🧭 What Was Asked

News coverage often signals the positions of party elites, but does exposure to those signals in everyday reporting actually shape public policy opinions? Prior experiments using artificial stimuli commonly find strong partisan cueing—partisans adopt leaders' stances—but real news typically offers richer policy information and more subtle or ambiguous cues that may not produce the same effects.

📰 How Real-News Cues Were Tested

A new experimental paradigm was created to measure party cues as they naturally appear in news coverage (termed "real-news party cues"). Key design elements include:

• 70 news articles sampled from a large pool of real coverage of political proposals.
• Two versions of each article: one retaining the party cues and one with those cues removed.
• These paired articles served as stimuli in survey experiments with representative samples of Americans (n = 12,177).

🔑 Key Findings

• Real-news party cues have mostly modest effects on policy opinions.
• The modest size of effects contrasts with numerous previous experiments that used artificial or highly simplified cues and found larger partisan shifts.

⭐ Why It Matters

These results suggest that the influence of party cues observed in many lab-style experiments may not generalize fully to the messier, information-rich environment of actual news reporting. Understanding elite influence requires testing cues in realistic media contexts, because subtlety, ambiguity, and richer policy details can dampen the cueing power that appears in artificial experimental stimuli.