What you consume media wise affects your politics – each Observer or Guardian article probably makes you that little bit more of a lefty liberal. But do political motives, determine how many, and which, newspapers are on offer in the first place? High-profile owners with clear agendas mean most of us suspect the answer is yes, but I’ve never seen rigorous evidence to prove it. That is until now, with a Warwick University study. It examines the case of India, the world’s largest democracy, which has a booming newspaper market of well over 100,000 publications. Back in the 00s, the electoral landscape for state legislature elections was redrawn to reflect the latest census, with some districts gaining and others losing representatives. Since that hadn’t been done since 1974, despite significant population shifts, it meant big changes to the relative electoral importance of some districts over others. The districts that were politically important changed almost overnight. What happened in areas that became more important? They saw more, and higher circulation of, papers in the following years as owners reacted to changes in the political landscape. The impact was greatest on local language journals, which are more likely to cover the ins and outs of local politics. Now obviously, political motives are far from everything when it comes to newspapers – profit plays its part. Yet the researchers estimate that 12-18% of newspaper circulation after the electoral changes was because of politics. So you can read this research to be convinced that those controlling our media aren’t exactly disinterested in controlling our politics. Or maybe you don’t need to. Torsten Bell is chief executive of the Resolution Foundation. Read more at resolutionfoundation.org