(Photo by Tada Images on Shutterstock)

ATHENS, Ga. — A paradox sits at the heart of modern political media strategy: politicians increasingly seek out interviews with hostile news networks, willingly walking into environments where they’ll likely face aggressive questioning and accusations of dishonesty. New research suggests this seemingly masochistic approach might actually be brilliant strategic planning.

The study from the University of Georgia’s Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication identifies five key ways politicians actually benefit from tough cross-partisan interviews, even when they’re accused of being deceptive.

The research team, led by Dr. David Clementson and Ph.D. student Wenqing Zhao, conducted three experiments examining how voters react when politicians face combative questioning from ideologically opposed news outlets. Their findings challenge conventional wisdom about political media strategy.

“It must feel awfully uncomfortable for a politician to submit to an interview with opponents in the media and then to be called a liar,” says Dr. Clementson. “But we see why media relations operatives, campaign strategists and their clients should actually embrace this overt partisan hostility.”

Watching voters watch political interviews

In the first study, Clementson and Zhao recruited 320 registered voters from undergraduate and graduate communication classes at UGA. The sample included 141 Democrats (44.1%) and 179 Republicans (55.9%), with ages ranging from 18 to 23. This initial experiment created a controlled environment using a professionally produced political interview filmed in a television studio.

The second study involved 131 registered voters obtained through an online Qualtrics Panel, ranging in age from 18 to 84 (average age 45). This more diverse sample came from 34 different states plus Washington, D.C., with about half identifying as Democrats (51.9%) and half as Republicans (48.1%). These participants watched actual CNN footage of Republican Senator Cory Gardner being interviewed, with researchers manipulating whether the interviewer accused him of deception.

For the third experiment, 126 registered voters, also recruited through Qualtrics Panel, watched Fox News interview footage of Jehmu Greene, a pro-choice advocate. This sample included participants from 37 different states, with 55.6% identifying as Democrats and 44.4% as Republicans. Ages ranged from 18 to 84 (average age 56).

Each study measured how viewers perceived both media hostility and politician trustworthiness using established academic scales. Participants rated their impressions immediately after watching their assigned interview clips, with researchers carefully controlling for factors like political affiliation and prior media preferences.

How hostile interviews help politicians

The study’s first surprising discovery was that politicians gain more trust from their base when interviewed by opposing media outlets, especially when accused of deception. This “ingroup-outgroup” dynamic actually strengthens supporter loyalty rather than undermining it.

Second, voters’ existing distrust of media works in politicians’ favor. The research found that viewers who consider media hostile will support their preferred politician regardless of whether actual accusations of deception occur. This effect crosses party lines, working for both Democrats watching Republicans and vice versa.

For Republicans specifically, tough CNN interviews can be particularly beneficial among media-skeptical voters. The study’s second experiment showed that Republican viewers’ existing distrust of mainstream media actually enhanced their support for the politician under fire.

Democrats, meanwhile, can especially benefit from challenging Fox News appearances. When watching Greene face hostile questioning on Fox News, his trustworthiness increased among viewers from both parties as the perceived hostility increased.

Networks matter in politics

Perhaps most fascinating was the discovery that partisan viewers perceive media hostility based primarily on network affiliation rather than actual interviewer behavior. Democrats consider Fox News hostile regardless of interviewer tone, while Republicans view CNN the same way. This built-in skepticism gives politicians an automatic advantage with their base when appearing on opposing networks.

Interestingly, the research also revealed an interesting paradox in how media bias accusations can backfire. When networks attempt to fact-check or call out perceived deception, it often strengthens rather than weakens support for the targeted politician among their base. This suggests that aggressive fact-checking strategies by partisan networks might actually be counterproductive to their intended purpose.

“Politics will probably only grow more awkwardly aggressive,” Clementson notes, “as though a cycle of hostile media will perpetuate more support among a politician’s base.”

The findings suggest that rather than being a risky move, accepting interviews with hostile media outlets might be one of the most effective strategies in a political consultant’s playbook. The more partisan and combative the media landscape becomes, the more politicians may be able to leverage that hostility to strengthen their support base.