The study challenges the common belief that news exposure is inherently beneficial for a well-functioning democracy. While previous research highlights the positive link between news consumption and political knowledge and participation, this study explores potential overlooked detrimental effects. The authors posit that news, regardless of its political leaning, often focuses on conflict and activates political identities, potentially leading to increased polarization, negative perceptions of the political system, and impaired well-being. This is supported by observations that journalism emphasizes negativity and conflict, often framing politics as a game or horse race. Furthermore, social media's influence on news representation can amplify extreme views. The study aims to provide a comprehensive picture of news exposure's effects, both positive and negative, using a novel methodology.

Existing research largely focuses on the positive contributions of news use, emphasizing its role in increasing political knowledge, efficacy, and informed voting. Studies examining negative outcomes typically concentrate on partisan news in the US, neglecting the global context and the fact that partisan outlets reach a small segment of the population. Methodological limitations in previous studies include reliance on unreliable self-reported data and experimental designs that either force exposure to specific content or limit content choices, potentially overestimating media effects. This study addresses these limitations by using a more ecologically valid approach.

The study employs two pre-registered experiments embedded within a larger international project. The first experiment, conducted in the US (N=803), incentivized participants to take a 7-day 'news vacation,' while the second experiment, in Poland (N=939), encouraged participants to 'binge' on news for 14 days. Both experiments used a three-wave panel study, combining 20-minute surveys with behavioral online browsing data collected via Web Historian, an open-source tool. Quota sampling was used to ensure representativeness. Compliance was assessed through both self-reported data and behavioral browsing data, analyzing over 88 million visits to identify news websites using a machine learning approach. The analysis controls for prior news consumption levels and ideological congeniality of news diets. The study employs both intention-to-treat (ITT) and complier average treatment effect (CATE) analyses to account for varying levels of compliance. Heterogeneity in treatment effects was explored based on prior news exposure and ideological congeniality.

The study found that neither a 'news vacation' nor 'news binging' significantly influenced any of the tested outcomes, both positive (political knowledge, participation, support for compromise) and negative (attitude and affective polarization, negative system perceptions, well-being). These null effects held regardless of compliance level, prior news exposure, and ideological congeniality of news diets. Two minor exceptions were observed: increased news consumption led to slightly warmer feelings toward the out-party in Poland, and decreased news consumption reduced the perception of societal division in the US. However, these effects were small and not consistently replicated across measures and contexts. Behavioral data revealed that news domains constituted only 3% of participants' online visits. Further analyses using CATE models with self-reported and behavioral compliance measures, as well as alternative behavioral compliance indicators focusing on political news and political content in general, yielded similar null findings. Bayesian analyses provided strong evidence supporting the null hypotheses.

The findings challenge the assumption of significant individual-level effects of news exposure. Several explanations are offered. First, the highly polarized political climate may make it difficult to shift deeply ingrained opinions and beliefs through minor changes in news consumption. Second, the relatively low level of news consumption among the general public (only 3% of online visits in this study) suggests that changes in news exposure may be too small to have a noticeable impact. Third, the study's definition and measurement of 'news' may have limitations. The focus on domain-level identification of news websites might not fully capture the diverse ways individuals encounter political information in the hybrid media environment. The study acknowledges potential bias stemming from the reliance on online samples and limitations in capturing offline news consumption and social media-based political information.

The study's findings suggest that the direct individual-level impact of news media may be more limited than commonly believed. While news media play an important societal role, this research indicates a need for a reevaluation of their individual-level effects, especially considering the low levels of news consumption and the evolving media landscape. Future research should explore the cumulative effects of long-term news exposure, examine a wider range of moderators, and refine methodologies for comprehensively capturing news consumption across various platforms and contexts.

The study acknowledges several limitations. The use of online samples may limit the generalizability of the findings to the broader population. The inability to perfectly capture offline news consumption and political information encountered on social media may have underestimated the total effects of news exposure. The definition and measurement of 'news' might need further refinement to account for the diverse ways individuals access and process information in the hybrid media environment.