Suchergebnisse

Prior studies have reported a right-leaning bias in the media's reporting of how the public thinks of political issues, raising the question: Why, and to what extent, is this the case? One reason in particular has been discussed in this regard: Journalists judge public opinion to be more right leaning than it actually is (Beckers et al. 2021; Lewis et al. 2004). This paper therefore studies to what extent journalists misjudge audience opinion. The analyses are based on large-scale representative surveys of journalists (1993/2005) and the voting-age population (1994/2005) in Germany. Results show that German journalists (mis-)judge audience opinion to be more right-leaning than the audience sees itself. The results also show that journalists judge audience opinion to be to the right of their own stances, and that journalists in federal states with a right-leaning government and in West Germany judge audience opinion to be even further to the right. Audience feedback does not push journalists' judgements of their audience towards the right, however. These results are discussed vis-à-vis research showing that there is a consistent bias in the depiction of opinions expressed by ordinary citizens, and research documenting that political elites overestimate public support for right-wing policies.

Turnout in second-order elections, like those for the European Parliament, is notoriously low, especially among younger voters. This study compares five pathways in which exposure to poll coverage can affect turnout: bandwagon voting, strategic turnout, increased information efficacy, campaign cynicism and perceived electoral importance. The mediation analyses are combined with Covariate Balancing Propensity Score matching to better account for selection effects. Analyses of a four-wave panel survey of young voters (N = 747) in the 2014 European Parliament Election show that exposure to polls in election coverage predominantly stimulates interest and turnout among young voters. This is in line with the perspective that poll coverage increases perceived electoral importance. Poll coverage can thus play a beneficial role in activating the potential among young voters to engage with (second-order) elections.

"This chapter reviews research on political communication in referendums that have become increasingly popular in democracies worldwide. The authors define key characteristics of referendums, touch upon participation in and popular support for referendums, and highlight the differences between them and presidential or parliamentary elections for political actors, the media, and citizens. Furthermore, they discuss findings regarding media effects on issue salience, issue understanding, turnout, and voting behavior. The authors argue that the potential for communication and campaign effects on citizens is generally larger in a referendum campaign than in other electoral contests. Finally, the authors call for more research into referendums that will likely become even more important in the future." (publisher's description)

This multimethodological study focuses on risk-induced electoral mobilization in referendum campaigns. Positive news framing in a referendum campaign can generate a perception of risk among those voters opposing the proposal and stimulate electoral participation to prevent an undesired outcome that would alter a status quo situation. To test this claim, the authors analyze the effect of news framing on turnout in the context of the 2005 Dutch EU Constitution referendum campaign and combine a media content analysis of national newspapers and television news ( n = 6,370) with panel survey data ( n = 642) and an experiment ( n = 687). Experimental findings show that individuals who are skeptical toward the EU and are subsequently exposed to positive news framing about the EU Constitution are mobilized to turn out and vote against it. The results of the content analysis show that during the Dutch referendum campaign, news media framed the EU Constitution in positive terms. Building these findings into a measure of news exposure in our panel survey, the authors find that higher exposure to referendum news had a mobilizing effect on those opposing the proposal. The experimental and panel data thus show corroborating evidence supporting the central hypothesis about how positive news can mobilize the skeptics to turn out and vote in a referendum.

This multi-methodological study examined the news framing of the 2004 European Union enlargement in terms of risk and opportunity and the effect both frames had on public support for the enlargement. A content analysis showed that EU enlargement was portrayed as a controversial issue, but with an overall balanced tone of coverage. Risk and opportunity framing played an equally prominent role in the news. An experiment examined the impact of both frames on support for EU enlargement. Participants in the opportunity frame condition showed significantly higher levels of support compared to participants in the risk condition. This framing effect was moderated by political knowledge. Individuals with low levels of political knowledge were more affected by the news frames and more susceptible to risk framing.

The ability of the news media to mobilize voters during an election campaign is not well understood. Most extant research has been conducted in single-country studies and has paid little or no attention to the contextual level and the conditions under which such effects are more or less likely to occur. This study tests the mobilizing effect of conflict news framing in the context of the 2009 European Parliamentary elections. The unique multi-method and comparative cross-national study design combines a media content analysis (N = 48,982) with data from a two-wave panel survey conducted in twenty-one countries (N = 32,411). Consistent with expectations, conflict framing in campaign news mobilized voters to vote. Since the effect of conflict news was moderated by evaluations of the EU polity in the general information environment, conflict framing more effectively mobilized voters in countries where the EU was evaluated more positively.

Previous research has established that rival issue frames that target competing values can lead public opinion in different directions. This article examines rival frames that target the same values but for competing political ends. We report on an experiment (N = 503) that examines the framing of a controversy over extreme anti-immigrant speech. Both supporters and opponents of the speech framed their positions around free expression and democracy. Such framing influenced judgments about how these values were upheld by permitting versus banning hate speech. These judgments, in turn, affected tolerance for such speech. We conclude that the impact of values on political attitudes depends not just on the framing of the issue but also on the framing of the values themselves.

AbstractPublic evaluations of EU performance are not only critical indicators of the EU's output legitimacy, but also shape future support for European integration. For citizens to monitor the political performance of the EU they need relevant facts, yet it is anything but clear that gains in information about EU performance causechangein judgements about such performance. Drawing on two‐wave panel data, this article examines whether acquiring information following a real‐world EU decision‐making event alters citizens' judgements about the utilitarian and democratic performance of the EU. It also examines how this effect differs for people with different levels of general political information. It is found that citizens who acquired performance‐relevant information became more approving of the EU's utilitarian performance but did not change their judgements about its democratic performance. Also, individuals with moderate levels of general political information were affected most strongly by new facts about performance. The implications of these findings for EU‐level representative democracy are considered.