Biased Gatekeepers? Partisan Perceptions of Media Attention in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election

Abstract

Deciding which stories to cover is an essential function of the press, and pundits and citizens commonly criticize journalists for these so-called “gatekeeping” choices. While journalists may indeed be biased toward telling certain types of stories, research on the hostile media perception (HMP) suggests that audience judgments about how journalists divvy up attention may be biased as well–shaped, at least in part, by partisan preferences. This study explores how partisanship impacted perceptions of media coverage among news consumers (N = 657) shortly before the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Results show that, across a variety of news stories involving the candidates, polling, and key election issues, rival partisans had diverging impressions of media attention that were not explained by differing news habits. A relative HMP pattern is evident when partisans evaluate how media allocate attention across news topics.