The transition from a low-choice to a high-choice media environment has led to concerns about audience fragmentation, ideological enclaves, and selective exposure to partisan news media consistent with people’s political preferences. However, previous research has mainly focused on two-party systems (e.g., the United States) and partisan news (e.g., Fox News or MSNBC), studied at single points in time. The aim of this paper is therefore to provide the most comprehensive study of which political preferences (ideological leaning, party support, and political interest) have driven selective exposure to public service news over thirty years, covering the transition from a low-choice to a high-choice media environment. Using an annual representative survey conducted from 1986 to 2015 in Sweden (n = 103,589), results suggest that (1) the ideological left and right have used public service news to the same extent over time and that (2) support for parties outside (rather than inside) parliament accounts for a large decline in public service news use over time. But most importantly, (3) those who lack political interest show the largest decline in public service news use, while public service news use has remained more stable among politically interested citizens.
AalbergTorilCurranJames, eds. 2012. How Media Inform Democracy: A Comparative Approach. New York: Routledge.
2.
ArceneauxKevinJohnsonMartin. 2013. Changing Minds or Changing Channels? Partisan News in an Age of Choice. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
3.
AspKent. 2017. Public service—TV—vårt offentliga rum: en utvärdering [Public Service TV—Our Public Space: An Evaluation]. Göteborg: Institutionen för journalistik, medier och kommunikation, Göteborgs universitet.
4.
BankertAlexaHuddyLeonieRosemaMartin. 2017. “Measuring Partisanship as a Social Identity in Multi-Party Systems.” Political Behavior39 (1):103–32.
5.
BennettW. LanceIyengarShanto. 2008. “A New Era of Minimal Effects? The Changing Foundations of Political Communication.” Journal of Communication58 (4): 707–31.
6.
BosLindaKruikemeierSannede VreeseClaes H.2016. “Nation Binding: How Public Service Broadcasting Mitigates Political Selective Exposure.” PLoS ONE11 (5): e0155112.
7.
CavariAmnonFreedmanGuy. 2018. “Polarized Mass or Polarized Few? Assessing the Parallel Rise of Survey Nonresponse and Measures of Polarization.” The Journal of Politics80 (2): 719–25.
8.
CrawfordJarret T.JussimLee J., eds. 2017. The Politics of Social Psychology. New York: Routledge.
9.
de VreeseClaes H.BoomgaardenHajo. 2006. “News, Political Knowledge and Participation: The Differential Effects of News Media Exposure on Political Knowledge and Participation.” Acta Politica41 (4): 317–41.
10.
DuboisElizabethBlankGrant. 2018. “The Echo Chamber Is Overstated: The Moderating Effect of Political Interest and Diverse Media.” Information, Communication & Society21 (5): 729–45.
11.
Dvir-GvirsmanShiraTsfatiYarivMenchen-TrevinoEricka. 2016. “The Extent and Nature of Ideological Selective Exposure Online: Combining Survey Responses with Actual Web Log Data from the 2013 Israeli Elections.” New Media & Society18 (5): 857–77.
12.
EsserFrankde VreeseClaes H.StrömbäckJespervan AelstPeterAalbergTorilStanyerJamesLengauerGüntherBerganzaRosaLegnanteGuidoPapathanassopoulosStylianosSalgadoSusanaSheaferTamirReinemannCarsten. 2012. “Political Information Opportunities in Europe: A Longitudinal and Comparative Study of Thirteen Television Systems.” The International Journal of Press/Politics17 (3): 247–74.
13.
FlaxmanSethGoelSharadRaoJustin M.2016. “Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News Consumption.” Public Opinion Quarterly80 (S1): 298–320.
14.
FletcherRichardNielsenRasmus Kleis. 2018. “Are People Incidentally Exposed to News on Social Media? A Comparative Analysis.” New Media & Society20 (7):2450–68.
15.
FreyDieter. 1986. “Recent Research on Selective Exposure to Information.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. BerkowitzL., 41–80. San Diego: Academic Press.
16.
FrimerJeremy A.SkitkaLinda J.MotylMatt. 2017. “Liberals and Conservatives Are Similarly Motivated to Avoid Exposure to One Another’s Opinions.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology72:1–12.
17.
GarrettR. Kelly. 2009. “Politically Motivated Reinforcement Seeking: Reframing the Selective Exposure Debate.” Journal of Communication59 (4): 676–99.
18.
GarrettR. KellyCarnahanDustinLynchEmily K.2013. “A Turn toward Avoidance? Selective Exposure to Online Political Information, 2004–2008.” Political Behavior35 (1): 113–34.
19.
GarrettR. KellyStroudNatalie Jomini. 2014. “Partisan Paths to Exposure Diversity: Differences in Pro- and Counterattitudinal News Consumption.” Journal of Communication64 (4): 680–701.
20.
GripsrudJosteinWeibullLennart, eds. 2010. Media, Markets and Public Spheres: European Media at a Crossroads. Bristol: Intellect.
21.
HallinDaniel C.ManciniPaolo. 2004. Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
HartWilliamAlbarracínDoloresEaglyAlice H.BrechanIngeLindbergMatthew J.MerrillLisa. 2009. “Feeling Validated versus Being Correct: A Meta-Analysis of Selective Exposure to Information.” Psychological Bulletin135 (4): 555–88.
23.
IyengarShantoHahnKyu S.2009. “Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use.” Journal of Communication59 (1): 19–39.
24.
IyengarShantoHahnKyu S.BonfadelliHeinzMarrMirko. 2009. “‘Dark Areas of Ignorance’ Revisited: Comparing International Affairs Knowledge in Switzerland and the United States.” Communication Research36 (3): 341–58.
25.
JostJohn T.FedericoChristopher M.NapierJaime L.2009. “Political Ideology: Its Structure, Functions, and Elective Affinities.” Annual Review of Psychology60 (1): 307–37.
26.
JustNataschaBüchiMoritzLatzerMichael. 2017. “A Blind Spot in Public Broadcasters’ Discovery of the Public: How the Public Values Public Service.” International Journal of Communication11:992–1011.
27.
Knobloch-WesterwickSilviaKleinmanSteven B.2012. “Preelection Selective Exposure: Confirmation Bias versus Informational Utility.” Communication Research39 (2): 170–93.
28.
LelkesYphtach. 2016. “Mass Polarization: Manifestations and Measurements.” Public Opinion Quarterly80 (S1): 392–410.
29.
LundAnker BrinkLoweGregory Ferrell. 2015. “Public Service Broadcasting.” The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication. doi:10.1002/9781118541555.wbiepc178.
30.
LuskinRobert C.1990. “Explaining Political Sophistication.” Political Behavior12 (4): 331–61.
MondakJeffery J.2010. Personality and the Foundations of Political Behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.
33.
NelsonJacob L.WebsterJames G.2017. “The Myth of Partisan Selective Exposure: A Portrait of the Online Political News Audience.” Social Media + Society3 (3). doi:10.1177/2056305117729314.
34.
NewmanNicFletcherRichardKalogeropoulosAntonisLevyDavid A. L.NielsenRasmus Kleis. 2017. Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2017. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
35.
NewmanNicFletcherRichardKalogeropoulosAntonisLevyDavid A. L.NielsenRasmus Kleis. 2018. Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2018. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
36.
OscarssonHenrikHolmbergSören. 2016. Svenska väljare [Swedish Voters]. Stockholm: Wolters Kluwer.
37.
PriorMarkus. 2007. Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.
38.
PriorMarkus. 2009. “The Immensely Inflated News Audience: Assessing Bias in Self-Reported News Exposure.” Public Opinion Quarterly73 (1): 130–43.
39.
RodriguezCristian G.MoskowitzJake P.SalemRammy M.DittoPeter H.2017. “Partisan Selective Exposure: The Role of Party, Ideology and Ideological Extremity over Time.” Translational Issues in Psychological Science3 (3): 254–71.
40.
SørensenRune J.2019. “The Impact of State Television on Voter Turnout.” British Journal of Political Science49 (1):257–78.
41.
SearsDavid O.FreedmanJonathan L.1967. “Selective Exposure to Information: A Critical Review.” The Public Opinion Quarterly31 (2): 194–213.
42.
SkovsgaardMortenShehataAdamStrömbäckJesper. 2016. “Opportunity Structures for Selective Exposure: Investigating Selective Exposure and Learning in Swedish Election Campaigns Using Panel Survey Data.” The International Journal of Press/Politics21 (4): 527–46.
43.
SOM Institute, University of Gothenburg. 2018. “The SOM Institute Cumulative Dataset, Version 5.0.” https://doi.org/10.5878/002896.
44.
SorokaStuartAndrewBlakeAalbergTorilIyengarShantoCurranJamesCoenSharonHayashiKaoriJonesPaulMazzoleniGianpetroRheeJune WoongRoweDavidTiffenRod. 2013. “Auntie Knows Best? Public Broadcasters and Current Affairs Knowledge.” British Journal of Political Science43 (4): 719–39.
45.
StrömbäckJesperNordLars. 2017. Mest spelgestaltningar och strukturell partiskhet: En analys av svensk valrörelsejournalistik 2002–2014 [Mostly Game-Frames and Structural Bias: An Analysis of Swedish Election Journalism 2002–2014]. Sundsvall: Mid Sweden University Demicom.
46.
StrömbäckJesperDjerf-PierreMonikaShehataAdam. 2013. “The Dynamics of Political Interest and News Media Consumption: A Longitudinal Perspective.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research25 (4): 414–35.
47.
TrillingDamianvan KlingerenMarijnTsfatiYariv. 2017. “Selective Exposure, Political Polarization, and Possible Mediators: Evidence from the Netherlands.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research29 (2): 189–213.
48.
TrillingDamianSchoenbachKlaus. 2014. “Challenging Selective Exposure: Do Online News Users Choose Sites That Match Their Interests and Preferences?” Digital Journalism3 (2): 140–57.
49.
TsfatiYarivCappellaJoseph N.2003. “Do People Watch What They Do Not Trust? Exploring the Association between News Media Skepticism and Exposure.” Communication Research30 (5): 504–29.
50.
WebsterJames G.2014. The Marketplace of Attention. Cambridge: MIT Press.
51.
WebsterJames G.2017. “Three Myths of Digital Media.” Convergence23 (4): 352–61.
WonnebergerAnkeSchoenbachKlausvan MeursLex. 2011. “Interest in News and Politics—or Situational Determinants? Why People Watch the News.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media55 (3): 325–43.
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.
