Diverse media consumption as an (un)effective form of deliberation?

Some theories consider the media as the main forum of democratic discussions, the arena of information exchange and orientation on various policy issues. Thus, theoretically, media sources provide appropriate materials for careful information seeking, allowing individuals to formulate considerate opinions and attitudes. However, the trends in polarization of public debates and media contents create serious burdens to these assumptions. Individuals are most likely obsessed with media channels that reflect their views and ideologies, and thus more frequent media consumption will not result in moderate opinions, but the contrary, it will only strengthen the original opinion of individuals. Do diverse media contents and public discourses still convey a deliberative function, namely, can they mitigate opinion differences and support public consensus? Media discourse and attitudes on immigration belong to the most politicized and polarized policy topics in Hungary, and therefore, provide a suitable research case to study the deliberative functions of the media and opinion exchange. Consequently, this research investigates how cross-cutting media frames and debates might influence immigration attitudes among Hungarian respondents. The research question is tested with focus group discussions, conducted during the most intensive period of the 2022 legislative campaign. Two sorts of groups are examined: homogenous and heterogenous groups from the point of view of participants' party preferences (i.e. government or opposition supporters). Participants read typical articles that present the immigration issue from various political approaches, then discuss their views on the topic. Relying on the suggestions of the affective intelligence theory, the research assumes mitigation of opinion differences in heterogenous groups, and further distancing of opinions in homogenous groups.