Search

Most online media consumption is not driven by a desire to seek out news and politics. However, the public may still encounter politics because it arises organically in communities devoted to non-political subjects. This study examines the potential of popular reality television online discussion forums to serve as online third spaces and stimulate political discussion due to the natural connections that audiences make between the cast members and "real life" in reality-based programming. Based on a quantitative analysis of political comments made to reality television subreddits and a survey of visitors to a popular subreddit focused on The Bachelor television show, the findings not only demonstrate the ability of entertainment-focused online communities to expose a broad segment of the public to political talk, but also point to the obstacles in promoting political discussion that is simultaneously enjoyable, informative, and tolerant of diverse viewpoints. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Costly and unexpected medical bills have led many Americans to deplete their savings or put off medical care. This study examines how the public attributes blame for the costly health care system and how these blame attributions vary according to an individual's own personal experiences with medical expenses. The results from multiple nationally representative surveys show that blame for health care costs is diffuse. Insurance companies and health care providers, such as hospitals, share a significant portion of the blame for these costs, and this is especially true among those who have firsthand experience with health care costs. Personal experience also somewhat reduces the likelihood that partisans concentrate blame for health care costs on the opposing party. Even though the costs of unexpected medical bills are tangible and the stakes are high, more visible and proximate actors in the health care system may shield government from some of the blame for costs incurred in the current system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Nearly half of the adults in the United States have received an unexpected medical bill in recent years. While government, provider, and insurance policies related to unexpected medical expenses receive attention in the media, this study focuses on variation in public support. Methods: The study employs two multifactor survey vignette experiments to detect how different features of common health care scenarios that result in costly medical expenses influence the public's sympathy for the patient, perceived fairness of the medical costs, and demand for government action. Findings: The results point to out-of-pocket cost, severity of the treatment, and the patient's insurance situation as important for public opinion. The public is significantly more supportive of government action when the costs are high and out of the patient's control; in contrast, respondents are generally less sympathetic toward patients described as uninsured or who seek out more costly providers. Conclusions: The findings underscore the sensitivity of health care attitudes to framing effects, which may occur when media choose how to cover health care costs. The results also point to a potential mismatch in legislation that narrowly addresses "surprise billing," with public support for government addressing disproportionate costs across a broader range of scenarios. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Broadcast media consumption is becoming more social. Many online video "livestreams" come with embedded livestreaming chatboxes, uniting the on-screen and social components. We investigate how streaming chat shapes perceptions of political events. We conducted a field experiment during the September 2019 Democratic Primary Debate where subjects were assigned to view the debate with or without streaming chat. We use text analyses to characterize the frequency, toxicity, and tone of comments in the chat. Our experimental findings indicate that Democratic subjects assigned to the Facebook (social) chat condition reported lower affect toward Democrats and a worse viewing experience, aligned with the toxic and overwhelming nature of the chat. The polarity of candidate-directed comments also influenced candidate evaluations and perceived performance in the polls. This suggests that consumers of mass media will be both more immediately affected by social feedback and likely to make inferences about the experiences of their fellow consumers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Media outlets strategically frame news about violent events using sensationalist labels such as "terrorist" or "Islamist" but also more subtle wording choices that affect the overall article tone. We argue theoretically and show empirically using a conjoint experiment that, contrary to existing studies, the effect of these two framing devices on readers' perceptions of terrorist events should be carefully separated. Even though article tone transports no factual information, in our experiment negative and sensational wording choices carried a greater impact on threat perceptions than the explicit "terrorist" and "Islamist" labels. In a realistic news article setting, which varied other salient context cues such as proximity or event size, subtle shifts in article tone still subconsciously influenced threat perceptions. This highlights the potential dangers of media coverage fueling otherwise unjustified fears by injecting unnecessary editorial tone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous work has shown public opinion toward immigrants is malleable based on how immigrants are described in media and elite rhetoric. In a survey experiment on a nationally representative sample of American adults, we extend this research to test for possible priming effects that occur based on how salient documentation status is when respondents proffer opinions on Latino immigrants. Our findings show that when subjects are first asked about "undocumented Latino immigrants," their attitudes toward "Latino immigrants," appear more negative, relative to when they are first asked about "Latino immigrants" without invoking the legal modifier. Respondents channel their negative associations with "illegal" or "undocumented" immigration into their opinions of Latino immigrants writ large. The results have implications for political communication, media reporting on immigration, and policy debates, which frequently discuss both "legal" and "undocumented" immigration in the same context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]