Hostile Media Perceptions in the Age of Social Media: Following Politicians, Emotions, and Perceptions of Media Bias

References

• Arpan, L. M., & Nabi, R. L. (2011). Exploring anger in the hostile media process: Effects on news preferences and source evaluation. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88, 5–22. doi:10.1177/107769901108800101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnidge, M., Gunther, A. C., Kim, J., Hong, Y., Perryman, M., Tay, S. K., & Knisely, S. (2017). Politically motivated selective exposure and perceived media bias. Communication Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0093650217713066
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Borah, P. (2016). Political Facebook use: Campaign strategies used in 2008 and 2012 presidential elections. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13, 326–338. doi:10.1080/19331681.2016.1163519
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bossetta, M. (2018). The digital architectures of social media: Comparing political campaigning on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat in the 2016 U.S. election. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95, 471–496. doi:10.1177/1077699018763307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brader, T. (2005). Striking a responsive chord: How political ads motivate and persuade voters by appealing to emotions. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 388–405. doi:10.1111/j.0092-5853.2005.00130.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Alessio, D., & Allen, M. (2000). Media bias in presidential elections: A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 50, 133–156. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02866.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Easley, J. (2016, September 10). Trump, Clinton battle over media bias. The Hill. Retrieved from https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/295198-trump-clinton-battle-over-media-bias
   Google Scholar
• Enli, G. (2017). Twitter as arena for the authentic outsider: Exploring the social media campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election. European Journal of Communication, 32, 50–61. doi:10.1177/0267323116682802
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallup. (2016, November 3). Majority of U.S. voters think media favors Clinton. Retrieved from http://news.gallup.com/poll/197090/majority-voters-think-media-favors-clinton.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Gunther, A. C., & Schmitt, K. (2004). Mapping boundaries of the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 54, 55–70. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02613.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hasell, A., & Weeks, B. E. (2016). Partisan provocation: The role of partisan news use and emotional responses in political information sharing in social media. Human Communication Research, 42, 641–661. doi:10.1111/hcre.12092
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heiss, R., Schmuck, D., & Matthes, J. (2018). What drives interaction on political actors’ Facebook posts? Profile and content predictors of user engagement and political actors’ reactions. Information, Communication, & Society. Advance online article. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2018.1445273
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S. (2011). Media politics: A citizens’ guide. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
   Google Scholar
• Kreiss, D., Lawrence, R. G., & McGregor, S. C. (2018). In their own words: political practitioner accounts of candidates, audiences, affordances, genres, and timing in strategic social media use. Political Communication, 35, 8–31. doi:10.1080/10584609.2017.1334727
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, T. K., Kim, Y., & Coe, K. (2018). When social media become hostile media: An experimental examination of news sharing, partisanship, and follower count. Mass Communication & Society, 21, 450–472. doi:10.1080/15205436.2018.1429635
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacKuen, M., Wolak, J., Keele, L., & Marcus, G. E. (2010). Civic engagements: Resolute partisanship or reflective deliberation. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 440–458. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00440.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthes, J. (2013). The affective underpinnings of hostile media perceptions: Exploring the distinct effects of affective and cognitive involvement. Communication Research, 40, 360–387. doi:10.1177/0093650211420255
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthes, J., & Beyer, A. (2017). Toward a cognitive-affective process model of hostile media perceptions: A multi-country structural equation modeling approach. Communication Research, 44, 1075–1098. doi:10.1177/0093650215594234
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthes, J., Maurer, P., & Arendt, F. (2019). Consequences of politicians’ perceptions of the news media. Journalism Studies, 20, 345–363. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2017.1377102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLaughlin, B., & Macafee, T. (2019). Becoming a presidential candidate: Social media following and politician identification. Mass Communication and Society, 1–20. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/15205436.2019.1614196
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metz, M., Kruikemeier, S., & Lecheler, S. (2019). Personalization of politics on Facebook: examining the content and effects of professional, emotional, and private self-personalization. Information, Communication & Society, 1–18. Advance online article. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2019.1581244
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nabi, R. L. (2010). The case for emphasizing discrete emotions in communication research. Communication Monographs, 77(2), 153–159. doi:10.1080/03637751003790444
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Kalogeropoulos, A., Levy, D. A. L., & Nielsen, R. K. (2017). Reuters institute digital news report 2017. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Oxford, England: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism,University of Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Patterson, T. E. (2016). News coverage of the 2016 national conventions: Negative news, lacking context. HKS Working Paper, 16(051). doi:10.2139/ssrn.2884835
   Google Scholar
• Perloff, R. M. (2015). A three-decade retrospective on the hostile media effect. Mass Communication and Society, 18, 701–729. doi:10.1080/15205436.2015.1051234
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center. (2016). Election 2016: Campaigns as a direct source of news. Retrieved from https://www.journalism.org/2016/07/18/election-2016-campaigns-as-a-direct-source-of-news/
   Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center. (2019). Sizing up Twitter users. Retrieved from https://www.pewinternet.org/2019/04/24/sizing-up-twitter-users/
   Google Scholar
• Reid, S. A. (2012). A self-categorization explanation for the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 62, 381–399. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01647.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rojas, H., Barnidge, M., & Abril, E. P. (2016). Egocentric publics and corrective action. Communication and the Public, 1, 27–38. doi:10.1177/2057047315619421
   Google Scholar
• Stier, S., Bleier, A., Lietz, H., & Strohmaier, M. (2018). Election campaigning on social media: Politicians, audiences, and the mediation of political communication on Facebook and Twitter. Political Communication, 35, 50–74. doi:10.1080/10584609.2017.1334728
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stromer-Galley, J., Hemsley, J., Tanupabrungsun, S., Zhang, F., Rossini, P., Bryant, L., … Robinson, J. (2016). Illuminating 2016 project. Retrieved from http://illuminating.ischool.syr.edu/
   Google Scholar
• Vallone, R. P., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 577–585. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.577
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watts, M. D., Domke, D., Shah, D. V., & Fan, D. P. (1999). Elite cues and media bias in presidential campaigns: Explaining public perceptions of a liberal press. Communication Research, 26, 144–175. doi:10.1177/009365099026002003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weeks, B. E. (2015). Emotions, partisanship, and misperceptions: How anger and anxiety moderate the effect of partisan bias on susceptibility to political misinformation. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 699–719. doi:10.1111/jcom.12164
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar