Rietig, Katharina and Laing, Timothy 2017. Policy Stability in Climate Governance: The case of the United Kingdom. Environmental Policy and Governance,
Jiang, Liang 2017. Does the effectiveness of campaigns depend on voters’ predispositions? A comparative study of British and Taiwanese election campaigns. Asian Journal of Communication, p. 1.
Reeves, Aaron McKee, Martin and Stuckler, David 2016. ‘It's The Sun Wot Won It’: Evidence of media influence on political attitudes and voting from a UK quasi-natural experiment. Social Science Research, Vol. 56, p. 44.
Rooduijn, Matthijs van der Brug, Wouter and de Lange, Sarah L. 2016. Expressing or fuelling discontent? The relationship between populist voting and political discontent. Electoral Studies, Vol. 43, p. 32.
Sudulich, Maria Wall, Matthew and Baccini, Leonardo 2015. Wired Voters: The Effects of Internet Use on Voters’ Electoral Uncertainty. British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 45, Issue. 04, p. 853.
Costen, Michael Davis, James Paul, Helen Walsh, Patrick Crook, Tom Velkar, Aashish and Godden, Christopher 2014. Review of periodical literature published in 2012. The Economic History Review, Vol. 67, Issue. 1, p. 240.
This study reassesses the ability of the mass media to influence voter opinions directly. Combining data on media content with individuals’ assessments of British political parties during the 2005 general election campaign allows a test of newspapers’ persuasive influence in a way previously considered a ‘virtual impossibility’. Utilizing repeated measures from the 2005 BES campaign panel, multilevel regression analysis reveals significant impact of partisan slant not just on the evaluation of the party mentioned but also on evaluations of its competitor(s). The strongest evidence of direct media persuasion is provided by the finding that variation in slant over the campaign drives how undecided voters evaluate the incumbent government party, even when controlling for a newspaper's average partisan slant.
1 Finkel Steven E, ‘Reexamining the Minimal Effects Model in Recent Presidential Campaigns’, Journal of Politics, 55 (1993), 1–21; Bartels Larry M., ‘Messages Received: The Political Impact of Media Exposure’, American Political Science Review, 87 (1993), 267–285; Dalton Russell J., Beck Paul A. and Robert Huckfeldt, ‘Partisan Cues and the Media: Information Flows in the 1992 Presidential Election’, American Political Science Review, 92 (1998), 111–126; Paul Allen Beck, Dalton Russell J., Greene Steven and Huckfeldt Robert, ‘The Social Calculus of Voting: Interpersonal, Media, and Organizational Influences on Presidential Choices’, American Political Science Review, 96 (2002), 57–74; Zaller John, ‘The Statistical Power of Election Studies to Detect Media Exposure Effects in Political Campaigns’, Electoral Studies, 21 (2002), 297–329; Peter Jochen, ‘Our Long Return to the Concept of Powerful Mass Media – A Cross-National Comparative Investigation into the Effects of Consonant Media Coverage’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 16 (2004), 144–168; Druckman James N. and Michael Parkin, ‘The Impact of Media Bias: How Editorial Slant Affects Voters’, Journal of Politics, 67 (2005), 1030–1049; Norris Pippa, ‘Did the Media Matter? Agenda-Setting, Persuasion and Mobilization Effects in the British General Election Campaign’, British Politics, 1 (2006), 195–221; De Vreese Claes H. and Boomgarden Hajo G., ‘Media Message Flow and Interpersonal Communication: The Conditional Nature of Effects on Public Opinion’, Communication Research, 33 (2006), 19–37; Jonathan McDonald Ladd and Lenz Gabriel S., ‘Exploiting a Rare Communication Shift to Document the Persuasive Power of the News Media’, American Journal of Political Science, 53 (2009), 394–410.
2 Bartels , ‘Messages Received’, p. 267.
3 Iyengar Shanto and Simon Adam F., ‘New Perspectives and Evidence on Political Communication and Campaign Effects’, Annual Review of Psychology, 51 (2000), 149–169, p. 153.
4 Lippmann Walter, Public Opinion (New York: Free Press, 1922); Lasswell Harold D., ‘The Theory of Political Propaganda’, American Political Science Review, 21 (1927), 627–631; Bernays Edward G., Propaganda (New York: Horace Liveright, 1928).
5 Petty Richard E., Christian Wheeler and Tormala Zakary L., ‘Persuasion and Attitude Change’, in Theodore Millon and Melvin J. Lerner, eds, Handbook of Psychology. Volume 5: Personality and Social Psychology (Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2003).
6 Lazarsfeld Paul E., Bernard Berelson and Hazel Gaudet, The People's Choice (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1944); Berelson Bernard R., Lazarfeld Paul F. and McPhee William N., Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954).
7 Bartels, ‘Messages Received’, p. 267. Indeed, only very few studies into media persuasion exist from the 1970s or 1980s. See, for example: Erikson Robert S., ‘The Influence of Newspaper Endorsements in Presidential Elections: The Case of 1964’, American Journal of Political Science, 20 (1976), 207–233; Coombs Steven L., ‘Editorial Endorsements and Electoral Outcomes’, in Michael B. MacKuen and Steven L. Coombs, More than News: Media Power in Public Affairs (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1981); Wagner Joseph, ‘Media Do Make a Difference: The Differential Impact of Mass Media in the 1976 Presidential Race’, American Journal of Political Science, 27 (1983), 407–430.
8 Norris, ‘Did the Media Matter?’
9 Bartels, ‘Messages Received’.
10 John Zaller, ‘The Statistical Power of Election Studies to Detect Media Exposure Effects’.
11 Lazarsfeld et al. , The People's Choice, p. 87.
12 Zaller John, The Origins and Nature of Mass Opinion (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992); Bartels, ‘Messages Received’, p. 276.
13 Erikson , ‘The Influence of Newspaper Endorsements in Presidential Elections’, p. 207.
14 Seymour-Ure Colin, ‘Editorial Opinion in the National Press’, Parliamentary Affairs, 50 (1997), 586–608; Wring Dominic, ‘The Tony press: media coverage of the election campaign’, in A. Geddes and John Tongue, eds, Labour's Second Landslide (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001).
15 Ladd and Lenz, ‘Exploiting a Rare Communication Shift’, p. 405.
16 Gosnell Harold F., Machine Politics: Chicago Model, 2nd edn (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968); Erikson, ‘The Influence of Newspaper Endorsements in Presidential Elections’; Coombs, ‘Editorial Endorsements and Electoral Outcomes’; Wagner, ‘Media Do Make a Difference’; Webber Richard, ‘The 1992 General Election: Constituency Results and Local Patterns of National Newspaper Readership’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties, 3 (1993), 205–215; Curtice John and Semetko Holli A., ‘Does It Matter What the Paper Say?’ in Anthony Heath, Roger Jowell and John Curtice, eds, Labour Last Chance? (Aldershot, Surrey: Dartmouth, 1994); Curtice John, ‘Is the Sun Shining on Tony Blair? The Electoral Influence of British Newspapers’, Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 2 (1997), 9–26; Newton Kenneth and Brynin Malcolm, ‘The National Press and Party Voting in the UK’, Political Studies, 49 (2001), 265–285; Norris, ‘Did the Media Matter?’; Ladd and Lenz, ‘Exploiting a Rare Communication Shift’.
17 Kim Fridkin Kahn and Kenney Patrick J., ‘The Slant of the News: How Editorial Endorsements Influence Campaign Coverage and Citizens’ Views of Candidates’, American Political Science Review, 96 (2002), 381–394.
18 Deacon David and Wring Dominic, ‘Partisan Dealignment and the British Press’, in John Bartle, Simon Atkinson and Roger Mortimore, eds, Political Communications: The General Election Campaign of 2001 (London: Frank Cass, 2002), pp. 197–214.
19 The use of an overly simplistic dichotomy that divides the press into Conservative v. Labour papers may explain why an earlier study of the 2005 British general election found only limited persuasion effects on party and leader evaluations or vote choice, with some of the significant estimates even pointing in the wrong direction; see Norris , ‘Did the Media Matter?’, pp. 210–213.
20 Schumann David W., Petty Richard E. and Scott Clemons D., ‘Predicting the Effectiveness of Different Strategies of Advertising Variation: A Test of the Repetition-Variation Hypothesis’, Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (1990), 192–202.
21 Druckman and Parkin, ‘The Impact of Media Bias’, p. 1030.
22 Page Benjamin I., Shapiro Robert Y. and Dempsey Glenn R., ‘What Moves Public Opinion?’ American Political Science Review, 81 (1987), 23–43; Fan David P. and Tims Albert R., ‘The Impact of the News Media on Public Opinion: American Presidential Election 1987–1988’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 1 (1989), 151–163; Dalton et al., ‘Partisan Cues and the Media’; Gavin Neil T. and David Sanders, ‘The Press and Its Influence on British Political Attitudes under New Labour’, Political Studies, 51 (2003), 573–591; Dobrzynska Agnieszka, André Blais and Nadeau Richard, ‘Do the Media have a Direct Impact on the Vote? The Case of the 1997 Canadian Election’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15 (2003), 27–43; Peter, ‘Our Long Return to the Concept of Powerful Mass Media’; Druckman and Parkin, ‘The Impact of Media Bias’; De Vreese and Boomgarden, ‘Media Message Flow’.
23 Druckman and Parkin, ‘The Impact of Media Bias’, p. 1031.
24 Fan and Tims, ‘The Impact of the News Media on Public Opinion’; Kleinnijenhuis Jan and Fan David P., ‘Media Coverage and the Flow of Voters in Multiparty Systems: The 1994 National Elections in Holland and Germany’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 11 (1999), 233–256; Dobrzynska et al., ‘Do the Media have a Direct Impact on the Vote?’
25 Kleinnijenhuis Jan, Maurer Marcus, Mathias Kepplinger Hans and Oegema Dirk, ‘Issues and Personalities in German and Dutch Television News: Patterns and Effects’, European Journal of Communication, 16 (2001), 337–359.
26 De Vreese and Boomgarden, ‘Media Message Flow’.
27 Dobrzynska et al. , ‘Do the Media have a Direct Impact on the Vote?’, p. 31; see also Lazarsfeld et al., The People's Choice; Kleinnijenhuis et al., ‘Issues and Personalities in German and Dutch Television News’.
28 O'Keefe Daniel J., Persuasion: Theory and Research, 2nd edn (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 2002), p. 3. See also Walton Douglas, ‘What is Propaganda, and What Exactly Is Wrong with It?’ Public Affairs Quarterly, 11(1997), 383–413, p. 394; and Garsten Bryan, Saving Persuasion: A Defense of Rhetoric and Judgment (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006), pp. 2ff.
29 Burnell Peter and Reeve Andrew, ‘Persuasion as a Political Concept’, British Journal of Political Science, 14 (1984), 393–410, pp. 394–6.
30 O'Keefe, ‘Persuasion’, p. 4.
31 O'Keefe, ‘Persuasion’, p. 5.
32 We selected seven of the largest and most prominent newspapers to provide a sample of the British media landscape that accounts for variation in newspaper type (broadsheets, red-tops and black-tops) and partisan tendencies (Labour and Tory papers as well as newspapers with more ambiguous endorsements like the Independent).
33 For an extensive description of the data, see Brandenburg Heinz, ‘Party Strategy and Media Bias: A Quantitative Analysis of the 2005 UK Election Campaign’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties, 16 (2006), 157–178.
34 Elliott Larry, ‘Why Alastair Campbell made Blair eat humble pie: Polls proved that only Gordon Brown could deliver a third Labour term’, Guardian, 21 April 2005, p. 26.
35 Brandenburg, ‘Party Strategy and Media Bias’.
36 See Kahn and Kenney, ‘The Slant of the News’.
37 We standardized text lines because columns width tends to vary within and between newspapers. Our standardization procedure consisted of multiplying the number of text lines of any data entry with its observed column width and then dividing by the average column width across the entire dataset.
38 This design also allows us to assess the impact of the sheer volume of positive or negative evaluations, or the trade off between positive and negative reporting (in other words, whether, e.g., 20 positive versus 20 negative statements have a comparable effect to that of two or three positive and negative points). These measures were included in initial analysis but require further exploration and are not included in the analyses presented here.
39 The use of internet panels remains subject to criticism because of limitations in the sampling and selection procedures of some of these panels, which it is said might result in violations of analytical assumptions or possible bias in the findings. However, in an extensive survey comparison, the team of researchers that conducted the 2001 and 2005 British Election Study addressed most of the contentious issues. They argued that, while on the one hand sampling problems remain with internet surveys because internet access is not randomly distributed, internet surveys on the other hand address some core problems with face-to-face surveys, for example by eliminating interviewer effects. They also found that while marginal distributions of key variables differ across both types of survey, when estimating parameters in vote choice and turnout models, face-to-face and internet surveys yield remarkably similar results. Also, issues of over- or under-representation of social groups appear to be dealt with effectively through weighting procedures in internet surveys carried out by Yougov. See Sanders David, Clarke Harold D., Stewart Marianne C. and Whiteley Paul, ‘Does Mode Matter for Modeling Political Choice? Evidence from the 2005 British Election Study’, Political Analysis, 15 (2007), 257–285. Most importantly, however, our aim is to assess possible attitude change through media effects, which does not require our sample of newspaper readers to be nationally representative. For this reason, the graphs presented below, as well as subsequent regression models, are based on data that are not weighted to reflect nationally representative readership figures.
40 Because of an error in the programming of the questionnaire for Wave 1, respondents were not actually able to give parties a score of 10, but instead could only give a maximum score of 9. In our analysis, this is addressed by applying a scale factor to the Wave 1 scores.
41 Data included in our analysis comprise content analysis of op-ed pages only, since only these articles were coded for slant. The entire 2005 newspaper dataset is much larger and also contains content analysis of all news stories about the campaign (see Brandenburg, ‘Party Strategy and Media Bias’ for a description of the entire dataset).
42 Daily average tone scores were calculated from the coded text for each party in each newspaper (n = 26). Accordingly, the boxplots indicate the mean and quartile range calculated from twenty-six individual scores per party.
43 van der Brug Wouter and van der Eijk Cees, ‘De campagne deed er toe, mediagebruik niet’, in Philip van Praag Jr and Kees Brants, eds, Tussen Beeld en Inhoud. Politiek en media in de verkiezingen van 1998 (Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis, 2000), pp. 214–242; van der Brug Wouter and van der Eijk Cees, ‘Welke effecten hadden de campagnes nu eigenlijk?’ in Kees Brants and Philip van Praag, eds, Politiek en Media in Verwarring. De verkiezingscampagnes in het lange jaar 2002 (Amsterdam: Spinhuis, 2005), pp. 244–267.
44 In our content analysis of media channels, we also included evening news broadcasts on ITV and BBC. Since news broadcasts prove inherently more neutral than newspaper op-ed articles, the coding of television news differs from newspaper coding. In newspaper coding, any opinion voiced by anyone other than the author was not coded. However, television newscasts largely broadcast only such statements from party officials, experts or interviewed citizens, and therefore these statements were coded for partisan bias.
45 Note that in a fixed effects model the first media indicator is automatically created, and is redundant. The second media indicator is hence most reflective of the media indicator variable in a fixed effects model. In multilevel literature, the procedure is often referred to as group-mean centering. Cf. Allison Paul D., Effects Regression Methods for Longitudinal Data Using SAS (Cary, N.C.: SAS Institute, 2005).
46 For respondents interviewed during the first six days of the campaign, the average was based on the number of days in the campaign so far.
47 These multicollinearity issues stem largely from the fact that a newspaper treatment of a party over the course of the campaign tends to be related to its treatment of the other parties.
48 For Labour and the Conservatives, tone on these two parties has been included. For the Liberal Democrats, separate models including tone on Labour or the Conservatives were run. Note that exclusion of tone on a third party does not reduce the explanatory power of the model.
49 Price Vincent and Zaller John‘Who Gets the News? Alternative Measures of News Reception and Their Implications for Research’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 57(1993), 133–163, p. 158.
50 Zaller, ‘Origins and Nature of Mass Opinion’.
51 At face value, it might seem desirable also to include non-readers as a control group whose opinion change over the campaign could serve as a baseline against which to assess media effects. Not only would this complicate the model specification but also, and more fundamentally, we are not proposing that readers as a whole are pushed in a direction different from that of non-readers. Rather, our models explain patterns of opinion change that result from specific media inputs – whether readers are actually persuaded by what their papers say. For that purpose, what matters are the differences in the messages readers are exposed to, and not any differences between the exposed and the unexposed.
52 Fournier Patrick, Nadeau Richard, Blais André, Gidengil Elisabeth and Nevitte Neil, ‘Time-of-Voting Decision and Susceptibility to Campaign Effects’, Electoral Studies, 23 (2004), 661–681.
53 Both the random and fixed effects estimates were obtained using STATA's xtreg.
54 Table 2 presents the model for Liberal Democrats with media tone on Conservatives as the second party. The model with media tone on the Labour party is presented in the Appendix.
55 We imputed the mean income for those respondents who failed to report their income. Since this estimate is not significant as well, these respondents show no significant difference in evaluation of the various parties.
* Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Aberdeen (email: email@example.com); and Amsterdam School of Communications Research, University of Amsterdam, respectively. The authors are listed in alphabetical order. The authors would like to thank Robert A. Johns, Cees van der Eijk, Amanda Hosking, Bernhard Wessels and other participants of the WAPOR conference in Berlin in 2008, as well as participants of EPOP conferences in 2007 and 2008, and this Journal's three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. An online appendix with supplementary tables and replication data is available at http://www.journals.cambridge.org/jps.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 21st November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.