The role of cable news hosts in public support for Supreme Court decisions.

In the current media environment, Americans increasingly tune into cable news programs with distinct ideological brands. This paper extends existing work on media source cues to coverage of the US Supreme Court, an institution which depends entirely on media outlets to communicate its rulings to the American public. We argue that the source cues associated with celebrity media personalities serve as a heuristic that helps individuals form their opinions about public policy. Using a nationwide survey experiment with over 2000 respondents, we find that commentary on Supreme Court decisions from cable news hosts affects public agreement with the Court's rulings, with key differences between how liberal and conservative respondents respond under certain conditions. While unexpected positions espoused by in‐group messengers shift the views of liberals and conservatives alike, signals from out‐group messengers yield more of an effect for conservatives than for liberals. Our results show that counter‐stereotypical (unexpected) position taking has a powerful impact on public perceptions of policy outcomes and suggest that well‐known media figures may have an important role in mitigating ideological polarization in America. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]