The hostile media effect (HME) is the tendency of partisans to perceive news coverage, even of balanced media, as biased against their side; the friendly media phenomenon (FMP) is partisans' selective exposure to like-minded media. A Dutch panel study linking a media content analysis to survey data around the 2014 European Parliament election (Kleinnijenhuis, Hartmann, Tanis & van Hoof, 2020) found that FMP and HME co-occur — people select like-minded outlets yet perceive those outlets' EU coverage as relatively unsupportive of their own position — and jointly reinforce voting behavior. The authors posed an open question: does this FMP–HME cycle generalize beyond one wedge issue (European integration) in one multiparty, high-trust media system (the Netherlands), and does the cycle close on itself — can political propaganda that cultivates the perception that even friendly media are hostile strengthen it, and does a strong HME drive retreat into partisan media, broader omnivorism, or news avoidance? Later research documents hostile-media perceptions predicting affective polarization in other political systems (United States, Taiwan) and elite attacks on the press raising media skepticism (South Korea, Japan), but no study has yet tested the joint FMP–HME mechanism with the required triad of objective content measurement, subjective perceptions, and voting or polarization outcomes in a new context, and the feedback loop remains untested.

Background

Two classic findings structure this question. First, the hostile media effect (HME): in the original study, Vallone, Ross and Lepper (1985) showed that pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian students who watched the same supposedly balanced news coverage of the 1982 Beirut massacre each judged it biased against their side. Subsequent work generalized this to perceived hostility toward mainstream and counter-attitudinal outlets. Second, selective exposure: partisans tend to choose like-minded, 'friendly' media — a pattern the source study calls the friendly media phenomenon (FMP). Arceneaux, Johnson and Murphy (2012) showed these are linked through 'relative hostile media perception': partisans rate friendly partisan outlets as more credible than hostile oppositional ones, which sustains selective exposure. A further backdrop is affective polarization — growing dislike and distrust of the other side's supporters.

Kleinnijenhuis, Hartmann, Tanis and van Hoof (2020) combined an automated and manual content analysis (systematic coding of media messages) of the tone of Dutch media coverage of the European Union with a long-term panel survey surrounding the June 2014 European Parliament election in the Netherlands. Their central finding is that the FMP and HME co-occur and jointly affect voting: citizens selectively turn to like-minded friendly media, yet perceive the EU coverage in these media as relatively unsupportive of their own position; they then vote in line with the objectively partisan-friendly tone of their self-selected media, partly — the authors argue — as 'corrective action' against seemingly unfair or insufficient coverage. This suggests a self-reinforcing cycle in which partisan media choice and hostile perceptions of even friendly media jointly amplify partisanship, a mechanism with evident relevance to populist 'media bashing' strategies.

The study was, however, conducted on a single wedge issue (European integration — an issue that cuts across existing party coalitions) in a specific environment: a multiparty democracy with a wide range of media outlets and comparatively high baseline trust in news. Whether the cycle operates elsewhere, and whether it feeds back into media choice, is unknown.

Problem Statement

Determine whether the FMP–HME reinforcement cycle documented by Kleinnijenhuis, Hartmann, Tanis and van Hoof (2020) in the Netherlands around the 2014 European Parliament election operates beyond that single case, and close its feedback loop, using research designs that simultaneously capture objective media content (the tone of citizens' self-selected media, measured by content analysis), subjective perceptions (hostile perceptions of that coverage), and behavioral outcomes (voting or affective polarization). Concretely, three linked questions, all probing the same mechanism from different scope conditions:

  1. Scope across issues and systems: Does the co-occurrence and joint reinforcement of the FMP and HME hold (a) for other wedge issues along the globalization cleavage (the divide between cosmopolitan and nationally anchored positions on issues such as immigration and trade, which cuts across traditional left–right party lines), (b) for left–right socioeconomic issues, where media choice is more strongly aligned with predispositions and the source authors expect weaker HME and corrective action, and (c) across political systems differing in levels of bipartisan polarization (including two-party systems), rates of news avoidance, ranges of media choice, and baseline media trust? An answer establishes the scope conditions under which the cycle operates, fails, or is moderated — including the possibility that it holds in some contexts and not others.

  2. Propaganda loop: Does political propaganda or elite media-bashing that deliberately cultivates the perception that even friendly media are hostile strengthen the FMP–HME cycle and foster further polarization of voting behavior?

  3. Behavioral feedback: Does a strong HME feed back into media choice — as retreat into friendly partisan media (strengthening the FMP), as broader media omnivorism, or as outright news avoidance?

A result that settles only one sub-question or sub-part resolves that part alone and leaves the remaining questions open. Question 1 is itself composed of independently resolvable sub-parts: a study of one globalization-cleavage wedge issue other than the source study's European-integration case resolves (a) alone; a study of one left–right socioeconomic issue resolves (b) alone; and, within (c), the level of bipartisan polarization, the rate of news avoidance, the range of media choice and the baseline level of media trust may each be resolved separately.

The common objective uniting the three questions is to establish whether hostile media perceptions of friendly media are a general, self-reinforcing engine of partisan polarization rather than an artifact of one wedge issue in one multiparty, high-trust media system.

References

  1. Kleinnijenhuis, J., Hartmann, T., Tanis, M., & van Hoof, A. M. J. (2020). Hostile media perceptions of friendly media do reinforce partisanship. Communication Research, 47(2), 276–298. DOI: 10.1177/0093650219836059. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219836059
  2. Vallone, R. P., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 577–585. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.577. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.577
  3. Arceneaux, K., Johnson, M., & Murphy, C. (2012). Polarized political communication, oppositional media hostility, and selective exposure. The Journal of Politics, 74(1), 174–186. DOI: 10.1017/S002238161100123X. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002238161100123X
  4. Zheng, X., & Zhou, S. (2024). Damn their media, damn the other side: Direct and indirect effects of relative hostile media perception on affective polarization. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 68(4), 560–580. DOI: 10.1080/08838151.2024.2370870. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2024.2370870
  5. Zheng, X., & Lu, Y. (2021). News consumption and affective polarization in Taiwan: The mediating roles of like-minded discussion and relative hostile media perception. The Social Science Journal, 63(3), 1005–1018. DOI: 10.1080/03623319.2021.1933877. https://doi.org/10.1080/03623319.2021.1933877
  6. Hartmann, T., & Tanis, M. (2025). Response with a vengeance: Exploring the influence of the hostile media effect on intergroup polarization. OSF preprint. DOI: 10.31235/osf.io/xcg2d_v1. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/xcg2d_v1
  7. Wei, R., Guo, J., Zhang, X., & Lo, V. (2026). Hostile media and friendly chambers: Social media polarization and the 2024 U.S. campus protests. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 70(3), 319–336. DOI: 10.1080/08838151.2026.2642912. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2026.2642912
  8. Lee, N. Y., & Park, A. (2025). War on fake news? Media skepticism and exposure to politicians' fake news accusations. Information, Communication & Society, 29(3), 793–811. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2025.2531128. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2025.2531128
  9. Yamamoto, M., Jo, H., & Ran, W. (2021). Anti-media expression by citizens: Conservative summary sites, hostile media perceptions, and media trust in Japan. Information, Communication & Society, 25(13), 1952–1968. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2021.1907436. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2021.1907436
  10. Geber, S. (2025). Anti, hostile, and alternative: An exploration of anti-elite attitudes, hostile-media perceptions, and alternative media use in the context of opposition to Covid-19 measures. Information, Communication & Society, 28(16), 2956–2975. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2025.2492582. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2025.2492582
  11. Liu, X., & Li, X. (2023). Diversified exposure mitigates biased perceptions: Involvement, media exposure, and hostile media perceptions toward coverage of U.S.-China trade disputes. International Communication Gazette, 87(2), 168–188. DOI: 10.1177/17480485231216581. https://doi.org/10.1177/17480485231216581
  12. Kim, K., Choi, Y., & Lee, C. (2026). Selective media exposure and political polarization in a high-choice media environment: Evidence from South Korea. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. DOI: 10.1057/s41599-026-07034-0. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-07034-0
  13. Kaufhold, K. (2024). Does tribe trump facts? Novel measures of hostile media. Electronic News, 19(2), 67–93. DOI: 10.1177/19312431241277960. https://doi.org/10.1177/19312431241277960
  14. Wang, S. (2022). Hostile media perceptions and consumption of genetically modified and organic foods: Examining the mediating role of risk–benefit assessments. Risk Analysis, 43(8), 1587–1598. DOI: 10.1111/risa.14054. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.14054
  15. Arlt, D. (2021). Banning burkas and niqabs? Exploring perceptions of bias in media coverage of Islam and Muslims in Switzerland and their relation to people's voting intention concerning the burka-initiative. Studies in Communication Sciences, 21(1), 9–25. DOI: 10.24434/J.SCOMS.2021.01.002. https://doi.org/10.24434/J.SCOMS.2021.01.002
  16. Lim, J. S., Zhang, J., & Ren, B. (2025). Partisan responses to cancel culture on social media: Hostile media effects on political behavior. Online Information Review, 50(1), 57–76. DOI: 10.1108/OIR-02-2025-0130. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-02-2025-0130
  17. Lee, S., & Cho, J. (2025). The role of opinion diversity in the hostile media effect: Partisan exposure on social media, affective polarization, and political participation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 29(1), 97–115. DOI: 10.1177/13684302251357489. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302251357489
  18. Franckx, L. W., & Zarouali, B. (2025). Unveiling the link between hostile media perceptions and disinformation susceptibility: Investigating cognitive, social, media and personal dynamics. Mass Communication and Society. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1080/15205436.2025.2585901. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2025.2585901
  19. Ceron, A., Pagano, G., & Bordignon, M. (2022). Facebook as a media digest: User engagement and party references to hostile and friendly media during an election campaign. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 20(4), 454–468. DOI: 10.1080/19331681.2022.2157360. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2022.2157360