Following the News? Reception of Uncivil Partisan Media and the Use of Incivility in Political Expression

Political Communication

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 564-583

  Gervais, Bryan T ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

Author keywords

incivility; online discourse; partisan media; political discourse; social media

Indexed keywords

EID: 84911970156     PISSN: 10584609     EISSN: 10917675     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10584609.2013.852640     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Allison, P. D. (2009). Fixed effects regression models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2. Barker, D. C. (2002). Rushed to judgment: Talk radio, persuasion, and American political behavior. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
3. Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58, 707–731.
4. Borah, P. (2013). Interactions of news frames and incivility in the political blogosphere: Examining perceptual outcomes. Political Communication, 30, 456–473.
5. Brader, T. (2006). Campaigning for hearts and minds: How emotional appeals in political ads work. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6. Brooks, D., & Geer, J. G. (2007). Beyond negativity: The effects of incivility on the electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 1–16.
7. Derks, D., Fischer, A., & Bos, A. E. R. (2008). The role of emotion in computer-mediated communication: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 24,766–785.
8. Dilliplane, S. (2011). All the news you want to hear: The impact of partisan news exposure on political participation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 287–316.
9. Dilliplane, S., Goldman, S. K., & Mutz, D. C. (2013). Televised exposure to politics: New measures for a fragmented media environment. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 236–248.
10. Finkel, S. E. (1995). Causal analysis with panel data. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
11. Forgette, R., & Morris, J. (2006). High-conflict television news and public opinion. Political Research Quarterly, 59, 447–456.
12. Fridkin, K. L., & Kenney, P. J. (2008). The dimensions of negative messages. American Politics Research, 36, 694–723.
13. Garrett, R., Carnahan, D., & Lynch, E. (2013). A turn toward avoidance? Selective exposure to online political information, 2004–2008. Political Behavior, 35, 113–134.
14. Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2011). Ideological segregation online and offline. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126, 1799–1839.
15. Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., & Washington, E. (2010). Party affiliation, partisanship, and political beliefs: A field experiment. American Political Science Review, 104, 720–744.
16. Hanmer, M. J., & Kalkan, K. O. (2013). Behind the curve: Clarifying the best approach to calculating predicted probabilities and marginal effects from limited dependent variable models. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 263–277.
17. Hausman, J. A., & Taylor, W. E. (1981). Panel data and unobservable individual effects. Econometrica, 49, 1377–1398.
18. Herbst, S. (2010). Rude democracy: Civility and incivility in American politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
19. Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (1998). The media’s role in public negativity toward Congress: Distinguishing emotional reactions and cognitive evaluations. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 475–498.
20. Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59, 19–39.
21. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (2010). News that matters: Television and American opinion, updated edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
22. Jamieson, K. H., & Cappella, J. N. (2009). Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media establishment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
23. Jamieson, K. H., & Hardy, B. (2012). What is civil engaged argument and why does aspiring to it matter? In D. M. Shea & M. Fiorina (Eds.), Can we talk? The rise of rude, nasty, stubborn politics (pp. 27–40). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Press.
24. Kingwell, M. (1995). A civil tongue: Justice, dialogue, and the politics of pluralism. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
25. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
26. MacKuen, M., Wolak, J., Keele, L., & Marcus, G. (2010). Civic engagements: Resolute partisanship or reflective deliberation. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 440–458.
27. Maisel, L. S. (2012). The negative consequences of uncivil political discourse. PS: Political Science & Politics, 45, 405–411.
28. Morris, J. S., & Francia, P. L. (2010). Cable news, public opinion, and the 2004 party conventions. Political Research Quarterly, 63, 834–849.
29. Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
30. Mutz, D. C. (2007). Effects of in-your-face television discourse on perceptions of a legitimate opposition. American Political Science Review, 101, 621–635.
31. Mutz, D. C., & Reeves, B. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99, 1–15.
32. Mutz, D. C., & Young, L. (2011). Communication and public opinion plus ça change? Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 1018–1044.
33. Owen, D. (1997). Talk radio and evaluations of President Clinton. Political Communication, 14, 333–353.
34. Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1992). The rational public: Fifty years of trends in Americans’ policy preferences. 1st ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
35. Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6, 259–283.
36. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2007). Modest interest in 2008 campaign news. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2007/10/23/modest-interest-in-2008-campaign-news/
37. Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
38. Prior, M. (2013). Media and political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 101–127.
39. Saunders, K. L., & Abramowitz, A. I. (2004). Ideological realignment and active partisans in the American electorate. American Politics Research, 32, 285–309.
40. Sobieraj, S., & Berry, J. (2011). From incivility to outrage: Political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news. Political Communication, 28, 19–41.
41. Stasavage, D. (2007). Polarization and publicity: Rethinking the benefits of deliberative democracy. Journal of Politics, 69, 59–72.
42. Stroud, N. J. (2008). Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 30, 341–366.
43. Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60, 556–576.
44. Stroud, N. J. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
45. Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
46. Uslaner, E. M. (1993). The decline of comity in Congress. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
47. Wolf, M. R., Strachan, J., & Shea, D. M. (2012). Incivility and standing firm: A second layer of partisan division. PS: Political Science & Politics, 45, 428–434.
48. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
49. Zaller, J. (2002).The statistical power of election studies to detect media exposure effects in political campaigns. Electoral Studies, 21, 297–329.