Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T11:17:57.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Big Bird effect? The interaction among public broadcasting, public subsidies, and political knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2015

Patrick O’Mahen
Patrick O’Mahen*
Affiliation:
Fellow, Weiser Center for Europe and Eurasia, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
*
*E-mail: pomahen@umich.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Policymakers in industrialized democracies often debate the efficacy of subsidizing public broadcasters. Surprisingly however, past media and politics research analyzing the effects of public broadcasting on political knowledge does not isolate the effect of subsidies and instead treats all public broadcasters as equals. This study theorizes that subsidized public broadcasters have to worry less about competing with entertainment-oriented commercial broadcasters for advertising revenue than their unsubsidized peers. As a result, they can focus on providing more comprehensive public affairs coverage instead of only worrying about attracting the largest possible audience. To test this theory, I use Eurobarometer data measuring knowledge, media consumption, and demographic variables from 14 countries. I find that watching public broadcasting increases knowledge levels among citizens, while decreasing gaps in knowledge between citizens caused by varying levels of education, income, gender, and political interest. However, as predicted, these benefits only occur in countries that provide significant subsidies for their public broadcasters.

Keywords

media and politicspolitical knowledgepublic broadcasting
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , May 2016 , pp. 311 - 332
Copyright
© European Consortium for Political Research 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aalberg, T., Van Aelst, P. and James, C. (2010), ‘Media systems and the political information environment: a cross national comparison’, The International Journal for Press and Politics 15(3): 255–271.Google Scholar
Althaus, S. (1996), ‘Opinion polls, information effects and political equality: exploring ideological biases in collective opinion’, Political Communication 13(1): 3–21.Google Scholar
Baek, M. (2009), ‘A comparative analysis of political communication systems and voter turnout’, American Journal of Political Science 53(2): 376–393.Google Scholar
Bartels, L. (2005), ‘Homer gets a tax cut: inquality and public policy in the American mind’, Perspectives on Politics 3(1): 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batels, L. (1996), ‘Uninformed voters: information effects in presidential elections’, American Journal of Political Science 40(1): 194–230.Google Scholar
Baum, M. (2002), ‘Sex, lies and war: how soft news brings foreing policy to the inattentive public’, American Political Science Review 96: 91–109.Google Scholar
BBC. (2008), Annual Report and Accounts 2007/2008: the BBC Executive’s Review and Assessment, London: BBC.Google Scholar
Brants, K. (2004), ‘Netherlands’, in M. Kelly, G. Mazzoleni and D. McQuaid (eds), The Media in Europe: The Euromedia Handbook, London: Sage Publications, pp. 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W. and Stokes, D. (1960), The American Voter, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
CBC-Radio Canada (2009), CBC-Radio Canada Annual Report 2008–2009: Great Success, Greater Challenges, Ottawa: CBC-Radio Canada.Google Scholar
Chaffee, S. and Schleduer, J. (1986), ‘Measurement and effects of attention to media news’, Human Communication Research 13(1): 76–107.Google Scholar
Chafee, S. and Kanihan, F. (1997), ‘Learning about politics from the mass media’, Political Communication 14(4): 421–430.Google Scholar
Commission on Presidential Debates. (2012), October 3, 2012 Debate Transcript. Retrieved 12 October 2012 from http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=october-3 Google Scholar
Converse, P. (1964), ‘The nature of belief systems in mass public’, in D. Apter (ed.), Ideology and Discontent, New York: Free Press, pp. 206–259.Google Scholar
Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (2012), CPB’s appropriation history. Retrieved 12 October 2012 from http://www.cpb.org/appropriation/history.html Google Scholar
Crissell, A. (1997), An Introductory History of British Broadcasting, London: s.n.Google Scholar
Delli Carpini, M. and Keeter, S. (1993), ‘Measuring political knowledge: putting first things first’, American Journal of Political Science, 1179–1206.Google Scholar
Djankov, S., McLiesh, C., Nenova, T. and Sheifer, A. (2003), ‘Who owns the media?’, Journal of Law and Economics 46(2): 341–382.Google Scholar
Fishkin, J. (1996), ‘The televised deliberative poll: an experiment in democracy’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 132–140.Google Scholar
Fiske, S.T., Lau, R.R. and Smith, R.A. (1990), ‘On the varieties and utilities of political expertise’, Social Cognition 8(1): 31–48.Google Scholar
Gilens, M. (2001), ‘Political ignorance and collective policy preferences’, American Political Science Review 95(2): 379–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, S.B. and Segura, G.M. (1997), ‘Cross national variation in the political sophisitcation of individauls: capability or choice?’ Journal of Politics 59(1): 126–147.Google Scholar
Hacker, J. and Pierson, P. (2005), ‘Abandoning the middle: the bush tax cuts and the limits of democratic control’, Perspectives on Politics 3(1): 33–53.Google Scholar
Hallin, D. and Mancini, P. (2004), Comparining Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, S., Curran, J., Brink-Lund, A., Salovaara-Moring, I., Hahn, K. and Coen, S. (2010), ‘Cross national vs. individual-level differences in political information: a media systems perspective’, Journal of Elections 20(3): 291–310.Google Scholar
Jerit, J. and Barabas, J. (2006), ‘Bankrupt rhetoric: how misleading information affects knowledge about social security’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 278–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, A. (1992), ‘Busy voters, agenda control and the power of information’, American Political Science Review 86(2): 390–403.Google Scholar
Lupia, A. (1994), ‘Shortcuts vs. encyclopedias: information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections’, American Political Science Review 88(1): 63–76.Google Scholar
Lupia, A. and McCubbins, M. (1998), The Democratic Delimma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Luskin, R. (1987), ‘Measuring political sophistication’, American Journal of Political Science, 856–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luskin, R. (1990), ‘Explaining political sophisitcation’, Political Behavior 12: 331–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luskin, R., Fishkin, J. and Jowell, R. (2002), ‘Considered opinions: deliberative polling in Britain’, British Journal of Political Science 32(3): 455–487.Google Scholar
Melich, A. (1999), Eurobarometer 52.0: European Parliament Elections, the Single European Currency, and Financial Services, Ocotber-November 1999, Cologne, Germany: GESIS/Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, [distrbutors].Google Scholar
Mondak, J. and Anderson, M. (2004), ‘The knowledge gap: a re-examination of gender-based differences in political knowledge’, Journal of Politics, 492–512.Google Scholar
Nadeau, R. and Niemi, R. (1995), ‘Educated guesses: the process of answering factual knowledge questions in surveys’, Public Opinion Quarterly 59(3): 323–346.Google Scholar
Page, B. (1996), Who Deliberates? Mass Media in a Modern Democracy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Page, B. and Shapiro, R. (1992), The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans’ Policy Preferences, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Papacostas, A. (2006), Eurobarometer 65.2: The European Consitution, Social and Economic Quality of Life, Avian Influenza, and Energy Issues, March-May 2006, Cologne, Germany/Ann Arbor, MI: GESISInter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.Google Scholar
Papacostas, A. (2010), Eurobarometer 64.3: Foreign Languages, Biotechnology, Organized Crime, Health Items, November-December 2005, Ann Arbor: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.Google Scholar
Prior, M. (2003), ‘Any good news in soft news? The impact of soft news preference on political knowledge’, Political Communication, 149–171.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. and Levy, M. (1996), ‘News media use and the informed public: a 1990s update’, Journal of Communication 46(2): 129–135.Google Scholar
Sniderman, P., Brody, R. and Tetlock, P. (1993), Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Soroka, S., Andrew, B., Iyengar, S., Curran, J., Coen, S., Hayashi, K., Jones, P., Mazzoleni, G., Woong Rhee, J., Rowe, D. and Tiffen, R. (2013), ‘Auntie knows best? Public broadcasters and current affairs knowledge’, British Journal of Political Science 43(4): 719–739.Google Scholar
Zaller, J. (n.d.), A Theory of Media Politics: How the Interests of Politicians, Journalists and Citizens Shape the News. s.l.:s.n.Google Scholar
Zukin, C. and Snyder, R. (1984), ‘Passive learning: when the media environment is the message’, Public Opinion Quarterly 48(3): 629–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar