Various scholars, pundits, and journalists, along with a majority of the American public believe incivility in politics is increasing. Nevertheless, the Annenberg Public Policy Center’s (APPC) baseline measure of political incivility remains relatively flat. How can these incongruous conclusions be reconciled? This article suggests that perceptions of political incivility are a function of viewing distinct genres of television news media: “hostile” cable news versus network news. Using a content and secondary data analysis, this article demonstrates that (1) cable news outlets provide more coverage of elite political incivility than do network news outlets and that (2) cable news viewers perceive politics to be more uncivil than do network news viewers. Combined with previous research, the results suggest cable news viewers may perceive more incivility in national politics than actually exists. Theoretically, this article provides support for genre-specific media cultivation effects. Implications for cultivation theory and incivility are discussed.
BennettW. L.ManheimJ. B. (2006). The one-step flow of communication. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 608(1), 213–232.
BrooksD. J.GeerJ. G. (2007). Beyond negativity: The effects of incivility on the electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 1–16.
10.
Chory-AssadR. M.TamboriniR. (2003). Television exposure and the public’s perceptions of physicians. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47, 197–215.
11.
CookT. E. (1996). Afterward: Political values and production values. Political Communication, 13, 469–481.
12.
CookT. E. (2005). Governing with the news: The news media as a political institution. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
FerrisA. L.SmithS.GreenbergB. S.SmithS. L. (2007). The content of reality dating shows and viewer perceptions of dating. Journal of Communication, 57, 490–510.
15.
ForgetteR.MorrisJ. S. (2006). High-conflict television news and public opinion. Political Research Quarterly, 59, 447–456.
16.
GansH. J. (2005). Deciding what’s news: A study of CBS evening news, NBC nightly news. Newsweek, and time. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
17.
GerbnerG. (1969). Toward ‘‘Cultural Indicators’’: The analysis of mass mediated public message systems. AV Communication Review, 17, 137–148.
18.
GerbnerG. (1970). Cultural indicators: The case of violence in television drama. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 388, 69–81.
19.
GerbnerG.GrossL. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26, 172–194.
20.
GerbnerG.GrossL.MorganM.SignorielliN.ShanahanJ. (2002). Growing up with television: Cultivation processes. In BryantJ.ZillmannD. (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
GhanemS. (1997). Filling the tapestry: The second level of agenda setting. In McCombsM.E.ShawD. L.WeaverD. H. (Eds.), Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory (pp. 3–14). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
GlynnC. J.HugeM.ReinekeJ.HardyB.ShanahanJ. (2007). When Oprah intervenes: Political correlates of daytime talk show viewing. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51, 228–244.
23.
GoidelR. K.FreemanC. M.ProcopioS. T. (2006). The impact of television viewing on perceptions of juvenile crime. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50, 119–139.
24.
GreensteinF. I. (2006). Presidential difference in the early republic: The highly disparate leadership styles of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 36, 373–390.
25.
HamiltonJ. T. (2004). All the news that’s fit to sell: How the market transforms information into news. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26.
HerbstS. (2010). Rude democracy: Civility and incivility in American politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
27.
HolbertR. L.KwakN.ShahD. (2003). Environmental concern, patterns of television viewing, and pro-environmental behaviors: Integrating models of media consumption and effects. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47, 177–196.
KsiazekT. B.MalthouseE. C.WebsterJ. G. (2010). News-seekers and avoiders: Exploring patterns of total news consumption across media and the relationship to civic participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54, 551–568.
30.
LongJ. S.FreeseJ. (2005). Regression models for categorical outcomes using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
31.
McManusJ.H. (1994). Market-driven journalism: Let the citizen beware?Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
MorganM.ShanahanJ. (2010). The state of cultivation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54, 337–355.
33.
MutzD. C.ReevesB. (2005). The new videomalaise: The effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99, 1–15.
34.
NabiR. L. (2009). Cosmetic surgery makeover programs and intentions to undergo cosmetic enhancements: A consideration of three models of media effects. Human Communication Research, 35, 1–27.
35.
NelsonT.ClawsonR.OxleyZ. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91, 567–583.
PapacharissiZ. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6, 259–283.
38.
PattersonT. E. (1994). Out of order: An incisive and boldly original critique of the news media’s domination of America’s political process. New York, NY: Vintage.
39.
PriorM. (2009). Improving media effects research through better measurement of news exposure. The Journal of Politics, 71, 893–908.
40.
QuickB. (2009). The effects of viewing Grey’s Anatomy on perceptions of doctors and patient satisfaction. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53, 38–55.
41.
RiffeD.LacyS.FicoF. G. (2005). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42.
RomerD.JamiesonK. H.AdayS. (2003). Television news and the cultivation of fear of crime. Journal of Communication, 53, 88–104.
43.
ScheufeleD. A. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society, 3, 297–316.
44.
ShrumL. J. (2009). Media consumption and perceptions of social reality. In BryantJ.OliverM. B. (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 34–47). New York, NY: Routledge.
45.
SchudsonM. (2011). The sociology of news. New York, NY: Norton.
StroudN. J. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
50.
SuttonM. A. (2012). Was FDR the Antichrist? The birth of fundamentalist antiliberalism in a global age. Journal of American History, 98, 1052–1074.
51.
UslanerE. M. (1993). The decline of comity in Congress. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
52.
VerbaS.SchlozmanK. L.BradyH.NieN. H. (1993). Race, ethnicity and political resources: Participation in the United States. British Journal of Political Science, 23, 453–497.
WhiteC. B. (2009). The straight talk express: Yes we can have a false political advertising statute. UCLA JL & Tech, 13, 1–1.
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.
