In recent years, the news media landscape has been characterized by two distinct patterns: a decline in newspaper circulation, and a persistent degree of ideological slant in newspapers’ position. We explore a possible nexus between these two phenomena by means of a model that extends some recent developments in the empirical spatial theory of voting to the reader’s choice with respect to newspapers. We assume that ideological proximity to a newspaper affects the choice made by a consumer to read it. Newspapers will then compete among themselves to maximize their respective readerships by finding an optimal placement in the ideological space. However, newspapers can also decide to target readers of a specific type. As we will show, this is a crucial step to take into consideration. We empirically apply our model to the Italian case. We show that Italian newspapers appear largely to behave as theoretically expected. However, the “ideological force” behind this conclusion must be sought in newspapers’ competition with respect to that subset of readers which can be identified as regular ones. This result highlights a possible mechanism driving a persistent newspaper ideological slant in time of lower newspaper circulation.
AdamsJamesMerrillSamuelGrofmanBernard. 2005. A Unified Theory of Party Competition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
AGCOM. 2019. “Relazione annuale 2018 sull’attività svolta e sui programmi di lavoro.” Autorità per le garanzie nelle comunicazioni, Naples, Italy.
3.
AldrichJohn H.1983. “A Downsian Spatial Model with Party Activism.” American Political Science Review7:974–90.
4.
BarberàPabloVaccariCristianValerianiAugusto. 2016. “Social Media, Personalisation of News Reporting, and Media Systems’ Polarisation in Europe.” In Social Media and European Politics: Rethinking Power and Legitimacy in the Digital Era, ed. BarisioneMauroMichailidouAsimina, 25–52. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
5.
BaronDavid. 2006. “Persistent Media Bias.” Journal of Public Economics90:1–36.10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.10.006
6.
BentivegnaSaraMarchettiRita. 2018. “Journalists at a Crossroads: Are Traditional Norms and Practices Challenged by Twitter?” Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism19 (2): 270–90.10.1177/1464884917716594
7.
BesleyTimothyPratAndrea. 2006. “Handcuffs for the Grabbing Hand? Media Capture and Government Accountability.” American Economic Review96 (3): 720–36.10.1257/aer.96.3.720
8.
BrüggemannMichaelEngesserSvenBüchelFlorinHumprechtEddaCastroLaia. 2014. “Hallin and Mancini Revisited: Four Empirical Types of Western Media Systems.” Journal of Communication64:1037–65.10.1111/jcom.12127
9.
CampbellAngusConversePhilipMillerWarrenStokesDonald. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley.
10.
CardenalAna S.Aguilar-ParedesCarlosGalaisCarolPérez-MontoroMario. 2019. “Digital Technologies and Selective Exposure: How Choice and Filter Bubbles Shape News Media Exposure.” The International Journal of Press/Politics24 (4): 465–86.10.1177/1940161219862988
11.
Castro-HerreroLaiaHopmannDavid N.EngesserSven. 2016. “Parties, Ideology, and News Media in Central-Eastern and Western Europe: A Comparison of Media Bias Twenty Years after the Fall of the Iron Curtain.” East European Politics and Societies30 (3): 571–93.10.1177/0888325415625090
12.
CorniaAlessio. 2014. “Will Italian Political Journalism Ever Change?” In Political Journalism in Transition: Western Europe in a Comparative Perspective, ed. KuhnRaymondNielsenRasmus Kleis, 47–73. London: I.B. Tauris.
13.
CuriniLuigi. 2015. “Explaining Party Ideological Stances.” Public Choice162:79–96.10.1007/s11127-014-0199-6
14.
de Benedictis-KessnerJustinBaumMatthew A.BerinksyAdam J.YamamotoTeppei. 2019. “Persuading the Enemy: Estimating the Persuasive Effects of Partisan Media with the Preference-Incorporating Choice and Assignment Design.” American Political Science Review113 (4): 902–16.
15.
DemsetzHaroldLehnKenneth. 1985. “The Structure of Corporate Ownership: Causes and Consequences.” Journal of Political Economy93 (6): 1155–77.10.1086/261354
16.
DownsAnthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
17.
EndersbyJames W.OgnianovaEkaterina. 1997. “A Spatial Model of Ideology and Political Communication.” The International Journal of Press/Politics2 (1): 23–39.
18.
Eurobarometer. 2017. Eurobarometer 88.1: Media monitoring and analysis. Brussels: European Commission.
19.
GentzkowMatthewShapiroJesse M.2010. “What Drives Media Slant? Evidence from U.S. Daily Newspapers.” Econometrica78:35–71.10.3982/ECTA7195
20.
GentzkowMatthewShapiroJesse M.StoneDaniel F.2016. “Media Bias in the Marketplace: Theory.” In Handbook of Media Economics, ed. AndersonSimonWaldfogelJoelStrombergDavid. Vol. 1b, 624–45. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
21.
GranbergDonaldBrownThad A.1992. “The Perception of Ideological Distance.” Western Political Quarterly45:727–50.10.1177/106591299204500309
22.
HallinDaniel C.ManciniPaolo. 2004. Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23.
HallinDaniel C.ManciniPaolo. 2012. “Conclusion.” In Comparing Media Systems beyond the Western World, ed. HallinDaniel C.ManciniPaolo, 278–304. New York: Cambridge University Press.
24.
HartWilliamAlbarracinDoloresEaglyAlice H.BrechanIngeLindbergMatthew J.MerrillLisa. 2009. “Feeling Validated versus Being Correct: A Meta-Analysis of Selective Exposure to Information.” Psychological Bulletin135 (4): 555–88.10.1037/a0015701
25.
HerndonKeith L.2012. The Decline of the Daily Newspaper: How an American Institution Lost the Online Revolution. New York: Peter Lang.
26.
IyengarShantoHahnKyu. S.2009. “Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use.” Journal of Communication59 (1): 19–39.10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x
27.
KraftPatrick W.KrupnikovYannaMilitaKerriRyanJohn BarrySorokaStuart. 2020. “Social Media and the Changing Information Environment: Sentiment Differences in Read versus Recirculated News Content.” Public Opinion Quarterly84 (1): 195–215.10.1093/poq/nfaa015
28.
LiuFrank. 2017. “Declining News Media Viewership and the Survival of Political Disagreement.”International Journal of Public Opinion Research29 (2): 240–268.
29.
MerrillSamuelAdamsJames. 2001. “Computing Nash Equilibria in Probabilistic, Multiparty Spatial Models with Nonpolicy Components.” Political Analysis9: 347–61.10.1093/oxfordjournals.pan.a004874
30.
MerrillSamuelGrofmanBernard. 1999. A Unified Theory of Voting: Directional and Proximity Spatial Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31.
MindichDavid. 2004. Tuned Out: Why Americans under 40 Don’t Follow the News. New York: Oxford University Press.
32.
MullainathanSendhilShleiferAndrei. 2005. “The Market for News.” American Economic Review95 (4): 1031–53.10.1257/0002828054825619
33.
MutzDiana C.MartinPaul S.2001. “Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media.”American Political Science Review95: 97–114.10.1017/S0003055401000223
NewtonKenneth. 2006. “May the Weak Force Be with You: The Power of the Mass Media in Modern Politics.” European Journal of Political Research45:209–34.10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00296.x
36.
PriorMarkus. 2009. “The Immensely Inflated News Audience: Assessing Bias in Self-Reported News Exposure.” Public Opinion Quarterly73:130–43.10.1093/poq/nfp002
37.
PuglisiRiccardoSnyderJames M.2016. “Empirical Studies of Media Bias.” In Handbook of Media Economics, ed. AndersonSimonWaldfogelJoelStrombergDavid. Vol. 1b, 648–67. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
38.
SchofieldNormanSenedItai. 2006. Multiparty Democracy: Parties, Elections and Legislative Politics in Multiparty Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39.
SeverinWerner J.TankardJames W.Jr.1992. Communication Theories: Origins, Methods and Uses in the Mass Media. 3rd Edition.New York: Longman.
40.
Seymour-UreColin. 1974. The Political Impact of Mass Media. Beverly Hills: Sage.
41.
SplendoreSergioCuriniLuigi. 2020. “Proximity between Citizens and Journalists as a Determinant of Trust in the Media. An Application to Italy.” Journalism Studies21 (9): 1167–85.10.1080/1461670X.2020.1725601
42.
StrombackJesperShehataAdam. 2010. “Media Malaise or a Virtuous Circle? Exploring the Causal Relationships between News Media Exposure, Political News Attention and Political Interest.” European Journal of Political Research49:575–97.10.1111/j.1475-6765.2009.01913.x
43.
StroudNatalie J.2008. “Media Use and Political Predispositions: Revisiting the Concept of Selective Exposure.” Political Behavior30 (3): 341–66.10.1007/s11109-007-9050-9
44.
StroudNatalie J.2011. Niche News: The Politics of News Choice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45.
TrillingDamianvan KlingerenMarijnTsfatiYariv. 2017. “Selective Exposure, Political Polarization, and Possible Mediators: Evidence from the Netherlands.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research29 (2): 189–213.
46.
TworzeckiHubertSemetkoHolli A.2012. “Media Use and Political Engagement in Three New Democracies: Malaise versus Mobilization in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland.” The International Journal of Press/Politics17 (4): 407–32.10.1177/1940161212452450
47.
UsherNikki. 2015. “Newsroom Moves and the Newspaper Crisis Evaluated: Space, Place, and Cultural Meaning.” Media, Culture & Society37 (7): 1005–21.10.1177/0163443715591668
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.
