This research asks whether and how politicians’ public criticisms of information providers change which sources their supporters find credible and how that alters opinion formation. Using two linked survey experiments, the authors investigate whether elite discrediting of a news outlet leads partisans to avoid that outlet, view it as biased, and discount its subsequent coverage — processes the paper frames as an indirect means of elite influence over public opinion.
Bolded cues: survey experiments, targeted elite criticism, reduced source credibility, partial discounting of information
Data and methods
The study reports two survey experiments that expose respondents to elite (partisan) criticism of a media outlet and then link that treatment to downstream responses about news consumption, perceived bias, and opinion change. The abstract identifies survey experiments as the research design but does not supply sample details, country coverage, or statistical models in the abstract itself.
Main findings
According to the abstract, politicians who discredit a media outlet cause their supporters to avoid the targeted news source and to perceive more bias in its coverage. The authors also report that partisan attacks reduce the effect of the news source’s coverage on public opinion, although people do not fully ignore information from sources they deem untrustworthy.
- Supporters exposed to elite criticism were more likely to avoid the targeted outlet.
- Such criticism increased perceptions of bias and weakened — but did not eliminate — the outlet’s persuasive effect.
Contribution
Framing these effects as indirect influence, the paper highlights reputational attacks on information providers as a distinct channel through which elites can shape what information their supporters deem credible, complementing direct cues and policy arguments discussed in prior work.
