Shocking Study! Democrats Willing to Spend More Money Than Republicans

Shocking Study! Democrats Willing to Spend More Money Than Republicans

There's a partisan divide when it comes to paying for newspaper subscriptions, study finds

As MSNBC and Fox News watchers can attest, there's a partisan divide when it comes to news.

Political polarization is playing out on more than just the cable airwaves. Various news sources are being split along alternating shades of red and blue, according to a new survey by the Media Insight Project, an initiative of the American Press Institute and the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

Democrats are more likely to get their news from broadcast networks such as CBS or NBC than Republicans and independents, while the GOP faithful are more reliant on cable news channels such as Fox and CNN than viewers of other political stripes.

Also read: Mitt Romney Rips President Obama in Scathing WSJ Op-Ed on Russia: He's a Failed Leader

Some 81 percent of Democrats said they check in with broadcast news sources, as opposed to 68 percent of Republicans and 63 percent of independents. Seventy percent of Republicans revealed they relied on 24-hour TV news channels, as opposed to 60 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of independents.

“These differences are truly partisan differences,” said Jennifer Benz, one of the survey's co-authors  and senior research scientist at the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. “They exist even when we control for income, age, education and all other demographic features that determine partisanship. Party affiliation matters when it comes to what sources people look to and and trust.”

She noted that researchers relied on broad brackets when it came to news sources, focusing on the means of transmission rather than specific news brands such as MSNBC or Fox News that wear their partisan affiliation proudly.

To come up with its numbers, researchers surveyed 1,492 adults across the country over a period of roughly six weeks. Respondents were contacted on a mix of landlines and cellphones.

Also read: Harvey Weinstein Says Hillary Clinton Did Nothing Wrong on Benghazi

Newspapers and magazines should send engraved thank you notes to the party of Kennedy and FDR. Nearly 70 percent of Democrats say they are more likely to discover news through print newspapers or magazines, as opposed to 59 percent of Republicans and 44 percent of independents. That preference translates into dollars. Democrats are also more likely to pay for news subscriptions, with 33 percent saying they will shell out of papers or magazines compared with 23 percent of Republicans and 12 percent of independents.

A lurch leftward might not be enough to save beleaguered print publications.

“It is a statistically significant difference, but overall its a general pattern across party lines that very few people are paying for media,” Benz said.

Story continues below chart:


Beyond social and economic issues, there are real difference between Democrats and Republicans over which news sources deserve their trust.  Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say they trust the information from broadcast news networks, 57 percent versus 35 percent, respectively. Digital news sites also enjoy greater credibility with Democrats, with 52 percent saying they recently used them as a reporting source, compared with 42 percent of Republicans.

However, Republicans were more likely to believe cable news sources, with nearly 50 percent deeming them trustworthy compared to just over 40 percent of Democrats.

Also read: Democrats: Ban on NBC, CNN Over Hillary Clinton Projects Will Hurt GOP's Outreach to Hispanics, Women

Democrats tend to spend more time digging into feature stories than people of other ideological backgrounds, the study found. Forty seven percent reported reading more than just the headlines of a longer feature, compared with 39 percent of independents and 30 percent of Republicans. There's no partisan difference when it comes to consumption of breaking news articles, the study reported.

Beyond partisanship, its clear that Americans are becoming more omnivorous when it comes to following the news. More than six in ten American adults each week get news from television, radio, print, computers or smartphones and the average adult uses four types of media every week.

“Social media and mobile devices are adding to news consumption, but they're not replacing traditional sources of media,”  Benz said.

Also read: Democrats Propose Net Neutrality Legislation That Would Buy Time for the FCC

Though the internet has disrupted news-gathering and the economic underpinnings of the media business, its still being viewed with a jaundiced eye by consumers. Social media is one of the least-trusted ways of finding out about events, with 37 percent of those who got news this way in the last week distrusting or trusting only slightly social media. Online sources such as Yahoo! News, BuzzFeed, or The Huffington Post, and blogs also suffer from lower levels of trust. One in four users of these news sources say they trust them completely or very much, while one in five users say they trust them only slightly or not at all.

They may not believe what they read, but they are turning to digital platforms with greater regularity. Nearly half of Americans report using online platforms such as Yahoo! News, BuzzFeed or The Huffington Post, or other blogs in the last week, while thirty-seven percent report using magazines — print or online — as a source of news in the last week.

  • SoCalGuy

    Figures… for a lot of Republicans, if it wasn't reported on Faux News (or the rest of the right-wing noise and propaganda machine) it didn't happen.

    • dso1

      What an asinine statement from the left leaner on the left coast.

      • SoCalGuy

        What a moronic comment from a right-wing retard who wouldn't know facts if they bit him on the a$$.

  • colcam

    When someone “sees a bias” in a news source they are more likely to look into the stories those sources report to find out how much the report matches the raw data, then to choose what they consider to be the more reliable source.

    The first three comments to this article sum up the problem.

    One side makes a snide remark, the other side replies sharply, and neither of them really dig into the actual news of the news story.

    The story draws lines as to viewership and readership that might not be supportable by comparing “cable” to “broadcast.” The way the lines are drawn is more likely to support the author's opinion than be unbiased; two of the broadcast sources are chosen, then two cable sources are chosen, but the majority of both broadcast and cable source reporting is ignored and the fact that broadcast and cable are combining and overlapping are is ignored.

    The real story?

    Americans have more sources now than fifty years ago, are better able to dig into the news to see the real story beneath the surface, and different people reading the same raw data may come to different conclusions– but the data is available to all.

    Does Fox have a bias? Does Huffington Post have a bias? Does any reporting source NOT have a bias of some kind, even if they try to avoid it?

    Americans have more sources for news, and access to the raw data, and some people feel one source has a bias they do not agree with, so they rely less on that source, and more on sources that agree with their viewpoint as to the validity and meaning of the raw data.

    That's the story.


  • Michael Difani

    As a third generation inland s. Californian and Democrat, I still read a newspaper although seeing anyone under 60 reading one is as common as seeing a pipe smoker. Yes, I have a Samsung Galaxy Note 2 besides a few other gizmos. As a student at San Diego State Univ. and UCSD in the late 60's several of us vets would meet at a beach Denny's for coffee and laugh at how the LA Times vs. the right wing SD Union-Tribune viewed the ‘Nam war. I left army active duty in early '65 just as LBJ sent marines to guard the Da Nang airstrip. The war escalated from there.

  • Stuart W

    Shocking study???? To whom???

    why not raise the issue as to which party gives more to charity, Democrats or
    Republicans? Answer not to be found in these pristine “is hero” posts……!

    As to reading newspapers, large majority of U.S. Dailies are liberal constructs; commence with the ever-reliable New York Times and move comfortably in any direction North, South or West from there (far as San Francisco Chronicle!) Republican's unlikely to support a daily antithetical their political beliefs. Get It Mr. Lang and comrades?

    • hupto

      Exactly. Everybody knows Rupert Murdoch is one of the biggest Socialists on the planet!

      • Stuart W

        Hi Hupto-

        Question my friend! Ever had an original thought? Perhaps two in the same day?? (Smiling)

        Do KNOW that Murdoch one of this world's largest largest private employers. Certain all of his poor serfs might rather find themselves being paid in tax dollars rather than the miserly wages Rupert lets slip thru his grubby Neo-American hands. How he manages to keep “the help”…..baffling!

        Worse yet, flying-in-face your amazing-lights, Murdoch earns his way as a journalist and purveyor of entertainment ; whose audiences depend on perceived merit of product for their decision(s) to purchase or ignore. Its called the free-market Hupto, a construct mostly floating all boats and obviously sinking yours.

        Hey, I'd be angry too!

        • hupto

          That wasn't the topic of my reply, but since you brought it up, I should point out that there have been many captains of industry who have managed to become successful and employ thousands of people without resorting to criminal behavior.

          • Stuart W

            You are nothing if not reliable Hup!

            Difference being that in a free society citizens are deemed innocent until proven guilty. Of course those societal rules
            fall on deaf ears to holier than thou, would be judges exemplified in your tedious and self-aggrandizing, religiously applied practice. Criminal behavior? Who appointed you the ultimate judge? To solidify your point, please distinguish that particular “captain of industry” you've so honored. Keep in mind U.S. D.O.J. has just settled a judgement against Toyota Motors in an amount over 1-billion dollars. Anybody going to jail? And the charges?

          • hupto

            And again, you don't read what I wrote. First of all, don't talk to me about “innocent until proven guilty,” as I've been using this very argument on the Woody Allen threads. Secondly, Murdoch's criminality is beyond doubt. He illegally tapped cell phones of celebrities and even members of the Royal family. Many of his lieutenants are already headed for the slammer. The only reason he himself will likely escape punishment is because of his age and immense wealth.

          • Stuart W


            Am still waiting for the list of those who have “gone to jail”
            And Woody-Allen to Rupert M. a considerable stretch but proves nothing more than your personal biases which are manifest. “Escape Punishment” how dramatic. Kindly name those crimes Rupert M. is guilty of committing. Bernie Madoff is 76, was filthy rich and in the slammer. Neither age nor money saved him from his crimes. Best you start “reading what” you write Hupto rather than having a conversation with yourself.