Politicians and pundits alike have lamented the increasing polarization in Congress.  Recent books and articles describe an increasingly divisive atmosphere in our nation’s capital that stretches back to the 1980s.  In addition to the anecdotal evidence offered in these books, recent studies have offered empirical evidence of increased partisan division.  Beyond documenting the rise of partisanship, several hypotheses have been suggested to explain this trend.  These explanations include redistricting efforts which produced more politically homogenous districts supporting one party over another and fewer competitive districts in which either party could win.  Others have argued the rise in partisanship is the result of a top down effort by party elites, or conversely, the trend is a bottom up phenomenon. However, studies of these explanations have failed to provide strong evidence to support them.

A possible influence on the increased polarization which has yet to be carefully examined is the role of media in this trend.  The rise in partisanship coincides with changes in traditional media coverage and the use of new sources of information and communication technology.  This paper reviews the evolution of communication technology and new media and its impact on the political arena in America and makes the argument that new media enables and supports the fragmentation of society by political ideology resulting in the rise of partisanship.  While new media can generally be considered to be internet based and mobile communication platforms, for the purposes of this paper, cable news networks will also be considered because their introduction marked a shift away from the traditional and fairly centrist broadcast news coverage.   Beginning in the early 1980’s, cable television provided directs access to Congressional proceedings, allowing voters to see first-hand and in real time what their representatives were doing and saying.  Research on the “CNN Effect” and the 24 hour news cycle strongly reveals the impact this change has had on foreign policy.   In the same decade, changes in FCC regulations allowed media outlets to provide political coverage with a specific bias without having to offer equal time for opposing views.  The result was that media consumers could select information sources which reflected their political ideology.

Technological advances in communication have also fostered individuals’ abilities to participate in the political process by increasing the ease with which voters can communicate with their representatives, as well as monitor the votes, finances, and other activities of elected officials.  These same technologies have allowed candidates to raise substantial campaign funds through the aggregation of small donor contributions to an extent not possible previously.

Research on the behavioral and attitudinal outcomes of media use highlights several important phenomena that ripple through the political process and have the tangible effect of polarizing our legislative bodies.  Well established theories of agenda-setting, framing, and cultivation applied to political activities shed new light on the overarching discourse and practice of politics in the past few decades.  Additionally, the dynamics of reinforcing spirals of media selection and personal attitudes offer valuable insight into the relationships between media, voter, and elected official.  The article concludes with a detailed description of how shifting news coverage and new communication technology fostered the growth of ideologically focused, non-collocated communities which circulated messages previously considered extreme or from the fringe. These messages were then carried through a complicated and self-reinforcing network to the national conscience.  This communication process developed concurrently and symbiotically with an increased dependence on ideologically connected individuals and small groups by candidates for financial support.  The end result is an escalating trend of partisanship and polarization in the American political system.

Selected References

Abramowitz, A. I. and Saunders, K.L. (2008). Is polarization a myth? The Journal of Politics, 70 (2),542-555

Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Growing up with television: Cultivation processes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 43–68). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fiorina, M.P., Abrams, S. A., & Pope, J.C. (2008).  Polarization in the American public: Misconceptions and misreadings. The Journal of Politics, 70 (2), 556-560.

McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (1993). The evolution of agenda-setting research: Twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Communication, 43(2), 58–67.

Scheufele, D. A., & Moy, P. (2000). Twenty-five years of the spiral of silence: A conceptual review and empirical outlook. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 12, 3–28.

Schermer, C. (2010). Reinforcing spirals of negative affects and selective attention to advertising in political campaign. National Center of Competence in Research. Berne, Switzerland.

Slater, M. D. (2007). Reinforcing spirals: The mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Communication Theory, 17, 281-303.