How Does Media Coverage of Immigration Influence the Polarization of Public Attitudes?

This study investigates how media coverage of immigration influences the polarization of public attitudes. Using French television news data from 2013 to 2017, linked with individual panel data tracking attitudes toward immigration, the study examines within-individual variations over time. Findings reveal that increased immigration coverage polarizes attitudes, with initially moderate individuals becoming more likely to report extreme pro- or anti-immigration views. A one-standard-deviation increase in immigration coverage (1.9%) raises the likelihood of polarization by 5 percentage points. The effect is driven by heightened salience rather than persuasion, reinforcing preexisting beliefs rather than changing them.

Full Citation and Link to Article

Schneider-Strawczynski, Sarah, and Jérôme Valette. "Media Coverage of Immigration and the Polarization of Attitudes." American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, vol. 17, no. 1, 2025, pp. 337–368. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20230300.

Extended Summary

Central Research Question

The study investigates how media coverage of immigration influences the polarization of public attitudes. The authors examine whether increased exposure to immigration-related news intensifies preexisting biases, leading to greater ideological extremity, rather than persuading individuals toward more neutral or opposing views. Specifically, they test whether higher immigration coverage results in the polarization of attitudes, with moderate individuals shifting towards either more strongly pro-immigration or anti-immigration positions. The research aims to understand whether media acts primarily as an agent of persuasion or as a tool that amplifies the salience of existing concerns, reactivating prejudices rather than changing opinions.

Previous Literature

The study builds upon several strands of existing research. Media theories, such as agenda-setting and priming, suggest that increased exposure to an issue does not necessarily change opinions but can alter the importance individuals assign to that issue. Previous work has shown that media can affect public attitudes toward immigration, either by shaping perceptions of immigrants through selective reporting or by increasing the salience of immigration in public discourse.

Existing research on media-induced polarization has mostly focused on political outcomes, with studies demonstrating that exposure to ideologically biased news sources can deepen partisan divides. However, less attention has been paid to whether traditional media—such as television news, which is less ideologically segmented than online news or social media—plays a role in attitudinal polarization. This study contributes to this literature by using French television data to examine how variations in immigration coverage influence polarization in public attitudes.

Data

The study utilizes two primary sources of data:

1. Television News Coverage of Immigration: The researchers analyze data from the French National Audiovisual Institute (INA), which archives all television news broadcasts. They track how often immigration-related topics appear in French evening news programs from 2013 to 2017 across multiple channels, including TF1, France 2, France 3, Arte, M6, BFM TV, and CNews. The frequency of immigration-related news stories is calculated on a monthly basis.

2. Individual Panel Data on Immigration Attitudes: The study links television news data with individual-level panel data from the ELIPSS survey, which tracks a representative sample of French citizens over 12 waves between 2013 and 2017. The survey includes questions measuring attitudes toward immigration using Likert-scale responses, such as whether respondents believe there are too many immigrants in France or whether immigration enriches cultural life. The dataset also captures individuals’ preferred television channels for political information, allowing researchers to examine how variations in immigration coverage on a person’s preferred channel affect their attitudes over time.

By combining these two datasets, the authors create a framework that allows them to assess how exposure to immigration coverage influences individuals’ attitudes while controlling for self-selection effects.

Methods

The authors employ a fixed-effects regression model to analyze the effect of immigration coverage on individual attitudes. Their primary dependent variable is whether an individual expresses an extreme pro- or anti-immigration stance, as opposed to a moderate position. The key independent variable is the share of immigration-related news stories in a respondent’s preferred television channel’s coverage during the month preceding each survey wave.

To mitigate concerns about ideological self-selection (i.e., people choosing to watch news channels that align with their preexisting attitudes), the authors use within-individual variation over time. They also include fixed effects for individuals, television channels, and survey waves to account for unobserved factors that could influence results.

Additionally, they perform several robustness checks:

• Estimating the effects separately for pro- and anti-immigration attitudes.

• Using instrumental variable (IV) methods to address concerns about endogenous media coverage (i.e., whether media adjusts coverage in response to shifts in public opinion).

• Conducting placebo tests with non-television viewers to ensure that results are not driven by broader societal trends.

• 
  

Findings and Size Effects

The study’s main finding is that increased media coverage of immigration leads to polarization rather than persuasion. When television news devotes more coverage to immigration, individuals with initially moderate attitudes become more likely to adopt extreme pro- or anti-immigration positions.

Key results include:

• A one-standard-deviation increase (1.9 percentage points) in immigration coverage raises the probability of polarization by 5 percentage points.

• This polarization is symmetrical: moderates who were slightly positive toward immigration become strongly pro-immigration, while moderates with slight concerns about immigration become strongly anti-immigration.

• There is no significant change in average immigration attitudes across the population—only a widening gap between extremes.

• The polarization effect is not driven by persuasion or ideological bias in media coverage but by increased salience. When immigration is repeatedly highlighted in the news, individuals overweight the importance of the issue, reinforcing their preexisting beliefs rather than changing them.

• The effect is strongest for individuals who are politically engaged, have lower levels of education, or are older. These groups show greater responsiveness to shifts in immigration coverage.

• There is a direct link between attitudinal polarization and electoral behavior. Increased immigration coverage leads individuals to shift their party preferences toward political parties that take more extreme stances on immigration (either strongly pro-immigration or anti-immigration).

  
  

Conclusion

This study provides robust evidence that media coverage of immigration contributes to the polarization of public attitudes rather than shifting the average position of the population. By increasing the salience of immigration, media exposure strengthens preexisting biases rather than persuading individuals to adopt new perspectives.

These findings have significant implications for public discourse and policymaking. If media coverage amplifies polarization, then debates on immigration may become more entrenched over time, making it harder for policymakers to find common ground on immigration policy. Additionally, the results suggest that the influence of media is not necessarily about ideological bias but about what issues are highlighted, reinforcing the idea that media agenda-setting plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion.

The study also contributes to broader discussions about the role of traditional media in political polarization. While much recent attention has focused on the role of social media in deepening ideological divides, this research highlights that even traditional television news—often perceived as more neutral—can drive polarization through selective emphasis on contentious issues.

Future research could extend these findings by exploring whether similar effects occur in other countries, whether online news sources amplify or counteract these trends, and how long the polarization effect persists over time. Understanding these dynamics is essential for assessing the role of media in democratic societies, particularly as debates over immigration continue to be central to political discourse worldwide.