paint-brush
Media Slant Research: Newspaper-County Observationsby@mediabias

Media Slant Research: Newspaper-County Observations

tldt arrow

Too Long; Didn't Read

Here, we replicate the baseline estimates but only consider newspaper-county observations where the county coincides with where the immediate owner of the newspaper is based.
featured image - Media Slant Research: Newspaper-County Observations
Tech Media Bias [Research Publication] HackerNoon profile picture
0-item

Abstract and 1 Introduction 2. Data

3. Measuring Media Slant and 3.1. Text pre-processing and featurization

3.2. Classifying transcripts by TV source

3.3. Text similarity between newspapers and TV stations and 3.4. Topic model

4. Econometric Framework

4.1. Instrumental variables specification

4.2. Instrument first stage and validity

5. Results

5.1. Main results

5.2. Robustness checks

6. Mechanisms and Heterogeneity

6.1. Local vs. national or international news content

6.2. Cable news media slant polarizes local newspapers

7. Conclusion and References


Online Appendices

A. Data Appendix

A.1. Newspaper articles

A.2. Alternative county matching of newspapers and A.3. Filtering of the article snippets

A.4. Included prime-time TV shows and A.5. Summary statistics

B. Methods Appendix, B.1. Text pre-processing and B.2. Bigrams most predictive for FNC or CNN/MSNBC

B.3. Human validation of NLP model

B.4. Distribution of Fox News similarity in newspapers and B.5. Example articles by Fox News similarity

B.6. Topics from the newspaper-based LDA model

C. Results Appendix

C.1. First stage results and C.2. Instrument exogeneity

C.3. Placebo: Content similarity in 1995/96

C.4. OLS results

C.5. Reduced form results

C.6. Sub-samples: Newspaper headquarters and other counties and C.7. Robustness: Alternative county matching

C.8. Robustness: Historical circulation weights and C.9. Robustness: Relative circulation weights

C.10. Robustness: Absolute and relative FNC viewership and C.11. Robustness: Dropping observations and clustering

C.12. Mechanisms: Language features and topics

C.13. Mechanisms: Descriptive Evidence on Demand Side

C.14. Mechanisms: Slant contagion and polarization

C.6. Sub-samples: Newspaper headquarters and other counties

Here, we replicate the baseline estimates but only consider newspaper-county observations where the county coincides with where the immediate owner of the newspaper is based. To do so, we assign the city where the owner of the local newspaper is based to a U.S. county, using data from the Alliance for Audited Media (see Section 2). We focus on immediate owners – that is, we do not consider the location of the parent company for newspapers that are owned by a conglomerate. Conversely, in Table C.7, we exclude headquarters counties.


Notes: 2SLS estimates. Cross-section with newspaper-county-level observations weighted by newspaper circulation in each county. This Table only includes newspaper-county observations where the county coincides with the newspaper headquarters. The dependent variable is newspaper language similarity with FNC (the average probability that a snippet from a newspaper is predicted to be from FNC). The right-hand side variable of interest is instrumented FNC viewership relative to averaged CNN and MSNBC viewership. All columns include state fixed effects and demographic controls aslisted in Appendix Table A.2. Column 2 also includes channel controls (population shares with access to each of the three TV channels). Column 3 controls for generic newspaper language features (vocabulary size, avg. word length, avg. sentence length, avg. article length). Standard errors are multiway-clustered at the county and at the newspaper level (in parenthesis): * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01.


Notes: 2SLS estimates. Cross-section with newspaper-county-level observations weighted by newspaper circulation in each county. This Table only includes newspaper-county observations where the county does not coincide with the newspaper headquarters. The dependent variable is newspaper language similarity with FNC (the average probability that a snippet from a newspaper is predicted to be from FNC). The right-hand side variable of interest is instrumented FNC viewership relative to averaged CNN and MSNBC viewership. All columns include state fixed effects and demographic controls as listed in Appendix Table A.2. Column 2 also includes channel controls (population shares with access to each of the three TV channels). Column 3 controls for generic newspaper language features (vocabulary size, avg. word length, avg. sentence length, avg. article length). Standard errors are multiway-clustered at the county and at the newspaper level (in parenthesis): * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01.

C.7. Robustness: Alternative county matching

Notes: 2SLS estimates. Cross-section with newspaper-level observations weighted their total circulation. The dependent variable is newspaper language similarity with FNC (the average probability that a snippet from a newspaper is predicted to be from FNC). The right-hand side variable of interest is instrumented FNC viewership relative to averaged CNN and MSNBC viewership. All columns include state fixed effects and demographic controls as listed in Appendix Table A.2. Column 2 also includes channel controls (population shares with access to each of the three TV channels). Column 3 controls for generic newspaper language features (vocabulary size, avg. word length, avg. sentence length, avg. article length). Standard errors are clustered at the state level (in parenthesis): * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01.


This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license.

Authors:

(1) Philine Widmer, ETH Zürich and [email protected];

(2) Sergio Galletta, ETH Zürich and [email protected];

(3) Elliott Ash, ETH Zürich and [email protected].