The Effects of Television News on Immigration Attitudes

The Effects of Television News on Immigration Attitudes

Alexandria G. Hill

Scott S. Liebertz

University of South Alabama

March 2018

Abstract

The 2016 campaign arguably raised the political and media salience of immigrationto new levels. We examine the effect of television news programs on public attitudes toward immigration policy. In particular we analyze the varying effects of television news on individuals of different ages. While previous research demonstrates the influence of a particular media outlet or another, we model the effects of all three major 24-hour cable news stations as well as network news. Given the overt political orientation of their programming, we expect Fox News and MSNBC to have strong effects albeit in opposite directions, with CNN and Major Networks having less influence. We also hypothesize that television news programs will have a null effect on younger viewers’opinions on immigration because they are more prone to tolerant attitudes. We use the 2016 American National Election Study (ANES), which contains data on the specific television news shows respondents watch. Results indicate that Fox News has the strongest and most consistent influence on immigration attitudes. Among young viewers, our hypothesis is not supported, as young viewers are more affected by Fox News than older viewers. The other networks do not seem to have differing effects across age groups.

Introduction

During and after the recent presidential campaign, television media increasedtheir coverage of immigration reform. Immigration debates have a long and often ugly historyin theU.S., and recent developments are intensifying the distinction between pro and anti-immigration perspectives. This increase in media coverage, both negative and positive, has the means to influence viewers ideas on which immigration policies they support (Jacoby, 2000; Druckman & Nelson, 2003). President Trump’s campaign platform on immigration reform – particularly his insistence on building a wall and “making Mexico pay for it” - turned the issue into one of the most important of the 2016 presidential election (Pew, 2016). Considering the cognitive impact of media and the salience of immigration news, immigration attitudes are likely influenced by the significant increase in attention given to this issue. We examine the extent to which certain outlets exert more influence than others. It is not new to observe that media can have profound effects on political attitudes including their opinion on immigration policy (Valenzuela, 2012). Previous literature on immigration, agenda setting, partisan lines, and cable television have already established that media has a substantiveinfluence on viewership beliefs. However, the extent to which major networks have differing effects has not been extensively studied. Individuals already perceived to have anti-immigration views are becoming consistently more opposed to immigration policies that favor immigration rights.

The average individual, however, does not pay close attention to politics and may haveconflicting views on immigration policies, leaving their opinion more vulnerable to outside influence. Lately there appear to be increasing numbers of Americans that support oppositional policies: those that favor protection of undocumented immigrants, and those that favorgreater deportation (Merolla, 2016). Immigration policies that get more media attention than others mayhave the most prominent effect on viewer opinions. Our research, however,tests the often implicit assumption that different types of media have consistent affects across different ages. We evaluatethe effect of television news on a number of immigration attitudesrelated to both legal and illegal immigration, as well as specific issues like the construction of a wall on our southern border and the policy of admitting Syrian refugees. Since people usually watch networks that favor their pre-established political views, viewersmaynot be substantially affected by certain news content that should only be confirming their biases. We nevertheless find strong media effects, particularly for Fox News, even after attempts to address endogeneity concerns.

The news media are watchdogs and arbiters between the public and those who govern us. While their stated intention may be to provide objectiveinformation, it is an increasing trend of media networks to promote and validate their dominantviewers’ biases (Levendusky, 2014). Results suggest that people are in fact influenced by messaging from television news as it relates to immigration issues. We find that Fox News has a consistent and substantive effect on reducing respondents’ support for immigration. In all of our models, Fox News has a large and statistically significant effect on anti-immigration attitudes. MSNBC also appears to influence some attitudes, albeit in a different direction and not nearly as broadly nor as strongly as Fox News. CNN and the Major Networks do not consistently affect viewers attitudes towards immigration though there is some evidence that the latter influencesConservative viewers to have more pro-immigration attitudes.

Persuasive News Effects

In this technologically advanced era the influence of the media continues to increase. According to Patricia Greenfield (1983), the cognitive effect of media is affected by two things: content and medium. Since most viewers choose to watch certain news programs that are already aligned with their political views it means the content largely confirms the individual’s biases. Gil de Zungia, Correa, andValenzuela (2012) analyzethisdynamicbetween individual’s ideological preferencesand their influence on their cable news consumption habits. They find that media outlets can capitalize on their ability to be influential in changing partisan voting preferences. The effect news has on political opinions and its interaction with the average consumer’s preference for like-minded news outlets creates a “feedback loop in which they consume slanted media, their ideologies then evolve in the direction of the slant, their taste for that media increases, and so on” (Martin, 2017). Media outlets often exploit this influence by intentionally slantingstories in favor of their particular editorial view (McKeever, 2018). Furthermore, media outlets frequently play up any conflict or controversy with the intention of increasing their audience base. Television media may manipulate pictures, video clips, jargon, framing, and other techniques to invoke certain feelings towards the issues.

Attitudes on Immigration

Previous research on immigration attitudes have been focused on discovering how, when, and why certain variablesaffect public attitude formation. Hainmueller and Hopkins (2014) attempt to analyze the way in which native-born attitudes on the political economy and political psychology areinfluenced by the increase in immigration. Among the native-born majority, economic fears seem to be the most prevalent in determining where individuals stand on immigration policy.As is the case with many issues, the public tends to be highly uninformed and much of the political information that is retained comes from what is presented most prominently by the media (Schene and Slaughter, 2001).

While the proportion of different nationalities of immigrants coming to the United States has varied over the years, the issues surrounding immigration have been largely consistent (Valentine and Suhay, 2008). Large increases in immigration can have serious implications for the economy, both positive and negative. Fear of the loss of jobs, terrorism, criminal activities, are perennial concerns regarding the non-native population, particularly those who arrive illegally. This is perhaps to be expected given the tens of millions of immigrants that have moved to the US in recent decades (Mackie, 2017). The evidence about which factors are most influential on public opinion is mixed, however. In their work on Canadian and European immigration attitudes, Hainmueller and Hopkins (2007) examine the perceived threats to national identity and the pressure to assimilate.Theyfindlittle evidence to support the idea that immigration attitudes areprimarily affectedby one’s personal economic situation. Blau and Mackie (2017) also attempt to focus on the economic effect on immigration views and come to a similar conclusion. Immigration affects the political environment and almost every policy area of concern. There is no doubt that immigration is transforming the cultural and racial demographics of the United States, perhaps making opinions on immigration more vulnerable to messaging by the mass media and political figures.

Media Effects on Immigration Attitudes

Media are a socializing agent and the primary way most individuals gain information aboutthe political world. With the media’s ability to frame certain immigration issuesin hostile or favorable ways, they can maximize their influence. In many cases media outletsare more likely to define immigration as a problem rather than an opportunity for the United States to become more culturally diverse (Carpentier, 2012). Previous work on political and media-based research suggests that media coverage of immigration news can challenge or reinforce individual biases. According to McKeever, Riffe, and Carpentir (2012), the more attention an individual paysto immigration news the more they think thatimmigration is a problem. They also find that the quantity and quality of the segments on immigration influencesthe perception of immigration policies. It is not surprising that media outlets focus on more threatening news stories about minorities. Immigration issues often inspire fear, thus increasingviewership for the news networks that exploit any negative developments with an immigration angle (Brighton and Foy, 2007). The media often use techniques like framing to have a great influence over their viewers and to promote a specific agenda. According to Inaki Sagarzazu, concerns over immigration issues are particularly common when citizens have been primed by the media (2014). Immigration issues are known to trigger change in political opinion on many issues among certain types of voters, resulting in the media’s overemphasis on the issue to garner viewership for their network. Media outlets have strong incentives toreaffirm their audience’sgeneralviewpoints which creates a cycle of confirmation bias.

Expectations

Politicians, along with the public have been debating the pros and cons of the path to citizenship for many years. The United States has experienced intervals of immigration waves since the colonial era. During this time individuals were most commonly migrating from Great Britain and Ireland(Alfred 2001). According to Alfred (2001)by 1990, migrants were mostly from Asia and Latin America.The Department of Homeland Security reports 125, 000 immigrants migrate to the United States per year on average. Furthermore, according to the Immigration Policy Institute the United States has been one of the top destinations for immigration for almost sixty years. Despite our long history with immigration many natives oscillate between considering the increasing numbers of migrants being a benefit or burden. With respect to this, media networks may find it beneficial to frame news segments regarding immigration in either a positive or negative light depending on their own editorial stance. News segments frequently emphasize the connections between immigration and the economy, national security, and foreign policy.With the consistent changes in political climate over immigration policies, news networks are expected to be a nonpartisan source of information and a forum of exchange between the public and politicians. This is often not the case, however (Levendusky, 2014). The 2016 Presidential campaignled to increased viewership in part due to the celebrity of Republican candidate Donald Trump. Many observers note the growing polarization of news outlets as represented by these two top rated cable news networks. Regarding immigration, Fox News promotes many stories inclined to portray immigrants – particularly undocumented ones in a negative light (Valenzuela, 2012). MSNBC, however, is much more likely to produce stories favoring the protection of undocumented immigrants and other pro-immigration policies (Valenzuela, 2012). Based on ratings, it appears that viewers tend to favor this overtly partisan approach to a more balanced one represented by CNN. It is still true however that more viewers get their news from the major networks than cable (see Figure 1). Despite this, we expect that the more activist nature of programming on Fox and MSNBC will have a greater effect on viewers than the more balanced approach taken by CNN and the major networks.

Hypothesis 1: An increase in the amount of Fox News program consumption will be associated with an increase in anti-immigration attitudes, ceteris paribus.

Hypothesis1b:An increase in the amount of MSNBC program consumption will be associated with a decrease in anti-immigration attitudes, ceteris paribus.

Hypothesis 1c:An increase in the amount of CNN or Major Network program consumption will have no association with anti-immigration attitudes, ceteris paribus.

We also expect that since younger viewers have grown up in a much more multicultural society and tend to express more tolerant attitudes towards those who are different, they will not be as strongly affected by television news as older citizens. We expect the main effect of television news to be felt among older cohorts.

Hypothesis 2:The marginal effect of Fox (positively) and MSNBC (negatively) news programming on anti-immigration attitudes will increase with age, ceteris paribus.

Table 1 about here

Research Design

In order to test the hypotheses,we use the 2016 American National Election Survey, which was conducted in two waves: pre-election and post-election. This survey data uses a cross-section, equal probability sample size of 4,271 respondents. In order to determine immigration attitudes for the previously surveyed respondents we use Ordinary Least Squaresregression models and OLS regression models with interactions.We also use clustered standard errors to account for state level heterogeneity.

Dependent Variables

We use several different measures of immigration attitudes. A common rallying cry during the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump was for building a wall along the southern border. Build a Wall measures the extent to which respondents support this policy and ranges from 1 (“Oppose a great deal) to 7 (“Favor a great deal”). To get a more comprehensive measure of immigration attitudes, we also create two different indices. The first contains five items measuring support for building a wall, support for the policy of birthright citizenship, belief that immigration strengthens or weakens the culture, opinions about deporting child arrivals, and opinions on whether the US should increases or decrease immigration levels. The second index adds three more immigration variables which measure opinions on policy related to unauthorized immigrants, and the effects that immigrants have on the economy and crime. We create additive indexes after standardizing each of variables. The scale reliability coefficient for Immigration Index I is 0.817, and for Immigration Index II is 0.845. Finally, another important issue during the campaign related to immigrants from primarily Muslim countries, and in particular whether or not we should accept Syrian refugees. Support for accepting Syrian Refugees is measured on a scale of 1 (“Favor a great deal”) to 7(“Oppose a great deal”). All variables are measured so that more pro-immigration attitudes have lower values and anti-immigration attitudes have higher values.

Independent Variables

Our main independent variables are measures of news consumption of Fox News, CNN, Major Networks, and MSNBC. These are each measured in the amount of programs appearing on these networks that respondents identify as having watched at least once in the past month. We limit the programs to those appearing at night, because there is not consistency in terms of data availability regarding programs during other times of day. Fox News ranges from 0 to 4 programs, as does Major Networks. MSNBC ranges from 0 to 3 and CNN ranges from 0 to 2. To test Hypothesis 2, we interact Fox News and MSNBC with Age, which is an interval variable measured in years. We also control for a number of confounding factors that could cause a spurious association between the independent and dependent variables. These include gender, race, ideology, party identification,retrospective views on the economy, political knowledge, education, marital status, religiosity, and feelings toward Hispanics and Muslims.

Results

The results testing Hypothesis 1a, 1b, and 1c are reported in Table 1. We find strong support for Hypothesis 1a that Fox News viewership is associated with stronger anti-immigration attitudes, but little support for Hypothesis 1b. We also find evidence for Hypothesis 1c in that there is no statistically significant association between CNN and Major Network viewership and immigration attitudes. In model one we test how news networks have the potential to change one’s political view on Building a Wall. Fox News has the strongest effect on a person’s opinion toward building a wall, and is the only variable that is statistically significant (p<0.001). Substantively, the effect of watching one more Fox News program (beta = 0.503) is larger than the effect of being a Democrat versus a non-Democrat (beta=-0.444) and nearly as large as the effect of being a Republican (beta = 0.601).Watching two additional Fox News programs has a larger effect than that of being Hispanics (relative to other racial minorities).