Interview: How Dollars and Cents Propel Sensational Media Coverage

“I suggest that the ebbing of polarization has already been occurring. We’re just not aware of it because of what’s presented to us in the media. If you look at the polling numbers, Democrats and Republicans are minorities; the plurality of Americans identify as independents.”

Professor Antony Davies, an economist at Duquesne University, joins Erich Prince to discuss his August 2018 op-ed at The Philadelphia Inquirer on sensationalism in the media and to share his thoughts more generally on how economic incentives have potentially been driving hyperbole and partisanship in the press.

I’d like to start off by asking you about your August 6th Philadelphia Inquirer piece, “Fox News, MSNBC make the world seem scarier than it is.” You draw attention to this idea that sensationalism is perhaps what sells. We had certain comments, for example, during the election 2016 by various media executives saying they were benefitting from some of the spectacles during the campaign. What is the degree to which this desire for clicks is driving media outlets to choose to give airtime to the sensational?

I would imagine it’s driving it to a significant degree. We’ve got to remember that newspapers and television stations are all driven by the number of subscribers or viewers they can attract. In turn, if viewers and subscribers are attracted by things that are sensational, there’s an automatic economic incentive to deliver that sort of thing. Now I’m not suggesting that it’s going to go to the extremes where all you’re going to get is fake news. You might get some of that in certain places, but it’s like any other product; it caters itself to the desires of the customer. If the customer desires sensationalism, that’s what it will deliver. By the same token, if the consumer wants truth, even if the truth is bland, that’s what the media will deliver. It’s just like any other profit-driven business.