Secondary analysis of panel data found, after controlling for prior belief and many covariates, that 2011 Fox News viewing was negatively related to belief in global warming in 2016 and 2019, while MSNBC, broadcast news, and political comedy viewing in 2016 and CNN in 2019 had positive relationships. Partisan belief gaps in 2016 widened with CNN viewing and narrowed with viewing broadcast news, Fox News (especially with higher knowledge) and MSNBC (especially with lower knowledge), while political comedy viewing was associated both with wider (with lower knowledge) and narrower gaps (with higher knowledge). Implications for practice and theory are discussed.
AdayS. (2010). Chasing the bad news: An analysis of 2005 Iraq and Afghanistan war coverage on NBC and Fox News Channel. Journal of Communication, 60, 144–164.
3.
AhernL.FormentinM. (2016). More is less: Global warming news values on Fox compared to other U.S. broadcast news outlets. Electronic News, 10(1), 45–65.
4.
AnsolabehereS.RiversD. (2013). Cooperative Survey Research. Annual Review of Political Science, 2013, 211–223.
5.
AntillaL. (2005). Climate of scepticism: U.S. newspaper coverage of the science of climate change. Global Environmental Change, 15(4), 338–352.
6.
BakerJ. O.EdmondsA. E. (2021). Immigration, presidential politics, and partisan polarization among the American public, 1992–2018. Sociological Spectrum, 41(4), 1–17.
7.
BardM. T. (2017). Propaganda, persuasion, or journalism? Fox News’ prime-time coverage of health-care reform in 2009 and 2014. Electronic News, 11(2), 100–118.
8.
BayesR.DruckmanJ. N. (2021). Motivated reasoning and climate change. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 27–35.
9.
BoykoffM. T. (2007). Flogging a dead norm? Newspaper coverage of anthropogenic climate change in the United States and United Kingdom from 2003 to 2006. Area, 39(4), 470–481.
10.
BrewerP. R.McKnightJ. (2015). Climate as comedy: The effects of satirical television news on climate change perceptions. Science Communication, 37(5), 635–657.
11.
BrubakerJ.HansonG. (2009). The effect of Fox News and CNN’s postdebate commentator analysis on viewers’ perceptions of presidential candidate performance. Southern Communication Journal, 74, 339–351.
12.
CarmichaelJ. T.BrulleR. J.HuxsterJ. K. (2017). The great divide: Understanding the role of media and other drivers of the partisan divide in public concern over climate change in the USA, 2001–2014. Climatic Change, 141(4), 599–612.
13.
ChinnS.HartP. S. (2021). Effects of consensus messages and political ideology on climate change attitudes: Inconsistent findings and the effect of a pretest. Climatic Change, 167(3–4), Article 47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03200-2
14.
ChinnS.HartP. S.SorokaS. (2020). Politicization and polarization in climate change news content, 1985–2017. Science Communication, 42(1), 112–129.
15.
ConwayL. G.ThoemmesF.AllisonA. M.TowgoodK. H.WagnerM. J.DaveyK.SalcidoA.StovallA. N.DoddsD. P.BongardK.ConwayK. R. (2008). Two ways to be complex and why they matter: Implications for attitude strength and lying. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1029–1044.
16.
DellaVignaS.KaplanE. (2007). The Fox News effect: Media bias and voting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1187–1234.
17.
Delli CarpiniM. X.KeeterS. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale University Press.
18.
DunlapR. E.McCrightA. M. (2008). A widening gap: Republican and Democratic views on climate change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 50(5), 26–35.
19.
FeldmanL. (2011). The opinion factor: The effects of opinionated news on information processing and attitude change. Political Communication, 28, 163–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2011.565014
20.
FeldmanL. (2013). Cloudy with a chance of heat balls: The portrayal of global warming on The Daily Show and the Colbert Report. International Journal of Communication, 7, Article 22.
21.
FeldmanL.HartP. S.MilosevicT. (2017). Polarizing news? Representations of threat and efficacy in leading U.S. newspapers’ coverage of climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 26(4), 481–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515595348
22.
FeldmanL.LeiserowitzA.MaibachE. (2011). The science of satire: The daily show and the Colbert report as sources of public attention to science and the environment. In AmarasingamA. (Ed.), The Stewart/Colbert effect: Essays on the real impacts of fake news (pp. 25–46). McFarland.
23.
FeldmanL.MaibachE. W.Roser-RenoufC.LeiserowitzA. (2012). Climate on cable: The nature and impact of global warming coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 17(1), 3–31.
GarrettR. K.WeeksB. E.NeoR. L. (2016). Driving a wedge between evidence and beliefs: How online ideological news exposure promotes political misperceptions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21(5), 331–348.
26.
Gil de ZúñigaH.CorreaT.ValenzuelaS. (2012). Selective exposure to cable news and immigration in the U.S.: The relationship between FOX News, CNN, and attitudes toward Mexican immigrants. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(4), 597–615.
27.
GroenendykE.KrupnikovY. (2021). What motivates reasoning? A theory of goal-dependent political evaluation. American Journal of Political Science, 65, 180–196.
28.
HairJ. R.BlackW. C.BabinB. J.AndersonR. E.TathamR. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Prentice Hall.
29.
HarmonM.MuenchenR. (2009). Semantic framing in the build-up to the Iraq war: Fox v. CNN and other US broadcast news programs. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 66(1), 12–26.
30.
HartP. S.NisbetE. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39(6), 701–723.
31.
HayesA. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
32.
HmielowskiJ. D.FeldmanL.MyersT. A.LeiserowitzA.MaibachE. (2014). An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming. Public Understanding of Science, 23(7), 866–883.
33.
HollanderB. A. (2018). Partisanship, individual differences, and news media exposure as predictors of conspiracy beliefs. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(3), 691–713.
34.
HornseyM.HarrisE.BainP.FieldingK. S. (2016). Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change, 6, 622–626. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2943
35.
HyunK. D.MoonS. J. (2016). Agenda setting in the partisan TV news context: Attribute agenda setting and polarized evaluation of presidential candidates among viewers of NBC, CNN, and Fox News. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(3), 509–529.
36.
KahanD. M. (2015). Climate-science communication and the measurement problem. Advances in Political Psychology, 36, 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12244
37.
KrosnickJ.MacInnisB. (2015). Fox and not-Fox television news impact on opinions on global warming: Selective exposure, not motivated reasoning. In ForgasJ.FiedlerK.CranoW. (Eds.), Social psychology and politics (pp. 75–90). Psychology Press.
KundaZ. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.
40.
LaMarreH. L.LandrevilleK. D.BeamM. A. (2009). The irony of satire: Political ideology and the motivation to see what you want to see in The Colbert report. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 14(2), 212–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161208330904
41.
LazarsfeldP. F.BerelsenB.GaudetH. (1948). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. Columbia University Press.
42.
LeiserowitzA.MaibachE.RosenthalS.KotcherJ.BallewM.BergquistP.GustafsonA.GoldbergM.WangX. (2020). Politics & Global Warming, April 2020. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.
43.
LevenduskyM. S. (2013). Why do partisan media polarize viewers?American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 611–623. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12008
44.
LordC. G.RossL.LepperM. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098–2109.
MaY.DixonG.HmielowskiJ. D. (2019). Psychological reactance from reading basic facts on climate change: The role of prior views and political identification. Environmental Communication, 13(1), 71–86.
McCrightA. M.DunlapR. E. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(2), 155–194.
49.
MeirickP. C. (2013). Motivated misperception? Party, education, partisan news, and belief in “death panels.”Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 90(1), 39–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699012468696
50.
MeirickP. C.BessarabovaE. (2016). Epistemic factors in selective exposure and political misperceptions on the right and left. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 16(1), 36–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12101
MorrisJ. S.FranciaP. L. (2010). Cable news, public opinion, and the 2004 party conventions. Political Research Quarterly, 63, 834–849.
53.
NyhanB. (2010, January). Why the “death panel” myth wouldn’t die: Misinformation in the health care reform debate. The Forum, 8(1), Article 1354. https://doi.org/10.2202/1540-8884.1354
54.
PriorM. (2009). The immensely inflated news audience: Assessing bias in self-reported news exposure. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(1), 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp002
55.
RodeJ. B.DentA. L.BenedictC. N.BrosnahanD. B.MartinezR. L.DittoP. H. (2021). Influencing climate change attitudes in the United States: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 76, Article 101623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101623
56.
StroudN. J. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. Oxford University Press.
57.
Swire-ThompsonB.DeGutisJ.LazerD. (2020). Searching for the backfire effect: Measurement and design considerations. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 9(3), 286–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.06.006
58.
TaberC. S.CannD.KucsovaS. (2009). The motivated processing of political arguments. Political Behavior, 31(2), 137–155.
YoungD. G. (2020). Irony and outrage: The polarized landscape of rage, fear, and laughter in the United States. Oxford University Press.
61.
ZhaoX.Rolfe-ReddingJ.KotcherJ. E. (2016). Partisan differences in the relationship between newspaper coverage and concern over global warming. Public Understanding of Science, 25(5), 543–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514558992
62.
ZhouJ. (2016). Boomerangs versus javelins: How polarization constrains communication on climate change. Environmental Politics, 25, 788–811.
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.
