Uncritical News Interviews Normalize Extreme Right Views

Why This Matters:

Media exposure shapes not only what people believe but what they think others believe. Diane Bolet and Florian Foos investigate whether broadcasting uncritical interviews with extreme-right activists makes audiences more likely to agree with extreme statements and to believe those views are widely shared. The question speaks to how media choices can contribute to the normalization and spread of radical political ideas.

How the Study Was Done:

The authors use population-based experiments that leverage real-world interviews with extreme-right activists aired on Sky News in the United Kingdom and on Sky News Australia. Participants were exposed to these interviews under different conditions to assess downstream effects on attitudes and perceptions. The design compares responses after uncritical interviews and after more critical interviewing strategies (tested in the UK sample).

What Was Measured:

• Agreement with extreme-right statements presented in the interviews.
• Perceptions of how many others in the population agree with those statements (perceived prevalence of support).

Key Findings:

• Exposure to uncritical interviews consistently increased respondents’ agreement with extreme-right statements in both the UK and Australian samples.
• The same exposure also raised participants’ perceptions that a larger share of the population endorses those extreme views — a potential normalisation effect via perceived social prevalence.
• In the UK tests, critical interviewing reduced the interviewee’s public image and lowered persuasive effects on agreement, but it did not eliminate the increase in perceived support for the extreme statements.

What This Means:

The results point to a two-part mechanism: platforming extreme-right voices can both persuade some viewers and inflate perceptions of how widespread those views are. Even when journalists push back, critical questioning may blunt persuasion but can still inadvertently make the views appear more common. For journalists, editors, and media regulators, these findings highlight trade-offs in interview practices and the need to consider both attitude change and perceived social norms when deciding how to cover extremist actors.