changing media environment] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
18.
BirdS. E. (1998). News we can use: An audience perspective on the tabloidisation of news in the United States. Javnost—The Public, 5(3), 33-49. Retrieved from http://javnost-thepublic.org/article/pdf/1998/3/3/
19.
BirdS. E. (2009). Tabloidization: What is it, and does it really matter? In ZelizerB. (Ed.), The changing faces of journalism: Tabloidization, technology and truthiness (pp. 40-50). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
20.
BlumlerJ. G.KavanaghD. (1999). The third age of political communication: Influences and features. Political Communication, 16, 209-230. doi:10.1080/105846099198596
21.
BolsenT.DruckmanJ. N.CookF. L. (2014). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36(2), 235-262. doi:10.1007/s11109-013-9238-0
22.
BovensM.WilleA. (2008). Deciphering the Dutch drop: Ten explanations for decreasing political trust in the Netherlands. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 74, 283-305. doi:10.1177/0020852308091135
23.
BrantsK.CabriE.NeijensP. (2000). Hoe informatief en hoe leuk? Infotainment in de campagne [How informative and how entertaining? Infotainment during the campaign]. In Van PraagP.BrantsK. (Eds.), Tussen beeld en inhoud: Politiek en media in de verkiezingen van 1998 (pp. 134-154). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Het Spinhuis.
24.
BrantsK.NeijensP. (1998). The infotainment of politics. Political Communication, 15, 149-164. doi:10.1080/10584609809342363
25.
BrosiusH.BatheltA. (1994). The utility of exemplars in persuasive communications. Communication Research, 21, 48-78. doi:10.1177/009365094021001004
26.
CappellaJ. N. (2002). Cynicism and social trust in the new media environment. Journal of Communication, 52(1), 229-241. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02541.x
27.
CappellaJ. N.JamiesonK. H. (1996). News frames, political cynicism, and media cynicism. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546, 71-84. doi:10.1177/0002716296546001007
28.
ChaffeeS. H.KanihanS. F. (1997). Learning about politics from the mass media. Political Communication, 14, 421-430. doi:10.1080/105846097199218
29.
CoombsC. H. (1964). A theory of data. New York, NY: John Wiley.
30.
Costera MeijerI. (2003). What is quality television news? A plea for extending the professional repertoire of newsmakers. Journalism Studies, 4, 15-29. doi:10.1080/14616700306496
31.
DaltonR. J. (2000). Citizen attitudes and political behavior. Comparative Political Studies, 33, 912-940. doi:10.1177/001041400003300609
32.
Delli CarpiniM. X. (2004). Mediating democratic engagement: The impact of communications on citizens’ involvement in political and civic life. In KaidL. L. (Ed.), Handbook of political communication research (pp. 395-434). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33.
De VreeseC. H. (2004). The effects of strategic news on political cynicism, issue evaluations, and policy support: A two-wave experiment. Mass Communication & Society, 7, 191-214. doi:10.1207/s15327825mcs0702_4
34.
De VreeseC. H.ElenbaasM. (2008). Media in the game of politics: Effects of strategic metacoverage on political cynicism. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13, 285-309. doi:10.1177/1940161208319650
35.
DiddiA.LaRoseR. (2006). Getting hooked on news: Uses and gratifications and the formation of news habits among college students in an internet environment. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50, 193-210. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem5002_2
36.
ElenbaasM.BoomgaardenH. G.SchuckA. R. T.De VreeseC. H. (2013). The impact of media coverage and motivation on performance-relevant information. Political Communication, 30, 1-16. doi:10.1080/10584609.2012.737411
37.
EvelandW. P.ScheufeleD. A. (2000). Connecting news media use with gaps in knowledge and participation. Political Communication, 17, 215-237. doi:10.1080/105846000414250
38.
FeldmanL.YoungD. G. (2008). Late-night comedy as a gateway to traditional news: An analysis of time trends in news attention among late-night comedy viewers during the 2004 presidential primaries. Political Communication, 25, 401-422. doi:10.1080/10584600802427013
39.
FieschiC.HeywoodP. (2004). Trust, cynicism and populist anti-politics. Journal of Political Ideologies, 9, 289-309. doi:10.1080/1356931042000263537
40.
GalstonW. A. (2001). Political knowledge, political engagement, and civic education. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 217-234.
41.
GansH. J. (2009). Can popularization help the news media? In ZelizerB. (Ed.), The changing faces of journalism: Tabloidization, technology and truthiness (pp. 17-28). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
42.
GerbnerG.GrossL.MorganM.SignorielliN. (1984). Political correlates of television viewing. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 283-300. doi:10.1086/268826
43.
GlaserW. A. (1965). Television and voting turnout. Public Opinion Quarterly, 29, 71-86. doi:10.1086/267298
44.
GrabeM. E.ZhouS.BarnettB. (2001). Explicating sensationalism in television news: Content and the bells and whistles of form. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45, 635-655. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4504_6
45.
GraberD. A. (1990). Seeing is remembering: How visuals contribute to learning from television news. Journal of Communication, 40(3), 134-156. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1990.tb02275.x
46.
GraberD. A. (1994). The infotainment quotient in routine television news: A director’s perspective. Discourse & Society, 5, 483-508. doi:10.1177/0957926594005004004
47.
GraberD. A. (2003). The rocky road to new paradigms: Modernizing news and citizenship standards. Political Communication, 20, 145-148. doi:10.1080/10584600390211163
48.
GrossK. (2008). Framing persuasive appeals: Episodic and thematic framing, emotional response, and policy opinion. Political Psychology, 29, 169-192. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00622.x
49.
HartR. P.HarteliusE. J. (2007). The political sins of Jon Stewart. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 24, 263-272. doi:10.1080/07393180701520991
50.
Hendriks VettehenP.BeentjesJ.NuijtenK.PeetersA. (2011). Arousing news characteristics in Dutch television news 1990–2004: An exploration of competitive strategies. Mass Communication and Society, 14, 93-112. doi:10.1080/15205431003615893
51.
HetheringtonM. J. (1998). The political relevance of political trust. The American Political Science Review, 92, 791-808. doi:10.2307/2586304
52.
HolbertR. L. (2005). A typology for the study of entertainment television and politics. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 436-453. doi:10.1177/0002764205279419
53.
HvitfeltH. (1994). The commercialization of the evening news: Changes in narrative techniques in Swedish TV news. The Nordicom Review, 2, 33-41.
54.
IyengarS. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
55.
IyengarS.NorpothH.HahnK. S. (2004). Consumer demand for election news: The horserace sells. The Journal of Politics, 66, 157-175.
56.
JacksonD. (2011). Strategic media, cynical public? Examining the contingent effects of strategic news frames on political cynicism in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Press/Politics, 16, 75-101. doi:10.1177/1940161210381647
57.
JebrilN.AlbækE.De VreeseC. H. (2013). Infotainment, cynicism and democracy: The effects of privatization vs personalization in the news. European Journal of Communication, 28, 105-121. doi:10.1177/0267323112468683
58.
JenningsM. K. (1996). Political knowledge over time and across generations. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 228-252. doi:10.1086/297749
59.
JonesJ. P. (2012). The “new” news as no “news”: US cable news channels as branded political entertainment television. Media International Australia, 144, 146-155.
60.
JustM.CriglerA.BuhrT. (1999). Voice, substance, and cynicism in presidential campaign media. Political Communication, 16, 25-44. doi:10.1080/105846099198758
61.
KitchC. (2009). Tears and trauma in the news. In ZelizerB. (Ed.), The changing faces of journalism: Tabloidization, technology and truthiness (pp. 29-39). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
62.
KlineR. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
63.
KundaZ. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
64.
LeeA. M. (2013). News audiences revisited: Theorizing the link between audience motivations and news consumption. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57, 300-317. doi:10.1080/08838151.2013.816712
65.
LefevereJ.De SwertK.WalgraveS. (2012). Effects of popular exemplars in television news. Communication Research, 39, 103-119. doi:10.1177/0093650210387124
66.
Lehman-WilzigS. N.SeletzkyM. (2010). Hard news, soft news, “general” news: The necessity and utility of an intermediate classification. Journalism, 11, 37-56. doi:10.1177/1464884909350642
67.
LeshnerG.McKeanM. L. (1997). Using TV news for political information during an off-year election: Effects on political knowledge and cynicism. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 69-83. doi:10.1177/107769909707400106
68.
LevyM. R. (1977). TV news experiencing television news. Journal of Communication, 27(4), 112-117. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1977.tb01865.x
MachinD.PapatheoderouF. (2002). Commercialization and tabloid television in southern Europe: Disintegration or democratization of the public sphere?Journal of European Area Studies, 10, 31-48. doi:10.1080/14608460220148428
71.
ManheimJ. B. (1976). Can democracy survive television?Journal of Communication, 26(2), 84-90. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01385.x
72.
MazzoleniG.StewartJ.HorsfieldB. (2003). The media and neo-populism: A contemporary comparative analysis. Westport, CT: Praeger.
73.
McLeodD. M.KosickiG. M.McLeodJ. M. (2009). Political communication effects. In BryantJ.OliverM. B. (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 228-251). New York, NY: Routledge.
74.
MinkjanL. H. E. (2012). Televisie over Milly Boele: Framegebruik bij de commerciële en de publieke omroep [Television about Milly Boele: The use of frames by the commercial and the public broadcasters] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands.
75.
MokkenR. J. (1971). A theory and procedure of scaling: With applications in political research. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.
76.
NewtonK. (1999). Mass media effects: Mobilization or media malaise?British Journal of Political Science, 29, 577-599. doi:10.1017/S0007123499000289
77.
NewtonK. (2006). Maythe weak force be with you: The power of the mass media in modern politics. European Journal of Political Research, 45, 209-234. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00296.x
78.
NguyenA. (2012). The effect of soft news on public attachment to the news: Is “infotainment” good for democracy?Journalism Studies, 13, 706-717. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2012.664318
79.
NisbetE. C. (2008). Media use, democratic citizenship, and communication gaps in a developing democracy. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20, 454-482. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edn043
80.
NortonM. (2011). A structural hermeneutics of the O’Reilly factor. Theory and Society, 40(3), 1-32. doi:10.1007/s11186-011-9143-7
81.
PattersonT. E. (2000). Doing well and doing good: How soft news and critical journalism are shrinking the news audience and weakening democracy—And what news outlets can do about it. Cambridge, UK: Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.
82.
PattersonT. E. (2003). The search for a standard: Markets and media. Political Communication, 20, 139-143. doi:10.1080/10584600390211154
83.
PerryS. D.GonzenbachW. J. (1997). Effects of news exemplification extended: Considerations of controversiality and perceived future opinion. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 41, 229-244. doi:10.1080/08838159709364403
84.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
85.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T.StrathmanA. J.PriesterJ. R. (2005). To think or not to think: Exploring two routes to persuasion. In BrockT. C.GreenM. C. (Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives (pp. 81-116). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
86.
PlasserF. (2005). From hard to soft news standards? How political journalists in different media systems evaluate the shifting quality of news. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 10(2), 47-68. doi:10.1177/1081180X05277746
87.
PostmanN. (1986). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show business. London, England: Heinemann.
88.
PriorM. (2003). Any good news in soft news? The impact of soft news preference on political knowledge. Political Communication, 20, 149-171. doi:10.1080/10584600390211172
89.
PriorM.LupiaA. (2008). Money, time, and political knowledge: Distinguishing quick recall and political learning skills. American Journal of Political Science, 52, 169-183.
90.
ReinemannC.StanyerJ.ScherrS.LegnanteG. (2012). Hard and soft news: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 13, 221-239. doi:10.1177/1464884911427803
91.
RittenbergJ.TewksburyD.CaseyS. (2012). Media preferences and democracy: Refining the “relative entertainment preference” hypothesis. Mass Communication and Society, 15, 921-942. doi:10.1080/15205436.2011.622065
92.
RobinsonJ. P.ShaverP. R.WrightsmanL. S. (1999). Measures of political attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
93.
RobinsonM. J. (1976). Public affairs television and the growth of political malaise: The case of “the selling of the Pentagon.”The American Political Science Review, 70, 409-432. doi:10.2307/1959647
94.
RosensteinA. W.GrantA. E. (1997). Reconceptualizing the role of habit: A new model of television audience activity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 41, 324-344. doi:10.1080/08838159709364411
95.
RubinA. M.PerseE. M. (1987). Audience activity and television news gratifications. Communication Research, 14(1), 58-84. doi:10.1177/009365087014001004
96.
RucinskiD. (1992). Personalized bias in news: The potency of the particular?Communication Research, 19(1), 91-108. doi:10.1177/009365092019001004
97.
SchönbachK.De WaalE. (2011). Het nieuwe media-aanbod: Een gevaar voor de democratie? [The new media content: A threat to democracy?] (Studies voor het Stimuleringsfonds voor de Pers: S34). Diemen, The Netherlands: AMB.
SchynsP.NuusM. (2007). Political cynicism and social cohesion in Europe and the United States. In AdamF. (Ed.), Social capital and governance: Old and new members of the EU in comparison (pp. 91-122). Berlin, Germany: Lit Verlag.
100.
ScottD. K.GobetzR. H. (1992). Hard news/soft news content of the national broadcast networks, 1972-1987. Journalism Quarterly, 69, 406-412. doi:10.1177/107769909206900214
101.
SemetkoH. A.ValkenburgP. M. (2000). Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 93-109. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02843.x
102.
SlaterM. D. (2007). Reinforcing spirals: The mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Communication Theory, 17, 281-303. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00296.x
103.
SmithS. M.FabrigarL. R.NorrisM. E. (2008). Reflecting on six decades of selective exposure research: Progress, challenges, and opportunities. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 464-493. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00060.x
104.
TaberC. S.LodgeM. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755-769. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x
105.
ThussuD. K. (2007). News as entertainment: The rise of global infotainment. London, England: Sage.
106.
ValentinoN. A.BeckmannM. N.BuhrT. A. (2001). A spiral of cynicism for some: The contingent effects of campaign news frames on participation and confidence in government. Political Communication, 18, 347-367. doi:10.1080/10584600152647083
107.
Van der BrugW. (1993). Determining scale values for subjects in MUDFOLD. Kwantitatieve Methoden, 44, 9-20. doi:10.1093/pan/4.1.41
108.
Van der BrugW.Van PraagP. (2007). Erosion of support for political institutions in the Netherlands: Structural or temporarily? A research note. Acta Politica, 42, 443-458. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500203
109.
Van der EijkC. (2000). The Netherlands: Media and politics between segmented pluralism and market forces. In GuntherR.MughanA. (Eds.), Democracy and the media: A comparative perspective (pp. 303-342). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
110.
Van PraagP.BrantsK. (2000). Tussen beeld en inhoud: Politiek en media in de verkiezingen van 1998 [Between image and content: Politics and media in the 1998 elections]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Het Spinhuis.
111.
Van SchuurW. H. (1992). Nonparametric unidimensional unfolding for multicategory data. Political Analysis, 4, 41-74. doi:10.1093/pan/4.1.41
112.
Van SchuurW. H. (2003). Mokken scale analysis: Between the Guttman scale and parametric item response theory. Political Analysis, 11, 139-163. doi:10.1093/pan/mpg002
113.
Van ZoonenL. (2005). Entertaining the citizen: When politics and popular culture converge. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
114.
WilliamsB. A.Delli CarpiniM. X. (2011). After broadcast news: Media regimes, democracy, and the new information environment. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
115.
WonnebergerA.SchoenbachK.van MeursL. (2011). Interest in news and politics - or situational determinants? Why people watch the news. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 55, 325-343. doi:10.1080/08838151.2011.597466
116.
WonnebergerA.SchoenbachK.van MeursL. (2013). How keeping up diversifies: Watching public affairs TV in the Netherlands 1988–2010. European Journal of Communication, 28, 646-662. doi:10.1177/0267323113501150
117.
ZallerJ. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
118.
ZallerJ. R. (2003). A new standard of news quality: Burglar alarms for the monitorial citizen. Political Communication, 20, 109-130. doi:10.1080/10584600390211136
119.
ZelizerB. (2007). Introduction: On finding new ways of thinking about journalism. Political Communication, 24, 111-114. doi:10.1080/10584600701312829
120.
ZillmannD.BrosiusH. (2000). Exemplification in communication: The influence of case reports on the perception of issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
121.
ZillmannD.GibsonR.SundarS. S.PerkinsJ. W. (1996). Effects of exemplification in news reports on the perception of social issues. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 73, 427-444. doi:10.1177/107769909607300213
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.
