Media bias in presidential elections: a meta-analysis
Abstract
A meta-analysis considered 59 quantitative studies containing data concerned with partisan media bias in presidential election campaigns since 1948. Types of bias considered were gatekeeping bias, which is the preference for selecting stories from one party or the other; coverage bias, which considers the relative amounts of coverage each party receives; and statement bias, which focuses on the favorability of coverage toward one party or the other. On the whole, no significant biases were found for the newspaper industry. Biases in newsmagazines were virtually zero as well. However, meta-analysis of studies of television network news showed small, measurable, but probably insubstantial coverage and statement biases.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Social media exhibits common forms of bias present in traditional news media, including gatekeeping, coverage, and statement bias.
“social media also exhibits common forms of bias present in traditional news media (Lin et al., 2011; Saez-Trumper et al., 2013), including gatekeeping (preference for certain topics), coverage (disparity in attention), and statement bias (differences in how an issue is presented)”
From Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries (2019) · cites this paper as D'Alessio and Allen, 2000
Cites
Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2004) · doi:10.4135/9781412985031 · Cited by 3,023 · see citing works
Hastorf, A. H., & Cantril, H. (1954) · The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0057880 · Cited by 882 · cited 2× · see citing works
“It might be a matter of selective perception (Bauer, 1964), an example of two people observing the same message or event, but interpreting it differently (Hastorf & Cantril, 1954).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use
Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x · Cited by 1,940 · see citing works
Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries
Olteanu, A., Castillo, C., Diaz, F., & Kıcıman, E. (2019) · Frontiers in Big Data · doi:10.3389/fdata.2019.00013 · Cited by 763 · see citing works
Confirmation bias, ingroup bias, and negativity bias in selective exposure to political information
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Mothes, C., & Polavin, N. (2020) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650217719596 · Cited by 391 · see citing works
Fair and Balanced? Quantifying Media Bias through Crowdsourced Content Analysis
Budak, C., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfw007 · Cited by 336 · see citing works
The Effects of Negativity and Motivated Information Processing During a Political Campaign
Meffert, M. F., Chung, S., Joiner, A. J., Waks, L., & Garst, J. (2006) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00003.x · Cited by 305 · see citing works
Negativity in political news: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings
Lengauer, G., Esser, F., & Berganza, R. (2012) · Journalism · doi:10.1177/1464884911427800 · Cited by 287 · see citing works
Feldman, L., Hart, P. S., & Milosevic, T. (2017) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662515595348 · Cited by 172 · see citing works
Ardèvol-Abreu, A., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2017) · Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/1077699016654684 · Cited by 153 · see citing works
Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries
Olteanu, A., Castillo, C., Diaz, F., & Kiciman, E. (2016) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2886526 · Cited by 763 · see citing works
- Authors
- D'Alessio, D., & Allen, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Connecticut (US)
- University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee (US)
- ORCID
- Allen, Mike
- Venue
- Journal of Communication
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2000-12-01
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 133-156
- ISSN
- 0021-9916 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2466
- OpenAlex
- W2104763934
- Cited by
- 510
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 24
- FWCI
- 3.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Communication (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Keywords
- media bias, presidential campaigns, coverage bias, newspaper industry, news magazines, television news, news selection
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
