Biased Information, Biased Preferences: How Fragmented Media Environments Undermine Support for Redistribution

When voters choose what to read about the economy, does the choice polarize what they want and whom they vote for, and does forcing the other side on them backfire? We answer with a pre-registered four-arm experiment on 4,524 German adults using two narratives about the 2022–23 inflation surge. Respondents were either forced to read a left-leaning article on inflation’s regressive incidence, offered it, or offered a choice between it and a right-leaning article on growth; the three arms separately identify exposure, selection on willingness to read, and selection on the direction of what is read. Selection is confirmatory: right-leaning respondents choose the growth article at 61–67%, left-leaning at 48–52%. Exposure moves preferences toward the narrative read, and more so when it is chosen than when it is imposed (0.27 versus 0.10 standard deviations on a redistribution index). Policy by policy: the left article moves preferences on wealth, inheritance and corporate taxes; the right article moves universal basic income. The two narratives act on different margins: the left article moves policy preferences but not party preference, while the right article raises support for a far-right platform by 3.8 points, consistent with platforms that bundle fiscal with migration positions. Backfire is narrow: forced exposure lowers UBI support only among the most right-leaning fifth, who nonetheless update their factual beliefs as fully as anyone else. Dissonance operates at the step from fact to policy, not on the fact.