Does Media Coverage of Flip-Flopping Reduce Party Support in Elections?

Politicians and parties frequently change their policy positions, yet such “flip-flopping” is widely viewed as normatively consequential for democratic accountability and electoral behavior. While existing research documents policy shifts using party programs and elite statements, we know little about whether and how the media cover these reversals—and whether such coverage carries electoral costs. This paper addresses these gaps by examining media coverage of party flip-flopping and its effects on electoral support. Using original newspaper data on media reports of policy reversals in the UK, the study analyzes the tone and framing of flip-flop coverage, distinguishing between positive portrayals (e.g., responsiveness, pragmatism, adaptation to new evidence) and negative portrayals (e.g., opportunism, inconsistency, and unreliability). The paper then assesses the electoral consequences of flip-flop coverage, asking whether increased and negatively framed media attention to policy reversals reduces party support and voter turnout in subsequent elections. The findings show that flip-flopping is predominantly framed negatively, particularly during election campaigns. Moreover, greater exposure to negatively framed flip-flop coverage is associated with lower electoral support, suggesting that media portrayals of policy inconsistency undermine political credibility. Together, the results highlight the media’s central role in translating policy change into electoral accountability.