One important way in which selectivity limits the effects of media is our tendency to select and evaluate media in a way that confirms our existing views. For example, we often choose our news sources based on whether we anticipate that they will agree with us. In an experimental study of the effects of perceived agreement on news choices, Democrats and liberals preferred CNN and NPR and avoided Fox News, whereas Republicans and conservatives did the opposite (Iyengar & Hahn, 2009). Similarly, when we watch political debates, we tend to interpret our preferred candidate as the winner, and we tend to remember the information that confirms our previous opinions about the candidates.

Increasingly, diverse media outlets make it easier than ever to select and attend only to the entertainment and news messages that already agree with us—political blogs, fan forums, TV and radio analysts, and partisan cable and online news. Some critics lament the fact that we can so easily insulate ourselves from opposing views, arguing that it polarizes us as citizens and is unhealthy for democracy (Sunstein, 2007). But the case can also be made that the ability of audiences to self-filter messages is empowering and is at least better than having others (such as professional media editors or the government) do all the filtering for us.