-— ‘.—. .__ _ . c. . 54:9 . :7 ~v~ -‘ x<1‘xrl (vvr' ,p. ... «5. . 3-. V-_—_~ 559-”? Wyn» mu ' L ‘1‘ :14.“ m. ., 1 ~ . , \. Maggi» .<‘ f . ' «nf'lngéfa‘f‘ l?“ ‘m‘ ‘ . 1‘ ”L ‘ .a"; $33; > . Jun" 4. at“, .n .1 .. .v. 1%} :1: s‘ .u 12 4 ‘c. ‘ u L? ' j :l ’ x ‘ ‘ 3 - . . . . V I ‘ Lair m was. C ‘ Irma?“ 1" ' gave-z L: ‘4 ' ‘ .( ngfip'.‘ .. P“ ' $1 '~ '~ .m ‘7}. w, ’ E‘ (4%; C’ungi ..‘ v ‘ a CA- I 41m 7‘) 335%” «a My ‘ - o; $3,331?“ $4 9gp...“ 1.: C3 4.”: ‘ -' 531': 1) Inogfiga.n1 . . Md C 4,5. ~ ‘ . ,. , ~ ’3' i . 1w 's-z ‘ 1:1"; . ’3 3%}.‘243‘11. , ' w" 8‘3 fa . "“551? 5"”? x; ’4' . '~“__ , .c 4. , q - ‘Lfifiyflfi' in 1;" ~ Jazz. 'I‘ firmer ‘9 Q's-terrify" " 2.2 r :e 1', x '13-. ‘7’ , ’ ' - n, I. ‘ ,"ggxfr-‘uum r~“‘a " *fi a“ at $.. uixt'", a, . «7 ; ‘1' .3 3 .,r. _; r ‘ ' rinngzflkgeyr fi— vv w, ’0' n‘ ’. I '. pun- 2W» . '-»~~,'. . ., lllllllllllllllllllllUlllllllllllllllll‘lll‘l llilll 3 1293 00765 4845 This is to certify that the thesis entitled ACCEPTANCE , NEGOTIATION , AND REJECTION : THE CREATION OF MEANING FROM DOMINICAN TELEVISION presented by Scott Howard Clarke has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for MA degree in EIlel—eeemrtmnication AKW D may“ Major professor Date f7“? /7 /931 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 07’) I) ?27? PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove We checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES mum on or baton date duo. msu Io An Minn-av. Adloquual Opponunlly urn-mason ‘ onS-o.‘ ->-—-\ ACCEPTANCE, NEGOTIATION, AND REJECTION: THE CREATION OF MEANING FROM DOMINICAN TELEVISION BY Scott Howard Clarke A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Telecommunication 1991 ABSTRACT ACCEPTANCE, NEGOTIATION} AND REJECTION: THE CREATION OF MEANING FROM DOMINICAN TELEVISION By Scott Howard Clarke This thesis uses a cultural studies approach to examine how television audiences in the Dominican Republic produce meaning from television. The study uses a combination of quantitative and qualitative data drawn from in-depth interviews conducted with Dominican television viewers in 1988. Cultural, studies hold that television texts project interpretations of reality which generally uphold the politico-economic domination of society by elite groups. If viewers accept these interpretations, a dominant reading is said to have been made. Negotiated and oppositional readings result when viewers reject some or all of television's interpretations . As expected, dominant groups generally preferred "elite taste" and culturally dissimilar programs and tended to make dominant textual readings about television and society. Also as expected, subaltern groups generally preferred domestic and regional programs and tended to make negotiated and oppositional readings about television and society. Middle sector groups were found to make textual readings similar to both dominant and subaltern groups, depending on the area under study. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his gratitude to Dr. Joseph Straubhaar for allowing the use of his materials and for his patience with the many revisions through which the present volume went. Appreciation is also expressed to committee members Dr. Bella Mody and Dr. Thomas Baldwin for their many helpful suggestions, which resulted in a much stronger study. Finally, appreciation is expressed to the Dominican graduate students who conducted the interviews from which these data are drawn. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction Literature Review Marxist and.NeoaMarxist Philosophy Cultural Studies--General European Cultural Studies The Frankfurt Institute for Social Research British Cultural Studies Latin.American Cultural Studies CHAPTER TWO: THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC--GENERAL BACKGROUND History Colonial Implications Early'Independence The Trujillo Years Implications Civil War and the Balaguer Presidency Political/Economic System Joaquin Balaguer Implications Sociocultural Characteristics Language, People Groups, and Religion Class Structure The Family Implications The Dominican Television System Development Organization Programming (SHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGY Hypothesis 1 A. Textual Preferences B. Dominant Readings Hypothesis 2 .A. Textual Preferences B. Negatiated/Oppositional Readings :NOte on Hypotheses l and 2 Hypothesis 3 A. Textual Preferences ix P WOWQQMNP Hid l7 17 19 20 22 23 23 25 27 31 32 32 33 36 37 38 38 41 43 46 48 48 49 50 50 51 52 53 53 B. Negotiated/Oppositional Readings Research Methods--Previous Studies Summary Research Methodr-This Study The Sample Categories Used A.Correction Summary CHAPTER FOUR: STUDY OF THE DOMINICAN TELEVISION AUDIENCE Findings--Opinions on Society Societal Prdblems Summary Effects of Contact with the united States Dominant Readings Summary Negotiated Readings Summary Oppositional Readings summary Overall Preference for Domestic/Imported Items Summary Bettering Oneself Dominant Readings Summary Negotiated Readings Summary Oppositional Readings Summary Overall Findings--Television Preferences Reasons for Viewing Summary Genre Preferences News and Informational Programs Summary Sports Summary Music /Music Video Programs Sumary Morning, Noon, and Sunday (Variety) Shows Talenovelas Summary Series Summary Mbvies Summary Children's Programming Summary vi 54 55 59 60 60 62 67 69 70 71 72 72 73 74 74 75 76 76 76 76 77 77 78 79 79 80 8O 80 81 81 82 83 83 84 85 85 85 86 86 87 87 87 88 88 88 89 89 89 89 89 9O Findings--Opinions on Television Itself Negative Effects of Television Dominant Readings Summary Negotiated Readings Oppositional Readings Summary Overall Talenovelas and Reality Dominant Readings Summary Negotiated Readings Summary Oppositional Readings Summary Overall Television's Influence on Oneself Dominant Readings Summary Negotiated Readings Summary Oppositional Readings Summary Overall Television's Influence on One's Family Daninant Readings Summary Negotiated Readings Oppositional Readings Summary Overall Advertising's Influence Dominant Readings Summary Negotiated Readings Summary Oppositional Readings Summary Overall Television's Influence on.Migration Negotiated Reading Summary Television's Influence on Society Dominant Readings Summary Negotiated Readings Summary Oppositional Readings Summary Overall vii 90 91 91 92 92 92 95 95 95 96 96 97 97 97 99 99 100 100 101 102 102 102 103 103 104 104 105 105 106 107 107 107 108 108 109 109 110 110 111 111 111 112 112 112 113 113 114 114 116 116 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS/ FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 117 Summary of Findings 117 General Opinions 118 Societal Prdblems 119 Contact with the United States 119 Preference for Domestic/Imported Items 119 Bettering Oneself 120 Television Genre Preferences 120 Reasons for Viewing . 121 News and Informational Programing 121 Cultural Programming 122 Foreign Programs 122 Talenovelas 123 Sunday variety Shows 123 Comedies 124 music/Music Video 124 Domestic, Regional, and Spanish-Language Programs 124 Opinions on Television 125 Limitations of the Study 128 Prdblems with the Study 129 Cbnclusions 130 For Further Research 132 APPENDIX A: GENERAL OPINIONS 134 Tables 1-3 134 APPENDIX B: WHAT IS WATCHED 144 Tables 4-7 144 APPENDIX C: PROGRAM TYPE OPINIONS 176 Tables 8-30 176 APPENDIX D: OPINIONS ON TELEVISION 222 Tables 31-37 222 APPENDIX E: SURVEY INSTRUMENT USED 236 BIBLIOGRAPHY 249 Bibliography 249 General References 254 Table Table ideas Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table l: 2: LIST OF TABLES What is the country's greatest prdblem? Does your contact with the U.S. about life here? 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: 10: 11: 12: 13: 14: 15: 16: 17: 18: 19: 20: 21: 22: 23: 24: 25: 26: 27: 28: 29: 30: 31: 32: 33: 34: 35: 36: 37: Where do you prefer personal items be made? Why do you watch TV? What do you like to watch? What are your favorite Dominican programs? What are your favorite foreign programs? like like like like like like like like like like How well do you How well do you How well do you How well do you How well do you How well do you How well do you How well do you How well do you How well do you How well do you like How well do you like How well do you like How well do you like How well do you like How well do you like HOW‘Well do you like How well do you like How well do you like How well db you like How well do you like How well do you like How well do you like DR neWS? news in English? discussion programs? documentaries? DR sportS? US sports? world sports? DR music? merengue? Latin music? rock music? morning shows? noon shows? Sunday shows? DR comedieS? Mexican comedies? telenovelas? Latin series? US series? movies? movies in English? children ' 3 programs? cartoonS? Does TV have negative effects? Are telenovelas realistic? Does TV influence your life? Does TV influence your family? Does advertising influence you? Did TV influence your move? Does TV influence society? 134 influence your 138 140 144 148 152 168 176 178 180 182 184 186 188 190 192 194 196 198 200 202 204 206 208 210 212 214 216 218 220 222 224 226 228 230 232 234 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction. Researchers have often been interested in investigating the effects television has on its audience, particularly those effects which may be harmful. In international research, emphasis is frequently placed on the effects of imported programming on national cultures. It has traditionally been assumed that such programming (usually U.S.) is a cultural threat to any nation that imports it“ Specifically, "weak" (usualLy Third werld) cultures are believed to eventually become "homogenized/ synchronized" with that of the program exporter (Lee 1979, Hamelink.1983). Nevertheless, recent work in cultural studies suggests that the above paradigm is too simplistic. Working within a neo-Marxist framework and drawing heavily from such recent philosophers as Gramsci (1971, 1985), Adthusser (1971), and Bourdieu (1984), media researchers have theorized over the last two decades that audiences are far from passive recipients of cultural ideology. On the contrary, they are said to be active producers of their own meanings--even meanings opposed to those intended by the text (Johnson 1987, Fiske 1987a, Ang 1990). 2 Unfortunately, cultural studies work thus far has been mainly theoretical. Several studies of British audiences have been done by the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (see, e.g., Fiske 1987a, White 1983) and work on other European audiences has been done by Ien Ang (1985). Likewise, while a few pioneering studies of Latin American audiences have been undertaken (Martin Barbero 1987b, Seminario del CLACSO 1987), calls for further research continue (Garcia Canclini 1988, Martin Barbero 1988, McAnany 1989). This study, it is hoped, will begin to meet that need. What follows is an in-depth analysis of the Dominican Republic's television audience from a cultural studies approach. The method used is somewhat eclectic, along the lines proposed. by Aug (1989, 1990), making use of representative qualitative responses as well as quantitative data. Since the study involves a Hispanic country, however, those factors considered important by Latin American writers 'will be emphasized. LITERATURE REVIEW WW Cultural studies are deeply rooted in neo-Marxist philsophy. Richard Johnson (1987) outlines three concepts that have been most influential in this regard. The first is that cultural processes are intimately connected with social 3 relations (especially class relations). Second, culture involves power, unevenly distributed. Therefore, individuals and social groups possess unequal abilities to define and meet their needs. Third, culture is a site of social struggle (1987: 39). Several writers have elaborated. on these concepts, especially as they relate to meaning creation within society. The work of Louis Althusser, Antonio Gramsci, and Pierre Bourdieu are especially relevant to cultural studies. Louis .Althusser (1971) expanded (n1 Marx's base/superstructure model in order to discover how capitalist society reproduces itself. The economic base, he reasons, both supports and is somewhat autonomous from the politico-legal superstructure. To maintain power, the superstructure must ensure the continued subjection of the base. This is done through the State Apparatus. Since the State uses ideology as well as force to ensure its domination over the working class, Adthusser decided that Marx's concept of a monolithic State Apparatus needed to be broadened. To do this, he separated the State's repressive functions from its ideological ones. Adthusser calls the repressive functions the Repressive State Apparatus (RSA). This includes public groups, like the police and military. The State's ideological functions, on the other hand, are carried out by many private organizations (including the mass media), which he calls Ideological State Apparatuses (ISA's) (1971: 137). ISA's, though many, are united by their support of dominant class ideology. The .RSA's role consists in ensuring the political conditions necessary for reproducing the capitalist system. The ISA's function, then, is to secure this reproduction from the working classes. The unifying force between the RSA.and the many ISAfis is ideology (1971: 142). Ideology, "the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence (Althusser 1971: 153)," is said to have a material existence of its own. It "interpellates" (hails) individuals through ISA's. Whenever an individual responds to ideology's call, s/he becomes its “subject" (1971: 155-163). Critics say' Althusser's view' of capitalisnl is too one-dimensional (Bennett 1982, Hall 1982), coming "dangerously close to functionalism (Bennett 1982: 52-53)." His formulation of the capitalist system, they say, lacks conflict--a basic tenet of Marxism. Moreover, the concept of ISA's has been criticized for overextending state power: "[iJndeed, it [is] difficult... to discern how anything but the 'dominant ideology' could ever be reproduced in discourse (Hall 1982: 78)." Gramsci's 'writings Zbalance .Althusser's functionalist leanings by advocating a stmggle for meaning within the domain of ideology. Two of his most important contributions were the concepts of "hegemony" and of "popular culture (1971, 1985)." Hegemony describes the attempt by elites to maintain moral, cultural, intellectual, and political leadership over society. Consent is granted, Gramsci argues, to the extent 5 that ideology accommodates opposing class culture and values (Bennett 1986a: xiv-xv). Popular culture refers to the site of this struggle for meaning. In Gramsci's conspectus, popular culture is viewed neither as the site of the peOple's cultural deformation nor as that of their cultural self-affirmation, or... of their own self-making; rather, it is viewed as a force field of relations shaped, precisely, by these contradictory pressures and tendencies...(Bennett 1986a: xiii) The result of this struggle tends to be a negotiated version of elite ideology. Gramsci's theory of hegemony has been criticized for being too accommodating and expansive a framework. Its value, however, lies in its recognition of the resiliency of subaltern groups' culture in the face of dominant ideology (Bennett 1986a: xvii). Bourdieu (1984), like Althusser, is concerned with the reproduction of the capitalist system. Also building upon Marx's economistic and ideological arguments, Bourdieu created the concepts of "symbolic profit" and "cultural capital." Key to both these concepts is the idea of the "habitus." The habitus is as a "strategy-generating principle" individuals use to solve everyday problems. It is a set of "lasting, transposable dispositions" created from one's past experiences and material conditions of existence (1984: 77-78). The habitus may be defined as a common logic which regulates family, group, and especially class practice. 6 Bourdieu even bases his definition of class on the habitus (Garnham & Williams 1986: 120). Adl societal practices, according to Bourdieu, are aimed at maximizing material or symbolic profit. Individuals seek to invest the capital that their habitus has bestowed on them. This capital is of two types: economic and cultural. Economic capital is simply material wealth. Cultural capital, on the other hand, are those abilities which only those possessing economic capital may develop (such as a university education and appreciation for "high" culture). There is convertibility between economic and cultural capital, but economic capital is more easily transferred from generation to generation. This makes it a more efficient means of reproducing the capitalist system. Elites maintain control over economic capital via their control of cultural capital. They are able to do so because of their unequal ability to invest in the creation and consumption of cultural capital. The creation of cultural capital requires education, in which elites are better able to invest. Consumption of cultural capital, meanwhile, is controlled by the complexity of its textual coding. Again, elites are better able to invest the necessary resources to decode it correctly (Bourdieu 1984, Garnham & Williams 1986: 123-125). Finally, unlike Marx, Bourdieu (1984) distinguishes not only between the dominant and dominated classes, but also between the dominant and dominated fractions of the dominant class. The dominated fractions are roughly equivalent to the 7 upper middle class; which, although a dominator itself (of the middle and lower classes), is also dominated by the upper class. These distinctions, also intimated by Gramsci, are important to properly understanding the complex system of societal interrelations to which cultural studies addresses itself. ShLLEuznl_£UuutLefi;;£EuuuunL Johnson (1987) delineates three main models of cultural studies research: what he calls production-based studies, text-based studies, and studies of lived cultures. Production-based studies "impLy a struggle to control or transform the most powerful means of cultural production," or the creation of alternative media (p. 73). Text-based studies focus on the "forms" of cultural products. Research into lived cultures tend toemphasize the everyday life of subaltern groups, while criticizing dominant ideology "in the light of hidden wisdoms (p. 73)." Lawrence Grossberg (1984) categorizes cultural studies differently. He examines 10 separate methods for relating social groups, texts, and everyday experience, dividing them under three headings: cflassical approaches, hermeneutic approaches, and discursive approaches. Classical approaches, as the name implies, remain closest to Marxist theory: economy and ideology are prominent. Texts are believed to be mere conduits for "intentional and malevolent voices... seeking to protect their own positions of power and economic domination (1984: 394)." Audiences are 8 assumed to be passive and ignorant of these voices. Change can only be brought about by changing the economic and political systems creating the texts (p. 394). Grossberg places the Frankfurt School (discussed below) within this category (1984: 396-397). Hermeneutic approaches attempt to define how culture is mediated, focusing on the text itself. Researchers try to discover how the text "codes, reworks, and potentially transforms the very fabric of lived experience (1984: 399)." This approach looks for homologies between the text and its social structure (p. 399). .A major representative of the hermeneutic approach, according to Grossberg, has been the British Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at the university of Birmingham (discussed below) (p. 402). Discursive approaches allow for interaction between social subjects and texts. Texts attempt to position subjects within one of many competing frameworks of signifying practices (ways of constructing meaning from experience). Subjects find a "fit" within these frameworks through their own cultural practices (1984: 409). Grossberg places Stuart Hall's more recent work (as well as his own) within this general approach. The present study will be selective, surveying only those elements of cultural studies that have a direct bearing on Latin American research. The categories used here are: European cultural studies (emphasizing the Frankfurt School and the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies) and Latin American cultural studies. united States cultural studies 9 will not be covered, since their influence on Latin thought thus far has been minimal. WW Wren was founded in 1923 in Weimar Germany. It was initially composed of radical Marxist intellectuals, some of them ex-Communist Party members disillusioned with the failure of the 1917 Bolshevik revolution to spread westward. Theorists there hoped to explain why political stability had so quickly returned to post-war Europe. The rise of fascism also had an influence (Bennett 1982). Studies at the Frankfurt School combine psychoanalytic theories with Marxism to critique society and are characterized by a deep philosophical negativity. Some, for instance, emphasize how elites use the media to manipulate the way people think, "inducing [them] to live, mentally, in a world of hypnotic definitions and automaticideological equations which rule out any effective cognitive mediation on [their] part (Bennett 1982: 44)." Others studies stress how' mass-produced. art is an inappropriate expression of culture, having thereby lost its oppositional value (Seiter, et. a1. 1989, Bennett 1982, Grossberg 1984). This fosters "a policy of retreatism in relation to the media, which... [are thought to be] so compromised that they [cannot] be used by oppositional social forces (Bennett 1982: 46)." 10 Bennett (1982) contends that, while the philosophy of the Frankfurt School has been largely rejected, its contributions to "mainstream Marxism" are nonetheless important. Among these are the prominence it gives ideology, as opposed to economics; and its perspective of containment, "the analysis of the ideological means whereby the contradictions of capitalism.are held in check (p. 46)." British_gultural_studies at the Birmingham Centre have been more influenced by structuralist semiotics within a Marxist framework. Structuralism argues that reality can only be made sense of through language or other signifying practices. "Consciousness" is a product of culture, society, and history (Fiske 1987a: 256). Building on Althusser's concepts of ISA's and Gramsci's theory of hegemony, Stuart Hall (1980) developed a"preferred [textual] reading" theory to explain the conflict of interests between dominant and subaltern social groups. Hall postulates that individual subjects interpellated by a text will take up a one of three "positions" with respect to it: a dominant/preferred reading, a negotiated reading, or an oppositional reading. The dominant reading occurs when the viewer decodes a text in the same way in which it was encoded by its producer(s). .A negotiated reading results when the viewer adopts the preferred reading at a general level, but rejects its application to his/her own social situation. An oppositional reading results when the viewer interprets the text entirely differently from its intended meaning (White 1983: 292). 11 While Hall holds that television texts generally prefer a set of meanings in line with the dominant (capitalist) ideology, he insists that they cannot be forced on viewers. Those whose social situations cause them to reject some or all of the dominant ideology will produce negotiated or oppositional readings instead of the dominant one (Fiske 1987a: 260). The preferred reading model thus suggests that readers are meaning producers, but only when their social reality does not match television's textual reality (Morley 1989: 19). Another important body of BritiSh work is derived from ethnography. These studies recognize the heterogeneity of audiences, as well as the many possible readings available from.te1evision texts. Researchers attempt to discover how actual audience groups then actively produce meaning from the texts, based on their own social experiences (Fiske 1987a: 267, Aug 1989, 1990). Cultural studies thus has evolved a respect for ethnomethodology and the paradigm of contemporary anthropology, in the belief that it is only through subjects' own accounts of why they are interested in particular cultural artifacts that we can begin to get any real sense of how meaning is propagated and culture reproduced (Corcoran 1989: 610, cf. Merley 1989). David Merley, an ethnographic media researcher, tested Hall's preferred reading theory in the field. He discovered that categorizing audience readings as only dominant, negotiated, or oppositional was too restrictive a typology, so he amplified those categories with ideas from discourse theory (Aug 1989, Fiske 1987a). 12 Discourse theory' is interested. in the *ways social experience is discussed. Key elements to be examined include the 'viewer/reader's social experience, 'his/her social position (from which sense is made of a text), and the signifying system used in the text itself. Both the text and the viewer's consciousness are composed of a number of discourses. Reading the text, then, is a process of negotiation between the two (Fiske 1987a: 268-269). Morley's recent work (1989) suggests that the television viewing context (e.g., at home or away, alone or in groups, etc.) may also be an important factor to consider. John Fiske (1989) likewise advocates a more ethnographic approach to television studies: The textuality of television, the intertextuality of the process of making sense and pleasure from it, can only occur when people bring their different histories and subjectivities to the viewing process. There is no text, there is no audience, there are only the processes of viewing--that variety of cultural activities that take place in front of the screen which constitute the object of Study...(l989: 57). Fiske suggests researchers study television texts on three levels: the "primary text" (on the screen), a "subtext" of information and commentary about television, and viewer-produced texts (Fiske 1987a, 1989, cf. Morley 1989). Moreover, audiences should be studied within the context of their social and cultural environment (Fiske 1989). Fiske sums up British cultural studies this way: the television text is a potential of meanings, bearing the imprint of capitalist ideology. Viewers, coming from a variety of social situations, make their own meanings from 13 television's meaning potential. All meanings, including subcultural or resistant ones, are made in relationship to the dominant ideology. Fianlly, cultural analysis can help illuminate the ways in which the television text serves as an "arena" for meaning creation (1987a: 284). W Cultural studies in Latin America are a more recent phenomenon than they are in Europe, having arrived only in the late 1970's. Scholars there had come to recognize the limitations of cultural imperialism and dependency theories. Dependency studies were useful for describing' media domination, but were themselves incapable of bringing about change. Believing that research should lead to action, scholars turned to cultural studies as a means of documenting how different groups were able to resist this domination (McAnany 1986: 38). European influences on Latin American cultural studies have been profound, as Schwarz & Jaramillo (1986) have noted: Marxist analysis appeals to [Latin American] scholars because it offers a language for describing and explaining the functions of communication in their economic context. Concepts such as 'class' and 'class consciousness' are useful for capturing the dialectics of thought and. action, consciousness and practice... Other...scholars, interested in the formation and social conditions of discourse, have borrowed from Europe's structuralist and semiotic traditions. The former tradition is appealing because it studies the events of social existence and their saturation with signification; the latter, because it offers a model for understanding the meaning-structures of those events (pp. 66-67). Gramsci's theories of hegemony and popular culture (known in Latin America as culture popular ) have been highly 14 influential in this regard. Javier Esteinou Madrid (1986) has documented in some detail how dominant groups, in their struggle for hegemony, use the mass media to carry out three basic functions: to speed up the circulation of material goods, to inculcate dominant ideology, and to contribute to the reproduction of the work force. Cultura popular, as used in Latin America, should not be confused with some European uses of the term, "popular culture." The Frankfurt School uses popular culture to refer to “industrialized cultural production that symbolizes all that is wrong with modern capitalist society (McAnany 1989: 9)," in other words, "mass" culture. Other researchers equate popular culture with "native" or "traditional" culture, generally implying a "lost" culture, which must somehow be rediscovered. Still others take the opposite tack, labelling as "popular" the "high art” of past masters, believing that such art best expressed the struggle of its day (Bennett 1986b, Garcia Canclini 1982, 1988, Hernandez 1987, Martin Barbero 1987a, 1987b, 1988). In Latin American use, cultura popular refers to the everyday experiences of subaltern groups (McAnany 1989: 9). Tulio Hernandez (1987) suggests we reconceive of the term so as to accommodate both mass culture (in a broad sense) and traditional/folk culture in a narrow sense, while accounting for their interaction (pp. 67-68). Prominent writers on cultura popular include Néstor Garcia Canclini of Mexico and Jesus Martin Barbero of Colombia. 15 Both authors hold similar views regarding the uses of popular culture within elite domination. Garcia Canclini and Martin Barbero both assert that dependency theories were too extreme in their assessment of the damage thought done to indigenous cultures by imported television. If this were true, they ask, how can the continued existence of these cultures be explained (Garcia Canclini 1988: 484)? Cultura popular is the site of a struggle against hegemonic ideology (Martin Barbero 1987a, 1987b, 1988, cf. Bennett 1987b), but its study should involve more than just relativizing the power of the media (Martin Barbero 1987: 42). It is important to recognize that dominance comes from within a society as well as from outside it (Martin Barbero 1988: 453). Likewise, both authors criticize traditional media studies for failing to recognize the ability of popular groups to act as cultural producers themselves (Garcia Canclini 1988, Martin Barbero 1988, cf. Hernandez 1987). Most Latin writers recommend studies of the relationship between popular and mass [here meaning "dominant"] culture and the interaction between them, including the ways in which popular classes both redesign and refunctionalize (construct negotiated and oppositional readings to) dominant culture (Martin Barbero 1987a: 43-44, of. Garcia Canclini 1982). Garcia Canclini suggests that this relationship is based "less upon violence than upon contract, an alliance in which the hegemonic and the subaltern contract 'reciprocal' prestations (Garcia Canclini 1988: 476)." 16 Finally, cultural struggle cannot be divorced from its social context, considering not only the present but also the past (martin Barbero 1987a, 1988, Garcia Canclini 1988). [T]he way is clear for a new perception of the popular that emphasizes the thick texture of hegemony/subalternity, the interlacing of resistance and submission, and opposition and complicity (Martin Barbero 1988: 462). This perception allows one to envision ...groups who understand the basic inequality [in which] they live and, through some sense of their own cultural identity, ...have a base for different forms of resistance, even if it is only symbolic in nature (McAnany 1989: 11). One must consider cultura popular a "competetive culture," rather than a "subor- dinate culture (Hernandez 1987: 68)." The present study takes this approach with respect to Dominican audience members' interpretation of television. Before examining these interpretations in detail, however, it is necessary to understand the context in which Dominican audience members live (their cultura popular ). The viewing context is the subject of the next chapter. CHAPTER TWO: TEE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC-- GENERAL BACKGROUND Because cultural struggle cannot be divorced from its social context (present and past), it is important to outline just what that context is (Ang 1990, Fiske 1989, Martin Barbero 1987a, 1988, Garcia Canclini 1988). This chapter, then, will briefly examine the Dominican Republic's history and outline its present politico-economic system. Drawing from ‘within this broader framework, the particular socio-cultural characteristics (cultura ,popular ) of Dominican television audience members will be discussed. 1311:9111 Colonial; The first inhabitants of Hispaniola (the island on which the Dominican Republic is located) were Siboney Indians. A century before Columbus arrived, however, the Siboneys were displaced by the Arawak-speaking Taino tribe. Columbus arrived in 1492, near the end of his first voyage of discovery in the New World. He bartered with the Tainos for a relatively minor amount of gold, which he took back to Spain with him. Once it realized that the New World contained gold and other riches, Spain decided to colonize the area permanently. The first settlement was established in.Santo Domingo, on the southern coast of Hispaniola. 17 18 The Tainos were immediately enslaved by their colonizers. The hard work demanded of them and the hardships they suffered soon exterminated their civilization. Disease, exhaustion, starvation, and other factors rapidly dropped their number from about one million in 1492 to around 500 by 1548. The Spanish began replacing the natives with African slaves in 1503, and black labor was used almost exclusively by 1520 (Weil 1973: 33). Santo Domingo came to dominate not only the island but also the entire Caribbean as seat of government for the West Indies. The first Roman Catholic "see" in the New World was established there in 1511. In 1547 Santo Domingo became the first achbishopric in the New World. As Santo Domingo busied itself with regional rule, the island. itself became effectively controlled by its landowners. Hispaniola's colonial importance declined when greater gold and silver weath were discovered on the continent. Large numbers of colonists left the island for the mainland and new immigrants began to bypass it altogether. Over the next 250 years, both England and France attempted many times to take over the Spanish Antilles in order to control their important trade routes. French buccaneers invaded the northwestern corner of Hispaniola in 1641 and founded Port Margot, in what is now Haiti. In 1664, France created a commission to colonize the area permanently. War ensued, and lasted until Spain finally ceded the western third of the island to France in 1697. 19 News of the French Revolution of 1789 stimulated a revolt by Haitian slaves in 1791” ‘Toussaint Louverture and his black army fought for Haitian independence from France. When France acted to free all slaves on the island, Louverture switched alliances, and together with the French, succeeded in driving the Spanish out of Santo Domingo. Spain ceded the remainder of the island to France and Louverture was made governor. The French retained control of Santo Domingo until Spanish colonists (aided by the English) reestablished Spanish sovereignty in 1809. Conditions deteriorated, so a second revolt overthrew the Spanish in 1821, bringing brief independence to the nation. Only a year later, the Dominican Republic was occupied once again--this time by Haiti. Jean-Pierre Boyer took the country in 1822, resettling it with Haitians in an attempt to create a black state. No attempt was made to overthrow the Haitians until 1833, when Juan Pablo Duarte, a young student, returned to the island. In 1838, Duarte, Rosario Sanchez, and Ramon Mella formed a secret society called La Trinitaria, promising to end the occupation. When President Boyer was succeeded by Charles Hérard-Riviére in 1843, Riviére attempted to crush La TTinitaria. Duarte escaped to Venezuela, but Sanchez and Mella continued to plot against the Haitians. They took the capital in 1844. IMPLICATIONS. The Dominican Republic's colonial period was a long and chaotic one. The above summary helps to explain 20 several facets of modern-day society there. The early and complete extinction of native populations explains the uncharacteristic lack of both Indian and mestizo people groups in an otherwise Hispanic state. Furthermore, the early slave trade (and to some degree, the Haitian occupation of the 1800's) account for the mainly mulatto population of the country. Spanish rule gave the country its strongly Hispanic culture. It also concentrated power and wealth in the hands of a few; namely, white Europeans. This helped create the strong class system still in existence today. Both the wealth of European settlers and hatred for Haitians (stirred up by the occupation) have contributed to the basing of one's social standing largely on the lightness of his/her skin. W Even though the newly-proclaimed Dominican Republic had been freed from the Haitians, fear of a second invasion was widespread. In September 1844, General Pedro Santana captured the capital and exiled the revolutionary leaders. He proclaimed himself president, but hoped to place the country back under the protection of a major power. Buenaventura Baez also emerged as a strong leader at this time. Like Santana, Baez wanted the country to become a protectorate. A power struggle between the two kept the country in constant turmoil for 20 years. Nevertheless, neither leader could find a nation to accept the Dominican Republic as a dependency until Spain did so in 1861. 21 High taxes and general discontent forced a revolt, however, and Spain withdrew four years later. The resulting power vacuum was filled by competing revolutionary generals. The country suffered no less than seven revolutions and had 16 different presidents between 1865 and 1882. Ulises Heureaux became president in 1882 and set up a. dictatorship that was to last until his assassination in 1899, "enforcing order and suppressing revolts with a spy system and a private army" (Cripps 1979: 117). Heureaux appointed leaders of all political parties to his cabinet and used bribery, exile, and assassinations to secure the stability of his regrme. His death initiated another period of political vacuum, with two rival factions vying for power. Carlos Morales was finally installed as president in 1904, but the island was over $32 million in debt to European banks. Fearing armed intervention, Morales asked the United States for protection. A.custmms receivership agreement was worked out, whereby the U.S. Customs Service collected Dominican monies and gave part of them to foreign creditors. Morales' moves brought accusations that he was a puppet of the American government. Morales attempted in 1905 to oust dissidents within his own regime, but took asylum in the U.S. legation when the coup failed. Ramon Caceres took over the presidency and was assassinated in 1911, leading to civil war. The United States attempted to engineer a truce in 1914 and arranged to supervise new presidential elections. Juan 22 Isidro Jimenez was elected, but was unable to retain control of the country. Fighting resumed, and the U.S. Marines were sent to Santo Domingo in 1916. When neither Jiménez nor his successor, Francisco Henriquez y Carvajal, would allow American occupation forces to take control of the Dominican treasury and constabulary, the United States installed its own military government. The American occupation lasted from 1916-1924. During this time, the Dominican treasury was reorganized, foreign debts were greatly reduced, and several public works projects were initiated. New elections were held in 1924, and General Horacio Vasquez was elected president. Upon his inauguration in July 1924, U.S. forces withdrew. W During Vasquez's first term as president, Rafael Leonidas Trujillo Molina, one of the early recruits in the new constabulary, rose through the ranks to become chief of staff of the Dominican army. Trujillo and Rafael Estrella Urefia overthrew Vasquez in 1930. Trujillo then announced his intention to seek the presidency in the upcoming elections. Through violence and intimidation of the Central Electoral Board, Trujillo had himself elected president, unopposed. He acted quickly to consolidate his power, filling government posts with those loyal to him. By the late 1950s, Trujillo and his family controlled over half the country's sugar industry and virtually all other exports. Approximately one-third of all cultivable land and 23 nearly all of the main commercial houses and manufacturing plants also fell to the Trujillos (Weil 1973: 44). Nevertheless, foreign opposition to the dictator began to mount in the mid-19508. In 1959, Venezuela accused Trujillo of engineering an assassination attempt against its president. The Organization of American States convoked a Meeting of Consultation of Foreign Ministers in August 1960, adopting a resolution which condemned the Dominican Republic for acts of aggression against Venezuela. .All member states were urged to break off diplomatic ties with the Dominican Republic and to place it under economic sanctions and an arms embargo. With his country out off, Trujillo lost political control. In May 1961, a small group of high military officers and civilians assassinated him (Weil 1973: 45). It has been suggested that the CIA was behind the assassination (Cripps 1979: 161). IMPLICATIONS. The military dictatorships of the late 18005 and early 19008, especially the Trujillo years, have left a permanent legacy in the Dominican Republic. Power and wealth were further concentrated in the hands of a few and (until Trujillo) government instability became the rule. CW Another political vacuum followed Trujillo's assasination. Joaquin Balaguer, his protegé, became provisional president and immediately embarked on a series of reforms. .After prolonged negotiations with his political opposition, Balaguer formed a Council of State government in 1962. The OAS then lifted its 24 sanctions. Balaguer survived a coup attempt by members of the Trujillo family, but resigned when rioting broke out against him" Juan Bosch, a political opponent of Trujillo's, returned from exile and was elected president in December 1962. Less than a year later, a military junta deposed him and replaced the presidency with a Triumvirate government. unpopular austerity measures and the suspension of civil liberties after repeated strikes threatened political support for the Triumvirate. Its leader, Donald José Reid Cabral, was deposed in April 1965. Many called for the restoration of Bosch as president, and a second civil war broke out. A Bosch-supported alliance of military and civilian factions calling themselves the Constitutionalists took over part of Santo Domingo. Meantime, the two remaining Triumvirate leaders, General Wessin and General Imbert y Barrera, had regrouped their forces as the Government of National Reconstruction. Despite a cease-fire agreement and interventions by U.S. Marines and an OAS Inter-American Peace Force, fighting continued throughout the summer. The Constitutionalists and the Reconstructionists accused each other of atrocities and formed independent governments. When no foreign nation would recognize either Dominican government, officials of the OAS, the United States, and a papal nuncio produced a provisional government with Héctor Garcia Godoy as provisional president. The Peace Force stayed on until after elections in the spring of 1966. 25 Former presidents Bosch and Balaguer, who had both returned from exile, became the leading presidential candidates. Balaguer won with 57 percent of the vote and returned to the presidency, where (except for 1978-1986) he has remained to this day (see below for analysis of the Balaguer presidency). MW Much of the Dominican Republic's present politico-economic system was created under Trujillo's dictatorship. Despite repeated promises of reform, the system has remained largely intact under Balaguer. Therefore, it is important to examine the Trujillo system more carefully. The Dominican Republic remained in a virtual state of chaos from the Haitian occupation until Trujillo took power in 1930. During that period alone, there were 30 revolutions and 50 presidents (Vedovato 1986: 21). Most were regional caudillos (military leaders) who used the state to increase their own wealth and that of their supporters. Ironically, it was the U.S. military occupation of 1916-1924 that actually set the stage for perhaps the most brutal dictatorship in the nation's history. During the forced reorganization of the government, a national constabulary for training Dominican military officers was instituted. Since the former ruling elite would have nothing to do with it, most recruits were drafted from the lower classes. Trujillo was one of them, rising through the ranks to eventually become the army's chief of staff. 26 After forcing himself into the presidency, Trujillo filled government posts only with those loyal to him. Opposition parties were declared illegal and critics of the regime (even those in foreign countries) were eliminated by Trujillo's secret police (Weil 1973: 43). Trujillo is said to have massacred 12,000-25,000 Haitian sugar workers in one night, and to have executed over a half million of his opponents during his rule (Cripps 1979: 160). Trujillo drastically changed the economy. He and his family came to control 50-60% of the country's land through various methods (including forced sale or outright seizure). Most was converted to sugar cane production. Furthermore, the state agricultural bank was practically used as a private financial resource for the Trujillo plantations. Similarly, Dominican industry came to be largely owned by the Trujillos. A special law was passed in 1950 giving domestic industry government subsidies and tariff protection. Through "special concessions," Trujillo also came to control trade in other agricultural products, like meat and milk. Government budgets greatly favored the military. Official figures show military spending had reached 36% by the end of Trujillo's dictatorship, but private estimates place the figure at 50%. Even non-military spending benefited Trujillo and his associates. Public works budgets, including road construction and irrigation systems, were directed to state-owned properties, further lining the Trujillos' pockets. 27 In short, Trujillo turned the Dominican economy around by making government the nation's largest industry. The growing bureaucracy and public works projects he instituted created a large new middle class. Much of this class inherited great economic and political power, even though they were not from priveleged backgrounds. Joaquin_Balagner did much early on to reverse Trujillo's legacy. He confiscated all Trujillo property, repealed the ban on opposition parties, allowed greater freedom of expression, and lowered the prices of basic goods. His early enthusiasm soon fizzled, however. An example is his implementation of the 1962 Land Reform Law: if redistribution continues at its current rate, it will take 500 years to complete (Kurian 1987: 566)! Most Trujillo property is still state-owned. The state sugar council, CEA (censejo Estatal de Azucar), was created to operate the Trujillo family's extensive sugar estates in trust for the country, but has actually served to make many of Balaguer's generals millionaires (Vedovato 33). Meanwhile, many of Balaguer's military officers have become the country's largest landowners through generous land grants. Furthermore, they often have been permitted to hold both military and civilian government posts simultaneously. Many of Trujillo's civilian administrators (other than family members and.top military officers) were reincorporated into the Balaguer government in 1966. Like Trujillo, Balaguer "continually reshuffles his subordinates to keep all power in his own hands (Kurlansky 1989: 26)." 28 Today's Dominican government still operates under the 1966 constitution, the country's twenty-fifth (Kurian 1987: 560). The constitution describes the government as "essentially civil, republican, democratic, and representative," and guarantees human rights and popular sovereignty. It provides for a tripartite division of power, with an executive, legislative, and judicial branch. Nevertheless, the constitution is described as "generally...symbolic," because most power still rests with the president and the military (Weil 1973: 131). The Dominican economy, like many in the Third World, is characterized by a very skewed distribution of property and income, low average income, and massive unemployment. According to Claudio Vedovato's study (1986), 2.7% of the nation's farms control 54% of the land; whereas 72% of the farms run less than 13%. Similarly, half the population receives only 13% of total income, while the richest six percent of the population gets 43% (p. 4). Industrialization policies carried out under Balaguer have mainly served the interests of big business. The policy is largely based on a classification system that protects classified firms from competition by providing them with various exemptions. Under different "incentives" laws, industries as lucrative as banking and tourism have been given tax exempt status (Vedovato 36). There is no property tax in the Dominican Republic, and even income taxes are insignificant. The majority of 29 government revenue is thus created by taxes on foreign trade (Vedovato 36). Since his 1986 reelection, Balaguer has pursued an ambitious construction program in an attempt to revitalize the economy. He personally inaugurates a new construc- tion project twice to three times per week and claims to spend some $26 million monthly in construction alone (Kurlansky 1989: 24). Economists estimate that construction accounts for eight percent of the nation's GNP. All this spending has consequently far outstripped government revenues. Balaguer's solution--print more money. The supply of paper money is believed to have doubled since 1986 (Kurlansky 1989: 30). The peso's 1987 exchange rate was $RD 3.21 per $US 1. 11 contributing factor to the peso's current value was its devaluation from parity with the dollar in 1984 (by then-President Blanco) (Kurian 1987: 564). The current legal minimum.wage in the Dominican Republic is about $70 per month. Factory wages average 60 cents an hour, including fringe benefits. Even such relatively "skilled" tradespeople as mechanics and electricians earn only $310 per month; managers earn $880, and engineers earn slightly less than $1,100. Since World War II (and primarily since 1962), the Dominican Republic has received nearly $1.3 billion in assistance from United Nations-related agencies. The bulk has come from the Inter-American Development Bank ($842 30 million) and the World Bank ($338 million) (Wilkie & Ochoa 1989: 761) . The United States has also provided considerable foreign assistance on its own: about $824 million through the Agency for International Development (USAID) alone. American assistance totaled some $44.4 million during 1987, with the majority ($37.6 million) in the form of economic assistance (Wilkie & Ochoa 1989: 770). Foreign investment is actively encouraged by the Balaguer government. Industrial "free trade zones" have been constructed throughout the country, expecially in the Santo Domingo area. Foreign companies relocating in these zones enjoy a tax exemption of between 12 and 20 years, import duty exemption, and no restrictions on profit repatriation. Free-zone employment has jumped from 20,000 in 1984 to 70,000 in 1988 (Wagenheim 1988: 114, Dominican 1988: 19-20) . Many U.S. companies operate "twin plants" in both the Dominican Republic and neighboring Puerto Rico under the 1983 Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI). This program permits companies to build a plant in a Caribbean country to do the unskilled part of a job and a "twin" plant in Puerto Rico for the skilled finishing work. In so doing, they qualify for IRS exemptions from corporate income taxes (Roach 14) . In return, goods from the participating country enter the United States duty free (i.e., paying only for "value added" in manufacturing). The Dominican Republic is currently the "U.S.' largest CBI trading partner (Rachid 1990: 10A) . 31 Tourism is also a rapidly growing business, with the number of visitors growing from 67,500 in 1970 to over a million in 1987. Millions of dollars are currently being spent on hotels and resorts on the nation's many beaches. International airports are being constructed and/or expanded. Balance-of-trade problems still beset the Dominican economy. Although the country exported some $722 million worth of goods in 1986, imports amounted to $1.27 billion, a deficit of about $544 million (Wilkie S: Ochoa 1989: 738) . The country applied for full membership in the Caribbean Economic Community (Caricom) in December 1989, but no action has yet been taken on the application. Member states cite poor Dominican relations with Haiti and an announced plan earlier last year by the Balaguer government to export bananas to Britain (despite an earlier promise to smaller Caribbean states not to do so) as problem areas that must be worked out before membership will be granted. The Dominican Republic has since abandoned its banana exporting plan (Fittipaldi 1990: 11B). IMPLICATIONS. The above review of the serious political and economic problems afflicting the Dominican Republic reveals several characteristics of its societal structure: skewed income and property distribution, unemployment, foreign trade imbalances, and ineffective government. One would expect these areas to be the locus of struggle between dominant and dominated groups. These also should be the areas in which elites (the group least negatively affected) would attempt to maintain consensus via Ideological State 32 Apparatuses like television (Althusser 1971: 137). Analysis of audience opinion on societal problems should indicate whether this is so (Chapter Four, Table 1). W: W The estimated 6.6 million residents of the Dominican Republic comprise a unique people group. Like most of Latin America, their culture and language are Hispanic. Unlike most Latin Americans, however, the majority of its population is racially mulatto. As noted before, this is due to the early extermination of native tribal groups; which left the pOpulation to evolve solely from Spanish colonists and black slaves. Racial prejudices grew strong during the humiliating Haitian occupation of 1822-1844. The return of many elite white families after independence helped assure their position at the top of the social and economic ladder. Even today, a person's skin color is considered indicative of his social status, so many lower class blacks and mulattoes see intermarriage with lighter-skinned people as a means of moving into higher socio-economic strata (Weil 1973: 50-52). Today, whites compose only 16 percent of the population (73% is mulatto and 11% is black). Nevertheless, white influence on the culture and institutions of the country far cmtweigh any other group's. Most whites live in the major urban centers, and Santiago claims to have the purest Spanish Population in the Western Hemisphere (Weil 1973: 53, Kurian 1987: 559) . 33 Mulattoes have gained social status since Trujillo's rise to power, however (Trujillo himself was a mulatto). They have retained almost exclusive control of the nation's armed forces and have formed an extensive middle class. Other ethnic groups, including Middle Easterners, Asians, and Jews who fled Nazi Germany, constitute a small percentage of the country's population. That percentage is growing slightly, however, with the opening of free-trade zones in the 19808. Spanish, the official language of the Dominican Republic, is spoken by about 98 percent of the population. Others speak Haitian Creole, English, Chinese, or Japanese. There are few regional dialects and'therefore no bars to communication. The Concordat of 1954 made Roman Catholicism the state religion. Today, 98 percent of the population claims to be catholic, but the church's influence is relatively weak outside the realm.of spiritual values. Even Church influence on traditional social issues is eroding, as indicated by the country's liberal divorce laws (discussed below) and the state-supported family planning program. Of those Dominicans who are not Roman Catholics, the najority are protestants of various denominations. Voodoo is also practiced in some regions, particularly in rural areas with large Haitian populations. Class_strncturer .Although its middle class is growing, the JXmHnican Republic "still functions as a two-class society consisting of a small elite at the top and a large mass of 34 poor at the bottom (Weil 1973: 55)." The most important variables used to define social class are ancestry, wealth, family background, and to some extent, education and occupation. Class divisions have been historically rigid but are becoming less so, especially as a result of the Trujillo years. The traditional elite, described by Dominicans as 1a clase de primera (the first class), is derived and perpetuated through ancestry and intermarriage. This class is made up of people of European descent, who primarily engage in business, politics, industry, real estate, and in professions such as law, engineering, and medicine. Most live in Santo Domingo and Santiago. .A second layer (the "new rich") emerged during the 19705, having made their money in light industry, banking, tourism, and the military (Black 1986: 56). Economic elites, both old and new, have made enormous gains in wealth and power during the Balaguer years. These groups normally pursue their interests by taking advantage of networks of family and personal ties. They usually have an international outlook, as their wealth tends to come either directly or indirectly from international trade and investment. Their tastes also run to imported goods and cultural trends (Black 1986: 57). Family background is considered more important than wealth as a criterion for membership in the upper class. Many of the newly rich find that wealth alone is insufficient for social acceptance there. Even the Trujillo family, who ruled 35 the nation and controlled its economy for 30 years, was never wholly accepted by the de primers. The middle class as a significant people group has only begun to emerge since Trujillo's dictatorship, constituting some 15-20% of the population. This sector does not usually hold property, but is salaried. As such, it depends on the expansion of commerce and government for its livelihood and is quite insecure in both income and status (Black 1986: 57). The middle class is politically active but often lacks common goals. Members of the middle class have little in common except growing wealth and a desire to emulate the lifestyle of the elite. Since most cannot afford imported goods, however, this group constitutes the domestic market for products of Dominican light industry. These groups are not as bound to tradition as are the elites, though, demonstrating a greater willingness to accept change. The middle class tends to be highly conscious of family background, race, and color, since even here, occupations are often ethnically divided. Lighter-skinned people usually occupy leading roles in government and business, and darker-skinned people fill the rest. An exception to the rule is found in the military, as discussed above (Black 1986: 57-58). The lower class, which comprises 75-80% of the population as a whole, is mainly constituted of darker skinned people, especially those of Haitian descent. Lower class people 36 generally have little education and low prestige jobs (or none at all) and live in abject poverty (Black 1986: 58). The rural poor typically live in tiny houses or mud and thatch or wood on the sugar plantations. About 80% of the rural population is illiterate, and unemployment there sometimes reaches 50%. Many move to urban areas in hopes of finding a better life, but are generally disappointed. Landless peasants tend to travel to the nearest town first, and ultimately to one of the larger cities--mainly Santo Domingo. Shantytowns have sprung up there, comprised of houses made of wood and tin (Black 1986: 58-61). At the bottom of the social and economic ladder are Haitian laborers. About 20,000 enter the country legally each year, but it is estimated that another 60,000 cross the border illegally. They have no civil rights and often work in conditions "bordering on slavery (Black 1986: 60)." The_family is still the most important social unit for all classes. Its structure and functions have been inherited from the country's colonial past. Spanish settlers emphasized values like solidarity, honor, and parental authority. Slaves, on the other hand, were rarely allowed a wedding ceremony and were often used as concubines by their masters. Even today, common-law marriage is the most prevalent type among the Dominican lower class. The number of children born to a Dominican family varies inversely with social class. Whereas upper class families rarely have more than four children, lower class families rarely have fewer than four. Childless unions are considered 37 unacceptable and are easily dissolved, particularly if the union is consensual only. Compadrazgo is an important part of child rearing. Godparents (compadres ) are carefully chosen and presented at an infant's baptism. To be chosen as a compadre is both an honor and a responsibility, and is considered as morally binding as blood kinship. In the majority of cases, blood relatives are chosen as compadres , further strengthening family ties. Lower class families, however, often try to choose godparents who will be able to assist their child financially. Women traditionally derive their social position from their husbands. Upper class women tend to pattern their lifestyle after the "lady of leisure" image of the past, and rarely pursue outside careers. Lower class women, on the other hand, often have to work outside the home just to make ends meet. They may also have to take on some paternal roles if there is no male living in the home. IMPLICATIONS. The vast majority of Dominicans' everyday social reality (cultura popular ) is fraught with difficulties. Most power and nearly all wealth remain in the hands of a few. Furthermore, the nation's strong class structure effectively prohibits much societal mobility (except via the military). Public education is compulsory for the first six years of primary school and is paid for by the government. Standards are low, though, and many rural areas are still without schools altogether. The country also has a chronic shortage 38 of teachers. Consequently, few are able to get an education beyond primary school, and university study is mainly limited to the upper middle and upper classes (Weil 1973: 108) . Bourdieu's concept of the habitus predicts that this sharply divided class structure should be reflected in television audience members' program choices, as well as the textual readings (dominant, negotiated, Oppositional) they make from them. Elite groups specifically, through their control over economic and cultural capital, should be more oriented to dominant program texts (Bourdieu 1984: 77-78, Garnham & Williams 1986: 123-125) . These predictions will be examined in detail in Chapter Four, in an attempt to determine whether elite and subaltern groups' perceptions of the social reality out- lined above are influenced by television. First, however, it is important to understand the structure of the Dominican television system itself. Wm W The first Dominican television station went on the air in 1951 as a means of educating the masses (Kurian . Radio Televisibn Dominicana, as it came to be known, was government-owned and built with equipment man‘l-ufactured in the United States. The first comercial television station followed in 1959. It Was known as Rahintel. Other stations began operations ShOrtly thereafter, as follow: Colorvision (1969), Tele-Inde (1973), Telesistana (1976), Teleantillas (1979). Two more 39 stations were added in the late 19805. All stations broadcast in color, using the NTSC standard (Kurian 1982: 159). Chronic economic problems have led to dependence on foreign loans for equipment purchases (or dependence on equipment gifts as "aid in kind"). Cheaper television equipment has alleviated the situation somewhat in recent years, though (Straubhaar & Viscasillas 1991: 56, Straubhaar 1990: 11). The population owns an estimated 440,000 monochrome and 119,000 color television receivers, as of 1982. Television reaches 35 percent of Dominican households, over half of which are urban ones (Kurian 1982: 159). Furthermore, industry estimates from 1987-1988 show an 80% penetration of Santo Domingo households by television (Straubhaar, personal communication, Octdber 11, 1990). Cable television is a relative newcomer to the Dominican Republic (i.e., late 1980s). The two major systems, Telecable Nacional and Telecable Dominicana, reach about 20,000 middle and upper income homes in Santo Domingo. Other systems operate in Santiago and La Vega. In addition, Mhltipoint Distribution Systems (MDS), sometimes known as "wireless cable," have been operated in Santo Domingo and Santiago. Current industry estimates show only a two or three percent penetration by cable (Straubhaar & Viscasillas 1991: 63, Straubhaar 1990: 15). Geography has played a significant role in the development of Dominican television. The country's proximity to the united States makes it the target of continuous American 4O influence. Radio broadcasting actually began under the U.S. military government in 1924 (Kurian 1982: 159). Having American radio equipment already operating in the Dominican Republic and (at that time) a generally good relationship with the U.S., Trujillo's choice of NTSC standard television equipment comes as little surprise. The numerous mountain ranges which dissect the Dominican Republic have made ordinary broadcasting nearly impossible. National signal coverage was developed using microwave and cable links between originating stations in Santo Domingo and Santiago and relay stations in rural areas (Alisky 1990: 184, Straubhaar 1990: 5-6). The economy has also largely determined the development of the Dominican television system. Since nearly all the economic elites live in the best areas of the country (and the majority live in urban areas) these are where the television stations are located. The reason is obvious: all but one network are advertiser-supported. Advertisers need an audience that can afford their products, and only the elite and middle classes can really do so. Over half the national advertising expeditures in 1977 (the most recent figures available) were on TV ads (Wilkie & Ochoa 1989: 80). Both the Guzman and Balaguer governments purchased advertising time in print and electronic media to announce major policies and programs. The government is also said to own stock in many media companies (Alisky 1990: 179-180). Recent fiscal problems have made these purchases less frequent, however. 41 Much of the lower class, on the other hand, cannot afford television receivers and even the middle class cannot afford cable hookup (Straubhaar & Viscasillas 1990: 275, Straubhaar 1990: 8). Because of this, the Dominican government has placed some television receivers in rural areas to help increase the reaoh of originating stations (Kurian 1982: 301). Organizationi Since Trujillo's death, the Dominican Republic has had a private broadcasting system (one station remains government-owned). All but one network are advertiser- supported, and all are set up as relay systems (see above). Television program origination facilities exist and are used for some domestic production. Types of programs produced include news, public affairs, game shows, variety shows, comedies, and specials. The qmantity of domestic programming can be considerable. Colorvisén, for example, was producing 14 hours' worth per day in 1987 (1.5 news, 4.5 public affairs/women's, 5 variety, 3 music), most of it live (Straubhaar 1990). Since domestic facilities are not s0phisticated, most broadcast training takes place outside the country. Nevertheless, the Universidad Autbnoma de Santo Domingo does offer some training in communication, jourrnalism, and audio/video production. The Instituto Dominicano de Periodismo offers training in journalism.(Alisky 1990: 185). Politico-economic influences are the overriding factors in the organization of the Dominican TV system. Under Trujillo, 42 the media were strictly controlled" The Communications Laws of 1938 and 1949 permitted censorship of any performance deemed critical of the government or "offensive to good customers" (Alisky 1990: 183, Kurian 1982: 298). The Communications Law of 1962, still in force today, repealed censorship rights. It prohibits all "preventive measures, intervention, and administrative control over expression of ideas or communication of facts." Exceptions are allowed for offenses against "the honor of individuals, the social order, or public peace." Journalists are required to be licensed by the Colegio de Periodistas (Alisky 1990: 180, 183). The only time the autonomy of the media have been threatened during the Balaguer years was in 1978. When it became apparent that the president would not be reelected, the mdlitary shut down all broadcasting stations to prevent election results from getting out. Balaguer condemned the action (Kurian 1982: 300). Today's political attitude toward broadcasting has been characterized as "laissez-faire 1x) the extreme (Mahan & Straubhaar n.d.: 5)." All broadcasting comes under the general supervision of the government telecommunications service (UNESCO 1989: 159). The Dominican cable industry has always been essentially unregulated (Straubhaar & Viscasillas 1990: 273, Straubhaar 1990: 15). This may change as a result of the Caribbean Basin Initiative with the U.S. The assistance program specifically requires receiving countries curb copyright r‘ -4. I LV‘ In C}- 43 infringement in the electronic media, especially as it relates to satellite signal piracy (Ebanks 1989: 41). No foreign ownership of broadcast media is permitted, but it is allowed in cable systems (Adisky 1990: 183, Mahan & Straubhaar n.d.: 8). Most domestic owners see the media as investments, often owning both broadcast stations and print media outlets in order to promote their own economic ends: "It. is widely' accepted...that there is :not :really sufficient advertising investment to support six commercial [television] stations in Santo Domingo, but major economic groups now direct their advertising to their own stations and subsidize them from other sources of revenue in order to maintain a reliable access to television... (Straubhaar 1990: The volmme of television advertising has been steadily growing in the last decade. The country's two largest advertising firms are brances of the New York-based Burnett and. Rubicam. agencies (Alisky 1990: 184). Dominant advertisers are rum and tobacco companies (Straubhaar 1990: 6). W The institutional arrangement of the Dominican television system has allowed for a commercial system.based largely on imported programming. A good deal of the imports are of U.S. origin, but a significant portion is also regionally produced. The remainder (basically news and other inexpensive programming) is domestic. This is partly due to the introduction of Japanese "mini-cam" units, which have given smaller television stations a cheaper means of shooting location footage (Straubhaar & Viscasillas 1991: 56, Straubhaar 1990: 7). 44 The first programs on Radio Televisién Dominicana (as it came to be known) were of U.S. and Mexican origin. Since then, a majority of television programming has been foreign (Straubhaar & Viscasillas 1991). News, talk shows, and variety shows are locally produced. Feature films and action-adventure series are imported from the united States. Most cartoons are Japanese. The rest of the program schedules are filled with regionally-produced series (mostly telenovelas ) and telefilms (Straubhaar & Viscasillas 1991). Listings of the most popular domestic and foreign series are contained in Tables 6 and 7 (Appendix B). Elite groups largely determine what is broadcast. They also tend to have more programming choices, since they can afford cable or TVRO dishes. Those households with cable have access to a variety of pirated U.S. domestic television signals, including HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, the MovieChannel, CNN, the Disney Channel, Nickelodeon, and ESPN (Straubhaar & Viscasillas 1991, Straubhaar 1990). These channels are limited primarily to the elite, because they are expensive and require English skills (greater economic and cultural capital) (Bourdieu 1984, Garnham.& Williams 1986: 123-125). Over half the Dominican population is under 25 years of age, making youth-oriented programming a necessity, espe- cially educational programming (Mahan & Straubhaar n.d.: 12). As of yet, there is no domestic news agency. All news comes from the major foreign agencies, as well as the Spanish service, Efe (Alisky 1990: 185, UNESCO 1989: 159). 45 Straubhaar's audience studies indicate that U.S. programs are the favorites of most classes, although the upper and upper middle classes watch them more. Domestic and regional productions (Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela) are preferred by the middle and lower classes. All classes prefer domestic news and interview programs, however (Straubhaar & Viscasillas 1991, Straubhaar 1990). Chapter Four examines these findings in greater detail, focusing on research data collected by Straubhaar and others in the Dominican Republic in March 1988. This study will reanalyze the raw survey data to determine what readings dominant and subaltern groups actually make from television texts, as well as what role message circulation plays in meaning formation. (J; (3 F 1 t. v I'D - f" CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGY European and Latin American cultural studies literature were reviewed in Chapter One. Cultural studies suggest that elite groups attempt to create consensus for their continued domination of society by means of ideology. Among the tools used are the mass media (Althusser 1971) . Consent is granted to the extent that elite ideology accommodates opposing class culture. Subaltern groups' culture is held to be resistant to elite domination, resulting in a struggle to create meaning within the domain of ideology. The site of this struggle is called "popular culture" in Europe, or cultura popular in Latin America (Bennett 1986a, McAnany 1989) . In Latin use, cultura popular refers to subaltern groups' everyday experiences (McAnany 1989: 9). Building on the above concepts, Stuart Hall's preferred reading theory attempts to explain the conflict of interests between dominated and subaltern social groups. Textual readers (in this study, television viewers) who decode a t-elv-ct, accepting elite ideology are said to create dominant/preferred textual readings. Those whose social e3"‘£>eriences cause them to reject some or all of the dominant ideology will produce negotiated or oppositional readings, respectively (White 1983, Fiske 1987a) . 46 —%J lni Iii.- U 'fih HiUo EU 47 Since cultural studies literature is unclear as to the role of middle sector groups, these groups shall be analyzed separately to determine whether they merit a separate category, along the lines of Bourdieu's "dominated fraction" of the dominant class (Bourdieu 1984, Garnham & Williams 1986: 123-125) . European cultural studies are usually concerned with both theoretical and political issues. As Jensen and Rosengren observe, ...a great deal of recent work has explored the extent to which audiences-~drawing on frames of explanation outside the dominant social order-resist constructions of reality presented by mass media. Theoretically, the relative power of different cultural practices in the social production of meaning is at stake. Politically, the question is whether this form of semiotic resistance is evidence of a long-term tendency towards social change, which might imply new political strategies (1990: 213) . Latin American cultural studies, on the other hand, mainly concentrate on audience groups' Mural resistance (although politics may also be a factor). Most writers recommend studying the interaction between popular and elite culture, ineluding the ways in which subaltern groups both redesign and refunctionalize elite culture (Martin Barbero 1987a, Garcia Canclini 1982) . The focus of the present study will be cultural rather than Political. For convenience, British concepts of dominant, he‘Qotiated, and oppositional readings will be used, since no eclilivalent terms are used in the Latin American literature. Textual readings having political undertones will be included when relevant, but this study is more concerned with 48 documenting how different audience groups accept/rej ect media domination W (cf. McAnany 1986: 38) . Based on the review of cultural studies literature (Chapter One), the Dominican political and television system structures, and audience members' everyday experience (Chapter Two). several research questions seem salient. They are listed below in the form of hypotheses, with important quantitative and qualitative components highlighted: W Elite groups, as the dominant social class, should prefer television programs containing dominant texts. They also should make dominant readings when questioned about television and its possible effects on society. This is because elites are more internationalized in their tastes, accepting dominant and world system ideology. Each of these components will be tested separately (see below). mm For the purposes of this study, dominant texts shall be defined as "elite taste" and informational program genres, as well as culturally dissimilar program genres (i.e., those produced in countries outside Latin America or in languages other than Spanish). Genre data gathered from questions 56-80, 42-51, and 81-100 ‘See Appendix E for the survey instrument) will be analyzed cBlantitatively (and, to some extent, qualitatively) for Possible correlations between the following operational measures of elite status and dominant texts: 49 MEASURES OF AND MEASURES OF "ELITE TASTE" ELITE STATUS & CULTURALLY DISSIMILAR TEXTS Higher income "High culture" programming Higher education News/Informational programming Higher social status (to some degree) Occupation (professional) Foreign (i.e., non-regional) programming Foreign travel English-language programming English language ability ,BL__DQminanL_ReadingaL For the purposes of this study, dominant readings about television and society shall be defined as those that do not question the present politico-economic sytem (favoring elite groups) or those that preswme no hanmful effects from television. Data gathered from survey questions (see Appendix E) on the following topics will be analyzed qualitatively and (where possible) quantitatively for possible correlations between the above operational measures of elite status and dominant textual readings. [Expected dominant readings are snunmarized.in brackets]: '*Societal problems (question 24) [no major problems are perceived] "Contact with the United States (questions 170-171) [no Inaj or influence is perceived] *Preferences for domestic/imported items (question 315) [CIEEuonstrated.preference for imported items] *How to better onself within the Dominican Republic (questions 319-322) ["using the system as it is" to get ahead is accepted] *Possible :negative effects of television (questions 104-105) [no negative effects of television are perceived] 50 *Perceived reality of telenovelas (questions 113-114) [telenovelas are preceived as very realistic] *Television's influence on oneself (questions 110-111) [no negative influences of television are perceived] *Television's influence on one's family (questions 256-257) [no negative influences of television are perceived] *Television advertising's influence on purchasing decisions (questions 117-118) [no negative influences of TV advertising are perceived] *Television's influence on the decision to move (questions 265—266) [no influence of television are perceived] *Television's influence on society (questions 107-108) [no negative influences of television are perceived] W (Subaltern. groups should. prefer television. programs containing oppositional texts. They also should make negotiated and oppositional readings when questioned about television and its possible effects on society. As defined above, opposition here is cultural--preferring one's own culture to "elite taste," informational or foreign (non- regional) culture. Each of these components will be tested BeDi‘arately (see below). Ik;__mextna1_£referencesL For the purposes of this study, CfiMDositional texts shall be defined as those more culturally Sindlar to everyday Dominican life (cultura popular ). This includes both domestic and regionally-produced programs in Ekanish. 51 Genre data gathered from questions 56-80, 42-51, and 81-100 (see Appendix E for survey instrument) will be analyzed quantitatively (and, to some extent, qualitatively) for possible correlations between the following operational measures of subaltern status and oppositional texts: MEASURES OF AND MEASURES OF CULTURALLY SUBALTERN STATUS SIMILAR/"OPPOSITIONAL" TEXTS Lower income "Popular" [as opposed to "high Lower education culture"] programming Lower social status Soap operas/telenovelas Occupation (working class) variety shows Less travelled Comedies Less English ability Music programs/music videos Domestic / regional programning Spani sh- language programming WW For the purposes of this study, negotiated or oppositional readings about television and society shall be defined as those that reject some or all aspects of the present politico-economic sytem (favoring elite groups), or those that presume at least some harmful effects from television. Data gathered from survey questions (see Appendix E) on the following topics will be analyzed qualitatively and (where Possible) quantitatively for possible correlations between the above operational measures of subaltern status and negotiated or oppositional textual readings. [Expected negotiated or oppositional readings are summarized in brackets] : *Societal problems (question 24) [sane or many problems are Perceived] 52 *Contact with the united States (questions 170-171) [at least some U.S. influence is perceived] *Preferences for domestic/imported items (question 315) [preference for domestic or domestic and imported items] *How to better onself within the Dominican Republic (questions 319-322) [go around the system or change it in order to get ahead] *Possible :negative effects of 'television (questions 104-105) [at least some negative effects of television are perceived] (*Perceived reality of telenovelas (questions 113-114) [telenovelas are preceived as being not very realistic or unrealistic] *Television's influence on oneself (questions 110-111) [at least some negative influences of television are perceived] ‘*Television's influence on one's family (questions 256-257) [at least some negative influences of television are perceived] 1""I'elevision advertising's influence on purchasing decisions (questions 117-118) [at least some negative influences of TV ad‘fertising are perceived] *Trelevision's influence on the decision to move (questions 2655-266) [at least some influence of television is perceived] ‘"relevision's influence on society (questions 107-108) [at 1Best some negative influences of television are perceived] 'NOTE ON HYPOTHESES 1 AND 2: Although race/ethnicity is an important component of this society's class structure (Black 1986: 57-58, Weil 1973: 50-52) , interviewers could not elicit 53 reliable self-designations of ethnicity from their subjects. Therefore, ethnic group membership is not treated in this study . W Because of the importance of textual discourse/message circulation in the formation of social reality, those viewers with greater social contact should form more negotiated and oppositional readings than those with less contact. They also should make negotiated and oppositional readings when questioned about television and its possible effects on society. Each of these components will be tested separately (see below) . mm For the purposes of this study, oppositional texts shall be defined as those more culturally similar to everyday Dominican life (cultura popular). This includes both domestic and regionally-produced programs in Spanish. (Benre data gathered from questions 56-80, 42-51, and 81-100 (See Appendix E for survey instrument) will be analyzed qllantitatively (and, to some extent, qualitatively) for pos- sible correlations between the following operational measures of social contact and oppositional texts: 54 MEASURES OF AND MEASURES OF CULTURALLY SOCIAL CONTACT SIMILAR/”OPPOSITIONAL" TEXTS Interpersonal contact: "Popular" culture programming individuals Soap operas/telenovelas groups Variety shows Mass media use Comedies Telephone use Music programs/music videos Foreign travel Domestic/regional programming Spanish-language programming Bi__NegntiatedLanQsitional_Readingsi For the purposes of this study, negotiated or oppositional readings about television and society shall be defined as those that reject some or all aspects of the present politico-economic sytem (favoring elite groups), or those that presume at least some harmful effects from television. Data gathered from survey questions (see Appendix E) on the following topics will be analyzed qualitatively and (where possible) quantitatively for possible correlations between the above operational measures of social contact and negotiated or oppositional textual readings. [Expected negotiated or oppositional readings are summarized in brackets]: *Societal problems (question 24) [some or many problems are perceived] *Contact with the united States (questions 170-171) [at least some U.S. influence is perceived] *Preferences for domestic/imported items (question 315) [preference for domestic or domestic and imported items] *How to better onself within the Dominican Republic (questions 319-322) [go around the system or change it in order to get ahead] 55 *Possible :negative effects of 'television (questions 104-105) [at least some negative effects of television are perceived] *Perceived reality of telenovelas (questions 113-114) [telenovelas are preceived as being not very realistic or unrealistic] *Television's influence on oneself (questions 110-111) [at least some negative influences of television are perceived] *Television's influence on one's family (questions 256-257) [at least some negative influences of television are perceived] *Television advertising's influence on purchasing decisions (questions 117-118) [at least some negative influences of TV advertising are perceived] *Television's influence on the decision to move (questions 265-266) [at least some influence of television is perceived] *Television's influence on society (questions 107-108) [at least some negative influences of television are perceived] WW Latin American cultural studies have to date been largely theoretical, and calls for research of particular audience groups have been repeatedly made (Garcia Canclini 1988, Martin Barbero 1988, McAnany 1989). Even within European cultural studies, one finds few studies of particular audience groups, and methods used vary widely between researchers. 56 David Morley (1980), a pioneer in the field, used an open interview approach to study viewers of the BBC's Nationwide discussion program” Morley found that viewers took dominant, negotiated, or oppositional positions on program texts based on their political beliefs and social status. His more recent work (1989) suggests that the television viewing context (e.g., at home or away, alone or in groups, etc.) may also be an important factor to consider. Many studies of television soap operas have also been undertaken (Ang 1985, Katz & Liebes 1986, Liebes 1988, Livingstone 1990). Ien Ang (1985) studied audiences of the U.S. series, Dallas. Hers was an indirect approach, analyzing letters sent to Dutch television when the program aired in 1982. Ang quoted extensively from individual letters, in order to demonstrate how viewers were able to derive pleasure from the text while resisting its overtly commercial nature (Ang 1990: 241-242). Two more highly sophisticated studies of television serials were Katz and Liebes' 1984 study of Dallas in Israel (and the United States) and Livingstone's 1990 study of the British series, coronation Street. The methods employed in these two studies expand on those used by Morley and Ang. Katz and Liebes' and Livingstone's studies also provide an interesting contrast. in. qualitative: and. quantitative methodology. Since the present study combines elements of both styles, these two projects merit deeper consideration. Elihu Katz and Tamar Liebes used a qualitative approach to study 50 groups of Dallas viewers. Each group consisted of 57 three couples (one couple chosen by the interviewers could invite two more of their own choosing). Forty groups were assembled in Israel and 10 more in the United States. The overall sample consisted of ten groups each of Israeli Arabs, recent Russian immigrants to Israel, first- and second- generation Moroccan Jews, kibbutz members, and second- generation Americans living in Los Angeles (Katz & Liebes 1986: 188). Whereas Ang's study consisted of letters spanning several months, Katz and Liebes' groups all viewed one episode from the program. A one-hour discussion followed the episode, using an open interview approach (similar to Morley's) and a questionnaire about their group discussion. An initial focus of the research was the "social distance“ viewers took from the program. Like Ang, Katz and Liebes used extensive quo- tation from group discussions to discover how various groups made sense of the television text. The researchers found that Arabs and Moroccan Jews tended to speak referentially, relating the program to their own life. Russian immigrants spoke more analytically about the construction of the plot. Americans and kibbutz members spoke both analytically and referentially. .A second finding was a variance in the form of referential statements: Russians were more abstract than other groups (Katz & Liebes 1986: 195-196). Liebes (1988) further analyzed the same discussions to determine how the above groups would tell a friend who had not seen this episode of Dallas what had happened. She 58 found that cultural differences are important determinants of how audience members understand plot development. Arab and Moroccan Jews tended to think linearly, retelling the story in a beginning-mdddle-end sequence. Russian immigrants were primarily interested in recurrent themes within the program text, particularly what they saw as ideological undertones. American viewers and kibbutzniks used a segmented approach, sampling the plot in no particular sequence. These latter groups were less concerned with the perceived reality of the story than the psyche of the characters themselves (Liebes 1988: 289-290). Sandra Livingstone (1990) used a quantitative approach to analyze Cbronation Street viewers. Livingstone was inter- ested in the ways audience members interpret the plots. Her sample consisted of 66 regular viewers (42 women, 24 men), obtained through Oxford University and in response to an advertisement in Soap magazine. Viewer responses were elicited from a three-part questionnaire. The first two parts were demographic and psychographic, respectively. The third part asked viewers to interpret the actions and motivations of the story's four main characters. Livingstone divided the respondents into four cluster groups: those she calls cynics (opposing a romance central to the plot), negotiated cynics, romantics (favoring the romance), and negotiated romantics. Categorizing audience responses as dominant, negotiated, or oppositional proved a 59 bit troublesome, however. Livingstone offers an interesting interpretation of her results: The concept of a preferred reading confounds the idea of a majority reading by the audience with the idea of an ideologically normative reading. The narrative studied here suggests that a text may contain two normative, although opposed, readings, or even that the majority...may make an interpretation that is an alternative to the preferred reading....it seems that a number of normative alternatives may be encoded in a text, so that different viewers may select different readings and yet remain within a dominant framework (Livingstone 1990: 83). SUMMARY. Adl the above studies focused on one particular program text (Nationwide, Dallas, or Carnation Street , respectively). All used relatively small sample sizes, and (with the possible exception of Morley) none were representative samples. This is not especially problematic, however, since the purpose of each was to determine how specific audience groups make textual readings, rather than generalizability. One major difference between the studies is the method of analysis. Morley, Katz & Liebes, and Ang all used qualitative research methods. Morley, Katz, and Liebes relied on open interviews to elicit textual readings, which they then recorded. Ang performed content analyses of unprompted audience responses (letters). Livingstone used a quantitative research method, with a scaled-response survey instrument. These data were then analyzed with the ANOVA statistic to measure statistical significance between groups. A second difference between the studies is that Katz and Liebes' study used readings from one particular episode of a 60 program (although subjects were regular viewers of the series), whereas the other studies all used readings made over a period of time. W W The present study combines elements of historic/ethnographic research (qualitative data) with survey research (both qualitative and quantitative data). Due to time and financial constraints, it is a secondary analysis of available data. Socio-cultural information was gathered via library research on the Dominican Republic. Audience responses were collected from open-ended and scaled survey questions from interviews conducted by Joseph Straubhaar and Dominican graduate students in Santo Domingo from January-March 1988 (see Appendix E, survey instrument, for further information). The survey consisted of a sample of 120 residents, aged 15 or older. The sample was an anthropological snowball sample, beginning with informants known to the interviewers and moving on to others not originally known. Care was taken to reach a set of quota targets from an age-sex-occupation matrix, based on 1980 census data. Cable households were oversampled slightly, to ensure enough respondents to permit subgroup analysis and intergroup comparison (Straubhaar 1990). Since education was not controlled for, however, the university-educated were grossly overrepresented (48% of sample vs. 4% of population in 1970) and those with primary schooling or less were 61 grossly underrepresented (24% of sample vs. 73% of population in 1970) (Wilkie & Ochoa 1989: 175). Like the studies reviewed above, the present study uses a rather small, unrepresen- tative sample. However, this survey instrument used Open-ended questions with individual subjects, rather than an open (group) interview approach or viewer letters. Its method of reporting qualitative results will be similar to those used by Ang, Katz, and Liebes, using extensive quotation of representative responses. Quantitative data will also be used, as derived from scaled-response questions similar to those in Livingstone's study. Statistical significance of between-group differences will be tested using the chi-square statistic instead of an ANOVA, though. Unlike the above studies, the present work will cover all television program genres on the air during the survey period, as well as questions about television itself. The program categories studied were news, discussion, documentaries, sports, music/music videos, morning shows, noon shows, evening shows, Sunday variety shows, comedies, telenovelas (serials), series, movies, children's programs, and cartoons. Each category is subdivided among domestic, regional, and non-regional productions. News, discussion programs, documentaries, foreign (i.e., non-regional) programs, and. programs in English. are considered to be dominant texts. .All other programs listed above are considered to be oppositional texts (see Hypotheses 1-3, above). 62 Questions used for dominant, negotiated, and oppositional textual readings (and sample responses) have already been outlined in Hypotheses 1-3 above. Categories_flsedL Quantitative and qualitative data from the original 120 surveys have been analyzed by each of the measures of class status, social contact, textual preference, and textual readings delineated in Hypotheses 1-3. Several of these measures had to be operationalized to facilitate study, so a brief review of the operational definitions is in order. Labels used to refer to these categories (in Chapters Four and Five) will be placed in brackets [1. Because income is so highly skewed in the Dominican Republic (and due partly to oversampling of cable households by the original researchers), the eight initial categories used in question 267 have been combined into groupings: those who earn less than 350 pesos monthly [subaltern], those who earn between 350-700 [middle sector], and those who earn 700 or more [dominant/elite]. Education (question 249) has been similarly grouped into three categories: primary school or less [subaltern], secondary or technical school [middle sector], and university study or higher [dominant/elite]. Although few Dominicans actually make it to university-level study (Weil 1973: 108), the oversample permits a roughly equal group of university- educated persons. Occupations as reported on the surveys (question 7) are varied and no individual category (with the exception of students and possibly professionals) is large enough to 63 permit analysis alone. Therefore, all reported occupations have been re-grouped into four main categories. Their labels are imprecise, to be sure, but are intended to be as descriptive as possible. These are: "students," which includes both secondary school and university students [con- sidered dominant/elite for the purposes of this study]: "blue collar," those who work odd-jobs, small vendors, day laborers, industrial workers, domestics, artesans, housewives, and others whose job requires little formal training, as well as the unemployed (1 respondent) [all subaltern]; "business/ government," including secretarial and office workers, large and small business owners, civil service occupations, and other public employees [all middle sector],- and "professional," including the professions (lawyer, doctor, etc.), college professors, and large land- owners [dominant/elite] . Socio-economic status (SES) has been operationalized by correlating the following information: a respondent's primary occupation (question 7), his/her own assessment of personal class status (question 23), education (question 249), number of possessions (a count from questions 268-285), the number of lights in the house (as an indication of number of rooms) (question 298), and whether or not the respondent has a maid (question 306). This correlation has a .83 reliability with a standardized alpha. Categories used are: very poor/poor [subaltern], working class/lower middle Class/ middle class [middle sector], and upper middle class/upper class [dominant / elite] . 64 English ability has been derived from the question, "Can you speak English?" (question 185). Those who answered “no" have been classified in the tables as having "none" [subaltern]. Unfortunately, the number of responses of anything other than "no" was sufficiently small that all other groups have been combined as "some to fluent" [dominant/elite] to permit comparison. Social contact has been derived from question 26, asking about audience members' information sources. First, each of the 17 sources was grouped into five categories: print media (newspaper, magazines, books), radio, television, individual persons (relatives, colleagues, friends, neighbors, other persons), and groups of persons (trade unions, political parties, churches, community groups, public officials, and other groups). Then a count was made of how many of the five information sources a respondent had "contact" with (1 to 5). Upon analysis, the data fell neatly into three major categories: “1 to 2" sources (usually mass media) [sub- altern], "3" sources (usually mass media plus an individual or group) [also subaltern], and "4 to 5" sources (always the mass media plus an individual and/or group) [dominant/elite]. Telephone use was derived from questions 156 and 157. Analysis showed that the majority of persons used the phone less than five times a week, so the data was grouped according to a use rate of "0-5 thmes weekly" [subaltern] or "6 or more times weekly" [dominant/elite]. Foreign travel was problematic in that only 29 of 120 persons surveyed had ever been outside the Dominican 65 Republic. In order to increase the response rate of foreign travellers (to penmit analysis by region), all responses were coded separately. That is, one traveller could be coded in anywhere from one country/region to as many as all seven. Since these categories are non-exclusive these tables have not been analyzed with the chi-square goodness of fit test. They are presented in a format similar to a cross-tabulation, however, for convenience. The groupings used were "none" for those who have never travelled. outside the country [subaltern], "US/PR” for those who have visited the United States or Puerto Rico (linked because of the heavy U.S. influence in Puerto Rico), "Caribbean/Latin America" for regional travel (excluding Puerto Rico), and "Europe/Asia/Middle East" for all other destinations listed (no one reported having visited Africa or Australia) [all foreign travel is considered to be dominant/elite]. Quantitative data has been presented in tabular format. Data in mutually exclusive categories has been cross- tabulated (non-exclusive tables include the "foreign travel" tables mentioned above, along with Tables 1 and 3-7 in Appendices A and B). Tables 1 and 3-7 use multiple responses from individual audience members to questions 24, 315, 42-51, and 81-100, respectively. Responses to each question are presented as percentages of audience members within each subgoup (Table 6 has been truncated to only the top five responses per program type, however). Since subjects gave more than one answer, none of these tables' percentages total 100. 66 Cross-tabulated data appears in tables 2 and 8-37 in Appendices A, C, and D. As with the audience groupings themselves, scale response data have been categorized to permit more meaningul analysis with the relatively small sample obtained (see below). Tables 8-30 present subject preferences for particular types of programming (Questions 56-80), from "Like it a lot" to "Don't like it." Answers to these questions have been operationalized as follow: "Like it a lot" and "Like it quite well" are classified as "acceptance" of the textual message. Responses of "Like it some“ are considered negotiated readings (”negotiation"). Responses of “Don't like it much" and "Don't like it " are classified as "rejection" of the textual message. Depending on the program genre, acceptance be considered either a dominant textual reading (as with News in English) or an oppositional one (as with Dominican music). Rejection of a textual message may also be a dominant or oppositional reading, depending on the genre. "Don't know" answers have been included in the tables for reference. Answers to questions about television and its effects (107, 110, 113, 117, 170, 256, 265) have been operationalized this way: “A lot" and "Quite a bit“ have been categorized as "A lot." "Very" and "Quite" appear as "Very". "Some" and "Not very much" have been combined as "Some". Similarly, "Sort of“ and "Not very" appear as "Sort of" in the tables. "No" answers appear as either “No“ or "None" depending on the table, and "Don't know" responses are listed unchanged. 67 Qualitative responses to questions 105, 108, 111, 114, 118, 171, 257, 266, and 319-322 have been copied from the survey responses. Wherever possible, they have been copied verbatim, as in the studies highlighted above. When an exact translation was impossible or unclear, responses have been paraphrased slightly while retaining the sense of the original Spanish answer. Respresentative readings from the above questions will be sampled below and combined with quantitative data from other questions in an effort to understand the readings made from Dominican television. Unfortunately, only one question (113-114) deals directly with a television text ("Do you think telenovelas are realistc?"), so some inference is necessary. Minn During the data collection process, it became evident that the above measures of social contact (information sources, telephone use, and foreign travel) were not yielding the results expected by Hypothesis 3. In that hypothesis, it was postulated that those with greater social contact should prefer culturally similar texts and give negotiated or oppositional readings when questioned about television and its possible effects on society. Operationalized as above, the measures of social contact showed the opposite result. Further consideration lead the researcher to conclude that these measures (so operationally defined) were in fact measures of elite status. Those with greater exposure to media sources were likely those who had the economic and 68 cultural capital to afford them. Elites also tended to be the only persons who could afford or have other access to telephones or travel outside the country (Bourdieu 1984). It was originally intended that Hypothesis 3 should include a measure of domestic travel to include subaltern groups, but no measure was available on the instrument used. Since the available data actually provide another measure of elite status (rather than greater social contact), it is necessary to modify Hypothesis 3 at this point. It has been postulated (in Hypothesis 1) that elite groups should actually prefer culturally dissimilar texts, "elite taste" texts, and informational program genres. They also are hypothesized to make dominant readings when questioned about television and its possible effects on society. Therefore, the social contact measures (hereinafter referred to as "access to information sources") used in this study shall now be considered a measure of preference for dominant texts and dominant textual readings. Formally stated, those viewers with greater access to information sources (elites) should prefer television programs containing "elite taste" and informational program genres, as well as culturally dissimilar program genres (i.e., those produced in countries outside Latin America or in languages other than Spanish). They also should make dominant readings about television and society (by not questioning the present politico-economic system, skewed in their favor). 69 SUMMARY. Both qualitative and quantitative measures of television textual preferences and opinions on television have been analyzed with the above categorizations in mind. It has been hypothesized that elite groups and those viewers having greater access to information sources should prefer "elite taste,“ informational, and non-regional program genres. They also should make textual readings that do not question the elite-biased Dominican social system or readings that presume no harmful effects from television. Simdlarly, subaltern groups are expected to prefer program genres more culturally similar to their everyday life (cultura popular). Moreover, these groups should make tex- tual readings that question some or all aspects of the present system or presume at least some harmful effects from television. Important findings of both qualitative and quantitative analyses are the subject of the next chapter. CHAPTER POUR: STUDY OF THE DOMINICAN TELEVISION AUDIENCE Having reviewed the literature on cultural studies, the contextual background of Dominican television viewers, and the methods used in the present study (Chapters One-Three), the focus of this chapter shall be the textual readings actually made by interview subjects. Readings shall be divided between dominant, negotiated, and oppositional. Subject groups shall be divided between dominant and subaltern. Since cultural studies literature is unclear as to the role of middle sector groups, these groups shall be analyzed separately to determine whether they merit a separate category, along the lines of Bourdieu's "dominated fraction" of the dominant class (Bourdieu 1984, Garnham & Williams 1986: 123-125) (see also Chapter Five). Wanton As was highlighted in Chapter Two, the Dominican Republic continues to face serious economic and political problems: land distribution, inflation, balance-of-trade, and a top-heavy government bureaucracy, to name but a few. A full 85% of audience members surveyed reported that they received their information on the country's greatest problems from 70 71 television (Questions 24-31). A.dominant textual reading, as defined.by Gramsci and others, would indicate that society is fine as it is and needs no change. The first issue studied, therefore, will be how television affects subjects' views on their own social reality. Societal_£rcblemsi Table 1 lists eleven major problems audience members perceive as affecting society. The data have been further analyzed according to Hypotheses 1-3. The first and third hypotheses hold that dominant groups and those with greater access to information sources should make dominant readings when questioned about society. That is, they should uphold the present politco-economic system (skewed in their favor). The second hypothesis holds that subaltern groups should reject some or all aspects of the present societal system. .All groups analyzed agree that the economy and inflation are the nation's two gravest problems. Inter-group analysis indicates some variance on other social problems, however. Housing and land distribution is seen as less problematic by dominant groups, as measured by income (Table 1A) and occupation (Table 18). Housing and land distribution also seemed less problematic to middle income groups, and those with access to fewer information. sources (subaltern groups--Table 1F). Nutrition appears less prdblematic to some dominant groups, (as measured by information sources) (Table 1F). It also appears to be less of a problem to some subaltern groups (as measured by travel) (Tables 1H) , however. 72 Unemployment is not perceived as a major problem by dominant income and SES groups, middle SES groups, and subaltern travel groups (Tables 1A, 1D, and 1H). Political problems seem less important to subaltern groups, as measured by SES, English ability, and information sources (Tables 1D, 1E, 1H). Moral problems do not appear as significant to the middle SES groups (Table 1D). W The data analyzed above basically support hypothesized findings: dominant groups appear to make more dominant readings of textual messages, as measured by income, occupation, and SES (to some degree). These groups seemed to see society as having fewer/less grave ills than other groups. Exceptions are subaltern groups' (as measured by travel) dominant views on nutrition and unemployment and political problems (as measured by SES, English ability, and information sources). In most instances, middle sector reSponses followed those of subaltern groups. Exceptions include their views on housing/land distribution (as measured by income), unemployment (as measured by education and SES), and nutrition (as measured by education). These opinions seemed more imitative of dominant classes. No open-ended responses were recorded for this question, so no qualitative textual analysis is possible. W A second general opinion question analyzed asks whether contact with relatives or friends in the United States affects one's perceptions of life in the Dominican Republic (Questions 73 170-171). Since 87% of those surveyed report having such contact, analysis of the question seems a valid way to test hypothesized findings that dominant groups should see nothing wrong with Dominican society but subaltern groups should see the U.S. as better. Statistical results are listed in Appendix A. Important findings are listed below, along with samples of qualitative answers to question 171. Quantitative analysis shows that most respondents in every category say their U.S. contact does not affect their views of society. Still, some groups seem to be affected to a greater degree than others. Both subaltern (as measured by travel) and.middle sector (as measured by education [.05] and occupation [business and government]) groups report greater U.S. influence on their thinking (Tables 2H, 2B, and 2C). Dominant readings of the question, "Does your contact with friends or relatives in the United States influence your view of life here?" have been operationally defined as those that say there is nothing wrong with life in the Dominican Republic. Oppositional readings, then, are those that indicate a preference for the American way of life, thereby rejecting life in the Dominican Republic. Following are representative samples of dominant, negotiated, and oppositional readings (taken from responses to open-ended questions), along with common characteristics of those who sake them. DOMINANT READINGS (i.e., life here is fine) *"Helps me keep up on what's in style/fashion." [5 respondents] Given equally by dominant and subaltern groups, 74 as measured by information sources and English ability. About half are members of dominant groups, as measured by telephone use. *"I'm not interested in living in another country as long as I'm doing all right here." [2 respondents] Given equally by members of dominant (as measured by English ability), subaltern (as measured by travel), and middle sector (as measured.by income and SES) groups. *"They tell me how the dollar is doing." [1 respondent] Given by a member of a dominant group, as measured by education, SES, and telephone use. Summary; (Of those responses sampled above, dominant readings were made roughly equally by members of dominant and subaltern groups, when measured by English ability and information sources. Other measures also yielded mixed results. Those making dominant readings tended not only to be heavy telephone users (elites), but also to have had no foreign travel (subaltern). Middle income and SES group members also made the second reading ("...not interested in living in another country..."), but it is unclear from this question whether these subjects are imitating elite or subaltern group responses. NEGOTIATED READINGS (i.e., life here is fine, but it's good there, too) 1""I'd like to go there." [6 respondents] Given by subaltern groups, as measured by income, information sources, telephone use, and travel. 75 *"I feel the urge to go the U.S., but I'm thinking of my children." [2 respondents] Given by subaltern groups, as measured by income, education, occupation [domestics], and information sources. *"They have better technology/appliances there." [2 respondents] Given by dominant groups, as measured by education, information sources, telephone use, and travel [US, PR, Latin America, Europe]. *"They earn a lot of money there in a short time, although they have to work more." [1 respondent] Given by a dominant group member, as measured by income, SES, telephone use. *"My friend there [U.S.] and I talk and compare. It's better here, but hard." [1 respondent] Given by a member of subaltern groups, as measured by income, education, English ability, information sources, telephone use, and travel. *"From an economic standpoint, it doesn't influence me, because those who work will succeed wherever they are." [l respondent] Given by a middle income and SES group member. *"I'd like to be with my loved ones who live there." [1 respondent] Given by a member of subaltern groups, as measured by income, information sources, telephone use, and travel. 5mm. Of those responses sampled above, negotiated readings were made mainly by members of subaltern groups, when measured by information sources, income, telephone use, and travel. Few responses were obtained from dominant groups . 76 OPPOSITIONAL READINGS (i.e., life is better in the U.S.) *"Life is better there." [3 (as revised) respondents] Given by members of subaltern groups, as measured by education and information sources. "Comparing my friends' lifestyle with ours shows the underdevelopment of this country." [1 respondent] Given by an elite, as measured by income, education, occupation [professional], SES, telephone use, and travel [US, Caribbean, Latin America, Israel]. Summary. Of those responses sampled above, oppositional readings were made mainly by members of subaltern groups, when measured by education and information sources. Few responses were obtained from dominant groups . W dominant readings (those who said that there is nothing wrong with life in the Dominican Republic) tended to be made by members of all groups (dominant, subaltern, middle sector). This finding tends to both suppport and disconfirm hypothesized results. Negotiated and oppositional readings (those indicating a preference for the American way of life, thereby rejecting life in the Dominican Republic) came mainly from subaltern groups, however, as was expected from the hypotheses. W A third general Opinion question proceeds from the previous two. Question 315 asked whether audience members preferred domestic or imported personal items. Because 85% of those interviewed get at least some of their information from television (with many foreign images), and 87% have other contact with the 4 Eu. 77 United States, it might be expected that imports would be the favorite. In actuality, a slight majority does prefer imports (46% versus 40% domestic). Another 9% say they like both. Dominant groups demonstrate a significantly lower preference for Dominican items, as measured by income and travel (Tables 3A, 3H) , however. When asked where imported goods should come from, the choice is clear: the United States. Every group prefers products made in the USA roughly equally well (Table 3). When another country of origin is listed, however, some differences do appear. Puerto Rican items are preferred by dominant (English ability, travel) and middle sector (income, SES) groups. European items are also preferred by dominant (income, education, occupation [professional], SES, English ability, travel) and middle sector (income, occupation [business and government]) groups. 5mm These findings are as expected: elites tend to prefer foreign items more. One would also expect middle sector groups to imitate the elites in this area whenever they can (Black 1986: 57-58) , and this is the case. W A final set of general opinion questions (319-322) asks subjects what, in their opinion, is the best way to get ahead in Dominican society. Respondents could also make gender-specific answers if they so chose. The data here is all qualitative, so no tables are given. A dominant response to this question is considered to be one that upholds the current social system, unchanged. An Oppositional reading is considered to be one that calls for rn (7 .cr (,J P”. 78 changing the social system. Although most audience members gave dominant responses, all were sampled. Gender-specific responses are so labeled. DOMINANT READINGS (i.e., work within the existing system to better yourself) *"Work" [16 respondents] Given equally by subaltern and middle sector groups, as measured by income and education. Also given by subaltern (English ability, travel), middle sector (SES) groups. ”Study/education." [7 respondents] Given by members of subaltern groups, as measured by information sources and travel. Given equally by members of subaltern and middle sector groups, as measured by income. *"Study and work." [6 respondents] Given by members of subaltern groups, as measured by income, telephone use, and travel. Given by members of dominant groups, as measured by English ability. Also given by middle SES groups. ”Working with good wages/good job. " [6 respondents] Given by members of subaltern groups, as measured by income, English ability, information sources, telephone use, and travel. ”Going into business for yourself." [3 respondents] Given by members of dominant groups, as measured by education, occupation [professional], SES, and information sources. Also given by member of subaltern groups, as measured by travel. *"Having a job and knowing how to save." [2 respondents] Given equally by members of subaltern groups (as measured by 79 information sources and telephone use), dominant groups (as measured by English ability), and by middle sector groups (as measured by income and SES) . *"Having a job, money, and a car." [2 respondents] Given equally by members of subaltern groups (as measured by income, telephone use, and travel) and by dominant groups (as measured by English ability). (Women) "Helping my smallest children." [1 respondent] Given by a member of subaltern groups, as measured by education, occupation [housewife], English ability, and information sources. W Of those responses sampled above, dominant readings were made more frequently by members of subaltern groups, as measured by travel, income, and telephone use. They were also usually made by members of middle SES groups. Dominant readings were created about equally by members of dominant and subaltern groups, as measured by English ability and education. NEGOTIATED READINGS (i.e., work within the system or go around it) *"Working, in spite of the difficulties.“ [1 respondent] Given by an elite, as measured by income, education, occupation [professional], SES, travel [US, PR, Caribbean]. *"Working here or going abroad. ” [l respondent] Given by a manber of subaltern groups, as measured by income, education, English ability, information sources, telephone use, and travel . 80 Summary. Based on only two negotiated readings, it is unclear whether dominant, middle sector, or subaltern groups make them more (or make them equally). OPPOSITIONAL READINGS (i.e., change the system) *"Work for a better society." [2 respondents] Given by members of middle sector groups, as measured by SES and occupation [business and government] . *“It's hard to better your life." [1 respondent] Given by an elite, as measured by income, education, occupation [professional], SES, telephone use, and travel. *"Lowering the cost of living, raising income." [1 respondent] Given by a member of subaltern groups, as measured by education, English ability, telephone use, and travel. *"Overhaul the economy." [1 respondent] Given by a member of the middle income and SES groups. *"Work abroad.“ [1 respondent] Given by a member of subaltern groups, as measured by occupation [blue collar], information sources, telephone use, and travel. *(Women) "Gaining equality." [l respondent] Given by an elite, as measured by education, SES, occupation [professional], and telephone use. Summary. Oppositional responses, though few, tended to be given by members of middle income groups. They also were given about equally by dominant groups (as measured by education, SES, and telephone use) and subaltern groups (as measured by telephone use and travel). 8.1. QIeIalli dominant readings (those that uphold the current social system, unchanged) were made about equally by members of subaltern groups, and dominant groups. This finding would tend both to uphold and disconfirm the hypotheses, which state that elite groups should make dominant readings. Negotiated and oppositional readings (those that call for changing some or all aspects of the social system) are less certain, since so few were given. Nevertheless, a tentative conclusion is that negotiated and oppositional readings are also given about equally by dominant and subaltern groups. Again, this finding would tend both to uphold and disconfirm the hypotheses, which state that subaltern groups should make more negotiated and oppositional readings. Perhaps, as Livingstone (1990) found, this particular text may not easily fit the dominant/negotiated/oppositional framework of British cultural studies. We: This study hopes to discover the meanings Dominican audience members create from television's textual potential. Specifically, it is postulated that elite groups and those with greater access to information sources will prefer "elite taste,“ informational, and culturally dissimilar (non- regionally produced and foreign language) texts. Meanwhile, subaltern groups should prefer culturally similar domestic and regional program genres. To test these hypotheses, it is necessary to investigate what texts audience members made use 82 of (watched and preferred) and what meanings they created from them (dominant, negotiated, oppositional). Data about Dominican audience preferences for various types of television genres are contained in Appendices B and C. This information not only provides valuable insight into the types of textual messages present at the time of the survey, but it also indicates which types of programs were actually watched.by audience members. Reasons_for_yiewingl .A first question (143) asks subjects why they watch television. Their top seven answers appear in Table 3 (as revised). Inter-group analysis reveals several differences. Dominant groups report using television for information more than subaltern groups by most measures outlined in Table 3 (as revised). Dominant groups also prefer its educational function, as measured by English ability and information sources (Tables 4E, 4F). As expected, dominant groups rate entertainment lower than do other groups, as measured by income and occupation [professional] (Tables 4A, 4C). Subaltern groups (as measured by occupation [blue collar]) say they watch television more to relax than do other groups (Table 4C). By some measures, both subaltern (information sources) and middle sector (occupation [business and government]) groups say they watch television for culture :more than do other groups (Tables 4F, 4C). Likewise, bOth dominant (occupation [professional], SES) and subaltern (information sources) group members cite 83 conformity as a reason to watch more frequently, by some measures (Tables 4C, 4D, 4F). Summam Dominant groups report watching television more for information and education than for entertainment, whereas subaltern groups reporting watching more to relax (all as expected). This finding is probably a function of occupation, since up-to-the minute information is more vital to white collar workers. Similarly, blue collar workers tend to do more physical work, and television provides an inex- pensive way to relax at the end of a hard day. Subaltern groups report watching television for culture, however, which is not as expected (elites are postulated to use cultural texts more than subaltern groups). W It has been hypothesized that elite groups should prefer dominant program texts, operationally defined as "elite taste," informational, non-regionally produced, and foreign language program genres. Subaltern groups are postulated to prefer program texts more culturally similar to their everyday life, operationally defined as domestic and regional program genres. In order to test these hypotheses, data have been compiled from questions asking which types of shows one usually watches (questions 42-51), favorite domestic (questions 81-90) and foreign (questions 91-100) programs, and a preference scale of 23 program genres on the air in March, 1988 (questions 56-80). Analyses of pertinent findings appear below (complete data tables are located in Appendices B and C, Tables 5-30) . One should bear in mind that Tables 84 5-7 (Appendix B) were constructed from open-ended questions in which viewers could cite more than one preference, whereas Tables 8-30 (Appendix C) are based on questions using a like/dislike scale. In order to simplify the order of presentation, program types will be examined in the order presented in Table 5. Closed-ended quantitative data from Tables 8-30 will be compared with open-ended data from Tables 5-7. All will be analyzed for between- group differences. NEWS AND INFORMATIONAL PROGRAMS are the first group. Dominican news is accepted by all groupings examined (Table 8) . Only subaltern groups (as measured by travel) show slightly greater acceptance. Preferences for various networks' newscasts do exist, however, and are ennumerated in Table 6. News in English, conversely, is generally rejected by all groups (Table 9). However, dominant groups (as measured by English ability [.01], SES [.05] , and travel) show slightly greater acceptance of news in English than do other groups. Discussion programs (Table 10) seem moderately popular with all groups examined, with "Fourth Estate" and "Hot Seat" being the most popular (see also Table 6) . However, dominant groups (as measured by income [.001], telephone use [.05], education, occupation [professional], and information sources) seem to prefer them more. Documentaries are a genre that is surprisingly popular in the Dominican Republic, even though all'reported favorites are foreign-made (Tables 11, 7) . They are accepted more by 85 elite (as measured by income, education, SES, and information sources), and.middle income groups. Summary; News and informational programs overall tend to be accepted more by dominant groups, as postulated in Hypothesis 1. Documentaries are also accepted.more by middle income groups, apparently as a means of imitating elite taste. Subaltern groups accept Dominican news more, which may both disconfirm Hypothesis 1 (which says that elites should prefer news) and yet support Hypothesis 2 (which says that subaltern groups should prefer domestic programming). SPORTS programs are quite popular, depending on their country of origin. Favorite types and countries of origin are listed in Tables 6 and 7. National sports programs are accepted more by subaltern groups (as measured by education, SES, and travel) and by those from middle education sectors (Table 128. 12D, 12H). Sports from the United States are also accepted more by subaltern groups (as measured by telephone use [.01], SES [.05] and travel) (Tables 13G, 13D, 13C, 13H, respectively). Likewise, subaltern groups accept world sports more (as measured.by SES and travel (Tables 14D, 14C, 14H). Summaryl National sports seem to be preferred by subaltern groups, as expected. On the other hand, foreign sports are also preferred by subaltern groups, contrary to hypothesized expectations (foreign programs were thought to be preferred by domi- nant groups). It is possible that sports preference is not class-specific, however. Sports preference may well be genre-specific, regardless of place of origin. Another 86 factor, such as gender may also better explain which persons accept/reject sports programs. MUSIC/MUSIC VIDEO PROGRAMS are popular, but are not among the most pOpular programs reported in Table 5. Additionally, the degree of audience acceptance varies between styles of music (see Tables 6 and 7). Dominican music (excluding merengue) is accepted by dominant (SES), subaltern (education and information sources), and middle sector (income) groups (Tables 15 ArD, F). Local merengue, while preferred by all groups, is accepted more by subaltern groups (as measured.by travel) (Table 16H). Latin music is accepted most by elites (as measured by education, occupation [student], and travel [US, PR]) and middle occupation [business and government] groups (Tables 17B, 17C, 17H). Rock.mmsic is mainly rejected, but subaltern groups (telephone use) accept it slightly more (Table 18G). summary; National music preference is partly as expected, since all groups prefer it. Merengue is accepted more by subaltern groups, as hypothesized. Preferences for Latin and rock do not match those groups predicted by Hypotheses l, 2, and 3 (as revised). Latin music (regional) is preferred.more by elite groups and rock music (foreign) is preferred.more by subaltern groups, exactly the reverse of expectations. As with sports programs (above), perhaps music preference is better predicted by some division other than class (like age or gender). 87 MORNING, NOON, AND SUNDAY (VARIETY) SHOWS are the next category to be examined. Morning shows are only modestly accepted.by any group analyzed. Only elites (as measured.by information sources) showed any preference for them (Table 19F), perhaps because they have more time to watch television in the morning. Noon shows, on the other hand, are accepted most by subaltern groups (as measured by education [.05], SES, and travel) and dominant groups (occupation [student]) (Tables 203, 20C, 20D, 20F). Favorite among all groups were "Good Morning” and "Today" [a Dominican show] (see Table 6) . Sunday variety shows, particularly "The Fat Man," are accepted by all groups, but both dominant (as measured by travel) and subaltern (English ability) groups show greater acceptance by some measures (Tables 21H, 21E) . Other favorite programs are ennumerated in Table 6. W Since these domestic programs are accepted fairly equally by all groups (with a slight elite preference for morning programs) depending on the measure used, it is unclear whether this study's hypotheses are confirmed or disconfirmed. That is, it is not clear whether subaltern groups actually prefer these programs more than do elites. Again, another measure may prove more reliable. COMEDIES, especially Mexican and domestic, are popular with all groups (see Tables 7 and 6, respectively). Dominican comedies, especially "With Cuquin" and "Luisito and.Antony," are accepted more by subaltern groups, as measured by income, education, SES, English ability, and travel (Table 22B, 22C, 88 22E, 22H). Other favorite domestic comedies are listed in Table 6. Mexican comedies, particularly "Chavo," are quite popular with Dominican audiences (see Table 7). Those groups showing greatest acceptance are subaltern groups (as measured by English ability [.01], income, education, telephone use, and travel) and middle SES groups [.05] (Tables 23F, 23A, 233, 23G, 23H, 23D, respectively). Summary; Domestic and regional comedies are, therefore, preferred most by those groups expected to prefer them: the subaltern classes. In this instance, middle SES groups appear to follow subaltern taste rather than elite tastes. TELENOVELAS are not produced in the Dominican Republic (they are produced regionally), although they are watched by at least a third of the audience there (see Table 7). All audience groups surveyed report rejecting these serials, and little between-group difference can be found. Only elites (as measured by information sources) appear to reject them more strongly than do other groups (Table 24F). On the other hand, those citing strongest preferences for telenovelas in Tables SArD, and SF all come from.subaltern groups. Summary. Hypothesized findings can only be tentatively supported from.reported viewer preferences for telenovelas. Perhaps viewers feel uncomfortable admitting to watching this genre. Mbreover, telenovela preference may be better explained by a measure other than social group (such as age or gender). 89 SERIES television is fairly popular with all audience groups measured (see Table 7) . No significant between-group differences emerged from analyses of preference for Latin American series (Table 25). Series made in the United States, however, are slightly more popular with subaltern groups, as measured by education (Table 26A) . W Hypothesized preferences for series television were not supported by this study, since U.S. series (non-regional genres) should be preferred by dominant groups and since no group analyzed preferred Latin series. MOVIES highly accepted by all groups measured, with little difference between groups (Table 27). Favorite countries of origin are listed in Table 7. Movies in English are more clearly accepted by dominant groups (as measured by SES [.01], telephone use [.05], occupation [professional], and travel (Tables 28D, 28G, 28C, 28H), however. Sm. Movies in English and news in English are each more clearly accepted by dominant groups, who tend to speak English as a means of maintaining their social status. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 (which states that elite groups should prefer program genres in languages Other than Spanish) is supported by these findings. CHILDREN'S PROGRAMMING is the last genre examined. Children's programs in general are only slightly accepted by the sample interviewed (those 15 years of age and older) and little difference exists between groups (Table 29) . Cartoons (especially U.S. cartoons--see Table 7) are preferred both by dominant (as measured by occupation 90 [student]) and subaltern (as measured by income and SES) groups (Table 30A, 30D, 30C). 5mm Cartoons shown in the Dominican Republic are mainly imported from non-regional sources (Mexico is an exception) and no group clearly prefers children's programs. These findings, therefore, both support and disconfirm hypo- thesized results. That is, while dominant groups prefer non- regional texts (cartoons) , subaltern groups do, too. Perhaps another factor (such as age) may better explain preference for children' s programing, however. 21W A final purpose of this study is to analyze actual readings made of specific television texts. As was noted earlier, only one question (114, on telenovelas ) in the original instrument directly addresses a program genre. Other questions within the survey did ask audience members' opinions on television itself, though. Does it influence society? Does it influence you or your family? Does it have negative effects? These questions, therefore, will also be examined in an attempt to better understand what meanings are nude frat televisual texts. It is the thesis of this study that audience members from dominant groups and those with greater access to information sources will create meanings in harmony with television's dominant themes (those that uphold the unbalanced politico-economic system as it exists--see Chapter Two). Furthermore, those audience members fran subaltern groups are 91 expected to create negotiated or oppositional meanings from these same messages. That is, they will tend to prefer a change in the system. Quantitative data on these issues are found in Appendix D. Important findings are summarized. below, along with representative samples of the qualitative components of respondents' answers. WWW Question 104 asked audience members, "Do you think television has negative effects?" Audience opinion seems divided between "many" and "some." Still, dominant groups (as measured by information sources [.05] and. occupation [professional]) thought television had "many" negative effects (Tables 31F, 31C, respectively). Qualitative answers as to which negative effects television possessed are highlighted below. For the purposes of this study, a dominant reading of this question presumes only positive effects from television. Conversely, an oppositional reading would assume at least some negative effects. DOMINANT READINGS (i.e., television has no negative effects) *‘All effects are positive.“ [1 respondent] Given by a member of subaltern groups, as measured by income, education, SES, telephone use, and travel. *"Many positive effects." [1 respondent] Given by a member of subaltern groups, as measured by income, education, SES, English ability, information sources, telephone use, and travel. 92 "Informative." [1 respondent] Given by a member of subaltern groups, as measured by income, education, telephone use, and travel. *"'The Fat Man' combines entertainment with a message-~good public service, informative.u [1 respondent] Given by an elite, as measured by income, education, SES, occupation [professional], and telephone use. *"What they say on TV happens." [1 respondent] Given by a member of subaltern groups, as measured.by income, education, telephone use, and travel. W Based on the few responses actually given, dominant readings tend to be made by subaltern groups overall. This finding does not match expectations, as dominant groups (elites) are the groups expected to create dominant readings. NEGOTIATED READINGS (i.e., television has positive and negative effects) *”National culture isn't very prominent." [1 respondent] Given by an elite, as measured by education, SES, occupation [professional], and telephone use. With only one reading in this category, any attempt to generalize would.be suspect. OPPOSITIONAL READINGS (i.e., television has many negative effects) "Violent." [49 respondents] Given mainly by dominant groups, as measured by education, occupation [students and professionals], and telephone use. Given mainly by subaltern groups, as measured.by information sources and travel. Given 93 nearly equally by dominant, subaltern, and middle sectors, as measured.by income and SES. Given nearly equally by dominant and subaltern groups, as measured by English ability. ‘ 1“Violence and children." [41 respondents] Given primarily by dominant groups, as measured by income, education, and telephone use. Given primarily by subaltern groups, as measured.by information sources and travel. Given about equally by dominant and subaltern groups, as measured by English ability. Given about equally by dominant and middle sector SES groups. *‘Wastes time." [37 respondents] Given.mostly by dominant groups, as measured.by education and occupation [students and professionals]. Given mostly by subaltern groups, as measured by travel. Given about equally by dominant and subaltern groups, as:measured.by English ability, information sources, and telephone use. Given about equally by dominant and middle sector groups, as measured by income. Given mainly by middle sector groups, as measured by SES. *"Pushes consumption." [22 respondents] Given mestly by dominant groups, as measured.by income, education, occupation [professional], SES, English ability, information sources, and telephone use. Given primarily by subaltern groups, as measured.by'travel. Inappropriate role model for children (all responses) [12 respondents]--Representative responses include the following: "Dominates children.". "Teaches children to rob, steal, etc." "Stimulates theft, crime, drugs." 94 "Some :programs unsuitable for children-violent and pornographic." I'There aren't any programs that promote real values to youth." "Children imitate television, thinking they're Superman." Given primarily by dominant groups, as measured by education, SES, English ability, and telephone use. Given mostly by subaltern groups, as measured by information sources. *“Not very educational." [5 respondents] Given mainly by dominant groups, as measured by education, SES, English ability, and information sources. Given primarily by subaltern classes, as measured by travel. *"Contributes to not valuing our own culture, introduces foreign 'values (like attitudes toward. work, gender, morality), especially in the upper c1ass."/"Transcultural- ization." [2 respondents] Given by elites, as measured by education, occupation [professional], SES, English ability, and telephone use. *"Alienating." [2 respondents] Given by elites, as measured by education, SES, English ability, telephone use, and travel [PR]. *"Girls want to be like the ones on telenovelas ." [1 respondent] Given by a member of subaltern groups, as measured by income, education, telephone use, and travel. *"Hard on the eyes.” [1 respondent] Given by a member of subaltern groups, as measured by income, education, SES, English ability, informtion sources, and travel. 95 Summary. Concern about violence, violence and its effects on children, and wasted time watching television were roughly evenly spread throughout all groups analyzed. The remainder of the responses tended to come from dominant groups, with the following exceptions: subaltern groups gave more oppositional readings (as measured by travel and information sources), as did.mdddle SES groups. Therefore, while some groups creating oppositional readings as to television's presumed effects do fit hypothesized findings (i.e, come from subaltern groups). many do not. This may be due to the fact that the majority of those who gave opinions are students and professionals and as such, hold more atypical views than the population as a whole. Mal]... dominant readings (no negative effects from television) tended to be given by subaltern groups. Net enough negotiated readings were given to generalize. Oppositional readings (at least some negative effects) were created by members of all audience groups in fairly equal proportions, with elite groups actually giving more of certain readings in particular. Therefore, hypothesized findings (of elite groups making dominant readings and subaltern groups making negotiated and oppositional ones) was not supported.by this question. .Talanazelas_and_neality;, Questions 113-114 asked viewers, "Do you think telenovelas are realistiC?" Subaltern group members tend to be not only the heroines of these serials, but also their greatest viewers (see Tables 5 and 7). One would expect that these groups should prefer this genre of 96 programming, since it is culturally similar. For this reason, it is important to examine how these viewers compare their actual social reality with that presented to them by television. Every group analyzed agreed that telenovelas are not realistic, with only middle sector groups (as measured by income [.05]) rejecting them significantly more (Table 32A) . Qualitative responses as to why audience members feel telenovelas are or are not realistic are outlined below. Dominant readings are defined as those that say they are realistic. Negotiated and oppositional readings shall be defined as those that state that telenovelas are not very realistic or are unrealistic. MINANT READINGS (i.e., telenovelas are realistic) "They tell about things that happen in life." [3 respondents] Given by members of subaltern groups, as measured by income, occupation [blue collar], telephone use, and travel. *"Very. They film them based on some historic fact, which they bring to life some time in our past." [1 respondent] Given by a member of subaltern groups, as measured by education and telephone use. *"They base them one someone's life." [1 respondent] Given by a member of subaltern groups, as measured by English ability, information sources, and travel. W All dominant readings given were made by members of subaltern groups. Since elite groups are expected to make 97 dominant readings, this finding runs contrary to expecta- tions. NEGOTIA'I'ED READINGS (i.e., telenovelas are sanewhat realis- tic) 1“'Somewhat realistic. They contain some truth, some fiction.“ [14 respondents] Most felt they contained elements of Latin American social reality, albeit fictionalized. One significant qualifier given was, "Since they're Mexican and Venezuelan, they have some customs that aren't relevant here.“ Given mainly by members of dominant groups, as measured by education, SES, telephone use, and travel. Given mainly by members of subaltern groups, as measured by information sources. Given roughly equally by members of dominant, subaltern, and middle income groups. *"I'm not sure whether what they present is taken from real life or not.“ [1 respondent] Given by a member of middle sector groups, as measured by education, SES, and occupation [business and government] . W As a whole, those creating negotiated meanings are manbers of dominant and middle sector groups, although subaltern groups made them nearly as much. This finding partially supports expected findings that subaltern groups should make negotiated textual readings. OPPOSITIONAL READINGS (i.e. , telenovelas are unrealistic) *"Too easy, happy endings."/"Fantasy." [19 respondents] Given mainly by members of dominant groups, as measured by education, English ability, and telephone use. Given mainly by members of subaltern groups, as measured by information 98 sources and travel. Given mainly by middle sector groups, as measured by SES. Given about equally by members of dominant, subaltern, and middle sector groups, as measured by income. 1”They don't correspond to our reality." [16 respondents] One person said, "What you see on telenovelas is rarely seen in real life." Another said, "There are things in them that you simply know aren't real." Still another said the plots are "very different from this country's experience." Given primarily by members of dominant groups, as measured by education and English ability. Given primarily by members of subaltern groups, as measured by travel and information sources. Given about equally by members of dominant, subaltern, and middle sector groups, as measured by income. 1“All plots are the same-romance." [5 respondents] Given mostly by elites, as measured by income, education, SES, English ability, and information sources. Given mostly by manbers of subaltern groups, as measured by travel. "They are unrealistic, because they have imaginary plots." [3 respondents] Given mainly by members of dominant groups, as measured by telephone use. Given mainly by members of subaltern groups, as measured by income and travel. 1”They're comedy.“ [2 respondents] Given equally by dominant (as measured by English ability) and subaltern (as measured by telephone use) groups. *“I don't like novelas , because they show negative things: sex, brothers with their brother's girlfriend. Unfit for children--should be on later at night." [1 respondent] Given by a member of subaltern groups, as measured by income, 99 education, English ability, information sources, telephone use, and travel. *"Their content always spreads the system of oppression and social inequality." [1 respondent] Given by an elite, as measured by education, occupation [professional], SES, English ability, information sources, telephone use, and travel. Sm Based on the above readings, oppositional readings tended to be made by members of dominant groups, as measured by education, SES, English ability, and telephone use. They also tended to be made by menbers of subaltern groups, as measured by information sources and travel. Oppositional readings were made about equally by members of dominant, subaltern, and middle sector groups, as measured by income. These findings, like those for negotiated readings (above) , tend to both support and disconfirm hypothesized findings: that oppositional readings should be made more by subaltern groups. 0.132311... These measures do not match the expected readings very well. This is because dominant readings ('telenovelas are realistic") were made by subaltern groups. It has been postulated that dominant readings should be made by dominant (elite) groups. Possibly these readings are made because telenovelas are so much more similar to everyday life (cultura popular ). Furthermore, negotiated and oppositional readings ('telenovelas are sort of realistic" or “not realistic") tended to be made nearly equally by all groups analyzed. It 100 was posited that subaltern groups should make more negotiated and oppositional readings, but reported readings show no clear overall difference between dominant and subaltern group readings. Reasons for these findings may include the low response rate from subaltern groups, and the fact that elites are more likely to criticize formulaic programming of any type. 13W Audience members were asked in questions 110-111, "Do you think television influences your life?" The majority said "no," but subaltern groups thought it influenced them more than did elites, especially as measured by income [.001] , occupation [blue collar], SES, English ability, and travel (Tables 33A, 33C, 33D, 33E, 33H). Students (defined in this study as elites) also felt that television influenced than more-about equally as much as did subaltern groups. Since most persons feel that television does not influence their lives, qualitative responses should be a particularly useful means of delineating fine divisions within this general consensus. Dominant readings shall be defined as those stating that television is a positive influence on one' 4 life. Negatiated and oppositional readings shall be defined as those that say that television has at least some harmful influences on one's life. WINANT READINGS (i.e., television is a positive influence) "It informs me.“ [11 respondents] Three subjects elaborated further: 101 "I learn how the big politicians and other leaders manage society." "If I'm going somewhere and they say something's happening there on the news, I don't go." "I learn what the police are doing [a policeman himself] ." Given primarily by dominant groups, as measured by education, English ability, and telephone use. Given primarily by subaltern groups, as measured by travel. Given about equally by dominant, subaltern, and middle sector groups, as measured by income and SES.. 1""It entertains/relaxes me." [5 respondents] Given mainly by subaltern groups, as measured by English ability, information sources, and travel. *"Hooked on it."/"Can't live without it."/"Hope to keep living for TV." [3 respondents] Given primarily by elites, as measured by income, English ability, telephone use, and travel. Given primarily by subaltern groups, as measured by information sources. Given primarily by middle education groups. "Cultural programs influence me." [3 respondents] Given primarily by dominant groups, as measured by education. Given primarily by subaltern groups, as measured by occupation [blue collar], telephone use, and travel. Sumac. Dominant readings tended overall to be made about equally by all groups, as measured by income, SES, English ability, and telephone use. Subaltern groups did make them more, however, when measured by travel . These findings do 102 not support hypothesized findings (that dominant groups should make more dominant readings than subaltern groups). NEGOTIATED READINGS (i.e., television is both a positive and negative influence) *"To a minor degree, TV influences me." [1 respondent] Given by a member of subaltern groups, as measured by income, information sources, English ability, and travel. *"I like it and it's educational, although there's nothing new on it." [1 respondent] Given by an elite, as measured by education, SES, information sources. *"I only use it to relax and during my free time." [1 respondent] Given by a member of subaltern groups, as measured by income, information sources, telephone use, and travel. Summary; With so few negotiated readings, any attempt to generalize fran the findings would be suspect. OPPOSITIONAL READINGS (i.e., television is a negative influ- ence) *"Wastes time." [2 respondents] Given by elites, as measured by information sources and telephone use. *"Pushes consumption." [1 respondent] Given by an elite, as measured by education, telephone use, and travel. *"Cable TV makes Dominican society look bad by comparison." [1 respondent] Given by an elite, as measured by income, education, SES, occupation [professional], English ability, telephone use, and travel. *"Doesn't talk about basic needs--they're too inconvenient. Instead, it talks about expensive things." [1 respondent] 103 Given by a member of subaltern groups, as measured by income, education, English ability, telephone use, and travel. *"It irritates me to watch it." [1 respondent] Given by a member of subaltern groups, as measured by education, SES, information sources, and travel. *"Affects me negatively." [1 respondent] Given by a member of middle education and SES groups. *"It doesn't influence me, because I know its uses and effects [editor]." [1 respondent] Given by an elite, as measured by education, SES, information sources, telephone use, and travel. "Ideally, my professional status protects me from its influences." [1 respondent] Given by an elite, as measured by income, education, SES, English ability, telephone use, and travel. 31mm. Oppositional readings tended overall to be made by members of dominant groups, as measured by telephone use, education, and travel. This finding is not as predicted by Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 (as revised), which state that dominant groups should make dominant readings and that subaltern groups should make oppositional readings. W Dominant readings ("television is a positive influence") were made nearly equally by all groups analyzed. Not enough negotiated readings were collected to permit generalization. Oppositional readings ("television is a negative influence") tended to come from elites, rather than subaltern groups. Therefore, hypothesized findings are mildly supported and mildy refuted by dominant readings and 6') '11 O _ 104 refuted by oppositional readings. Perhaps another factor may better explain these readings. It is also possible that this type of question does not well fit into dominant, negotiated, and oppositional categories (of. Livingstone 1990: 83). 12W Questions 256-257 asked audience members, "Do you think television influences your family?" Only dominant groups (as measured by travel) felt that television affected their families "a lot" (Table 34H). There was no general quantitative consensus among any other groups analyzed. For this reason, an analysis of qualitative data may better delineate shades of opinion on this question. As above, dominant readings shall be defined as those that consider television a positive influence on one's family. Negotiated and oppositional readings shall be defined as those that consider television to have at least some harmful influences. DOMINANT READINGS (i.e., television is a positive influence) "Educates the children." [4 respondents] Given primarily by members of subaltern groups, as measured by income, education, SES, information sources, and travel. *"Entertains/distracts them." [3 respondents] Given primarily by members of middle sector groups, as measured by education and SES. *"A lot, because it's good for everyone." [2 respondents] Given by members of subaltern groups, as measured by education, SES, and telephone use. 105 *"Doesn't affect them in any way." [2 respondents] Given primarily by members of subaltern groups, as measured by English ability, information sources, telephone use, and travel. *"Quite a bit, because it entertains, informs, helps educate, and is very nice." [1 respondent] Given by a member of subaltern groups, as measured by education, SES, telephone use, and travel. *"Parents tune it in for advice." [1 respondent] Given by a member of subaltern groups, as measured.by income, education, and travel. *"Gives them something to do when I'm away and keeps them out of the street." [1 respondent] Given by an elite, as measured.by occupation [professional] and telephone use. Summary. Based on the above analysis, dominant readings were made mainly by subaltern groups. This is not as expected, since dominant groups are hypothesized to make dknunant readings. NEGOTIATED READINGS (i.e., television is both a positive and a negative influence) *"Children want to imitate what they see on TV." [6 respondents] Primarily given by dominant groups, as measured by education, English ability, and telephone use. Primarily given.by subaltern groups, as measured by information sources and travel. Mainly given.by members of middle SES groups. *"Somewhat, because when my mom's bored, she goes over to my brother's house to watch her novels ." [1 respondent] 106 Given by a member of middle sector groups, as measured by income and SES. With only two negotiated readings, any attempt to generalize would be suspect. OPPOSITIONAL READINGS (i.e., television is a negative influence) *"Wastes their time."/ "Keeps them from getting their work done." [8 respondents] Given primarily by dominant groups, as measured by income, English ability, and telephone use. Given primarily by middle SES groups. Given about equally by members of dominant and subaltern groups, as measured by education, information sources, and travel. *"Affects their behavior negatively." [7 respondents] Given primarily by elites, as measured by education and SES. Given mainly by subaltern groups, as measured by information sources, telephone use, and travel. *"Children want everything they see on television." [2 respondents] Given by elites, as measured by education, occupation [professional], SES, English ability, telephone use, and travel. *"A lot. Television doesn't ask permission, it just possesses children and adults. they learn from TV and are victimized by it." [1 respondent] Given by a member of subaltern groups, as measured by SES, English ability, telephone use, and travel. *"They believe everything they see and hear on the screen." [1 respondent] Given by an elite, as measured by education, 107 occupation [professional], SES, English ability, information sources, and travel. Summary. Oppositional readings tended overall to be created by members of dominant groups. This is not as expected, since dominant groups are hypothesized to make dominant readings and subaltern groups are hypothesized to make oppositional readings. deralL findings from this question do not support Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 (as revised). This is because dominant groups actually tended to make oppositional readings ("television is mainly a negative influence"), and subaltern groups tended to make dominant readings ("mainly a positive influence"). Not enough negotiated readings were obtained to generalize from the findings. Perhaps a factor other than social group standing would better explain these findings. Additionally, most of the oppositional readings were given by university-educated persons. It is possible that their reaponses are atypical of elites as a whole. Adyertising;s__1nfluengeL As another measure of television's effect on individuals, data were analyzed from questions 117-118. These questions asked, "Does [television] advertising influence your purchasing decisions?" This seems a valid question to study, since the country's two largest agencies are New York-based (Alisky 1990: 184). Audience member's textual readings may, therefore, indicate whether or not a cultural dependency has been created by foreign advertising. 108 Unfortunately, many audience members answered in the third person, giving what they thought were society-at-large's answers (see below). Most respondents in every grouping analyzed felt that advertising influenced them/society "a lot," though. Dominant groups (as measured by education, information sources, and travel) felt that they/ society were influenced more, though (Tables 35B, 35F, 35H). As with previous questions analyzed, dominant readings shall be defined as those that perceive no harmful effects from TV advertising. Negotiated and oppositional readings shall be defined as those that perceive at least some harmful effects. DOMINANT READINGS (i.e., no influence/only positive effects) *"Informative."/"Helps you get acquainted with new products." [18 respondents] Primarily given by elites, as measured by telephone use. Primarily given by subaltern groups, as measured by income, education, information sources, and travel. Primarily given by middle sector groups, as measured by SES. Given about equally by dominant and subaltern groups, as measured by English ability. *"When they advertise lower prices." [2 respondents] Given by menbers of middle sector groups, as measured by income and SES. *"Only in shoes, clOthing, etc." [1 respondent] Mainly given by members of subaltern groups, as measured by income, SES, telephone use, and travel. Summam Based on the above analyses, dominant readings tended to come more from subaltern groups, as measured by education, information sources, and travel. They also were 109 made more by those in middle SES groups. Dominant groups made more dominant readings, when analyzed by telephone use. NEGOTIAT- READINGS (i.e., some influence/positive and negative effects) *"Makes me buy some things." [3 respondents] Given mostly by members of subaltern groups, as measured by education, occupation [blue collar], and telephone use. Mainly given by middle SES group members. *"People will want to buy things, even if they're no good." [3 respondents] One added, "...but if produCts aren't advertised, they'll stay on the shelves no matter how good they are." Given mostly by dominant groups, as measured by education and telephone use. Given mostly by subaltern groups, as measured by English ability, information sources, and travel. *"Affects others. Makes them want to buy things that are too expensive for them. " [2 respondents] Given by subaltern groups, as measured by information sources. *"When we see ads, we're curious and so we buy the product." [1 respondent] Given by a member of subaltern groups, as measured by income, English ability, telephone use, and travel. *"I just watch ads out of habit." [1 respondent] Given by a menber of middle sector groups, as measured by income and education. W Based on the readings given above, most negotiated readings tended to come from subaltern groups. Nearly as meany were created by members of dominant and llO middle sector groups, however. Therefore, hypothesized findings (that negotiated readings should be created by subaltern groups) are mildly supported by these data. OPPOSITIONAL READINGS (i.e. , great negative influence) "Makes you buy a product."/"The more a product is advertised, the more people will buy it, whether it's good or not." [20 respondents] Given mainly by dominant groups, as measured by income and English ability. Given mainly by subaltern groups, as measured by information sources and travel. Given mainly by middle sector groups, as measured by education and SES. "Pushes you to buy," [4 respondents] given by elites, as measured by education, occupation [professional] , and information sources. "Often make false/misleading claims." [4 respondents] Given primarily by dominant groups, as measured by education. Given mainly by subaltern groups, as measured by information sources, telephone use, and travel. Given mainly by middle SES groups. "They give the impression that advertisers have the answers to the public's needs." [1 respondent] Given by an elite, as measured by education, telephone use, and travel. 5.1mm... Based on the above data, those making oppostional readings tend to be elites, as measured by education and English ability. They also tend to be subaltern group members, as measured by information sources and travel. Middle SES groups also make more oppositional readings than any other group. Dominant, subaltern, and middle sector 111 groups (as measured by income) all make oppositional readings about equally. m1]... dominant readings on TV advertising ("a positive influence") tended to come from subaltern groups, as well as from middle sector groups (to some degree). This is not as expected, since dominant groups have been hypothesized to give dominant readings. Negotiated readings came from all groups, although subaltern groups made slightly more. Oppositional readings came fairly equally from all groups analyzed. Since negotiated and oppositional readings are hypothesized to be created by subaltern groups, these findings mildly support the hypotheses . WW Questions 256 and 257 were analyzed to determine whether those who had moved to Santo Domingo were influenced to do so by what they saw on television. This would seem to be a valid measure of a potentially harmful effect of television (see, e.g., Black 1986: 61) , but analysis of the quantitative portion of this question reveal no inter-group differences at all. Nearly everyone answering the questions said that television had no influence on their move (Table 36) . Only one reading was made, and has been classified as negotiated (since the reported influence was minor). NEGOTIATED READING (i.e., some influece) "Gave me a bit of information." [1 respondent] Given by a member of subaltern groups, as measured by income, education, 112 English ability, information sources, telephone use, and travel. W Analysis of this question, both quantitatively and qualitatively, revealed that practically no one believed television had any influence on their move to Santo Domingo. It may, therefore, be true that television has had no such influence (standard of living or another factor may have been more important) . W The final questions studied were numbers 107-108, asking audience members, "Do you think television influences society?" All groups analyzed thought society was influenced "a lot. " Dominant groups (as measured by education, occupation [professional], SES, English ability, telephone use, and travel) all held this opinion more strongly than other groups, though (Tables 37B, 37C, 37D, 37E, 37G, 37H, respectively). Representative qualitative responses as to how television has or has not influenced Dominican society have been catalogued below. Dominant readings have been operationally defined as those that consider television to be only a positive influence. NegOtiated and oppositional readings are considered to be those that say television has at least some harmful influences on society. DOMINANT READINGS (i.e., only positive effects) *"Quite a bit, through news and informational programnin . " [13 respondents] Primarily given by subaltern groups, as measured by income, education, SES, information sources, and travel . 113 *"Good for everyone, educational and entertaining." [5 respondents] Prfmarily given by subaltern groups, as measured by income, SES, information sources, telephone use, and travel. Primarily given by middle sector groups, as measured by education. "Influences an individual's cultural development." [3 respondents] Given by elites, as measured by education and English ability. Also given by subaltern groups, as measured by information sources. Summary; Dominant readings tended to come from subaltern groups, as measured by income and SES. This finding is not as expected, since it has been hypothesized that dominant textual readings should.be made by elite groups. NEGOTIATED READINGS (i.e., both positive and negative effects) *"Kills time." [5 respondents] Given fairly equally by dominant (as measured by income), subaltern (as measured by information sources and travel), and middle sector groups (as measured.by education) groups. *WMay affect children." [2 respondents] Given about equally by dominant (as measured by occupation [student] and English ability) and.suba1tern (as measured by travel) groups. *"It has a lot of influence, both positive and negative. Positive, in that certain programs tend to help young people resist vice; and negative, by the transmission of certain abnormal movies." [1 respondent] Given by'a member of middle sootor groups, as measured by education and SES. 114 *"Negatively, by the violence it presents and positively, by educational programs." [1 respondent] Given by a member of subaltern groups, as measured by income, SES, English ability, telephone use, and travel. *"It traumatizes some people." [1 respondent] Given by a member of middle sector groups, as measured by income and education. *"Induces you to buy, although you must be involved in order to give in to it." [1 respondent] Given by an elite, as measured by income, education, SES, English ability, telephone use, and travel. *"Somewhat--main1y through telenovelas." [1 respondent] Given by a member of middle sector groups, as measured by income and education. Summary. Overall, negotiated readings tended to be given by dominant groups, as measured by income, SES, and English ability. They also tended to be given by subaltern (as measured by travel) and middle sector (as measured by education) groups. These findings largely disconfirm expectations, as negotiated readings have been postulated to be created.by subaltern groups. OPPOSITIONAL READINGS (i.e., negative effects) *Negatively influences behavior (all responses). [10 respondents] Representative quotations include: "Children try to imitate TV." "People copy manners of speech, dress, gestures, and form gangs." 115 "People here don't have much personality and do everything they see on TV." Given primarily by dominant group members, as measured by income, education, occupation [professional], SES, English ability, information sources, and telephone use. Primarily given.by subaltern groups, as measured.by travel. *"Pushes consumption." [5 respondents] Primarily given by dominant groups, as measured by income, education, SES, and information sources. Primarily given by subaltern groups, as measured by travel. *"Influences cultural habits." [4 respondents] Primarily given.by elites, as measured by education and telephone use. Mainly given by subaltern groups, as measured by travel. *"Alienating." [4 respondents] Mainly given by dominant groups, as measured by education and occupation [student]. Mainly given by subaltern groups, as measured by travel. *"Too much foreign programming." [2 respondents] Given by elites, as measured by education, English ability, and information sources. *"Affects people psychologically." [2 respondents] Given primarily by members of middle sectors, as measured by education and SES. *"Distracts attention from fundamental problems." [1 respondent] Given by an elite, as measured by education, telephone use, and travel. *"They advertise things people can't buy." [1 respondent] Given by a member of middle sector groups, as measured by income and SES . 116 Summary. Based on the above analysis, those who made oppositional readings tended to come from dominant groups, as measured by income, education, SES, English ability, and telephone use. Subaltern groups (as measured by information sources and travel) also made oppositional readings overall. Therefore, these findings tend both to support (mildly) and disconfirm hypothesized findings: that oppositional readings should.be made by subaltern groups. derall. those who created dominant readings tended to come from.subaltern groups. These findings were not anticipated by the hypotheses, as dominant readings were expected to be made more by dominant groups . Negotiated and oppositional readings were made by all groups analyzed, although dominant groups appeared to make them somewhat more frequently. These findings are also not as anticipated, since negotiated and oppositional readings have been hypothesized to be made more frequently by subaltern groups. Since subaltern groups tend to watch more television overall, they may not see it as being as harmful as do elites (many of whom have had university classes critiquing television's influence on society). ma FIVE: CONCLUSIONS/I01 mm: assumes mm It has been the thesis of this study that dominant groups within Dominican society, as well as those with greater access to information sources, should prefer "elite taste," informational, and culturally dissimilar (non-regionally produced and foreign language) program texts. Furthermore, elite groups should tend to form dominant readings of textual messages (those that uphold a social system heavily skewed in their favor) . Similarly, this study has postulated that members of subaltern groups (the dominated) should prefer texts culturally similar to their everyday life (cultura popular ). These have been defined as domestic and regional program genres. Moreover, subaltern groups should create negotiated and oppositional readings of television textual messages, rejecting some or all aspects of the current social system and advocating change . Middle sector groups have also been analyzed, since their role in textual readings has as yet been unclear. It is likely that these groups would tend to imitate elite tastes in some areas and subaltern preferences in other areas. To test these hypotheses, numerous quantitative and qualitative analyses have been performed on open-ended and 1.17 118 scaled-response survey data which examine the relationship between television and Dominican society. Detailed findings of the analyses have been presented in Chapter Four and Appendices A-D. This chapter will highlight the major findings of the study, examine whether or not Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 (as revised) were supported or disconfirmed, and suggest possible improvements for future cultural studies of television audiences. Among the measures used, five seemed to best predict between-group differences: SES, telephone use, income, education, and English ability. These measures produced the most statistically significant differences within quantitative analyses and tended to better delineate textual Opinions than did other measures. Access to information sources proved to be a somewhat reliable quantitative measure, but was not especially helpful on qualitative data. Conversely, occupational status was of little use quantitatively, but proved to be valuable on several qualitative measurements (particularly with respect to students and professionals). Travel was a rather unreliable measure by most counts. A sample more evenly divided among those who have never travelled abroad and those who have may prove more reliable, however. summons. Analyses of general opinion data (Appendix A, Chapter Four) revealed that most audience members' perceptions of their social reality do not differ from their actual reality as outlined in Chapter Two. 119 SOCIETAL PROBLEMS. Opinions on societal problems, as collected from open- ended qualitative responses, basically support hypothesized findings . Dominant groups (as measured by income, occupation, and SES) appear to make more dominant readings of textual messages. That is, they seemed to see society as having fewer or less serious problems than other groups. Middle sector groups usually gave responses similar to subaltern groups, but also imitated elite responses on some measures. CONTACT WITH THE UNITED STATES appeared to have little influence on any subject groups interviewed, based on scaled-response data. More affected were middle sector (as measured by education and occupation [business and government” and dominant (as measured by travel) groups. Qualitative analysis of textual data indicated that dominant readings ("there is nothing wrong with life in the Dominican Republic") were made by members of all groups. This finding mildly supports the hypothesis that dominant readings should be created more by members of dominant groups. Negotiated and oppositional readings (preferring life in the U.S.) came mainly from subaltern groups, as was hypothesized. PREFERENCE FOR DOMESTIC/ IMPORT- ITEMS . Even though most audience members claim little American influence on their lives, reported references for domestic or imported products place this claim in some question. About half those expressing a preference (in an open-ended question) chose products imported from the united States. Preference for 120 items from Puerto Rico and Europe was concentrated among dominant and middle sector groups, as would be expected (of. Black 1986: 57-58). BETTERING ONESELF. Views on "getting ahead" (open-ended question) in Dominican society did not demonstrate clear differences by readings made. Dominant readings (belief in the current elite-biased system, unchanged), as well as negotiated and oppositional readings (those that call for changing some or all aspects of the system), tended to come fairly equally from dominant, subaltern, and middle sector groups. This may be a function of who answered the question (it had no quantitative component), since elites tended to skip it. These findings tend to both uphold and disconfirm hypothesized findings, which state that dominant readings should be made more by elite groups and that negotiated and oppositional readings should be made more by subaltern groups. Perhaps, as Livingstone (1990), this particular text may not be well suited to the dominant, negotiated, and oppositional reading framework of British cultural studies. MW Analysis of television preference data from Appendices B and C (Chapter Four) revealed a basic support for all hypotheses, albeit to different degrees with different program genres. By most measures, dominant groups did in fact prefer "elite taste," informational, and non-regional or foreign-language program texts. Moreover, most measures indicate a preference for domestic and regional program texts by subaltern groups. 121 Middle sector group preferences usually matched those of subaltern groups, except for documentaries and Latin music, in which their tastes matched those of the elites. Another interesting discovery was made after careful consideration of the data obtained: preference for certain program texts appears to be based more on genre than on cultural similarity/dissimilarity (see below). Those genres are: informational programs, sports, music, and series television (to some degree). REASONS FOR VIEWING. Elite groups report watching tele- vision more for information and education, and subaltern groups say they watch more for relaxation, as expected. This may be a factor of occupation, since information is more important to white collar workers. Furthermore, since blue collar workers tend to perform more physical labor, television is likely an inexpensive way to relax at the end of a hard day. By some measures, both subaltern and middle sector groups report watching television more for culture than do dominant groups. This finding is not what was expected, since elites are hypothesized to prefer cultural programming more (but see below) . NEWS AND INFORMATIONAL PROGRAMMING was hypothesized to be preferred by dominant groups. National newscasts were equally preferred by all groups analyzed. When one looks beyond the meeting of basic informational needs, however, dominant groups clearly do seem to prefer informational program genres. Since both news in English and 122 information-oriented morning shows were both accepted to a greater degree by elites, this hypothesis seems to be largely supported. Further evidence can be found in that elite groups specifically report watching television for information more than do other groups . CULTURAL PROGRAMMING is also hypothesized to be preferred by elite groups. The category is imprecise, but documen- taries are one type specifically examined by the study. Again, elite groups incorporated most from this genre, even though subaltern and middle sector groups claimed to watch television for cultural progranming more on question 143 (see above). FOREIGN PROGRAMS. Non-regionally produced and foreign language program- ming is a third type hypothesized to be preferred by dominant groups. The following genres were examined specifically: news in English, United States and world sports, rock music, American series, movies in English, and cartoons (largely of U.S. origin). Of the above, only news in English and movies in English were more clearly accepted by elites. Preference for English-language programming supports expected findings. The reason is obvious: dominant groups tend to learn English as a means of maintaining their social status, since English ability is preceived to be of value in the marketplace (93% of those answering question 179 said they "strongly agree" or "agree" that English ability helps in finding work). A second possibility is that elites watch 123 English-language programs in order to practice their English skills. Preferences for other foreign genres did not entirely match expectations. Cartoons were equally preferred by dominant and subaltern groups. Sports of all types, rock music, and American series were actually accepted more by subaltern groups. It is likely that preference for these genres may better be explained by some measure other than group status (like age or gender). Sports preference also seems to be genre-specific (see below). TELENOVELAS were predicted to be accepted more by subaltern groups, as these are a regional genre more culturally similar to this group's everyday life (culture popular ). Analysis of scale-response data indicated that no group reported accepting them, however. This appears unlikely, however, since most popularity rankings ennumerated in Tables 5 and 7 indicate that subaltern groups do prefer telenovelas over elite groups. It should be noted that Tables 5 and 7 result from open-ended, non-prompted responses to questions about television program preferences. .As such, these data are more likely to be accurate than results from Table 24, which is based on a stimulated-response scale. It is, therefore, probable that rejeCting opinions were given to appear socially'correct. SUNDAX VARIETY SHOWS were also examined. Even though this genre is hypothesized to be preferred by subaltern groups, all groups analyzed reported fairly equal preference for 124 them. Therefore, this hypothesis tends to be both supported and disconfirmed by these findings. COMEDIES, although popular with all groups, were accepted more by subaltern groups. Both national and regional (Mexican) comedies were favored by these groups, as expected. Furthermore, middle sector groups also reported greater acceptance of Mexican comedies than did dominant groups . MUSIC/MUSIC VIDEO programs, although expected to be more popular with subaltern groups, varied in popularity with style of music. Merengue (Dominican dance music) was accepted more by subaltern groups, as expected. National music was equally accepted by all groups analyzed, partially supporting hypothesized findings. Latin music was preferred most by elite groups, however. This finding does not match the expected preference for regional programing by subaltern groups. Music preference is probably best explained by some division other than class (like age or gender) , and appears to be somewhat style/genre specific. Overall, DOMESTIC, REGIONAL, AND SPANISH-LANGUAGE PROGRAMS were posited to show greater acceptance by subaltern groups, since these genres are more culturally similar to their everyday life (cul tura popular ). Programs examined within this category include: national news, discussion, national sports, Dominican music, merengue, Latin music, morning, noon, and Sunday variety programs, domestic and Mexican comedies, telenovelas , Latin American series, and children's programing . 125 National news, sports, music, and comedy shows, as well as noon programs and Mexican comedies were accepted more by subaltern groups, as expected. It can also be argued (see above) that telenovelas are in reality preferred more by subaltern groups, as would be expected. Little between-group difference in preference for Latin American series and children's programs was discovered. Acceptance/rejection of children's programs is probably better explained by a factor other than group status, such as age. This possibility is reinforced by the fact that all subjects sampled were 15 years of age or older, and therefore unlikely to watch children's programs other than cartoons (analyzed separately, above). Discussion programs and morning shows were accepted more by dominant groups, as has been noted above. One possible explanation for this finding is that elite groups tend to prefer informational program genres more overall than do subaltern groups. They also tend to have more time to watch morning programs, since they do not have to commte long distances to work. W Quantitative analyses of opinions on television itself revealed that audience members' perceptions are not markedly different between dominant and subaltern groups (see Appendix C, Chapter Four). Although all groups analyzed felt that television did not influence their own lives, subaltern groups and students (defined as elites) each thought it had a greater influence than did other groups. Similarly, all groups analyzed felt 126 that TV advertising influenced them "a lot," and that television influenced Dominican society "a lot." In both these cases, however, dominant groups held these opinions more strongly. Opinions on the perceived reality of telenovelas , television's influences on migration, and the perceived influences of both television and TV advertising on oneself hardly varied across groups. Furthermore, no general consensus was obtained on questions about television's possible negative effects and its perceived influence on one's family; Domdnant groups tended overall to make more readings on the qualitative components of television opinion questions, while fewer members of subaltern groups answered them at all. Elites also appeared to make more atypical readings than did subaltern groups, particularly with respect to television's presumed societal effects. Elite readings were mostly negative and presumed powerful effects from the media. All groups, however, seemed to believe that television influences other people, rather than themelves. Dominant readings were not made by elite groups more than others on any question's qualitative component, although all groups made dominant readings on television's perceived influences on oneself (saying it had only' positive influences). Subaltern groups made the majority of dominant readings on all other qualitative questions about television and society, 127 but the amount cited is somewhat misleading. Since two- thirds of the sample consists of subaltern group members, the actual percentage is quite small. Therefore, expected findings of dominant readings' being made more frequently by elites (proportionally) is probably supported by these findings. Few negotiated readings were obtained overall, so it is unclear which groups made the majority of them. Subaltern groups did, however, make slightly more negotiated readings on the question about advertising's influence on one's purchasing behavior. Negotiated readings were made about equally by all groups on the remainder of the questions, with the exception of television's perceived influence on society (made slightly more often by elites). Therefore, hypothesized findings are both supported and disconfinmed.by these findings. Oppositional readings were not clearly made by subaltern group members any more than elites on the qualitative component of any question analyzed. All groups made oppostional readings about equally on every question, except for those dealing with television's perceived effects on oneself and one's family ("mainly negative effects"). These readings were predominantly made by elites. These findings would tend to disconfirm.hypothesized results that subaltern groups should.make:more oppositional readings. As mentioned above, however, the amount of readings given is probably'uusleading, since elites tended to answer the qualitative questions more frequently than did those in 128 subaltern groups. Furthermore, elites tended to have been university-educated. Most Dominican media theory books reviewed by the author (see "General References," Bibliogaphy) tended to emphasize media imperialism and to critique television from a Marxist viewpoint, which tends to emphasize strong media effects. Another consideration is that subaltern groups tend overall to watch more television than do elites, and as such, are prdbably less critical of it. W The limitations of this study include the following: no personal interviewing was done by the author; something which should be done if. at all possible (Ang 1990, Jensen & Rosengren 1990). Second, the study relied on available data, rather than data gathered specifically for this project. Some of the data (especially the television teXtual data) was difficult to collect. Only one question (113-114, about telenovelas ) dealt with readings made of specific texts. Even here, it would appear from data analyses that most respondents gave answers they believed to be "correct," rather than what they actually felt. In transcribing the qualitative data, some paraphrasing and inference was necessary. This could affect the reliability of the study. Needless to say, both validity and reliability also depend to a great degree on that of the original study. 129 Because this is a study of a particular audience group, it will have little external validity beyond the Dominican Republic. However, this should not be problematic, since this type of research is precisely what has been called for in the literature (Garcia Canclini 1988, Martin-Barbero 1988, McAnany 1989) . Furthermore, the purpose of the study is to demonstrate how cultural studies function within specific audience groups. W A rnajor problem was the poor operational definition given “inf ormation sources" in Hypothesis 3. As was noted in Chapter Three, further consideration and data collection indi cated that the definition did not measure what was int: ended. Therefore, the hypothesis had to be modified, 1131 2:19 this study's definition of information sources (111‘: expersonal contact, mass media and telephone use, foreign travel) as another measure of elite status. Once adjusted, overall findings tended to support the refinement. Operational definitions may also have been a problem with some of the questions dealing with television and its pre 31211196 effects on society. It is especially likely that, in the question on the effeCts of contact with the United States on one's views of Dominican society (question 171, Table 2), defining preference for the American lifestyle as Oppc>8:Lt::i.onal is incorrect. Since elites (and, to some degree, middle sector groups) actually tend to prefer 1m: amationalized lifestyles (Black 1986: 57-58), this 130 reading probably should have been classified as dominant. However, as written, dominant, negotiated, and oppositional readings came basically from the groups expected, so it may not: require further adjustment. Whether one assumes positive or negative effects from television was also difficult to categorize as dominant, negotiated, or oppostional. It would appear from the qualitative responses given that presuming negative effects is actually a dominant response, rather than oppossitional (as defined). On the other hand, a majority reading does not necessarily indicate a dominant reading. It is possible that these texts "contain two normative, although opposed, rea dings. . .and yet remain within a dominant framework (Livingstone 1990:83) . . . " Wanna This study has focused on the degree of cultural resistance derrnonstrated by Dominican audience members from a cultural studies approach. It used basic concepts derived from European cultural studies, especially the preferred reading theory which states that those reading a television text Should position themselves according to a preferred/dominant readi 119, a negotiated reading, or an oppositional reading. The present study used preferred reading theory in a more cultL'klic‘al context, along the lines of current Latin American ‘1th of the culture of everyday life (cultura popular ). It a1 30 made distinctions between program textual preferences (as rt‘ea-sured by acceptance/rejection of specific television 131 genres) and textual readings of questions dealing with television. Preferred reading theory actually deals more with readings made of specific television textual messages, but since only one such reading was available, questions about: television and society were substituted (see above). For the most part, cultural studies theory was supported by this study, particularly with respect to textual preferences. Dominant groups did tend to prefer "elite taste," informational, and culturally dissimilar (non-regional and foreign-language) program genres more than did subaltern groups. Likewise, subaltern groups did tend to prefer culturally similar (domestic and regional) program genres more than did elite groups. Some exceptions were evident, but: Inainly in programs that appear to be preferred more by genre than cultural similarity/dissimilarity. Cu Jtural studies theory was also supported to some degree with respect to textual readings (as defined in this study). Whi— 1— e subaltern group manbers made more daninant readings (in nurnber) than would be expected, as a proportion of the Sample. elites probably did make more dominant readings than did- Bubaltern groups. Negotiated readings tended to be made about equally by all groups, and oppositional readings by 911‘: $3 - These findings do not match expectations, but the reas on may be simply a factor of how many elites versus how many members of subaltern groups answered the questions. The probl em may also derive from the fact that questions about tel evi Sion were mainly used instead of readings of specific tats - 132 Classifying middle sector group responses was problematic, since no place is left for them under the cultural studies theory used. This is why their responses were analyzed separately from other groups. Furthermore, their readings tended to vary by the question asked, sometimes imitating subaltern groups' readings and sometimes imitating elites'. pet-Imps a third category for middle sector groups (similar to Bou rdieu's concept of the "dominated fraction" of the dominant class) should be studied alongside dominant and subaltern groups (Bourdieu 1984) . '08 m names Unfortunately, most opinions varied little across the groups examined. This is probably a function of the type of question asked. Future studies should be designed to elicit textual readings from each genre on the air, rather than just one - Some refinement of the concept of "soical contact" also appears in order (see above). Most of the genre analyses reVealed little between-group differences based on this stud-3? ' s operationalization of the concept. Furthermore, qualitative analyses would tend to disconfirm the original Hypothesis 3, since information sources (as def ined here) and elite status are so closely linked. As noted above, however, adjusting the hypothesis to use this study . 8 conception of social contact as a measure of elite stat; . . us seemed to correct the problem in many instances. 133 Future studies should rely more on interpersonal contact as a measure of preference for culturally similar texts/ oppositional meaning formation, since (in this society's context, anyway) most subaltern groups have little access to telephones or certain mass media (such as cable television). Ideally, a measure of domestic travel may be considered in a. future study, since no reliable means of determining domestic travel existed with the survey instrument used. Foreign travel alone is unreliable, as noted above, because only elites have the means to do so. Re -examining questions of dominant/oppositional textual readings in light of interpersonal contact and domestic travel, as well as studies designed to elicit more middle sector responses, should prove fruitful endeavors for future €1.11 tural studies . APPENDICES APPENDIX A: GENERAL OPINIONS ”FINDIX A: (3an OPINIONS TABLE 1A: WHAT IS THE COUNTRY' S GREATEST PROBLEM? BY INCOME (% of respondents in each column--rounded) * (N==18) (N=18) (N=-=27) $3.59 1511:1110 2.7.10 Econcmy/The Dollar 100 89 100 Inf lation/High COL 100 100 89 Pol itics/Partisanship 39 33 52 Wag ea 39 23 52 Foreign Debt 39 39 44 Hon 8 ing/Land Dist . 44 17 22 More lity 22 28 30 Mermloyment 33 33 7 Mt rition 11 11 15 Bee :1. th 6 6 4 11 .21.. iteracy 0 6 4 Other 11 0 5 TABLE 18: WHAT IS THE COUNTRY' S GREATEST PROBLEM? BY mUCATION (% of respondents in each column- - rounded) * (N=14) (Na-23) (N837) W W W mommy/The Dollar 100 '78 95 1115 letion/High COL 93 100 100 P03. 1 t ics/Partisanship 36 35 46 Wage e so 26 41 Fore 1933 Debt 43 3o 51 3211.3 ing/Land Dist. 21 22 27 aura 3— ity 21 1'7 30 oyment 36 13 16 “‘1"- 1‘1 t: ion 21 4 11 $331. th 7 o 5 C an o 4 3 * Respondents could list more than one problem 134 135 TABLE 1C: WHAT IS THE COUNTRY'S GREATEST PROBLEM? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (% of respondents in each colum--rounded) * (N=13) (N=23) (N==19) (N=17) Bus./ Students War Smut Prof. Economy/The Dollar 77 100 89 88 Inf lation/High COL 100 91 100 100 pol itics/Partisanship 46 39 42 41 wages 46 3o 47 41 Foreign Debt 62 35 47 41 Housing/Land Dist. 77 17 26 12 Morality 31 17 21 35 unemployment 8 30 16 18 m t: rition 0 17 11 12 Health 0 4 11 0 11 J. iteracy 0 4 0 6 Other 8 O 16 12 TABLE 1D: WHAT IS THE COUNTRY' S GREATEST PROBLEM? BY SES (% of respondents in each column--rounded)* (N=8) (N=40) (N=28) W W DMCLUQ Economy/me Dollar 88 so 100 Bit lation/High COL 100 100 79 P01 itics/Partisanship 25 28 61 “ages 25 35 46 Foreign Debt 38 38 so “on '3 ing/Land Dist. 25 30 25 wra- lity 38 e 43 matttployment 63 20 11 Nut rition 13 10 ll l"?_‘5L3—‘I:h o 5 4 I 1 iteracy o 3 4 Other 0 8 11 *Re sIDondents could list more than one problem 136 TABLE 1E: WHAT IS THE COUNTRY'S GREATEST PROBLEM? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (% of respondents in each column- - rounded) * (N==3l) (N=31) Some to None fluent Economy/The Dollar 84 100 11315 lation/High COL 100 100 pa 3. itics/Partisanship 16 52 Wages 32 32 Foreign Debt 32 45 Housing/Land Dist. 23 32 Morality 23 26 Imemployment 19 26 N11 1:: :rition 10 16 Hea 1th 6 3 I1 :1. iteracy 0 6 Other 3 13 TABLE 1F: WHAT IS THE COUNTRY'S GREATEST PROBLEM? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (% of respondents in each column- - rmmded) * (N=24) (N=27) (N=25) £2 1 4:5. Economy/The Dollar 100 74 88 Inf lation/High COL 79 100 100 9°]— 1 tics/Partisanship 17 41 60 Wag e s 21 33 60 E”391911 Debt 29 41 56 3°“ 3 ing/Land Dist. 13 26 4o ”bra lit}; 21 26 24 "n loyment 29 15 16 mt rition 25 4 4 a?“ 3: tn 8 o 4 gm]; 1 teracy 0 4 4 er 4 4 16 *Resbondents could list more than one problem 137 TABLE 1G: WHAT IS THE COUNTRY'S GREATEST PROBLEM? BY TELEPHONE USE (% of respondents in each column--rounded) * (N=26) (LI-=32) 0-5 times 6+ times Weekly Heekly Economy/The Dollar 100 97 Inflation/High COL 100 100 Politics/Partisanship 31 50 wages 35 28 Foreign Debt 38 44 Housing/Land Dist. 27 25 Morality 15 22 Unemployment 23 13 M t: rition 8 9 Health 4 6 ILL 1 iteracy 4 3 Other 4 9 TABLE 111: WHAT IS THE COUNTRY‘S GREATEST PROBLEM? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (% of respondents in each column- -rounded) * (N=58) (N=22) (N=15) (N=9) Caribbean/ Europe/ None USHER mum 3313.043 Econcny/The Dollar 83 100 100 100 1115 lation/High COL 100 77 73 39 P01— itics/Partisanship 36 36 47 22 “51988 41 32 13 11 Foreign Debt 47 41 4o 33 an S :Lng/Land Dist . 31 23 13 11 mra :Lity 17 41 47 11 “nettiployment 22 o 20 o “‘1'; rition 7 14 33 22 Hia- 1 1:11 2 s 7 11 I 3— 1 teracy 2 5 7 11 Other 7 9 7 11 *Resbondents could list more than one problem 138 TABLE 2A: DOES YOUR CONTACT WITH THE U.S. INFLUENCE YOUR IDEAS ABOUT LIFE HERE? BY INCOME (% of. respondents in each row- ~rounded) AJLQI. Some N9 W <350 (N=36) 17 19 61 3 350'700 (N=23) 9 26 57 9 >700 (N==34) 21 15 62 3 TABLE 2B: DOES YOUR CONTACT WITH THE U.S. INFLUENCE YOUR IDEAS ABOUT LIFE HERE? BY EDUCATION (% of respondents in each row-rounded) 1: - 05] L191; Some ND W Primary or less (N=23) 13 39 48 O Secondary/Tech. (N=3l) 23 13 65 0 Univ. or more (N==47) 6 17 7o 6 TABLE 2C: DOES YOUR CONTACT WITH THE U.S. INFLUENCE YOUR IDEAS ABOUT LIFE HERE? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) A491: Some No W Students (Ns21) 10 19 71 0. Blue collar (N=36) 8 22 61 8 3113 iness/Gov't (bl-=26) 23 19 50 8 Prof (N=21) 14 19 62 5 TABLE 2D- DOES YOUR CONTACT WITH THE U s INFLUENCE YOUR IDEAS ABOUT LIFE HERE? BY SES (% of respondents in each row-rounded) AJQt. Sane ND mm mt? Poor/Poor (N=18) 11 44 44 o mg/Im/MC (N=-50) 14 10 7o 6 /‘I:Ipper Class (N=36) 14 22 61 3 F {purl-r1 11'th- I 139 TABLE 2E: DOES YOUR CONTACT WITH THE U.S. INFLUENCE YOUR IDEAS ABOUT LIFE HERE? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (% of respondents in each row-rounded) AJDt Same ND W None (N241) 10 22 66 2 Some-Fluent (N=-56) 16 20 59 5 TABLE 2F: DOES YOUR CONTACT WITH THE U.S. INFLUENCE YOUR IDEAS ABOUT LIFE HERE? 3)! INFORMATION SOURCES (% of respondents in each rm!“ -rounded) L191: Some ND mm 1 -- 2 (Na-=42) 17 24 57 2 :3 (N=35) 14 23 63 o 4 -— 5 (N=25) 4 12 72 12 TABLE 2G: DOES YOUR CONTACT WITH THE U. S. INFLUENCE YOUR IDEAS ABOUT LIFE HERE? BY TELEPHONE USE (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) LID: Sums ND W 0‘5 times weekly (N241) 12 22 63 2 6+ times weekly (N==49) 12 16 65 6 TABLE ZH: DOES YOUR CONTACT WITH THE U.S. INFLUENCE YOUR IDEAS ABOUT LIFE HERE? BY F‘QREIGN TRAVEL (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) A491. Same N9 mm none (N=75) 11 16 69 4 21:/PR (N==25) 24 20 56 0 mr- /I.at. Am. (N=29) 24 21 52 3 r- /Asia/ME (N-=12) 33 17 so 0 1.1-: ‘1 140 TABLE 3A: WHERE DO YOU PREFER PERSONAL ITEMS BE MADE? BY INCOME (% of respondents in each column--rounded) * (N=24) (N=17) (N=25) 5.35.9. 1M 2.1.QQ united States 100 100 100 Dominican Republic 88 100 44 Puerto Rico 4 29 8 Spain 0 18 12 Italy 0 l2 8 France 0 0 8 eemny o 6 0 other 13 6 12 TABLE 3B: WHERE DO YOU PREFER PERSONAL ITEMS BE MADE? BY’ EDUCATION (% of respondents in each colum- -rounded) * (N=17) (N=25) (N=33) We Secondamflech W United States 100 100 100 Dminican Republic 94 56 64 Puerto Rico 6 16 15 Spa in o 4 15 Ita 1y 0 4 12 France 0 0 6 GemIany 0 4 3 Other 6 12 9 ’K-I- 141 TABLE 3C: WHERE DO YOU PREFER PERSONAL ITEMS BE MADE? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (% of respondents in each column- - rounded) * (N=19) (N:22) (N=19) (N=17) Bus./ Students Bluefieller. em 2:91; united States 100 100 100 100 Daninican Republic 42 100 58 65 Pilerto Rico 0 5 16 41 Spain 0 0 21 12 Italy 0 5 11 12 France 0 0 0 12 Semany 0 5 0 0 Other 5 14 11 0 TABLE 3D: WHERE DO YOU PREFER PERSONAL I'I‘ms BE MADE? BY SES (% of respondents in each colunm--rounded) * (N=8) (N=40) (N=28) W W UNCLE: Urlited States 85 100 100 Dar-11:11am Republic 100 55 54 Pue rto Rico 0 13 21 Spa in o 5 14 Ita l 0 5 11 France 0 0 7 Gem-any 0 3 4 Other 0 13 4 *Re Spendents could list more than one preference TABLE 3E: 142 WHERE DO YOU PREFER PERSONAL ITEMS BE MADE? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (% of respondents in each column- - rounded) * tmited States Daninican Republic Puerto Rico EEEFE313 Italy .E?J::atnce Germany Other TISFQLJE3JLE 3F: B Y co lumn- rounded) * 011 :i. t ed States Mnican Republic Pun. a 11:0 Rico Spa in ItZLiEEL;jL3{ Fran ce (”ICIIqusegr *Re spondents could list INFORMATION SOURCES (N=29) (N=43) Some to Nene Elnent 100 100 79 58 21 12 o 14 o 12 o 5 o 5 14 5 WHERE DO YOU PREFER PERSONAL ITEMS BE MADE? (% of respondents in (N234) (N=29) (Nhls) 1;Z l A;5 100 100 100 62 62 80 12 10 27 3 7 20 6 3 13 0 3 7 3 3 0 6 10 0 more than one preference 143 TABLE 3G: WHERE DO YOU PREFER PERSONAL ITEMS BE MADE? BY TELEPHONE USE (% of respondents in each colunm--rounded) * (N=31) (N=33) 0-5 times 6+ times weekly weekly united States 100 100 Dominican Republic 61 85 Puerto Rico 3 21 Spain 3 15 Italy 10 6 France 0 3 Germany 6 0 Other 13 3 TABLE 3H: WHERE DO YOU PREFER PERSONAL ITEMS BE MADE? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (% of respondents in each colum--rounded) * (N=61) (N=19) (N=22) (N=7) Caribbean/ Europe / None 115128 Latin_Am1 331m United States 100 100 100 86 Dug-linican Republic 57 37 64 100 PL:- e rto Rico 8 42 23 43 Spa in 3 26 14 43 Ita 1y 3 ll 5 29 France 2 11 9 29 (39mm, 2 5 0 0 other 5 15 14 29 *Re smdents could list more than one preference APPENDIX B: WHAT IS WATCHED APPENDIX 3: WHAT IS WATCEBD TABLE 4A: WHY DO YOU WATCH TV? BY INCOME (% of respondents in each colunm--rounded)* (N=15) (N=15) (N=23) $35.0 35.0.2109 2.0.0 Information 100 80 100 Erltertainment 10 0 100 7 8 Re laxation 80 40 44 Education 33 27 9 Li ke it 40 7 17 Cu lture 0 7 9 1‘0 conform 0 7 4 Other 0 7 9 TABLE 4B: WHY DO YOU WATCH TV? BY EDUCATION (% of respondents in each colunm--rounded) * (N=13) (N=14) (N=26) WW UniLeLNore Ira-f ormation 85 100 100 ht ertainment 100 86 88 Re 3— azcation 46 70 42 Efiiu cation 15 14 27 LLke it 15 43 15 Tc: 3— Cure 8 0 8 0t; conform 0 7 4 1 1 ex 0 o 15 *Re anondents could list more than one reason 144 145 TABLE 4C: WHY DO YOU WATCH TV? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (% of. respondents in each column- - rounded)* (N=ll) (N=15) (N=15) (N=13) Bus./ Students mm: 99111:. 2:91. Information 100 93 100 100 Entertainment 91 100 100 77 Relaxation 36 80 33 46 Education 36 20 13 23 Like it 45 33 0 15 Culture 0 0 20 0 '1‘0 conform 0 0 0 15 Other 0 7 l3 8 mm: 4D: WHY DO YOU WATCH TV? BY SES (% of respondents in each column--rounded)* (N=8) (N=40) (N=28) mains: Inf ormation 55 100 100 81:11:. ertainment 100 81 79 Re 1 axation 45 48 47 Ban cation 19 15 32 Like it 9 29 16 CUI- l ture o 4 11 To conform 0 0 11 0': er 0 4 5 * Raepondents could list more than one reason 146 TABLE 4E: WHY DO YOU WATCH TV? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (% of respondents in each column- - rounded) * (N=18) (N=3o) Some to None Eluent Information 94 100 Erntertainment 100 97 Relaxation 67 40 Education 6 23 Like it 33 17 Ctzlture 6 7 To conform 0 7 Other 0 13 TABLE 4F: WHY DO YOU WATCH TV? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (% of respondents in each column-- rounded) * (N=21) (N=14) (N=15) 1:2 3 4.25 Inf ormation 90 93 100 ht: ertainment 100 100 100 Re 1 axation 57 79 20 8:31.). cation 14 36 27 Like it 24 36 13 CL:- 1 ture 10 7 0 conform 0 14 0 other 0 7 20 * Raamdents could list more than one reason .147 TABLE 4G: WHY DO YOU WATCH TV? BY TELEPHONE USE (% of respondents in each column-~rounded) * (N=18) (N=25) 0-5 times 6+ times mm Keen! Information 100 100 Ezitertainment 100 92 Relaxation 83 36 Education 28 20 Like it 11 28 Culture 6 8 To conform 0 8 Other 6 12 TABLE 4H: WHY DO YOU WATCH TV? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (% of respondents in each coluxnn--rounded)* (N=40) (N=15) (N=13) (N=7) Caribbean/ Europe/ Nona Ila/.23 mm m Inf ormation 100 100 100 100 22:11:. ertainment 93 40 77 29 Re 1 axation 35 47 77 43 cation 23 20 31 29 Like it 23 7 15 14 CUI- l ture 3 20 15 14 TO conform 5 o o 0 0th er 5 o o o 'h Re arguments could list more than one reason 148 TABLE 5A: WHAT DO YOU LIKE TO WATCH? BY INCOME (% of respondents in each column--rounded)* (N=20) (N=24) (N=28) 5.3.5.9 35.0.1199 21012 News 35 100 96 Discussion Programs 55 54 32 Educational Programs 0 0 4 sports 55 42 43 msic Programs 30 4 11 Morning Shows 35 13 7 Noon/Evening Shows 80 67 50 Sunday (Variety) Shows 50 54 39 Comedies 20 8 14 Telenovelas (Serials) 70 38 21 Series 25 21 4 Foreign Programs 0 0 4 Delovies 100 42 64 Cartoons 10 0 4 TABLE 5B: WHAT DO YOU LIKE TO WATCH? BY EDUCATION (8 of respondents in each column--rounded) * (N:24) (N226) (N=36) W W W News 100 92 97 Discussion Programs 33 31 56 Educational Programs 0 0 3 Sports 33 46 42 Msic Programs 13 31 8 Morning Shows 13 23 ll Noon/Evening Shows 63 81 56 Sunday (Variety) Shows 46 42 42 emefies 13 19 6 elenavelas (Serials) 42 54 36 ezies 8 19 17 oxeign Programs 0 o 3 , Q‘vies 58 69 69 :rtoons 0 0 8 ‘* Respondents could list more than one preference TABLE 5C: WHAT DO YOU LIKE TO WATCH? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (% of respondents in each column- - rounded) * (N=l9) (N=29) (N=22) Bus. / WWW; News Discussion Programs Educational Programs Sports music Programs Morning Shows Noon/ Evening Shows Sunday (Variety) Shows comedies Telenovelas (Serials) Series Foreign Programs MO‘Vi es Cartoons 89 42 0 68 47 32 100 53 5 58 32 O 79 0 100 48 0 52 14 21 62 62 31 55 14 0 79 0 TABLE 5D: WHAT DO YOU LIKE TO WATCH? 95 36 5 27 0 9 59 36 9 36 9 0 64 5 BY SES (8 of respondents in each colunm--rounded) * News Di 8 cIlssion Programs meational Programs 3'38 1 (.3 Programs “0:13-11:19 Shows S :1 / Evening Shows C marl y (Variety) Shows e(3:188 Tel en Ger 1 e(Sbvelas (Serials) (N=15) 35 55 0 55 30 35 80 50 20 70 25 0 100 .10 (N=39) 100 54 O 42 4 13 67 54 8 38 21 0 42 O *R eaI>ondents could list more than one preference (N=31) nus/11$: 96 32 4 43 11 7 50 39 14 21 4 4 64 4 (N=22) 100 55 27 41 36 23 14 50 .150 TABLE 5E: WHAT DO YOU LIKE TO WATCH? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (% of respondents in each column- - rounded) * (N=42) (N=39) Some to None Eluent News 100 97 Discussion Programs 24 51 Educational Programs 0 3 Sports 26 49 music Programs 12 21 Morning Shows 17 15 Noon/ Evening Shows 52 90 Sunday (Variety) Shows 31 46 comedies 12 10 Telenovelas (Serials) 36 54 series 7 28 Foreign Programs 0 0 Movies 50 74 cartoons 2 3 TABLE 5F: WHAT DO YOU LIKE TO WATCH? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (% of respondents in each column- rounded)* (N=32) (N=30) (N=23) 1;2 3 4.15 News 97 100 100 Di 8 cussion Programs 47 40 48 Educational Programs 0 o 4 $130 rt 8 31 47 57 Mus i <2 Programs 16 23 17 Mom ing Shows 13 27 9 Noon / Evening Shows 84 73 70 Em (Say (Variety) Shows 47 43 52 Talediea 19 13 0 Se ?novelas (Serials) 50 50 3o Poi: :8 9 23 17 _ 9n Programs 3 0 o ”W 3— es 56 63 7 o Cons 0 0 13 *Res . pondents could last more than one preference ] I 1 (I‘ l ’ b (4‘ c 151 TABLE 5G: WHAT DO YOU LIKE TO WATCH? BY TELEPHONE USE (% of respondents in each column-~rounded) * News Discussion Programs Educational Programs Sports Misic Programs Morning Shows Noon/[Waning Shows Sunday (Variety) Shows Cmedies Telenovelas (Serials) series Foreign Programs miss cartoons 100 45 0 58 23 26 94 48 19 45 1.3 0 84 3 (N=31) 0 - 5 twes weekly TABIJE 5H: WHAT DO YOU LIKE TO WATCH? (N=36) 6+ times Weekly 100 56 3 33 ll 14 64 44 8 42 19 3 61 3 BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (% of respondents in each column--rounded)* News Di 8 cussion Programs Educational Programs Spo rt 8 Mus i c: Programs Horn 1119 Shows Noon / Evening Shows Sun (Say (Variety) Shows emaies gel gnovelas (Serials) er II— as Fore 1 mg 9n P rams NOV 1 e8 (N=64) (N=18) (N821) (N=10) Caribbean/ Europe/ 100 100 62 60 O 0 29 10 10 0 10 20 19 20 33 50 19 10 48 10 10 0 10 O 90 7O 0 0 *- Re s£>c>mdents could list more than one preference 152 TABLE 6A: WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE DOMINICAN PROGRAMS? [TOP 5 BY PROGRAM TYPE LISTED] BY INCOME (% of respondents in each colunm--rounded) * (N822) (N=13) (N=22) $35.0 3.59.1190 2.2.11.0 NEWS Rahintel 36 77 50 Teleantillas 45 54 14 Mundovisién 9 38 55 'I'elanoticias 14 8 14 Uno + mm 9 15 9 Other/unspecified 18 31 32 DISCUSSION "Fourth Estate“ 18 38 32 “Hot Seat" 18 23 9 ..Once Again w/Yaqui" 9 15 9 “Adults Only" 5 23 5 Aeromundo 5 23 o other/Unspecified 36 54 36 SPORTS Baseball 14 38 9 Basketball 9 8 9 Boxing 5 8 5 Wreatling 9 O 0 Other/unspecified 59 85 45 MUS IC Merengue 14 0 O Other/unspecified 41 15 23 DQORJQ’ING SHOWS "Good Morning" 23 23 9 ”Today" [DR] 18 15 9 Other/unspecified 0 15 5 1' cont: inued next page] 153 TABLE 6A: WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE DOMINICAN PROGRAMS? [TOP 5 BY PROGRAM TYPE LISTED] "continued' BY INCOME (% of respondents in each colunm--rounded) * (N=22) (N=13) (N=22) $35.0 3552:1114 21m NOON SHOWS "Midday" 59 54 41 Sabro Show 23 8 14 "Caribbean" 36 0 0 Other / Unspecif 1 ed 1 8 8 9 EVENING SHOWS "Evening" 95 85 59 "Big Afternoon" 14 8 9 "Final Point" 5 0 14 "Good Evening" 0 8 5 -' Climb & Descend" 0 15 0 SUNDAY ” Fat Man of the Week" 82 100 100 "Cecilia on Facets" 5 O 18 ” Sun Room" 0 0 9 «319 Sunday" 9 0 0 COMEDIES -- With Cuquin" 45 46 27 " Luisito & Antony" 23 31 27 Boruga Show 5 23 5 Telequera 0 0 5 Other/Unspecified 18 23 32 «II-Re Spondents could list more than one preference 154 TABLE 63: WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE DOMINICAN PROGRAMS? [TOP 5 BY PROGRAM TYPE LISTED] BY EDUCATION (% of respondents in each column-~rounded) * (N=15) (N=17) (N=25) Was Ssmndarxllech UniLOLMOre NEWS Rahintel 33 65 7 2 Teleantillas 67 47 12 Mmdovisién 33 4 1 64 Telenoticias 7 12 16 Uno + Uno 7 O 20 Other/Unspecified 27 41 20 DISCUSSION 0' Fourth Estate" 27 18 36 " Hot Seat" 20 6 20 0' Once Again w/Yaqui" 7 18 4 -- Adults Only" 7 0 16 Aeromundo 0 12 12 Other/unspecified 7 18 48 SPORTS Baseball 27 18 20 Ba sketball 0 12 16 Boxing 0 12 4 Wrestling 7 6 0 0t: her/Unspecified 60 100 48 MU S I C Merengue 7 12 24 0t: 11 er/Unspecified 33 53 24 DDRNING SHOWS " Good Morning" 7 6 28 " Today" [DR] 13 24 8 01: h oar/Unspecified 0 12 8 II cont inued next page] 155 TABLE GB: WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE DOMINICAN PROGRAMS? [TOP 5 BY PROGRAM TYPE LIST-1 - ~continued BY EDUCATION (% of respondents in each coluxnn—-rounded) * (N=15) (N=17) (N=25) W Semndamflech Wore NOON SHOWS "Midday" 40 71 68 Sabro Show 20 18 16 ”Caribbean" 33 6 4 Other/Unspecified 7 24 12 EVENING SHOWS "Evening" 73 88 84 "Big Afternoon" 20 12 4 "Final Point" 0 0 20 "Good Evening" 0 6 4 "Climb & Descend" 7 0 4 Other/unspecif ied 0 6 0 SUNDAY Fat Man of the Week" 100 76 100 ”Cecilia on Facets" 0 0 20 "Sun Room“ 0 0 8 ”Big Sunday" 9 o 4 Other/Unspecif ied 0 12 0 COMEDIES ” With Cuquin" 33 29 56 ”Luisito & Antony" 20 29 32 Boruga Show 7 18 4 Telequera 0 6 0 " Practical Joke" O 0 4 Other/Unspecified 33 47 28 *Respondents could list more than one preference 156 TABLE 6C: WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE DOMINICAN PROGRAMS? [TOP 5 BY PROGRAM TYPE LISTED] BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (% of respondents in each column- -rounded) * (N=16) (N=15) (N=15) (N=12) Bus./ Students W Goxlt Jami... NEWS Rahintel 63 40 67 83 Teleantillas 44 53 33 1'7 Mindovisién 44 27 67 67 Telenoticias 19 13 7 8 (1110 + UnO l3 0 13 25 other/unspecif ied 19 4 o 7 4 2 DISCUSSION 0' Fourth Estate" 38 20 27 42 "H01: Seat" 25 20 7 8 "Once Again w/Yaqui" O 13 13 8 "Adults Only“ 0 7 13 17 Aeromundo 6 7 7 17 other/Unspecified 31 13 53 100 SPORTS Baseball 19 27 20 17 Basketball 19 13 7 0 Boxing 0 7 7 8 Wrestling 6 7 o 0 Other/Unspecified 81 100 60 33 MUSIC Merengue 0 20 0 0 Other/Unspecified 50 47 13 25 DIORNING SHOWS "Good Morning" 19 7 20 25 " Today" [DR] l9 l3 7 8 Other/Unspecified 13 20 13 8 I cont: inued next page] 157 TABLE 6C: WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE DOMINICAN PROGRAMS? [TOP 5 BY PROGRAM TYPE LISTED] "continued BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (% of respondents in each column-~rounded)* (N=16) (N=15) (N=15) Bus./ Students War (5911]; NOON SHOWS “Midday” 94 60 53 Sabro Show 38 20 7 "Caribbean" 38 13 0 Other/unspecified 6 20 33 EVENING SHOWS "Evening" 100 93 73 "Big Afternoon" 19 20 0 “Final Point“ 6 l3 13 “Good Evening" 0 0 0 "Climb & Descend" o 13 o Other/unspecified 13 0 0 SUNDAY "Fat Mhn Of the Week" 56 100 100 I'Cecilia on Facets“ o 0 20 "Sun Room" 0 O 7 'Big Sunday” 13 0 0 Other/unspecified 6 0 o CGEDIES ”With Cuquin" 31 13 33 'Luisito & Antony" 38 27 13 Boruga Show 13 7 7 Talequera 0 0 7 "Practical Joke" 0 7 0 Other/unspecified 19 53 4o *RespOndents could list more than one preference (N=12) 2:911 33 000 158 TABLE 6D: WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE DOMINICAN PROGRAMS? [TOP 5 BY PROGRAM TYPE LISTED] BY SES (8 of respondents in each column--rounded)* (N=11) (N=24) (N=20) W W HMO/.11: NEWS Rahintel 36 58 85 Teleantillas 64 . 54 15 MMndovisiOn 9 46 75 Telenoticias 9 21 10 UDO + UnO 9 8 20 Other/unspecified 18 38 25 DISCUSSION "Fourth Estate" 36 17 40 "Hot Seat“ 36 8 15 "Once Again w/Yaqui" 9 8 15 “Adults Only" 9 4 5 Aeromundo 0 13 10 Other/unspecified o 63 45 SPORTS Baseball 36 17 20 Basketball 9 13 10 Boxing 9 4 5 Wrestling 9 0 o Other/unspecified 100 88 30 MUSIC Merengue 18 4 0 Other/unspecified 36 54 20 MORNING SHOWS "Good.Morning” 18 21 25 "Today" [DR] 18 17 5 Other/unspecified o 17 5 [continued next page] 159 TABLE 6D: WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE DOMINICAN PROGRAMS? [TOP 5 BY PROGRAM TYPE LISTED]--continued BY SES (% of respondents in each column-~rounded)* (N=1l) (N224) (N=20) YEEELJEEEHGEEB: EKELLMCLMC UNCLE: NOON SHOWS "Midday” 45 7 9 50 Sabro Show 18 29 10 "Caribbean" 45 8 0 Other/unspecified 27 21 25 EVENING SHOWS "Evening" 91 100 70 "Big Afternoon" 18 17 0 "Final Point" 0 8 20 "Good Evening" 0 0 5 "Climb & Descend" 0 8 0 Other/unspecified o 13 0 SUNDAY "Fat Man of the Week" 100 96 100 "Cecilia on Facets” 0 0 25 " Sun Room" 0 O l 0 "Big Sunday" 9 4 o Other/unspecified 0 4 o COMEDIES "With Cuquin" 55 33 6o "Luisito & Antony“ 18 29 3O Boruga Show 0 17 5 Telequera 9 0 0 "Practical Joke" o 0 5 Other/unspecified 27 46 30 *Respondents could list more than one preference 160 TABLE 6E: WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE DOMINICAN PROGRAMS? [TOP 5 BY PROGRAM TYPE LISTED] BY ENGLISH ABILITY (% of respondents in each column-~rounded)* (N:23) (N=30) Some to Hana Eluent NEWS Rahintel 43 73 Teleantillas 65 27 HMmdovisiOn 48 30 Telenoticias 17 7 Uno + Uno 4 17 Other/unspecified 57 23 DISCUSSION "Fourth Estate" 26 20 “Hot Seat" 9 27 “Once Again w/Yaqui" 13 10 “Adults Only“ 4 13 Aeromundo 9 13 Other/unspecified 22 53 SPORTS Baseball 26 17 Basketball 13 10 Boxing 4 7 Wrestling 4 3 Other/unspecified 57 80 MUSIC Merengue 4 7 Other/unspecified 30 40 MORNING SHOWS 'Good.Morning" 17 23 “Today" [DR] l3 l3 Other/unspecified 9 10 [continued next page] 161 TABLE 6E: WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE DOMINICAN PROGRAMS? [TOP 5 BY PROGRAM TYPE LISTED]--continued BY ENGLISH ABILITY (% of respondents in each column--rounded)* (N=2 3 ) (N=3 0) Some to None Eluent NOON SHOWS "Midday" 7 8 63 Sabro Show 17 23 "Caribbean" 22 10 Other/Unspecified 13 20 EVENING SHOWS "Evening" 100 83 "Big Afternoon" 9 13 "Final Point" 0 17 "Good Evening“ 0 3 "Climb & Descend“ 0 7 Other/unspecified 9 0 SUNDAY "Fat Man of the Week" 83 100 ”Cecilia on Facets" 0 17 “Sun Room" 0 7 “Big Sunday" 4 3 Other/unspecified 4 0 CDMEDIES "With Cuquin" 39 50 "Luisito & Antony" 35 20 Boruga Show 13 3 Telequera 4 0 "Practical Joke" 0 3 Other/unspecified 35 30 *Respondents could list more than one preference 162 TABLE 6F: WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE DOMINICAN PROGRAMS? [TOP 5 BY PROGRAM TYPE LISTED] BY INFORMATION SOURCES (% of respondents in each column-rounded)* (N216) (N=24) (N214) 1:2 3 its NEWS Rahintel 56 54 86 Teleantillas 69 33 21 Mmdovisién 50 42 64 Telenoticias 13 8 14 Uho + UnO 19 8 7 Other/unspecified 38 21 36 DISCUSSION “Fourth Estate" 4 38 25 36 "Hot Seat" 38 8 0 "Once Again w/Yaqui" 13 8 14 “Adults Only" 13 4 14 Aeromundo 6 8 14 Other/unspecified 38 17 79 SPORTS Baseball 31 17 29 Basketball 19 8 7 Boxing 13 4 0 Wrestling 6 4 0 Other/Unspecified 69 71 100 MUSIC Merengue 13 4 0 Other/unspecified 31 33 50 IMORNING SHOWS "Good Mbrning" 13 13 36 "Today" [DR] 19 13 7 Other/unapecified 6 8 21 [continued next page] 163 TABLE 6?: WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE DOMINICAN PROGRAMS? [TOP 5 BY PROGRAM TYPE LISTED]--continued BY INFORMATION SOURCES (% of respondents in each column-- rounded)* (Ns16) (N=24) (N214) 1:2. 3 4L5 NOON SHOWS “Midday" 69 58 71 Sabro Show 13 8 50 "Caribbean" 25 13 0 Other/unspecified 38 8 14 EVENING SHOWS "Evening” 94 88 79 “Big Afternoon" 6 17 7 "Final Point" 13 8 14 "Good Evening" 6 0 0 "Climb & Descend" 0 8 0 Other/unspecified 6 0 7 SUNDAY "Fat Man of the Week" 100 100 93 "Cecilia on Facets" 13 8 7 "Sun Room" 6 4 0 "Big Sunday" 6 4 O Other/unspecified 6 0 O COMEDIES "With Cuquin" 31 50 57 "Luisito & Antony" 31 17 43 Boruga Show 6 13 7 Telequera 0 4 0 "Practical Joke" 6 0 o Other/unspecified 56 25 36 *Respondents could list more than one preference 164 TABLE 6G: WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE DOMINICAN PROGRAMS? [TOP 5 BY PROGRAM TYPE LISTED] BY TELEPHONE USE (% of respondents in each column--rounded)* (N:24) (N=26) 0-5 times 6+ times Weekly Heele NEWS Rahintel 42 65 Teleantillas 33 35 ‘MUndovisiOn 33 62 Telenoticias 21 4 Ono + Uno 4 15 Other/Unspecified 29 23 DISCUSSION ”Fourth Estate" 17 31 ”Hot Seat“ 33 12 "Once Again w/Yaqui" 8 4 ”Amlts Only" 0 12 Aeromundo 8 15 Other/unspecified 25 46 SPORTS Baseball 21 19 Basketball 13 12 Boxing 4 4 Wrestling 4 o Other/unspecified 96 42 MUSIC Merengue 8 4 Other/unspecified 42 23 MORNING SHOWS "Good.MOrning" 8 31 ”Today“ [DR] 17 8 Other/unspecified 8 12 [continued next page] 165 TABLE 6G: WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE DOMINICAN PROGRAMS? [TOP 5 BY PROGRAM TYPE LISTED] "continued BY TELEPHONE USE (% of respondents in each column-~rounded)* (N=24) (N226) 0-5 thes 6+ times 14.22le [422le NOON SHOWS "Midday" 71 54 Sabro Show 17 12 "Caribbean" 25 0 Other/unspecified 17 12 EVENING SHOWS "Evening" 100 65 "Big Afternoon" 8 8 ”Final Point” 13 12 "Good Evening" 0 4 "Climb & Descend" 8 4 SUNDAY ”Fat Man of the Week" 83 100 "Cecilia on Facets" 0 15 "Sun Room" 0 8 ”Big Sunday" 8 0 COMEDIES “With Cuquin“ 42 42 "Luisito & Antony" 21 19 Boruga Show 8 8 Telequera 4 0 “Practical JOke" 4 o Other/unspecified 29 35 *Respondents could list more than one preference 166 TABLE 6H: WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE DOMINICAN PROGRAMS? [TOP 5 BY PROGRAM TYPE LISTED] BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (% of respondents in each column-~rounded)* (N=38) (N=17) (N=16) (N=10) Caribbean/ Europe/ None WWW NEWS Rahintel 61 53 81 60 Teleantillas 55 12 0 ‘ 0 Mundovisién 50 35 44 20 TelenOticias 18 0 0 0 mm + Duo 5 35 38 50 Other/Unspecified 29 29 25 10 DISCUSSION ”Fourth Estate“ 29 24 38 30 "Hot Seat" 16 6 25 10 ”Once Again w/Yaqui" 5 24 19 20 "Adults Only“ 8 12 13 0 Aeromundo 13 0 6 0 Other/Unspecified 24 76 75 100 SPORTS Baseball 24 0 19 0 Basketball 13 6 13 0 Boxing 5 o 13 0 Wrestling 5 o o o Other/unspecified 89 18 19 10 MUSIC Merengue 8 0 0 0 Other/unspecified 47 6 13 0 MORNING SHOWS "Good Morning" 21 18 31 20 "Today" [DR] 16 0 6 0 Other/Unspecified 13 18 31 10 [continued next page] 167 TABLE 6H: WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE DOMINICAN PROGRAMS? [TOP 5 BY PROGRAM TYPE LISTED] BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (% of respondents in each column--rounded)* (N=38) (N=17) (N216) (N=10) Caribbean/ Europe/ Nana IUSLER LatinLAmI AsialME NOON SHOWS ”Midday“ 82 41 33 20 Sabro Show 21 6 13 10 ”Caribbean" 18 O 6 o Other/unspecified 21 12 6 0 EVENING SHOWS "Evening" 100 41 81 40 "Big Afternoon" 13 0 6 10 “Final Point" 5 35 19 20 "Good Evening" 3 o 0 0 ”Climb & Descend" 3 0 6 o Other/unspecified 5 0 o 0 SUNDAY “Fat Man of the Week" 95 100 100 70 “Cecilia on Facets" 5 12 19 20 "Sun Room! 0 6 13 10 "Big Sunday" 5 0 0 0 Other/unspecified 3 0 0 0 CCMEDIES ”With Cuquin" 50 24 50 20 "Luisito & Antony“ 34 18 19 20 Boruga Show 11 6 o 0 Telequera 3 0 O 0 "Practical Joke" o 6 o 10 Other/unspecified 32 47 44 20 *Respondents could list more than one preference 168 TABLE 7A3 WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE FOREIGN PROGRAMS? BY INCOME (% of respondents in each column--rounded)* (N=17) (N=13) (N=2?) $359 359t199 2199 DOCUMENTARIES united States 12 31 19 Europe 6 23 11 Brazil 6 8 4 Other/unspecified 12 23 19 SPORTS United States 41 31 3O Other/unspecified 29 62 19 MUSIC SHOWS united States 35 15 7 Puerto Rico 6 23 11 Mexico 6 0 15 Spain 6 0 4 Other unspecified 12 31 11 COMEDIES Maxico 88 69 33 Other/unspecified 12 15 11 TELENOVELAS (SERIALS) venezuela 47 31 11 Mexico 41 31 4 Brazil 6 8 0 Other/unspecified 29 8 4 SERIES United States 71 54 30 Brazil 0 8 4 Other/Unspecified 6 23 7 MOVIES United States 100 100 100 Mexico 18 8 7 Europe 6 31 4 China 12 0 11 Brazil 6 8 7 Other/unspecified 29 31 0 CARTOONS United States 41 23 22 Mexico 6 8 0 Other/unspecified 6 23 0 *Respondents could list more than one preference 169 TABLE 73: WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE FOREIGN PROGRAMS? BY EDUCATION (% of respondents in each column--rounded)* (N215) (N=22) (N=30) We W W DOCUMENTARIES United States 0 14 33 Europe 7 5 23 Brazil 7 o 7 Other/unspecified 7 18 20 SPORTS United States 40 23 33 Other/unspecified 27 41 27 MUSIC SHOWS United States 13 27 10 Puerto Rico 7 14 13 Mexico 0 9 10 Spain 7 o 3 Other unspecified 20 14 23 COMEDIES Mexico 87 64 4O Other/unspecified 13 27 7 TELENOVELAS (SERIALS) venezuela 40 36 13 Mexico 47 27 7 Brazil 0 0 10 Other/unspecified 27 23 13 SERIES united States 53 50 43 Brazil 0 9 3 Other/unspecified o 9 7 MOVIES united States 100 100 100 Maxico 7 23 7 Europe 0 14 10 China 7 14 3 Brazil 0 0 3 Other/unspecified 20 5 17 CARTOONS United States 33 41 27 Maxico 13 0 O Other/Unspecified 0 9 3 *Respondents could list more than one preference 170 TABLE 7C: WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE FOREIGN PROGRAMS? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (% of respondents in each column- - rounded) * (N=15) (N=23) (k1?) Bus . / WWW DOCUMENTARIES United States 13 13 24 Europe 13 4 6 Brazil 7 o 0 Other/Unspecif ied 20 17 18 SPORTS United States 3 3 3 5 3 5 Other/Unspecif ied 60 22 29 MUSIC SHOWS United States 27 17 12 Puerto Rico 27 0 18 Mexico 13 4 6 Spa in 7 4 O Other Unspecified 27 4 18 «MEDIES Mexico 53 10 0 4 1 Other/Unspecif ied 13 17 24 TELENOV'ELAS (SERIALS) Venezuela 60 2 6 18 Mexico 2 0 13 0 Brazil 7 0 6 Other/unspecif ied 27 o 24 SERIES United States 67 2 6 53 Brazil 7 0 6 Other/Unspecif ied 13 4 12 MOVIES United States 10 0 10 0 100 Mexico 2 o 13 18 Europe 27 4 6 Cluina 7 9 6 Brazil 0 0 6 Other/Unspecif ied 7 17 12 CARTOONS United States 53 26 12 Mexico 7 4 0 Other/Unspecif ied 13 4 6 *ReSpondents could list more than one preference (N=13) 31 38 15 15 31 23 171 TABLE 7D: WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE FOREIGN PROGRAMS? BY SES (% of respondents in each column--rounded) * (N813) (N=28) (N=2?) W W UNCLE DOCUMENTARIES , United States 8 11 30 Europe 8 O 30 Brazil 8 4 4 Other/Unspecified 8 32 11 SPORTS united States 38 39 26 Other/Unspecified 38 43 15 MUSIC SHOWS united States 23 14 15 Puerto Rico 8 11 19 Mexico 0 11 11 Spain 8 o 4 Other Unspecified 15 29 15 CQJEDIES Mexico 85 79 19 Other/Unspecified 8 25 7 TELENOVELAS (SERIALS) Venezuela 23 46 11 Mexico 38 29 7 Brazil 0 4 7 Other/Unspecified 31 21 11 SERIES United States 46 54 52 Brazil 0 7 4 Other/Unspecified o 18 7 MOVIES United States 100 100 100 Mexico 15 14 11 Europe 0 18 4 China 8 11 4 Brazil 0 4 0 Other/Unspecified 15 18 7 CARTOONS Urlited States 31 46 15 Mexico 15 0 0 Other/Unspecified 8 11 0 *Respondents could list more than one preference 172 TABLE 7E: WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE FOREIGN PROGRAMS? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (% of respondents in each column--rounded)* (N=27) (N=36) Some to None fluent. DOCUMENTARIES united States 11 25 Europe 4 19 Brazil 7 3 Other/Unspecified 15 19 SPORTS united States 33 28 Other/unspecified 37 31 MUSIC SHOWS United States 15 22 Puerto Rico 11 11 Maxico 4 11 Spain 4 3 Other unspecified 22 22 COMEDIES Mexico 100 31 Other/unspecified 19 8 TELENOVELAS (SERIALS) Venezuela 37 28 Mexico 33 17 Brazil 4 6 Other/unspecified 26 14 SERIES United States 48 39 Brazil 7 3 Other/unspecified 7 17 MOVIES united States 89 100 Mexico 22 8 Europe 0 14 China 7 8 Brazil 0 3 Other/unspecified 22 8 CARTOONS united States 30 33 Mexico 4 3 Other/unspecified 4 8 *Respondents could list more than one preference 173 TABLE 7F: WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE FOREIGN PROGRAMS? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (% of respondents in each column-- rounded)* (N=24) (N=25) (N=14) 1:2 3 4:5 DOCUMENTARIES united States 25 4 43 Europe 17 8 21 Brazil 0 8 7 Other/unspecified 13 12 43 SPORTS united States 42 24 43 Other/unspecified 17 40 57 MUSIC SHOWS united States 13 24 21 Puerto Rico 4 16 29 Mexico 4 8 14 Spain 4 0 7 Other Unspecified 21 8 43 COMEDIES Mexico 63 56 64 Other/unspecified 8 20 21 TELENOVELAS (SERIALS) Venezuela 25 52 7 Mexico 38 16 14 Brazil 0 4 14 Other/unspecified 25 16 7 SERIES united States 38 60 57 Brazil 4 8 0 Other/unspecified 8 12 7 MOVIES United States 100 100 100 Mexico 17 8 14 Europe 0 16 14 China 8 4 14 Brazil 0 0 7 Other/unspecified 4 8 21 CARTOONS united States 33 28 36 Mexico 4 4 o Other/Unspecified 8 4 7 *Respondents could list more than one preference 174 TABLE 7G: WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE FOREIGN PROGRAMS? BY TELEPHONE USE (% of respondents in each column--rounded)* (N=29) (N=35) 0-5 times 6+ times Weekly weekly DOCUMENTARIES united States 21 14 Europe 10 14 Brazil 7 3 Other/Unspecified 14 11 SPORTS united States 34 29 Other/unspecified 38 17 MUSIC SHOWS united States 24 11 Puerto Rico 7 9 Mexico 0 9 Other unspecified 24 14 COMEDIES Mexico 72 26 Other/unspecified 14 17 TELENOVELAS (SERIALS) venezuela 31 26 Mexico 21 20 Brazil 0 6 Other/unspecified 21 20 SERIES united States 55 29 Brazil 3 3 Other/unspecified 10 26 MOVIES united States 100 100 Mexico 10 14 Europe 10 6 China 7 0 Brazil 0 3 Other/unspecified 24 6 CARTOONS United States 45 11 MMxico 7 0 Other/unspecified 7 3 ‘*Respondents could list more than one preference 175 TABLE 7H: WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE FOREIGN PROGRAMS? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (% of respondents in each column-~rounded)* (W48) (N=18) (N=20) (N=7) Caribbean/ Europe/ Home WWW DOCUMENTARIES united States 15 39 25 57 Europe 2 39 40 71 Brazil 6 0 O 0 Other/unspecified 21 6 O 14 SPORTS united States 40 39 35 14 Other/unspecified 35 6 10 o MUSIC SHOWS United States 19 22 5 0 Puerto Rico 15 6 5 0 Mexico 6 11 20 0 Spain 4 0 O 0 Other unspecified 23 11 10 14 COMEDIES Mexico 60 22 45 43 Other/unspecified 21 0 0 0 TELENOVELAS (SERIALS) venezuela 31 6 40 0 Mexico 23 6 15 14 Brazil 4 6 0 o Other/unspecified 21 11 10 14 SERIES United States 50 56 50 100 Brazil 2 11 10 29 Other/unspecified 10 6 o 14 MOVIES United States 100 100 100 86 Mexico 13 28 10 0 Europe 13 0 0 0 China 4 6 10 14 Brazil 2 O O O Other/unspecified 17 0 5 0 CARTOONS 'United States 38 17 10 14 Inexico 4 0 0 0 Other/unspecified 6 o 5 0 *Respondents could list more than one preference APPENDIX C: PROGRAM TYPE OPINIONS APPENDIX C: PROGRAM TYPE OPINIONS TABLE 8A; HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DR NEWS? BY INCOME (% of respondents in each row-rounded) Accentance Negotiation Rejection BoniLKnou (350 (N=40) 75 20 5 0 350'700 (NI-27) 89 7 3 0 >700 (N=33) 82 12 6 0 TABLE 8B: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DR NEWS? BY EDUCATION (% of respondents in each row-rounded) Acceptance Negotiation Rejection DonLthnmz Primary or less (Na-27) 78 11 11 0 Secondary/Tech. (N332) 88 13 o 0 Univ. or more (Na-=50) 82 14 4 0 ' TABLE 8C: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DR NEWS? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) acceptance Negotiation Rejection mm Students (N=22) 59 27 14 0 Blue collar (N=38) 87 13 o o Business/Gov't (N=26) 88 8 4 0 Prof (N=23) 83 13 4 0 TABLE 8D: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DR NEWS? BY SES (% of respondents in each r --rounded) Acceptance Negotiation Reiection nonitm Very Poor/Poor (N=23) 78 17 4 0 Wkg/LMC/MC (N=53) 81 13 6 o UMC/Upper Class (N=3?) 84 11 5 0 176 177 TABLE 8E: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DR NEWS? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (% of respondents in each row-rounded) None (N=42) 81 17 2 0 Some-Fluent (N=62) 79 13 8 0 TABLE 8F: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DR NEWS? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) AccentanceNecotiationReiectionnonLLm 1-2 (N847) 79 17 4 O 3 (N537) 78 14 8 0 4‘5 (Nh27) 89 7 4 0 TABLE 8G: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DR NEWS? BY TELEPHONE USE (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) AcceptanceNmotiationRejectionnonle 0-5 times weekly (N=48) 83 15 2 0 6+ times weekly (N=46) 83 13 4 0 TABLE 8H: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DR NEWS? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) Accentance Negotiation Rejection Donltm None (N=84) 83 12 5 0 US/PR (N=24) 67 29 4 0 Car. /Lat. Am. (N=28) 68 21 11 o Eur./Asia/ME (N310) 70 20 10 0 TABLE 9A: BY INCOME (350 350-700 >700 TABLE 93: 178 HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE NEWS IN ENGLISH? (% of respondents in each row--rounded) AccentancehkeunueudxxzReiectionlxxruijcnnz (N235) 14 3 74 9 (N225) 4 16 72 8 (N=32) 19 16 56 9 HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE NEWS IN ENGLISH? BY EDUCATION (% of respondents in each row--rounded) luxutmancelkxmmdationInfluxmionlxxuttxnou Primary or less (N223) 9 9 78 4 Secondary/Tech. (N229) 17 7 76 0 Univ. or more (N=45) 11 18 53 18 TABLE 9C: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE NEWS IN ENGLISH? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (% of respondents in each row--rounded) Students Blue collar Business/Gov't Prof TABLE 9D: BY SES (% of respondents in each r Very Poor/Poor Wkg/LMCIMC UMC/upper Class (N233) AcceptancelkmmmdationluxuanusnxDon1t_Knou (N521) 19 10 67 5 (N235) 0 6 80 14 (Ne23) 17 13 61 9 (N=21) 19 24 43 14 HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE NEWS IN ENGLISH? --rounded) [.05] AcceptancelkaunuemionInfluxndrutDon1t_Knou (N=20) 5 o 85 10 (N245) 9 9 76 7 21 24 42 12 179 TABLE 9E: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE NEWS IN ENGLISH? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (% of respondents in each r --rounded) [. 01] Acceptance Negotiation Rejection Won None (N=40) 5 3 80 13 Some-Fluent (N257) 18 18 56 9 TABLE 9F: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE NEWS IN ENGLISH? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) AcceptanceNegotiationRejectionnonltm 1'2 (N844) 11 9 73 7 3 (N333) 12 18 61 9 4‘5 (N=21) 14 10 57 19 TABLE 9G: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE NEWS IN ENGLISH? BY TELEPHONE USE (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) AcceptanceNegotiationReiectionnonltJnm 0-5 times weekly (N=43) 9 9 72 9 6+ times weekly (N=32) 19 22 50 9 TABLE 9H: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE NEWS IN ENGLISH? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (% of respondents in each row- - rounded) Accentance Negotiation Rejection Don'_t_Rnom None (N=71) 8 8 73 1O US/PR (N=24) 29 25 33 13 Car./Lat. Am. (N=30) 20 30 4O 10 Eur./Asia/ME (N=20) 15 10 65 10 180 TABLE 10A; HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DISCUSSION PROGRAMS? BY INCCME (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) Acceptance Negotiation Rejection Donn-inner: (350 (N=36) 44 31 25 0 350-700 (N323) 52 26 17 4 >700 (N=28) 54 25 21 0 TABLE IOB: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DISCUSSION PROGRAMS? BY EDUCATION (% of respondents in each r - - rounded) Accentance Negotiation Rejection nonlLKnou Primary or less (N=24) 38 29 33 0 Secondary/Tech. (N=29) 38 24 31 7 univ. or more (N=46) 61 24 13 2 TABLE 10C: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DISCUSSION PROGRAMS? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (% of respondents in each row- - rounded) Accentance Negotiation Rejection Roam Students (N=24) 38 21 38 4 Blue collar (N=34) 47 26 24 3 Business/Gov't (N=22) 41 41 18 0 Prof (NRZO) 7O 20 10 0 TABLE 10D: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DISCUSSION PROGRAMS? BY SES (% of respondents in each row-rounded) [.001] Accentance Negotiation Rejection DonLtJnou Very Poor/Poor (N=20) 3O 4O 30 10 Wkg/IMC/MC (N=2?) 37 19 37 7 UMC/Upper Class (N=34) 59 21 21 o 181 TABLE 10E: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DISCUSSION PROGRAMS? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (% of respondents in each row-rounded) Accmrance Negotiation Rejection mealtime NOne (N=40) 35 33 30 3 Some-Fluent (N=58) 53 24 21 2 TABLE 10F: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DISCUSSION PROGRAMS? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) WNegotiationRejectionW 1'2 (N=47) 49 28 21 2 3 (N832) 34 28 38 0 4'5 (Nfi23) 61 17 13 9 TABLE 10G: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DISCUSSION PROGRAMS? BY TELEPHONE USE (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) [.05] AcceptanceNegotiationReiectionnnnLLm 0-5 times weekly (N=55) 33 22 24 4 6+ times weekly (Na-48) 54 33 13 0 TABLE 10H: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DISCUSSION PROGRAMS? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (% of respondents in each row- - rounded) WNegotiationRejectionDoniLm None (N=76) 46 26 24 4 US/PR (N=23) 43 35 22 o Oar. /Lat. Am. (N=2?) 56 26 19 0 Eur. /Asia/ME (N=9) 67 33 o o TABLE 11A: BY INCOME (350 350-700 >700 TABLE 11B: 182 HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DOCUMENTARIES? (% of respondents in each row-~rounded) WWWW (N=36) 33 44 22 O (Ne27) 67 30 4 0 (N=27) 67 30 4 0 HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DOCUMENTARIES? BY EDUCATION (% of respondents in each row--rounded) WWWW Primary or less (Ne23) 35 48 17 0 Secondary/Tech. (N=31) 48 32 19 0 Univ. or more (N245) 64 33 2 0 TABLE 11C: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DOCUMENTARIES? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (% of respondents in each row--rounded) Students Blue collar Business/Gov't Prof TABLE 11D: (N=23) 39 43 17 o (N=36) 47 33 19 o (N=21) 62 38 o o (N=28) so 21 29 0 HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DOCUMENTARIES? BY SES (% of respondents in each row--rounded) very Poar/Poor Wkg/LMC/MC UMC/upper Class (Nt33) AcceptanceNegotiationRejectionnonLtm (N=20) 45 35 2o 0 (N=49) 47 37 16 o 64 33 3 o 183 TABLE 11E: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DOCUMENTARIES? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (% of respondents in each row-rounded) None (N=40) 43 43 15 0 Sane-Fluent (N=57 ) 56 33 ll 0 TABLE 11F: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DOCUMENTARIES? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) AcceptanceWtionReiectionnoniLm 1-2 (N=45) 51 33 16 0 3 (N=34) 44 40 15 0 4-5 (N=22) 64 32 5 0 TABLE 11G: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DOCUMENTARIES? BY TELEPHONE USE (% of respondents in each r - -rounded) Accentance Wax-Jon Rejection Donn-Limos 0-5 times weekly (N=45) 49 31 20 0 6+ times weekly (N=42) 50 4o 10 0 TABLE 11H: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DOCUMENTARIES? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (% of respondents in each row- - rounded) None (N=74) 53 34 14 0 US/PR (N=24) 46 54 0 0 Car./Lat. Am. (N=30) 57 30 13 O Eur./Asia/ME (N=10) 50 50 0 O 184 TABLE 12A: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DR SPORTS? BY INCOME (% of respondents in each row-~rounded) (350 (N337) 52 27 22 0 3507700 (Nt27) 44 26 30 0 >700 (N=30) 50 27 20 3 TABLE 123: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DR SPORTS? BY EDUCATION (% of respondents in each row--rounded) WWWW Primary or less (N226) 50 23 27 o Secondary/Tech. (Ntz9) 55 24 17 3 univ. or more (Nese) 34 43 22 0 TABLE 12C: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DR SPORTS? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (% of respondents in each r --rounded) AccentanceNegotiationRejectionDonltm Students (N521) 52 33 10 5 Blue collar (Nt39) 54 18 26 3 Business/Gov't (N226) 50 35 15 0 Prof (N=21) 33 24 43 0 TABLE 12D: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DR SPORTS? BY SES (% of respondents in each row--rounded) AcceptanceNegotiationRejectionW ‘very Poor/Poor (Nh23) 74 13 13 0 Wkg/LMC/MC (DI-=50) 44 3o 22 4 mac/Upper Class (N=35) 4o 29 31 o 185 TABLE 12E: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DR SPORTS? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) El III'I'E'I'E’IK None (N=41) 49 27 20 5 Some-Fluent (N=58) 47 26 28 0 TABLE 12F: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DR SPORTS? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) WeNegotiationRejectionDonltm 1’2 (Nh45) 47 31 22 0 3 (Ni37) 49 22 3O 0 4'5 (Nb24) 50 25 17 8 TABLE 12G: HOW WELL DO You LIKE DR SPORTS? BY TELEPHONE USE (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) Accentance Negotiation Rejection nonltm 0-5 times weekly (N=48) 58 25 17 0 6+ times weekly (Iv-=45) 42 22 33 2 TABLE 12H: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DR SPORTS? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (% of respondents in each row- - rounded) Acceptance Negotiation RejectionDonlthnox None (N=78) 54 27 18 1 US/PR (N=24) 17 42 42 o Car./Lat. Am. (N=30) 23 3o 43 3 Eur. Maia/ME (Nu-:12) 8 17 67 8 186 TABLE 13A: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE US SPORTS? BY INCOME (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) Acceptance Negotiation Rejection DoniLKnou (350 (N=33) 36 30 33 O 350'700 (NI-26) 46 15 38 0 >700 (N=26) 42 23 31 4 TABLE 133: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE US SPORTS? BY EDUCATION (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) Acceptance Negotiation Rejection ponitJnou Primary or less (N=22) 45 23 32 0 Secondary/Tech. (N=28) 36 25 36 4 Univ. or more (14844) 34 25 41 0 TABLE 13C: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE US SPORTS? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (% of respondents in each row- ~rounded) Acceptance Negotiation Rejection Donn-11mm: Students (N=19) 37 26 37 0 Blue collar (N=36) 47 17 36 O Business/Gov't (N=22) 36 32 32 0 Prof (N=19) 32 26 37 5 TABLE 13D: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE US SPORTS? BY SES (% of respondents in each row-rounded) [.05] AcceptancemQtiationReiectionW Very Poor/Poor (bk-=20) 7O 25 5 0 Wkg/LMC/MC (N=46) 33 20 48 0 UMC/Upper Class (N=31) 29 29 39 3 187 TABLE 13E: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE US SPORTS? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (% of respondents in each row-rounded) Acceptance Negotiation Rejection Donn-..Rnon None (N=39) 41 23 36 0 Some-Fluent (N=55) 38 24 36 2 TABLE 13F: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE US SPORTS? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) AcceptanceNegotiationRejectionnonltm 1-2 (N=42) 40 31 26 2 3 (N=33) 39 18 42 0 4'5 (N=20) 35 20 45 0 TABLE 13G: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE US SPORTS? BY TELEPHONE USE (% of respondents in each row-rounded) [.01] 0-5 times weekly (N=43) 49 23 28 0 6+ times weekly (N=39) 28 23 46 3 TABLE 13H: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE US SPORTS? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (% of respondents in each row- - rounded) None (N=70) 44 24 30 l US/PR (N=22) 9 , 32 59 0 Car./Lat. Am. (N=29) 28 28 45 0 Eur. /Asia/ME (N=12) O 17 83 O 188 TABLE 14A: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE WORLD SPORTS? BY INCOME (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) (350 (N=36) 56 19 25 0 350'700 (N=26) 58 23 19 0 >700 (Né27) 48 3O 22 0 TABLE 14B: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE WORLD SPORTS? BY EDUCATION (% of respondents in each row- - rounded) Acceptance Negotiation Rejection nonLLRnou Primary or less (N=25) 48 16 36 O Secondary/Tech. (N=30) 47 33 17 3 univ. or more (N=44) 55 25 20 0 TABLE 14C: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE WORLD SPORTS? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (% of respondents in each r - -rounded) AcceptanceNegotiationRejectionDonm Students (N=21) 52 33 10 5 Blue collar (N=39) 54 15 31 0 Business/Gov't (N=23) 48 39 13 0 Prof (N=20) 45 20 35 0 TABLE 14D: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE WORLD SPORTS? BY SES (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) AcceptanceNegotiationRejectionDonm Very Poor/Poor (N=22) 68 14 18 0 Wkg/LMC/MC (N=49) 47 29 22 2 UMC/upper Class (N=31) 45 29 26 o 189 TABLE 14E: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE WORLD SPORTS? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (% of respondents in each row-rounded) AcceptancehfieumjetionINRNRRJIELnonlt_Rnon None (N=39) 46 21 31 3 Sane-Fluent (N=58) 52 29 19 0 TABLE 14F: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE INFORMATION SOURCES? BY INCOME (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) ACCBDLBBCBIHEEEJBEJJNIRfiififlninnIXXEBLJUMI! 1-2 (N244) 48 25 27 o 3 (N234) 53 24 21 3 4-5 (N224) 50 29 21 0 TABLE 14G: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE WORLD SPORTS? BY TELEPHONE USE (% of respondents in each row-rounded) zRRuanzuREaNegotiationlethanjruxDonlt_Knou 0-5 times weekly (N=46) 59 28 13 0 6+ times weekly (N=44) 41 25 32 2 TABLE 14H: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE WORLD SPORTS? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (% of respondents in each r - -rounded) luxuanznnnaNegotiationlaruandtx1non1t_xnou None (N=77) 56 25 18 1 US/PR (N=20) 30 3O 40 0 Car. /Lat. Am. (N=29) 34 28 38 0 Eur. /Asia/ME (N=12) 8 33 59 0 190 TABLE 15A; HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DR MUSIC? BY INCOME (% of respondents in each row--rounded) AcceptanceNegotiationRejectionnonltm (350 (N=37) 43 32 22 3 350'700 (Nh24) 67 25 8 0 >700 (N=26) 42 38 19 0 TABLE 153: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DR MUSIC? BY EDUCATION (% of respondents in each r --rounded) AcceptanceNegotiationRejectionnonm Primary or less (Nh22) 64 18 18 0 Secondary/Tech. (Ne30) 47 33 20 0 univ. or more (N=44) 45 39 14 2 TABLE 15C: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DR MUSIC? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (% of respondents in each r --rounded) AcceptanceNeeotiationRejectionW Students (N224) 33 46 21 0 Blue collar (N232) 53 25 22 0 Business/Gov't (N=21) 62 38 0 0 Prof (N219) 53 32 16 0 TABLE 15D: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DR MUSIC? BY SES (% of respondents in eadh row-~rounded) AcceptanceNegotiationRejectionnonztm Very Poor/Poor (N918) 39 22 33 6 Wkg/LMC/MC (N250) 46 4o 14 o UMC/upper Class (Na31) 58 29 13 0 191 TABLE 15E: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DR MUSIC? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) W W Rejection nonltJnon None (N=38) 42 32 24 3 Some-Fluent (N=58) 52 36 12 0 TABLE 15?: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DR MUSIC? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) AcceptanceNegotiationRejectionNonltm 1'2 (N=43) 44 3O 26 0 3 (N=35) 60 29 9 3 4-5 (N=20) 40 45 15 0 TABLE 156: HOW WELL DO YOU LIE DR MUSIC? BY TELEPHONE USE (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) WWWW 0-5 times weekly (N244) 43 36 18 2 6+ times weekly (N=42) 50 33 1‘7 0 TABLE 15H: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DR MUSIC? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (% of respondents in each row--rounded) WWWW None (N=74) 46 31 19 1 US/PR (N=21) 38 52 10 0 Car. /Lat. Am. (N=28) 46 43 11 0 Eur. /Asia/ME (N=10) 2o 80 o o 192 TABLE 16A; HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MERENGUE? BY INCOME (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) (350 (N339) 69 26 5 0 3507700 (N=26) 73 19 8 0 >700 (N=31) 71 13 16 0 TABLE 16B: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MERENGUE? BY EDUCATION (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) W Negotiation mm W Primary or less (N=25) 76 20 4 0 Secondary/ Tech . (N=34) 7 6 15 9 0 Univ. or more (N=47) 64 26 11 0 TABLE 16C: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MERENGUE? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) WWWW Students (N=29) 9o 10 o 0 Blue collar (N=38) 68 26 5 0 Business/Gov't (N=25) 76 16 8 0 Prof (N=22) 64 18 18 0 TABLE 16D: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MERENGUE? BY SES (% of respondents in each row--rounded) Acceptance Negotiation W W Very Poor/Poor (N=21) 76 10 14 0 Wkg/IMC/MC (N=52) 71 27 2 o one/Upper Class (N=36) 69 17 14 o 193 TABLE 165:: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MERENGUE? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (% of respondents in each row--rounded) Boom Negotiation Rejection W None (N=45) 76 18 7 0 Some-Fluent (N=59) 68 22 10 0 TABLE 16F: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MERENGUE? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (% of respondents in each row- vrounded) WWWW 1'2 (N=48) S8 29 13 O 3 (N=38) 87 8 5 0 4'5 (N=22) 77 18 5 0 TABLE 16G: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MERENGUE? BY TELEPHONE USE (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) AcoentanoeNegotiationReieotionWou 0-5 times weekly (N=47) 72 23 4 0 6+ times weekly (N=46) 65 20 15 0 TABLE 16H: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MERENGUE? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) WWWW None (N=81) 77 19 5 0 US/PR (N=2?) 52 3o 19 0 Car. /Lat. Am. (N=29) 59 21 21 0 Eur. /Asia/ME (N=11) 27 45 27 o 194 TABLE 17A; HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE LATIN'MMSIC? BY INCOME (% of respondents in each row--rounded) E I! . . E . . I , K (350 (N344) 48 39 11 2 350-700 (N=25) 32 48 20 0 >700 (N=25) 52 40 8 0 TABLE 178: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE LATIN MUSIC? BY EDUCATION (% of respondents in each row--rounded) WWWW Primary or less (N=22) 41 36 18 5 Secondary/Tech. (N229) 34 41 24 o Uhiv. or more (N247) 6o 32 6 2 TABLE 17C: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE LATIN MUSIC? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (% of respondents in each row--rounded) WWWW Students (N=25) 68 20 8 4 Blue collar (N237) 38 43 16 3 Business/Gov't (N=20) 6o 25 15 0 Prof (N=l9) 32 47 21 0 TABLE 17D: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE LATIN MUSIC? BY SES (% of respondents in each r —-rounded) Wmiationaeiectionmm Very Poor/Poor (Nh20) 45 30 20 5 Wkg/LMC/MC (N=48) 44 4o 15 2 mac/Upper Class (N=33) 58 3o 12 o 195 TABLE 17E: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE LATIN MUSIC? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (% of respondents in each row-rounded) Acceptance Negotiation Rejection Denim None (N=40) 48 30 18 5 Some-Fluent (N=58) 48 40 12 0 TABLE 17F: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE LATIN MUSIC? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) AcceotanceumotiationReiectionncnitm 1'2 (N246) 46 33 17 4 3 (N=31) 52 29 19 0 4'5 (N=23) 48 48 4 0 TABLE 176: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE LATIN MUSIC? BY TELEPHONE USE (% of respondents in each row- —rounded) AcceptanceNecotiationReiectionDonLtm 0-5 times weekly (N844) 45 34 20 0 6+ times weekly (N=43) 49 40 12 0 TABLE 17H: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE LATIN’MUSIC? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) AcceptanceuecotiaticnReiectionoonitm None (N275) 45 35 17 3 US/PR (N=19) 68 26 5 0 Car. /Lat. Am. (N=28) so 39 11 0 Eur. /Asia/ME (N=12) 33 so 17 o 196 TABLE 18A: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE ROCK MUSIC? BY INCOME (8 of respondents in each row-rounded) Acceptance Negotiation'ReJection W (350 (N=35) 26 23 51 O 350'700 (N=22) 14 27 59 0 >700 (N=24) 17 25 58 0 TABLE 18B: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE ROCK MUSIC? BY EDUCATION (% of respondents in each row-rounded) Primary or less (N=20) 25 25 50 0 Secondary/Tech. (N=30) 13 33 53 0 Univ. or more (N=40) 18 25 58 0 TABLE 18C: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE ROCK MUSIC? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) Students (N=22) 36 27 36 0 Blue collar (19:33) 18 21 61 o Business/Gov' t (N=21) 19 24 57 0 Prof (Na-17) 12 35 53 0 TABLE 18D: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE ROCK MUSIC? BY SES (8 of respondents in each row-rounded) Acceptance Negotiation Rejection Donn-hm Very Poor/Poor (N=18) 33 22 44 0 Wkg/LMC/MC (N=48) 15 27 58 o UMC/Upper Class (N=2?) 22 30 48 0 197 TABLE 18E: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE ROCK MUSIC? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (% of respondents in each row--rounded) Acceptance Negotiation Rejection DonitJnom None (N=39) 21 26 54 0 Some-Fluent (N=51) 22 24 55 0 TABLE 18F: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE ROCK MUSIC? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) AcceptanceNegotiaticnReiectionDoL'Lm 1'2 (N=43) 21 26 53 O 3 (N=32) 19 31 50 0 4'5 (N=17) 29 12 59 0 TABLE 186: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE ROCK MUSIC? BY TELEPHONE USE (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) Acceptance Negotiation Rejection DonLLKnou 0-5 times weekly (N=41) 32 27 41 0 6+ times weekly (N=38) 16 16 68 0 TABLE 18H: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE ROCK MUSIC? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (% of respondents in each row- ~rounded) AcceptanceNegptiationRejecticnnpnitm None (N=70) 23 21 56 0 US/PR (N=20) 30 35 35 0 Car. /Lat:. Am. (N=26) 12 38 50 0 Eur. /ASia/ME (N=8) O 38 63 O 198 TABLE 19A: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MORNING SHOWS? BY INCOME (% of respondents in each row--rounded) <350 (N=33) 21 3o 36 12 350-700 (N=24) 33 21 33 13 >700 (N=26) 23 19 35 23 TABLE 193: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MORNING SHOWS? BY EEUCATION (% of respondents in each row--rounded) AcceptancemmtiationRejectionponitm Primary or less (N223) 22 30 39 9 Secondary/Tech. (N=29) 24 21 28 28 Univ. or more (N:39) 26 26 38 10 TABLE 19C: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MORNING SHOWS? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (% of respondents in each r --rounded) AcceptancemctiationRejectionDcnltm Students (N220) 20 25 55 0 Blue collar (N234) 21 29 41 9 Business/Gov' t (N=22) 27 27 23 23 Prof (N=19) 32 11 26 32 TABLE 19D: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MORNING SHOWS? BY SES (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) WNegotiationRejectionnonLLm very Poor/Poor (N=18) 22 22 33 22 Wkg/LMC/MC (N=47) 23 28 4o 9 UMC/Upper Class (N=30) 27 20 33 20 199 TABLE 19E: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MORNING SHOWS? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (8 of respondents in each row-rounded) None (N=37) 22 24 41 14 Same-Fluent (Nt56) 25 25 36 14 TABLE 19F: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MORNING SHOWS? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) AcceptanceNegotiationRejectionDonlLKnm 1'2 (Ne43) 16 3O 4O 14 3 (N231) 26 23 32 19 4'5 (N=21) 43 14 33 10 TABLE 196: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MORNING SHOWS? BY TELEPHONE USE (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) AcceptancemcotiationRejectionmm 0-5 times weekly (N=42) 19 26 4O 14 6+ times weekly (N=39) 28 26 33 13 TABLE 19H: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MORNING SHOWS? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) Acceptance Nmotiation Rejection Donitm None (N=80) 21 21 31 26 US/PR (N520) 25 3O 40 5 Car./Lat. Amu(N=27) 22 22 41 15 Eur./Asia/ME (N211) 36 O 64 0 200 TABLE 20A: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE NOON SHOWS? BY INCOME (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) Acceptance Negotiation Rejection DonitJncu (350 (N=36) 56 33 6 6 350'700 (N324) 38 21 33 8 >700 (Né27) 30 33 22 15 TABLE 20B: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE NOON SHOWS? BY EDUCATION (8 of respondents in each row- - rounded) [.05] Acceptance Negotiation Rejection Don.'.t_Knou Primary or less (N=22) 64 18 5 14 Secondary/Tech. (N=30) 47 37 7 10 Univ. or more (N=43) 30 33 30 7 TABLE 20C: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE NOON SHOWS? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (8 of respondents in each row- - rounded) AcceptancechtiationRejectionDonitm Students (Nb25) 6O 32 8 0 Blue collar (N=34) 47 26 15 12 Business/Gov't (N=22) 41 50 9 0 Prof (N=18) I7 11 44 28 TABLE 20D: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE NOON SHOWS? BY SES (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) AcceptanceNegotiationRejectianonltm Very Poor/Poor (N=19) 58 32 11 O Wkg/LMC/MC (N=48) 48 33 8 10 UMC/Upper Class (N=32) 28 25 34 13 201 TABLE 20E: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE NOON SHOWS? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (8 of respondents in each row-~rounded) Acceptance Negotiation Rejectionnonltm None (Na39) 54 28 8 10 SaneaFluent (N=56) 34 32 27 7 TABLE 20F: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE NOON SHOWS? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) AcceptanceNegotiationRejectionncnitm 1'2 (N=47) 49 17 28 6 3 (N933) 33 45 9 12 4'5 (N=18) 39 39 11 11 TABLE 206: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE NOON SHOWS? BY TELEPHONE USE (8 of respondents in each row-rounded) AcceptancBNegotiationRejectionDantm 0-5 times weekly (N=46) 41 37 13 9 6+ times weekly (N=38) 34 26 32 8 TABLE 20H: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE NOON SHOWS? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) WWWW None (N=75) 49 31 13 7 US/PR (N=21) 24 29 38 10 Can/Lat. Am. (N=28) 21 21 39 18 Eur. /Asia/ME (NI-=11) 0 45 55 0 ~202 TABLE 21A: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE SUNDAY SHOWS? BY INCOME (% of respondents in each ro --rounded) (350 (N=37) 54 38 8 0 350-700 (N=21) 43 38 19 0 >700 (N=31) 58 29 10 3 TABLE 213: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE SUNDAY SHOWS? BY EDUCATION (% of respondents in each row--rounded) Primary or less (N=25) 56 4O 4 0 Secondary/Tech. (N231) 61 19 19 0 Univ. or more (N=49) 49 37 12 2 TABLE 21C: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE SUNDAY SHOWS? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (% of respondents in each row--rounded) WWWW Students (N223) 52 39 9 0 Blue collar (N340) 55 30 15 0 Business/Gov't (N223) 57 30 13 0 Prof (Nt22) 55 32 9 5 TABLE 21D: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE SUNDAY SHOWS? BY SES (% of respondents in each row--rounded) ‘Very Poor/Poor (N221) 57 29 14 0 Wkg/LMC/MC (N=52) 52 37 12 o mac/Upper Class (N=35) 57 29 11 3 203 TABLE 21E: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE SUNDAY SHOWS? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (% of respondents in each row--rounded) Acceptance Negetiatien Reiectien Denltm None (N=41) 61 24 15 0 Some-Fluent (N=60) 47 40 12 2 TABLE 21F: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE SUNDAY SHOWS? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) Acceptanceuegetiatienxejectiennonltm 1‘2 (Né44) 43 39 18 0 3 (N=3?) 65 27 8 0 4'5 (N=26) 58 31 8 4 TABLE 216: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE SUNDAY SHOWS? BY TELEPHONE USE (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) Acceptanceuegetiatienneiectienmcw 0-5 times weekly (N=48) 54 31 15 0 6+ times weekly (N=46) 57 33 11 0 TABLE 21H: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE SUNDAY SHOWS? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (% of respondents in each row- - rounded) AccentanceNmtiatienRejectienW None (N=79) 53 37 9 1 US/PR (N225) 60 24 16 O Car./Lat. Am~(N=29) 48 24 28 0 Eur. /Asia/ME (N=12) 50 33 17 0 204 TTBLE 22A: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DR COMEDIES? BY INCOME (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) Acceptance Negotiation Rejection DonLtJnow (350 (N=40) 75 23 3 0 350-700 (N327) 56 33 11 0 >700 (Nh30) 53 33 13 0 TABLE 223: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DR COMEDIES? BY EDUCATION (% of respondents in each row- -rounded) Acceptance Negotiation Rejection W Primary or less (N=26) 77 23 O 0 Secondary/Tech. (N=31) 58 29 13 0 Univ. or more (N=50) 60 32 8 0 TABLE 22C: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DR COMEDIES? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (% of respondents in each r - -rounded) Acceptance Negotiation Rejection Don_'_t_Knou Students (Nh25) 88 12 0 0 Blue collar (N=40) 63 33 5 0 Business/Gov't (N=23) 61 35 4 0 Prof (Nh22) 41 36 23 0 TABLE 220: HOW WELL DO YOULIKE DR COMEDIES? BY SES (% of respondents in each row-rounded) Acceptance Negotiation Rejection W Very Poor/Poor (N=22) 77 23 0 0 Wkg/LMC/MC (N=49) 67 27 5 o UMC/Upper Class (N=37) 54 35 11 o 205 TABLE 22E: HOW WELL Do YOU LIKE DR COMEDIRS? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) Acceptance Negotiation Rejection Doom NOne (Nh42) 74 24 2 0 Some-Fluent (N260) 52 37 12 0 TABLE 22F: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DR COMEDIES? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (8 of respondents in each row-- rounded) AccentanceNegotiationRejectionDonltm 1'2 (N=48) 58 35 6 0 3 (N=3?) 65 27 8 0 4-5 (N=24) 71 21 8 0 TABLE 226: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DR COMEDIES? BY TELEPHONE USE (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) Acceptance Negotiation Rejection nonitm 0-5 times weekly (N=49) 63 31 6 0 6+ thes'weekly' (Ne42) 55 33 12 0 TABLE 22H: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE DR COMEDIES? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) AcceptanceNegotiationRejectionDonitm None (N=81) 69 26 5 0 US/PR (N=26) 46 35 19 0 Can/Lat. Am. (N=29) 45 34 21 0 Eur. /ABia/ME (N=12) 42 25 33 0 206 TABLE 23A: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MEXICAN COMEDIES? BY INCOME (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) AcceptancelkemmiationINEURRUJELDon1t_Know (350 (N=34) 56 26 15 3 350'700 (N=25) 36 36 28 0 >700 (N=24) 21 33 38 8 TABLE 238: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MEXICAN COMEDIES? BY EDUCATION (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) AcceptanceluxuudationINEUNndsxlDonit_xncu Primary or less (N=21) 67 24 10 0 Secondary/Tech. (N=28) 43 25 25 7 Univ. or more (N=44) 25 34 36 5 TABLE 23C: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MEXICAN C(XIEDIES? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) AcceptancelknmmdationINEURRNEELnonit_xnou Students (N-Zl) 52 33 10 5 Blue collar (Na-36) 47 25 25 3 Business/Gov't (Nt20) 35 25 35 5 Prof (NI-l9) 16 42 37 5 TABLE 23D: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MEXICAN CQIEDIES? BY SES (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) [.05] Ixxnnnzunnanegotiationltrhandrx:Donit_xnou very Poor/Poor (N-18) 44 39 17 0 Wkg/LMC/MC (NI-48) 54 21 21 4 DEC/Upper Class (N=3l) 13 42 39 6 207 TABLE 23E: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MEXICAN COMEDIES? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) [.01] None (N:40) 60 18 15 8 Some-Fluent (N:55) 25 38 35 2 TABLE 231?: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MEXICAN COMEDIES? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) E H |.|. E' °E'K 1-2 (N=44) 36 25 34 5 3 (N=3l) 45 29 19 6 4'5 (N=20) 35 45 20 0 TABLE 23G: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MEXICAN COMEDIES? BY TELEPHONE USE (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) AcceptanceNegotiationRejectionDoniLKnon 0-5 times weekly (N=41) 49 24 24 2 6+ times weekly' (N=41) 22 39 34 5 TABLE 23H: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MEXICAN COMEDIES? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) AcceptanceNmotiationRejectionDonitm None (N269) 43 33 20 3 US/PR (N=23) 9 26 61 4 Car. /Lat. Am. (N=29) 21 28 45 7 Eur./Asia/ME (N=12) 8 25 67 o 208 TABLE 24A: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE TELENOVELAS? BY INCOME (8 of respondents in each row-rounded) Acceptance Negotiation Rejection DonitJLnom (350 (N237) 30 22 46 3 350-700 (N222) 27 14 55 5 >700 (N=25) 20 24 56 0 TABLE 243: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE TELENOVELAS? BY EDUCATION (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) AcceptanceNecotiationRejectionDonitm Primary or less (N=21) 33 24 38 5 Secondary/ Tech . (N=2 9) 45 17 3 8 0 Univ. or more (N=43) 21 16 60 2 TABLE 24C: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE TELENOVELAS? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (8 of respondents in each r - -rounded) WWWW Students (N=22) 32 18 50 0 Blue collar (N=30) 40 20 37 3 Business/Gov't (N=22) 32 23 45 0 Prof (N=17) 18 18 65 0 TABLE 24D: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE TELENOVELAS? BY SES (8 of. respondents in each row-rounded) AccentanceNegotiationRejectionDonitm Very Poor/Poor (N=19) 37 16 42 5 Wkg/IMC/MC (N=41) 32 24 41 2 UMC/Upper Class (N=32) 30 16 53 0 209 TABLE 24E: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE TELENOVELAS? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) AcceptanceikammiationEEUemmionINNNULJERNI None (N338) 26 26 45 3 Some-Fluent (N=55) 33 15 51 2 TABLE 24F: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE TELENOVELAS? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) luxunnzunnaNegotiationlurunndrmxDonit_xnon 1‘2 (N344) 34 14 50 2 3 (N=31) 35 26 39 0 4-5 (N=20) 15 20 60 5 TABLE 24G: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE TELENOVELAS? BY TELPHONE USE (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) ACQEDLEDQQIKEEEJJEJJE1321£CLiQnIEHEULJQKHI 0-5 times'weekly'(N:43).28 19 49 5 6+ times weekly (Nh38) 26 24 50 0 TABLE 24H: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE TELENOVELAS? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) luxunnzunuiNegotiationEuumxadtuxDon1t_Know None (N271) 27 20 51 3 US/PR (N=20) 35 25 40 o Car./Lat..Am.(N=27) 33 26 41 o Eur./Asia/ME (N=10) 3o 20 50 o 210 TABLE 25A: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE LATIN SERIES? BY INCOME (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) Accentancelkxnnnuunu21RejectionIquiaNnoc <350 (Nb28) 39 29 29 4 350-700 (N=23) 35 3o 17 17 >700 (N=23) 22 43 17 17 TABLE 253: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE LATIN SERIES? BY EDUCATION (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) EKEEEEEEEEBNEBQLiatiQnINEUEEJJEIDQnLt_KnQE Primary or less (N=18) 44 33 22 0 Secondary/Tech. (Ns27) 26 37 30 7 Univ. or more (N=38) 26 29 21 24 TABLE 25C: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE LATIN SERIES? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) AcceptanceluxundeudrxtneiectionIRENULJcRnt Students (N220) 45 35 20 0 Blue collar (Nh30) 30 27 3O 13 Business/Gov't (N220) 3o 25 25 20 Prof (N=16) 13 50 19 19 TABLE 25D: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE LATIN SERIES? BY SES (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) AcceptancelkaumdationINEURENNEIDonlt_xncu very Poor/Poor (N316) 31 44 25 o Wkg/LMC/MC (N243) 35 23 33 9 Hue/Upper Class (Naz7) 22 41 11 26 211 TABLE 25E: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE LATIN SERIES? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (8 of respondents in each row-rounded) Acceptance Negotiation Reiection DonLLKnow None (N-32) 31 25 38 6 Some-Fluent (N=51) 29 37 16 18 TABLE 25F: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE LATIN SERIES? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (8 of respondents in each row- - rounded) AcceptanceNegotiationReiectionDonitm 1'2 (N835) 20 34 26 20 3 (N=30) 40 23 27 10 4'5 (N=20) 35 45 15 5 TABLE 256: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE LATIN SERIES? BY TELEPHONE USE (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) AcceptanceNegotiationRejectionDonW 0-5 times weekly (N837) 24 30 38 8 6+ times weekly (N=36) 36 28 14 22 TABLE 25H: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE LATIN SERIES? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) Acceptance Negotiation Rejection DonLtJnmu None (N865) 32 32 26 9 US/PR (N=15) 13 40 27 20 Car. /Lat. Am. (N=21) 19 33 33 14 Eur. /Asia/ME (N=8) 0 50 13 38 212 TABLE 26A: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE US SERIES? BY INCOME (8 of respondents in each row-~rounded) ZEKEEEEDSEIEEEEfifiLiQnEkfififliiflnIKEEILKDQW <350 (N=38) 47 26 26 0 350-700 (N=25) 24 44 24 8 >700 (N=29) 41 21 38 0 TABLE 263: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE US SERIES? BY EDUCATION (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) zxxxcmencelkxumcationreflectionIqutcznom Primary or less (N:25) 56 16 24 4 Secondary/Tech. (Nt31) 26 19 52 3 Uhiv. or more (N=46) 37 35 26 2 TABLE 26C: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE US SERIES? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) IxxmxmancelksmmdationEEnectionINnnuaBnou Students (N223) 43 26 26 4 Blue collar (N=38) 37 11 47 5 Business/Gov't (Na23) 52 22 26 0 Prof (Nt21) 19 57 24 0 TABLE 26D: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE US SERIES? BY SES (8 of respondents in each row-~rounded) AcceptancenknmmiationEuthandcmlDon1t_Kncu very Poor/Poor (N=20) 32 18 45 5 Wkg/LMC/MC (N=49) 38 33 28 2 UMC/Upper Class (N236) 38 33 ‘ 28 2 213 TABLE 26E: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE US SERIES? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) Acceptance Negotiation Rejection DoniLKnow None (N=38) 32 18 45 5 Some-Fluent (N=61) 38 33 28 2 TABLE 26F: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE US SERIES? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) AcceptanceNegotiationRejectionDonitm 1-2 (N346) 46 17 33 4 3 (N=35) 34 23 43 0 4‘5 (N=23) 30 48 17 4 TABLE 26G: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE US SERIES? BY TELEPHONE USE (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) Acceptance Nmotiation Reiection Donltm 0-5 times weekly (N=46) 41 20 35 4 6+ times weekly (Nh45) 33 31 36 0 TABLE 26H: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE US SERIES? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (8 of respondents in each row- - rounded) AcceptanceNegotiationRejectionmxnm None (N275) 40 25 32 3 US/PR (N=26) 42 35 23 0 Car. /Lat. Am. (N=30) 30 20 47 3 Eur./Asia/ME (N=12) 17 42 42 O 214 TABLE 27A; HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MOVIES? BY INCOME (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) AcceptancemgotiationRejectionDolL'Lanu <350 (N=37) 81 19 o 0 350-700 (N=26) 62 27 8 4 >700 (N=30) 73 lo 17 0 TABLE 273: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MOVIES? BY EDUCATION (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) AcceptanceNegotiationRejectionnonltm Primary or less (N:22) 68 27 5 O Secondary/Tech. (N232) 72 19 9 o univ. or more (N249) '78 14 6 2 TABLE 27C: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MOVIES? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) AcceptanceNegotiationReiectionDonlLNnmx Students (N=24) 88 8 4 0 Blue collar (Nh38) 66 26 5 3 Business/Gov't (N*22) 82 14 5 0 Prof (Ng22) 68 18 14 0 TABLE 27D: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MOVIES? BY SES (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) AcceptanceNegotiationRejectionDomtJnma ‘Very Poor/Poor (N219) 84 16 0 O Wkg/LMC/MC (N=51) 71 22 6 2 UMC/Upper Class (N536) 75 14 11 0 215 TABLE 27E: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MOVIES? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) None (N=41) 71 24 5 o Some-Fluent (N=59) 75 15 8 2 TABLE 27?: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MOVIES? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (8 of respondents in each row ~rounded) AcceptanceNegotiationRejectionmm 1'2 (N=45) 76 18 7 0 3 (N835) 74 14 9 3 4‘5 (N=25) 76 20 4 0 TABLE 276: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MOVIES? BY TELEPHONE USE (8 of respondents in each r - ~rounded) AcceptanceNegotiationRaiectionDoniLm 0-5 times weekly (N245) 76 22 2 0 6+ times weekly (N=45) 73 13 ll 2 TABLE 27H: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MOVIES? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) Acceptance Negotiation Rejection DoniLKnon None (N=77) 77 19 3 1 US/PR (N=26) 65 23 12 0 Car./Lat. Am. (N=30) 67 10 23 0 Eur./Asia/ME (N=12) 50 25 25 O 216 TABLE 28A: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MOVIES IN ENGLISH? BY INCOME (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) AcceptanceNegotiationRejectionponltm (350 (N=34) 24 32 41 3 350'700 (N323) 35 13 52 0 >700 (N=26) 46 12 38 4 TABLE 283: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MOVIES IN ENGLISH? BY'EDUCATION (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) AcceptanceNegotiationRejectionW Primary or less (N220) 30 15 55 0 Secondary/Tech. (N230) 13 33 53 0 Univ. or more (Na42) 45 14 36 5 TABLE 28C: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MOVIES IN ENGLISH? BY OCCUPATION (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) AcceptanceNecotiationRejectionnonltm Students (NblB) 28 33 39 0 Blue collar (N233) 18 21 58 3 Business/Gov't (N~22) 41 18 41 0 Prof (N=20) 50 10 35 5 TABLE 28D: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MOVIES IN ENGLISH? BY SES (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) [.01] AcceptanceNmotiationRejectionmnitm Very Poor/Poor (Nhle) 33 11 56 0 Wkg/LMC/MC (N=46) 13 33 52 2 mac/Upper Class (N=30) 60 7 3o 3 217 TABLE 28E: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE mVIES IN ENGLISH? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) AcceptancelkaundeudtnlRejectionINnuuiicnnz None (N337) 22 22 57 o Some-Fluent (N=55) 38 20 38 4 TABLE 28F: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MOVIES IN ENGLISH? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) AcceptanceIRENEJJEJIXLRejectionIxnuniicnn: 1-2 (N=44) 32 20 45 2 3 (N=3l) 26 23 52 o 4-5 (N=17) 47 18 29 6 TABLE 28G: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MOVIES IN ENGLISH? BY TELEPHONE USE (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) [.05] AcceptanceleznmcENHNNIRejectionINuruLJcRNI 0-5 times weekly'(NEA3) 19 23 56 2 6+ times weekly (Nbs9) 51 8 41 0 TABLE 28H: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE MOVIES IN ENGLISH? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) AcceptancenkxcndationlNEUEnutulDon1t_Know NOne (N268) 25 24 49 3 US/PR (N=23) 57 4 39 0 Car./Lat. Am. (N=28) 54 ll 36 0 Eur./Asia/ME (N=ll) 55 9 36 0 218 TABLE 29A: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE CHILDREN'S PROGRAMS? BY INCOME (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) AmxxnnzunxauegotiationIREUEEEIKLDon;t_xnou <350 (N=37) 24 35 38 3 350-700 (N=26) 23 42 35 0 >7 oo (N=24) 13 25 54 8 TABLE 29B: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE CHILDREN'S PROGRAMS? BY EDUCATION (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) WWWW Primary or less (N:22) 36 41 23 0 Secondary/Tech. (N229) 24 34 34 7 Univ. or more (N=44) 14 30 55 2 TABLE 29C: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE CHILDREN'S PROGRAMS? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) WWWW Students (Nh22) 27 18 50 5 Blue collar (Né36) 33 31 33 3 Business/Gov't (N:22) 9 41 45 5 Prof (N=18) ll 44 44 0 TABLE 29D: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE CHILDREN'S PROGRAMS? BY SES (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) WWWW very Poor/Poor (N=20) 20 45 35 0 Wkg/mC/Mc (N=43) 28 33 35 5 UMC/Upper Class (N230) 20 30 47 3 219 TABLE 29E: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE CHILDREN'S PROGRAMS? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (8 of respondents in each row-rounded) W negotiation Rejection mm None (N=40) 23 33 38 8 Some-Fluent (N=56) 21 34 45 0 TABLE 29F: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE CHILDREN'S PROGRAMS? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) WWWW 1‘2 (N=43) 28 30 40 2 3 (N=32) 19 38 38 6 4'5 (N=22) 18 32 50 0 TABLE 29G: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE CHILDREN'S PROGRAMS? BY TELEPHONE USE (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) Acceptance mm W mm 0-5 times weekly (N=44) 27 43 27 2 6+ times weekly (N=39) 15 26 56 3 TABLE 29H: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE CHILDREN'S PROGRAMS? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL. (8 of respondents in each row- - rounded) WWWW None (N=72) 25 33 39 3 US/PR (N=13) 16 11 68 5 Can/Lat. Am. (N=2?) 7 30 63 0 Eur. /ABia/ME (N89) 11 O 89 O 220 TABLE 30A: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE CARTOONS? BY INCOME (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) (350 (N=36) 50 22 25 3 350‘700 (N=24) 46 17 38 0 >700 (N=27) 26 37 37 0 TABLE 30B: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE CARTOONS? BY EDUCATION (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) WWWW Prbmary or less (N=22) 50 18 32 0 Secondary/Tech. (N230) 33 4o 23 3 Univ; or more (N=44) 45 20 34 0 TABLE 30C: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE CARTOONS? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (8 of respondents in each row-~rounded) WWWW Students (N=22) 68 18 9 5 Blue collar (N234) 44 24 32 0 Business/Gov't (N222) 32 32 36 0 Prof (N=20) 25 30 45 0 TABLE 300: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE CARTOONS? BY SES (8 of respondents in eadh row--rounded) WWWW Very Poor/Poor (NI-19) 68 11 21 o Wkg/LMC/MC (M7) 36 34 28 2 UMC/Upper Class (N=32) 38 22 41 o 221 TABLE 30E: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE CARTOONS? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) We Negotiation Rejection W None (N=3?) 41 32 27 o Some-Fluent (N=56) 43 21 34 2 TABLE 30F: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE CARTOONS? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (8 of respondents in each row- - rounded) AooeotenoeNeootiationBeieotionDonltm 1‘2 (N’44) 50 20 3O 0 3 (N234) 32 32 35 0 4'5 (N=19) 42 26 26 5 TABLE BOG: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE CARTOONS? BY TELEPHONE USE (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) WWWW 0-5 times weekly'(Nb43) 44 3O 23 2 6+ times weekly (N=40) 4o 20 40 0 TABLE 30H: HOW WELL DO YOU LIKE CARTOONS? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (8 of respondents in each row- - rounded) Acceptance Negotiation Reieotion nonLLKnou None (hr-=72) 49 22 28 1 US/PR (N223) 17 35 48 0 Car. /Lat. Am. (N=29) 34 28 38 0 Eur. /Asia/ME (N211) 9 18 73 o APPENDIX D: OPINIONS ON TELEVISION APPENDIX D: OPINIONS ON TELEVISION TABLE 31A; DOES TV HAVE NEGATIVE EFFECTS? BY INCOME (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) Many: .Some NONE :Don1t_Knou (350 (N238) 42 32 18 8 350'700 (NEZ7) 37 52 7 1 >700 (N334) 32 53 15 0 TABLE 318: DOES TV HAVE NEGATIVE EFFECTS? BY EDUCATION (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) MEDEC .Some IKE“: Don1t_Knou Primary or less (N=28) 36 43 14 7 Secondary/Tech. (N:32) 25 50 22 3 Univ. or more (N247) 43 43 13 2 TABLE 31C: DOES TV HAVE NEGATIVE EFFECTS? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) man! Some NQnB IXXUULJQKRI Students (N222) 50 29 9 14 Blue collar (N=42) 24 52 21 2 Business/Gov't (N=25) 20 56 24 0 Prof (Nfi23) 57 30 13 0 TABLE 31D: DOES TV HAVE NEGATIVE EFFECTS? BY SES (8 of respondents in each r --rounded) many: .Some nknna Don1t_Knom ‘Very Poor/Poor (N=22) 32 41 27 0 Wkg/LMC/MC (N=51) 29 51 12 8 UMC/Upper Class (N=38) 47 39 13 o 223 TABLE 31E: DOES TV HAVE NEGATIVE EFFECTS? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (8 of respondents in each ro --rounded) MERE Some None IXIEULJUEE! None (N=43) 42 37 16 5 Some-Fluent (N=58) 34 45 17 3 TABLE 31F: DOES TV HAVE NEGATIVE EFFECTS? [.05] BY INFORMATION SOURCES (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) lkunc some IKHEB DonLt_Know 1-2 (N342) 33 50 12 5 3 (Nh38) 26 55 13 5 4-5 (N=25) 64 32 4 0 TABLE 31G: DOES TV HAVE NEGATIVE EFFECTS? BY TELEPHONE USE (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) many Some NQnB IXEUICKDQ! 0-5 times weekly (N=45) 24 56 16 4 6+ times weekly (N=48) 38 44 17 2 TABLE 31H: DOES TV HAVE NEGATIVE EFFECTS? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (8 of respondents in each row- - rounded) Man! Some NDne IZNEULJQNIY None (N=81) 37 46 14 4 US/PR (N=2?) 33 44 22 0 Car. /Lat. Am. (N=30) 4o 30 27 3 Eur./Asia/ME (N312) 42 50 8 O 224 TABLE 32A: ARE TELENOVELAS REALISTIC? BY INCOME (% of respondents in each row-~rounded) Marx $123.21“. No <350 (N=4l) 7 34 51 350-700 (N=28) 4 13 75 >700 (N=34) 6 24 59 TABLE 323: ARE TELENOVELAS REALISTIC? BY EDUCATION (% of respondents in each ro --rounded) Mary Sanofiuo Primary or less (N=29) 7 76 3 Secondary/Tech. (N234) 9 26 59 Uhiv. or more (N250) 4 38 56 TABLE 32C: ARE TELENOVELAS REALISTIC? Don1t_xnou 14 6 2 BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (% of respondents in each row--rounded) 1am Wm Students (Nh24) 13 33 50 Blue collar (N241) 2 22 73 Business/Gov't (Nh27) o 26 56 Prof (N=24) 8 21 67 TABLE 32D: ARE TELENOVELAS REALISTIC? BY SES (% of respondents in each row--rounded) 12:! SQIt_Q£ ND very Poor/Poor (Nh23) 22 65 4 Wkg/LMC/MC (N254) 4 24 67 mac/Upper Class (N=39) 8 28 56 Dnn1t_xnou mono 225 TTBLE 32E: ARE TELENOVELAS REALISTIC? BY MLISH ABILITY (8 of respondents in each row-rounded) Elem W No 12mm None (N=47) 4 26 64 6 Some-Fluent (N=59) 7 29 59 5 TABLE 32F: ARE TELENOVELAS REALISTIC? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) Ian: M No mm 1-2 (N=49) 6 31 59 4 3 (N=40) 3 20 7o 8 4-5 (Nu-26) 8 19 62 12 TABLE 32G: ARE TELENOVELAS REALISTIC? BY TELEPHONE USE (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) Yen: W No W 0-5 times weekly (N=49) 4 24 65 6 6+ times weekly (N=48) 8 31 56 4 TABLE 32H: ARE TELENOVELAS REALISTIC? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) 18:! W No mm None (N=87) 5 22 66 8 US/PR (N=2?) 7 33 56 4 Car. /Lat. Am. (bl-=30) 13 27 60 0 Eur. /Asia/ME (N=12) 8 17 75 o 226 TABLE 33A: DOES TV INFLUENCE YOUR LIFE? BY INCOME (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) [.001] 8.19: S9me N9 Ixxruijnnni (350 (N=3?) 27 38 30 5 350‘700 (N=29) 7 38 52 3 >700 (N=33) 0 24 73 3 TABLE 333: DOES TV INFLUENCE YOUR LIFE? BY EDUCATION (8 of respondents in each row-~rounded) 8.19: Some mm: D9nl:_xnnn Primary or less (n=29) 21 45 28 7 Secondary/Tech. (N=33) 15 27 55 3 Univ. or more (N=48) 10 44 44 2 TABLE 33C: DOES TV INFLUENCE YOUR LIFE? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (8 of respondents in each row-~rounded) 5.19: Esme um: D9nL:_K99u Students (N=23) 22 48 30 0 Blue collar (N=39) 21 33 41 5 Business/Gov't (N:28) 4 39 50 7 Prof (N:23) 9 30 61 0 TABLE 33D: DOES TV INFLUENCE YOUR LIFE? BY SES (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) 8.19: Snme BK: D9n1:_Kn9u ‘very Poor/Poor (N=22) 36 18 36 9 Wkg/LMC/MC (N551) 1o 47 41 2 UMD/Upper Class (N239) 8 36 54 3 227 TABLE 33E: DOES TV INFLUENCE YOUR LIFE? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (8 of respondents in each row-~rounded) 3.19: Some 1K2 D991:_Knau None (N=45) 24 29 44 2 Some-Fluent (N257) 7 44 47 2 TABLE 33F: DOES TV INFLUENCE YOUR LIFE? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) ELJJE; same BE! DQDL£_KnQH 1-2 (N=46) 15 33 48 4 3 (N540) 13 38 50 0 4'5 (N=25) 12 44 36 8 TABLE 336: DOES TV INFLUENCE YOUR LIFE? BY TELEPHONE USE (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) 8.19: Some N9 9991:.3999 0-5 times weekly'(Nb47) 15 43 38 4 6+ times weekly (Nh47) 13 30 55 2 TABLE 33H: DOES TV INFLUENCE YOUR LIFE? BY FOREIGN‘TRAVEL (8 of respondents in eaCh row5-rounded) B.lQ§ :Exma ND D991:_K99E ane (N283) 18 35 42 5 US/PR (N*25) 0 40 60 O Car./Lat. Am. (N=30) 3 4O 57 0 Eur./Asia/ME (N*12) 0 42 58 0 228 TABLE 34A: DOES TV INFLUENCE YOUR FAMILY? BY INCOME (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) ELJIn; Some 1K2 D9nl:_Knox <350 (N=39) 38 21 31 10 350-700 (N227) 33 44 22 0 >700 (N=33) 24 3o 42 3 TABLE 343: DOES TV INFLUENCE YOUR FAMILY? BY EDUCATION (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) ALJIn; S9me 1E2 99n1:_xnon Primary or less (N228) 29 29 32 11 Secondary/Tech. (N233) 27 24 48 0 Univ. or more (N249) 33 37 27 4 TABLE 34C: DOES TV INFLUENCE YOUR FAMILY? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) ELJIn; SQme N9 :D9nl:_Know Students (N223) 43 30 22 4 Blue collar (N241) 22 34 37 7 Business/Gov't (N=26) 27 31 38 4 Prof (N=22) 41 27 32 0 TABLE 34D: DOES TV INFLUENCE YOUR FAMILY? BY SES (8 of respondents in eaCh row-~rounded) ILJUE; Same N9 JD9n1:_Kn9E Very Poor/Poor (N223) 35 13 43 9 Wkg/LMC/MC (N%51) 31 31 31 6 UMC/Upper Class (N237) 27 43 3o 0 229 TABLE 34E: DOES TV INFLUENCE YOUR FAMILY? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (8 of respondents in each row-rounded) L19: S9me N9 W None (N=47) 34 21 40 4 Some-Fluent (N=56) 27 38 32 4 TABLE 34F: DOES TV INFLUENCE YOUR FAMILY? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) L19: Some N9 9991:1991 1-2 (N=48) 23 21 48 8 3 (N=38) 29 37 34 o 4-5 (N=24) 46 42 8 4 TABLE 34G: DOES TV INFLUENCE YOUR FAMILY? BY TELEPHONE USE (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) L19: 59mg N9 9991:1995: 0-5 times weekly (N=48) 29 27 38 6 6+ times weekly (N=45) 31 29 37 2 TABLE 34H: DOES TV INFLUENCE YOUR FAMILY? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) L19: S9me N9 mm None (N=83) 29 3O 35 6 US/PR (N=25) 4o 44 16 0 Car. /Lat. Am. (N=28) 46 18 36 0 Eur. Maia/ME (N=12) 67 17 17 o 230 TABLE 35A: DOES ADVERTISING INFLUENCE YOU? BY INCOME (8 of respondents in each ro --rounded) L19: $91119 N9 W (350 (N=40) 63 20 13 5 350-700 (N=28) 71 21 7 0 >700 (N=34) 53 29 18 0 TABLE 358: DOES ADVERTISING INFLUENCE YOU? [I BY EDUCATION (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) L19: 591118 No 9991:4919: Primary or less (N=29) 45 41 10 3 Secondary/Tech. (N=34) 56 32 9 3 L Univ. or more (N=50) 76 8 16 0 TABLE 35C: DOES ADVERTISING INFLUENCE YOU? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) L19: Sm N9 W Students (N=23) 78 9 9 4 Blue collar (N=42) 45 43 10 2 Business/Gov't (N=27) 67 22 11 0 Prof (N=23) 65 17 17 0 TABLE 35D: DOES ADVERTISII‘B INFLUENCE YOU? BY SES (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) L191: 39m N9 W Very Poor/Poor (DP-22) 55 23 18 5 Wkg/LMC/MC (N853) 62 30 6 2 UMC/Upper Class (N=39) 64 18 18 o 231 TABLE 35E: DOES ADVERTISING INFLUENCE YOU? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (8 of respondents in each row-rounded) 8.19: £32m: N9 9991:_Knon None (N=47) 57 32 6 4 Some-Fluent (N=59) 66 15 19 0 TABLE 35F: DOES ADVERTISING INFLUENCE YOU? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (8 of respondents in each row- —rounded) £9133; S9me N9 19991:_Knou 1-2 (Nb48) 50 29 17 4 3 (N240) 60 28 13 o 4-5 (N226) 81 19 o 0 TABLE 35G: DOES ADVERTISING INFLUENCE YOU? BY TELEPHONE USE (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) ALJIN; some N9 :9991:_Knou 0-5 times weekly (N=48) 54 29 13 4 6+ times weekly (N=50) 64 22 14 0 TABLE 35H: DOES ADVHITISING INFLUENCE YOU? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (8 of respondents in each r - - rounded) ELJJH; SONS ND JDQBLL_KBQH None (N286) 64 23 10 2 US/PR (N=25) 60 24 16 O Car./Lat. Am.(Nb30) 50 20 30 0 Eur. /Asia/ME (N=12) 75 8 17 0 232 TABLE 36A: DID TV INFLUENCE YOUR MOVE? BY INCOME (8 of respondents in each row-~rounded) YES N9 (350 (N231) 3 97 350-700 (Né24) 4 96 >700 (N=36) 0 100 TABLE 368: DID TV INFLUENCE YOUR MOVE? BY EDUCATION (8 of respondents in each row-~rounded) 293 N9 Primary or less (N227) 4 96 Secondary/Tech. (N228) o 100 Univ. or more (N237) 5 95 TABLE 36C: DID TV INFLUENCE YOUR MOVE? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (8 of respondents in each row-~rounded) X28 N9 Students (N217) 6 94 Blue collar (N237) 3 97 Business/Gov't (N218) 11 89 Prof (N=20) 0 100 TABLE 36D: DID TV INFLUENCE YOUR MOVE? BY SES (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) YES N9 'Very Poor/Poor (N=18) 6 94 Wkg/LMC/MC (N=43) 2 98 6 94 UMC/Upper Class (N231) 233 TABLE 36E: DID TV INFLUENCE YOUR MOVE? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (8 of respondents in each row-rounded) YES N9 None (N=39) 3 97 Some-Fluent (N=44) 5 95 TABLE 36F: DID TV INFLUENCE YOUR MOVE? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) X33 HQ 1'2 (N=3?) 8 92 3 (N=34) O 100 4'5 (N=20) 5 95 TABLE 36G: DID TV INFLUENCE YOUR MOVE? BY TELEPHONE USE (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) 199 N9 0-5 times weekly (N=38) 5 95 6+ times weekly (N=39) 5 95 TABLE 36H: DID TV INFLUENCE YOUR MOVE? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (8 of respondents in each row- - rounded) 198 N9 None (N=69) 4 96 US/PR (N=16) O 100 Can/Lat. Am. (N=21) 0 100 Eur./Asia/ME (N=9) 0 100 234 TABLE 37A: DOES TV INFLUENCE SOCIETY? BY INCOME (8 of respondents in each ro --rounded) L19: S9me N9 129113.399! <350 (N=40) 68 28 3 3 350-700 (N=28) 82 14 o 4 >700 (N=33) 7o 24 6 0 TABLE 373: DOES TV INFLUENCE SOCIETY? BY EDUCATION (8 of respondents in each ro --rounded) ELJJE; Some ND :9991:_xn9u Primary or less (N229) 55 31 7 7 Secondary/Tech. (N233) 58 39 0 3 Univ. or more (N248) 85 10 4 0 TABLE 37C: DOES TV INFLUENCE SOCIETY? BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) ALJIN; $9me N9 299n1:_KnOE Students (N=25) 72 24 0 4 Blue collar (N240) 60 30 5 5 Business/Gov't (N226) 65 35 0 0 Prof (N223) 96 O 4 0 TABLE 37D: DOES TV INFLUENCE SOCIETY? BY SES (8 of respondents in each row--rounded) L19: Sm N9 9991:1991 very Poor/Poor (N220) 50 45 5 0 Wkg/LMC/MC (N=55) 62 33 2 4 UMC/Upper Class (N238) 89 8 3 o 235 TABLE 37E: DOES TV INFLUENCE SOCIETY? BY ENGLISH ABILITY (8 of respondents in each ro --rounded) 8.19: S9me N9 Ieruijnnnz None (N246) 59 33 4 4 Some-Fluent (N258) 81 16 2 2 TABLE 37F: DOES TV INFLUENCE SOCIETY? BY INFORMATION SOURCES (8 of respondents in each row-rounded) ALJIN; Some N9 D991:.Know 1-2 (N249) 71 20 2 6 3 (N=38) 63 32 5 o 4-5 (N225) 80 20 o 0 TABLE 37G: DOES TV INFLUENCE SOCIETY? BY TELEPHONE USE (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) 8.19: S9me: 8K2 9991:_Knou 0-5 times weekly (N=47) 55 36 4 4 6+ times weekly (N249) 80 16 2 2 TABLE 37H: DOES TV INFLUENCE SOCIETY? BY FOREIGN TRAVEL (8 of respondents in each row- -rounded) L191: Ems N9 W None (N=87) 67 28 3 2 US/PR (N=25) 84 12 0 4 Car./Lat. Am. (N=30) 93 7 O 0 Eur. /Asia/ME (N=11) 100 O O 0 APPENDIX E: SURVEY INSTRUMENT USED APPENDIX E: SURVEY INSTRUMENT‘USID Date Day of the week Time 1-3 Name (optional, not used in analysis) Age (NOTE EXACT AGE AND BY CATEGORY) 4 1) 115-19 2) 20-24 3) 25-34 4) 35-44 5) 45 or older Of which ethnic-racial group do you consider yourself a member? 5___ a 1) black 4) mulatto 7) white 2) brown 5) indian 8) Other (which?) 3) mestizo 6) asian E INTERVIEWER: ESTIMATE THE COLOR OF THE INTERVIEWEE, 6 FROM 1 FOR DARKEST TO 5 FOR LIGHTEST. Principal occupation 7 - 8 (SPECIFY AND CATEGORIZE) 1) Banking/finance 2) Business (large) 3)Industry/ landowner 4) Industrial laborerS) Business (small) 6) Professional 7) Day laborer (other)8) Worker 9) Public anployee 10) Chiripero 11) Domestic 12) Student 13) Clerk/secretary l4) Housewife 15) Artesan 16) Laundry 17) Unemployed 18) Other How many hours a day do you work at this job? 9 1) 1-2 2) 3-4 3) 5-6 4) 7-8 5) 9-10 6) 10-11 7) 12+ Is this full-time (l) or part-time (2) employment? 10 Are you self-anployed (l) or employed by others (2)? 11 In what location do you work? 12 Secondary occupation 13-14 (SPECIFY AND CATEGORIZE AS ABOVE) How many hours a day do you work at this job? 15 236 237 If you worked before, what did you do? 16-17 (SPECIFY AND CATEGORIZE As ABOVE) Do you have other lucrative activities? 18-19 20-21 How many hours a day do you work at these job (3)? 22 Do you consider yourself 1) very poor 2) poor 3) working class 23___ 4) lower middle class 5) middle class 6) upper middle class 7) upper class? What is the greatest problem the nation faces? 24-25 (LIST ORDER OF MENTION AND CLASSIFY) 1) Inflation 4) Partisanship 7) MOral/social 2) Wages 5) Political 8) Foreign debt 3) The dollar 6) Land/housing 9) Other Through what media or persons do you obtain information about this prOblem? (LIST ORDER OF MENTION) __Newspaper (1)__Magazines (4) __Priends (7) __Radio (2)__Books (5) __Neighbors (8) __TV (3)__Relatives (6) __Parents (9) __Trade union (10)__Church (11) __Community groups(12) __Political parties(13)__Colleagues (14) __ Public officials(15) __Other person (16)__Other group (17) (Which?) 26-27__ 28-29_ 30-31___ Do you have a television in your home? yes (1) no (0) 32___ How many? 33___ DO you have a radio in your home? yes (1) no (0) 34___ How many? 35___ Do you have a cassette player? yes (1) no (0) 36___ Do you have a record player or stereo? yes (1) no (0) 37___ Do you have a VCRyes (1) no (0) 38___ Do you watch television at home (1), in a neighbor's home (2),39__ a relative's home (3), a friend's home (4), elsewhere (5), or don't you watch TV (0)? 238 Do you watch tale-cable (1), tele-club (2), or neither (0)? 40 Where? At home (1) , a neighbor's home (2) , relative's home(3),41_ a friend's home (4), elsewhere (5)? Which programs do you generally watch on television? (LIST AND CATmORIZE, NOTING ORDER OF MENTION) News (1) (which?) 42-43____ Discussion (2) 44-45_ Morning programs (3) 46-47_ Noon or evening programs (4) 48-49__ Sunday shows (5) 50-51__ Musical programs (6) Tblenovelas (7) Movies (8) Series/films (9) Sports (10) Others (11) How many hours a day do you watch television on weekdays?52_ O) 0 1) 1-2 2) 3-4 3) 5-7 4) 8 or more 53 How many hours a day do you listen to the radio? 0) O 1) 1-2 2) 3-4 3) 5-7 4) 8 or more How many hours a day do you watch television on Sundays?54 O) 0 1) 1-2 2) 3-4 3) 5-7 4) 8 or more 55 How many hours do you listen to the radiO? 0) O 1) 1-2 2) 3-4 3) 5-7 4) 8 or more Tell me how well you like the following types of television programs : (l) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Merengue A LOT QUITE A BIT SOME NOT MUCH DON'T LIKE DON'T KNOW 56 Other DR MusiCA LOT QUITE A BIT SOME NOT MUCH DON'T LIKE DON'T KNOW 57— Rock & Rock A LOT QUITE A BIT SOME NOT MUCH DON'T LIKE DON‘T KNOW 58 Videos Latin Music A LOT QUITE A BIT SOME NOT MUCH DON'T LIKE DON'T KNOW 59__ DR Comedies A LOT QUITE A BIT SOME NOT MUCH DON'T LIKE DON'T KNOW 60 Mexican Com- A LOT QUITE A BIT SOME NOT MUCH DON'T LIKE DON'T KNOW 61 edies Discussion A LOT QUITE A BIT SOME NOT MUCH DON'T LIKE DON'T KNOW 62_ Morning Shows A LOT QUITE A BIT SOME NOT MUCH DON'T LIKE DON'T KNOW 63— Noon Shows A LOT QUITE A BIT SOME NOT MUCH DON'T LIKE DON'T KNOW 64___ Sunday Shows A LOT QUITE A BIT SOME NOT MUCH DON'T LIKE DON'T KNOW 65_____ National News A LOT QUITE A BIT SOME NOT MUCH DON'T LIKE DON'T KNOW 66__ News in EnglishA LOT QUITE A BITSOME NOT MUCH DON'T LIKE DON'T KNOW 67__ Telenovelas A LOT QUITE A BIT SOME NOT MUCH DON'T LIKE DON'T KNOW 68__ US Series A LOT QUITE A BIT SOME NOT MUCH DON'T LIKE DON'T KNOW 69_ L.A. Series A LOT QUITE A BIT SOME NOT MUCH DON'T LIKE DON’T KNOW 70__ Movies A LOT QUITE A BIT SOME NOT MUCH DON'T LIKE DON'T KNOW 73_ Moviesin English A LOTQUITE A BITSOMENOT MUCHDON'T LIKE DON'T KNOW 74_ 239 Cartoons A LOT QUITE A BIT SOME NOT MUCH DON'T LIKE DON‘T KNOW 75 National SportSA LOTQUITE A BIT SOME NOT MUCH DON'T LIKE DON'T KNOW 76 US Sports A LOT QUITE A BIT SOME NOT MUCH DON'T LIKE DON'T KNOW 77 World Sports A LOT QUITE A BIT SOME NOT MUCH DON'T LIKE DON'T KNOW 78 Documentaries A LOT QUITE A BIT SOME NOT MUCH DON'T LIKE DON'T KNOW 79 Children's A LOT QUITE A BIT SOME NOT MUCH DON'T LIKE DON'T KNOW 80 (l) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) What are your favorite programs from the Dominican Republic? (NOTE SPECIFIC PROGRAM NAMES, ORDER OF MENTION, AND CATEGORIZE) News (l) (which?) 81— Discussion (2) 82___ Morning programs ( 3) 83___ Noon shows (4) 84____ Evening programs (5) 85-86_ Sunday Shows (6) 87-88_ Musical programs (7) 89-90___ Comedies (8) Sports (9) Others What are your favorite programs from other countries? (NOTE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, SPECIFIC PROGRAM NAMES, AND ORDER OF MENTION) 1) Movies 1) US 91-92_ 2) Seris 2) Puerto Rico 93-94___ 3) Telenovelas 3) Venezuela 95-96_ 4) Cartoons 4) Mexico 97-98_ 5) Sports 5) Brazil 99-100_ 6) Musical Programs 6) Argentina 7) Comedies 7) Spain 8) Documentaries 8) Other European country 9) Others 9) Others (SPACE FOR INTERVIEWER COMMENTS UP TO THIS POINT) KNOWLEDGE OF TELEVISION AS PERCEIVED BY INTERVIEWER, 101 ON A SCALE OF 1 (A LOT) TO 5 (NOTHING). Are there programs about the development of the country that you watch regularly? 1) yes 2) no 102 Which? 103 Does television have negative effectS? 104 MANY SEVERAL SOME IKnerNN'NO EFFECT DON‘T KNOW (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 240 How? Violence ( 1) 10 5___ Violence and Children (2) 106____ Pushes consumption (3) Wastes time (4) Others (5) To what degree does television influence Dominican society? 107 A LOT QUITE A BIT SOME NOT MUCH No EFFECT DON'T KNOW (l) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) How? 108_ 109__ Does television influence your life? 110__ A LOT QUITE A BIT SOME NOT MUCH No EFFECT DON'T KNOW (l) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) How? 111_____ 112___ Do you think telenovelas are realistic? 113— VERY QUITE SORT OF NOT VERY No DON'T KNOW (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) How? 114_ What do you think of advertising on television? 115__ 116 Does advertising have any influence on the products you buy? 117 A LOT QUITE A BIT SOME NOT MUCH No EFFECT DON'T KNOW "'— (l) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) In what way? 118___ 119____ Which television or cable channels do you watch more than Once a week? (NOTE CHANNELS MENTIONED AND ORDER) Colorvisién 120_ HBO 127__ CNN 134 Rahintel 121_____ Cinemax 128___ ESPN 135 Teleantillas 122_ Showtime 129__ WGN 136 Telesistema 123____ Movie Channel 130__ WTBS 137 TV 13 124_ Disney 131_ Telecable 138 RTVD 125__ Nickelodeeon 132_ Playboy 139 Canal 6 126__ MTV 133_ 241. Do you have (1) or would you like to have (2) cable TV or not (0)? 140___ Why (not)? 141___ To learn English (1) For quality programs (4) 142___ For the children (2) To watch movies (5) For variety (3) To watch foreign programs (6) Other (7) Why do you watch television? l43___ Which radio station do you listen to most? 144-145_ Listin (1) Cientiuno ('7) 146-147_ Radio Mil (2) HIS 92 (8) 148-149_ Central (3) Radio radio (9) Popular (4) Crystal (10) Commercial (5) Classica 91 (11) MIN (6) Uhiversal (12) RTVD (13) Guarachita (13) Others What are your favorite radio formats? 150___ (NOTE ORDER OF MENTION) 151____ Merengue (1) 152— Rock (2) Ballads (3) Classical (4) Salsa (5) Oldies (6) Other music (7) News (8) Other (9) Do you have a telephone in your home? (1) yes (0) no 153 What other telephone can you use? (2) the neighbor's (3), a relative's, (4) a friend's, (5) other 154 Do you use the telephone much? yes (1) no (0) 155 How many times per week? 156-157_ Whom.do you mainly call? (NOTE ORDER) 158 Relatives (1) Business (3) 159 Friends (2) Information (4) 160 Other ( 5) 242 Have you ever visited another country? yes (1) no (0)161 Which? (NOTE ORDER OF MENTION) The United States (1) 162— Puerto Rico (2) 163__ Other Caribbean (3) (Which?) 164____ Other Latin American (4) (Which?) Europe (5) (Which?) Other (6) (Which?) Do you have a relative or friend in the U.S.? yes (1) no (0) 165 Whom? (CATEGORIZE AND NOTE) Immediate family (1) 166__ Relative (2 ) l67____ Friend (3) Did you receive anything from these relatives or friends in the U.S.? Money (1) 168____ Gifts (2) What kind? 169___ Clothing (3) Coumunication (4) Other (5) Does your contact with friends or relatives in the U.S. influence your ideasabout life here? 170— A LOT QUITE A BIT SOME NOT MUCH NO EFFECT DON'T KNOW (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) How? 171___ 172— Are you studying or have you studied English? yes (1) no (0) 173 Where did you study English? High school (1) 174____ University (2 ) 17 5__ Other school (3) Which? 176__ Other means (4) How? Why do people study English? (NOTE ORDER AND SPECIFY) 177___ Get a job (l) 178_ Hold a job (2) Learn culture (3) Travel (4) Other (5) 243 Do you agree or disagree with the following ideaS? Knowing English helps in finding work. STRONGLY NEITHER AGREE STRONGLY 179 AGREE AGREE NOR DI SAGREE DI SAGREE DI SAGREE (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Should Children learn English? STRONGLY NEITHER AGREE STRONGLY 18 o__ AGREE AGREE NOR DI SAGREE DI SAGREE DI SAGREE (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Why (not)? 181 One can learn English watching and listening to cable TV. STRONGLY NEITHER AGREE STRONGLY 182 AGREE AGREE NOR DI SAGREE DI SAGREE DI SAGREE (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Can you read? No (1) A little (2) Reasonably well (3) Easily (4) Can you read English? No (1) A little (2) Reasonably well (3) Easily (4) Can you speak English? No (1) A little (2) Reasonably well (3) Easily (4) Do you read the newspaper? yes (1) no (0) How many times per week? Which newspapers did you read last week? (NOTE ORDER) __Listin Diario (1) __Ultima Hora (4) __Foreign paper (7)189 183 184 185 186 187 188 __Hoy (2) __El Nacional (5) __La Informacién(8)19o __El Caribe (3) __El Sol (6)____La Tarde Alegre(9)191____ _Others V Do you read magazines? yes (1) no (0) 192____ Which? Sel ecciones ( 1) 19 3___ Ahora (2) 194____ Women ' s (3 ) (Which?) 19 5____ Professional (4) (Which?) Foreign (5) (What language?) Religious (6) (Which?) Sports (7) (Which?) Comic books (8) (Which?) Others How regularly? (1) weekly (2) biweekly (3) montly 196 244 Which have you read in the last two months? (NOTE) 197___ 198 199__ Do you read books? yes (1) no (0) 200___ What type? (NOTE ORDER OF MON) 1) Literature 5) Professional 201__ 2) Novels 6) Others 202— 3) Texts 203___ 4) History Do you go to the cinana? yes (1) no (0) 204_______ In what neighborhood? 205____ 1) Naco 5) Colonial 206___ 2) Malecon 6) Ciudad NUeva 3) Downtown 7) Av. Duarte 4) 27 de Feb./Palacio 8) Independencia 9) Other(s) How many times per month? more than weekly (1) , weekly (2) ,207____ biweekly (3) ,monthly (4) , less than monthly (5) What movie did you see most recently? 208 209 Of all the means of coumunication, which is the most useful 210-211_ to you in your life? (NOTE ORDER OF MENTION) 212~213 __Newspaper (1) __Magazines (4) _Friends (7) __Radio ( 2 ) __Books ( 5) __Neighbors ( 8) TV (3) Relatives (6) Parents (9) :Trade union(10) :Church (11) :Coumunity groups (12) __Political parties (13)_Other person (14)___Other group (14) __Telephone (15) Are you a member of a trade union or labor group? yes (1) no (0) 214 What type? 215 With what other clubs or groups are you associated? 216 (NONE-=0) 2.1.7 Are you married? yes (1) no (0) 218 (TYPE OF MARRIAGE) Were you married before? yes (1) no (0) 219 Do you have any children? How many? (No-O) 220-231_ What type of school do your children attend? 232 1) Public 233 2) Private church school 234 3) Other private 245 If you specify, until what grade must your children study? (LIST BOYS AND GIRLS SEPARATELY, IF NECESSARY) not at all (1) elementary school (2) 235____ high school (3) technical school (4) university (5) graduate school (6) 236___ What activity or job are your children involved in?236-238____ 239-240__ 241-242__ If they are children, what kind of job do you want for them? 243-244____ 245-246____ 247-248______ What is the last grade you completed? 249-250“ none (1) elementary (incomplete) (2) elementary (3) high school (incomplete) (4) high school (5) technical school (incomplete) (6) technical school (7) university (incmplete) (8) university (9) graduate school (10) What were your majors? 251-252___ 253-254____ What is more important--what you learn in school (1) , 255 on the street (2) ,or in the family (3)? Do you think television influences your family? A LOT QUITE A BIT SOME NOT MUCH No DON'T KNOW 257_ (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) How? Where did you learn the skills for your present occupation? (NOTE AND CATEGORIES) 1) School 4) Apprenticeship 258___ 2) University 5) Along the way 259____ 3) Technical school6) From your family 7) Other How did you get your present (or most recent) job? 260 Where were you born? What country? (DOMINICAN REPUBLIC=1) 261___ Other What city or town? 262____ Santo Daningo (1) San Pedro de Marcoris (5) Santiago (2) Medium-sized city (6) La Vega (3) Small city (7) Puerto Plata ( 4) Rural area (8) A 246 If you were to move from Santo Domingo to another city, or from this neighborhood to another, why would you move? ((CATEGORIZE AND LIST) 1) With the family 3) For a job 263 2) To get a job 4) To study 264 5) Other "‘"‘ Have television or other media had any influence on your decision to come to Santo Domingo or to change your neighborhood? yes (1) no (0) 265— Which? 266— Approximately what is your total monthly income? 267 (IF THEY DO NOT WISH TO SAY, ASK IN TERMS OF THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES: LESS THAN 350 (1). 350-700 (2), 700-l,000 (3), 1,000-l,500 (4),l,500-3,000 (5), 3,000'5,000 (6),5,000-10,000 (7). 10.000+ (8)) Do you have the following itans in your home? How many of each? Refrigerator 2 68_____ Automobi le 27 8_ Stove 269__ Motorcycle 27 9_ Iron 27 0_ Bicycle 2 80__ Blender 27 1__ Fan 281— Air conditioner 27 2__ Freezer 2 82__ Bathroom 27 3_ Vacuum cleaner 283____ Clock 27 4__ Water heater 2 84____ Water 27 5___ Washer 2 85____ Purif ied water 27 6__ Others (THEY MENTION) Generator 277___ Of the items that you don't have, which do you need most? 286 - 287 2 8 8 - 2 89 2 9 O - 29 1 Ref rigerator 1 Automobi 1e 11 Stove 2 Motorcycle 12 Iron 3 Bicycle 13 Blender 4 Fan 14 Air conditioner 5 Freezer 15 Bathroom 6 Vacuum cleaner 16 Clock 7 Wat er heater 17 Wat er 8 Washer 18 Purif ied water 9 Others (THEY MENTION) Generator 10 247 In the next five years, what things are you probably going to buy? (USELIST ABOVE AND WRITE DOWN IN ORDER OF MENTION) 292-293 294-295 296-297 How many lamps or light bulbs do you have in your house? 298-299 What type of dwelling do you have? 300 (NOTE SPECIFICALLY AND CATEGORIZE AS GOOD (1) , AVERAGE (2),OR POOR (3)) 301 Do you own it (1), rent it (2), or other (3)? 302 E In what neighborhood? (ASK IF INTERVIEW IS NOT AT HOME) * 303-304 5 Do you have other prOperty? house (1) . land (2) . (‘9 none (0) 305 Do you have a domestic living in your home? yes (1) , no (0) 306 Do you have a cook? yes (1) no (0) 307 Do you have someone do the laundry and ironing? yes (1) no (0) 308 Do you have other employees in your home? yes (1) no (0) 309 If not, would you like to have someone work for you? yes (1) no (0) 310 Do you do the majority of your shopping near your home? yes (1) no (0) 311 Where do you go to buy clothing? What area or neighborhood? 312 (NOTE ORDER OF MENTION) 313 1) Naco 4) Av. Mella 7) Other city 314 2) El Conde 5) Ciudad Nueva 8) Other country 3) DOWNtown 6) Av. Duarte 9) Other In general, do you prefer clothing and other personal items be made in the 315 Dominican Republic (1) or imported (2)? If imported, from where? (NOTE ORDER OF MENTION) 316__ U.S. (1) Spain (4) 317__ Puerto Rico (2) Japan (5) Italy (3) Other European (6) Other (7 ) 248 What job would you like to have in five years? 318 What is the best way to better your life in the Dominican Republic today? 319 320 For men? 321 For women? 322 SEX OF THE INTERVIEWEE 323 DESCRIBE THE HOUSE AND THE LOCATION OF THE TELEVISION BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Alisky, M. (1990) . Mass media in the Dominican Republic. In S. Surlin & W. Soderlund (Eds.). Mass media and the Caribbean (pp.l77-189) . New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, S.A. Althusser, L. (1971) . Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes towards an investigation). In Lenin and philosophy and other essaysmp. 121-1'73) . London: New Left Books. Ang, I. (1985). Watching Dallas: Soap opera and the melodramatic imagination. New York: Methuen & Co., Ltd. Ang, I. (1989). Wanted: Audiences. On the politics of empirical audience studies. In E. Seiter, H. Borchers, G. Kreutzner, & E.-M. Warth (Eds.),Remote control: Tolevision, audiences, and cultural power (DP. 96-115). New York: Routledge. Ang, I. (1990). Culture and communication: Towards an ethnographic critique of media consumption in the transnational media system. European Journal of Communication, 5, 239-260. Atwood, R. & McAnany, E. G. (Eds.). (1986). Commication and Latin American society: Trends in critical research, 13960-1985. Madison,WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Bennett, T. (1982) . Theories of the media, theories of society. In M. Gurevitch, T. Bennett, J. Curran, & J. Woollacott (Eds.) , Culture,society, , and the media (pp. 30-55) . New York: Methuen 8: Co., Ltd.- Bennett, T. (1986a). Introduction: Popular culture and 'the turn to Gramsci.‘ In T. Bennett, C. Mercer, & J. Woollacott (Eds.) , Popular culture and social relations (pp. xi-xix) . Philadelphia: Open university Press. Bennett, T. (1986b). The politics of 'the popular' and popular culture. In T. Bennett, C. Mercer, & J. Woollacott (Eds.), Popular culture and social relations (PD. 6-21) . Philadelphia: Open University Press. Bennett, T., Mercer, C., & Woollacott, J. (Eds.). (1986). Popular culture and social relations. Philadelphia: Open University Press. 249 250 Black, J.K. (1986). The Dominican Republic: Politics and development in an unsovereign state. Winchester, MA: Allen a thin, Inc. Bourdieu, P. (1984) . Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The production of belief: Contribution to an economy of symbolic goods. In R. Collins, J. Curran, N. Garnham, P. Scannell,P. Schlesinger, & C. Sparks (Eds.), Media, culture, and society: A critical readermp. 131-163). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Ltd. Corcoran, F. (1989) . Cultural studies: From Old World to New World. Communication Yearbook, 12, 601-617. Cripps, L. (1979) . The Spanish Caribbean: From Columbus to Castro. Boston: Schenkman Pub. Co. Dominican Republic: Public spending leads to construction boom, spurs economic growth. (1988, November 7) . Business America, pp. 19-20. Ebanks, K. (1989). Pirates of the Caribbean revisited: An examination of the continuing problem of satellite signal piracy in the Caribbean and Latin America. Law & Policy in International Business, 21, 33-52. Esteinou Madrid, J. (1986). Means of conununication and construction of hegemony. In R. Atwood & E. G. McAnany (Eds.) , Comunication and Latin American society: Trends in critical research, 1960-1985 (pp. 112-124). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Fiske, J. (1987a) . British cultural studies and television. In R.C. Allen (Ed.) , Channels of Discourse: Television and contemporary criticism (pp.254-289) . Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Fiske, J. (1987b). Television culture: popular pleasures and politics. New York: Methuen & Co., Ltd. Fiske, J. (1989) . Moments of television: Neither the text nor the audience. In E. Seiter, H. Borchers, G. Kreutzner, & E.-M. Warth (Eds.), Remote control: Television, audiences, and cultural power (pp. 56-78) . New York: Routledge. Fittipaldi, S. (1990, June 5) . Sparks are flying over Caricom application. Journal of Cannerce and Comnercial, p. 11B. Garcia Canclini, N. (1982). Las cultures populares en el capitalismo. Mexico City: Editorial Nueva Inagen, S.A. 25.1. Garcia Canclini, N. (1987). gDe qué estamos hablando cuando hablamos de lo popular? In Seminario del Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales, Comunicacién y cultures populares en Latinoamérica (pp. 21-37). MexicoCity: Ediciones G. Gili, SMA. de C.V. Garcia Canclini, N. (1988). Culture and power: The state of research. Media, culture, and Society, 10, 467-497. Garnham, N. & Williams, R. (1986). Pierre Bourdieu and the sociology of culture: An introduction. In R. Collins, J. Curran, N. Garnham, P. Scannell, P. Schlesinger, & C. Sparks (Eds.), Media, culture, and society: A critical reader (pp. 131-163). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Ltd. Gramsci, A. (1971) . Selections from the prison notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Gramsci, A. (1975) . Selections from the cultural writings. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Grossberg, L. (1984). Strategies of Marxist cultural interpretation. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 1, 392-421. Gurevitch, M., Bennett, T., Curran, J., & Woollacott, J. (Eds.). Culture, society, and the media. New York: Methuen & Co., Ltd. Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hebson, A, Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.), Chlture, media, language (pp. 128-138). London: Hutchison. Hall, S. (1982). The rediscovery of 'ideology': Return of the repressed in media studies. In M. Gurevitch, T. Bennett, J. Curran, & J. Woollacott (Eds.), Culture, society, and the media (pp. 56-90) . New York: Methuen 5. Co. , Ltd. Hall, S. (1986). Cultural studies: Two paradigms. In R. Collins, J. Curran, N. Garnham, P. Scannell, P. Schlesinger, & C. Sparks (Eds.) , Media, culture, and society: A critical reader (pp. 131-163) . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Ltd. Hamelink, C. (1983). Cultural autonomy in global communications. New York: Longman Publishers. Hernandez, T. (1987) . Usos te6ricos y usos comunes: Lo popular y la investigacion de la comunicacion. In Seminario del Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales, Cbmmnicacién y cultures populares en Latinoamérica (PP. 51-72). MBxico City: Ediciones G. Gili, SMA. de C.V. 252 Jensen, K. B. & Rosengren, K. (1990). Five traditions in search of the audience. European J0urnal of Cemmunication, 5, 207-238. Johnson, R. (1987). What is cultural studies anyway? Social Text, 16, 38-80. Katz, E. & Liebes, T. (1986). Mutual aid in the decoding of Dallas: Prelimdnary notes from a cross-cultural study. In P. Drummond & R. Paterson(Eds.), Television in transition: Papers from the first International TelevisionStudies conference (pp. 187-198). London: British Film Institute. Kurian, G. (1982). Dominican Republic. In World Press Encyclopedia,vol. 1 (pp. 295-302). London: Mansell Publishing, Ltd. Kurian, G. (1987). Dominican Republic. In Encyclopedia of the Third World, vol. 1 (pp. 556-575). New York: Facts on File, Inc. Kurlansky, M. (1989, August 6). In the land of the blind caudillo..NEw’YOrk Times.Magazine, pp. 24-30; 43. Lee, C. (1979). Media imperialism reconsidered: The homogenizing of television culture. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Liebes, T. (1988). Cultural differences in the retelling of television fiction. Critical Studies in Mass COmmunication, 5, 277-292. Livingstone, S. M. (1990). Interpreting a television nar- rative: How different viewers see a story. Journal of communication, 40, 72-85. McAnany, E. G. (1989). Television and cultural discourses: Latin American and United States comparisons. Studies in Latin.American Popular CUlture, 8, pp. 1-21. Mahan, E. & Straubhaar, J. Broadcasting in the Dominican Republic. (unpublished.paper). Martin-Barbero, J. (1987a). Comunicacion, pueblo y cultura en el tiempo de 1as transnacionales. In Seminario del Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales, comunicacion .y culturas populares en Latinoamérica (pp.38-50). Mexico City: Ediciones G. Gili, S.Ai de C.V. Martin-Barbero, J. (1987b). De los medics a las mediaciones: COmunicacion, cultura y hegemonia. Mexico City: Editorial Gustavo Gili, S.A. Martin-Barbero, J. (1988). Communication from culture: The crisis of the national and the emergence of the popular. Media, CUlture, and Society,lo, 447-465. a-m- III -11 253 Morley, D. (1980) . The Nationwide audience: Structure and decoding. London: British Film Institute. Morley, D. (1989). Changing paradigms in audience studies. In E. Seiter, H. Borchers, G. Kreutzner, & E.-M. Warth (Eds.), Remote control: Television, audiences, and cultural power (pp. 16-43). New York: Routledge. Rachid, R. (1990). Manufacturers engineer changes in Caribbean basin. Journal of Commerce and Commercial, 383, 1: 10A. Roach, A. (1987, March 9). Caribbean offers a golden opportunity.Industzy Week, p. 14. Schwarz, C. & Jaramillo, O. (1986) . Hispanic American critical communication research in its historical context. In R. Atwood & E.G. McAnany (Eds.) , Communication and Latin American society: Trends in critical research, 1960-1985 (pp. 48-75) . Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Seiter, E., Borchers, H., Kreutzner, G., & Warth, E.-M. (Eds.). (1989). Remote control: Television, audiences, and cultural power. New York: Routledge. Seminario del Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales. (1987) . Comunicacion y cul turas populares en Latinoamerica. Mexico City: Ediciones G. Gili, S.A. de C.V. Straubhaar, J. (1990, June 25-July 1) . Social class and audience responses to television and new video technologies in Brazil and the Dominican Republic: Toward a concept of cultural proximity. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, Dublin. Straubhaar, J. & Viscasillas, G. (1990) . The effects of cable TV in the Dominican Republic. In S. Surlin & W. Soderlund (Eds.) . Mass media and the Caribbean (pp. 273-286) . New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers,S.A. Straubhaar, J. & Viscasillas, G. (1991). Class, genre and the regionalization of television programing in the Dominican Republic. Journal of Cannunication, 41, 70-87. Surlin, S. & Soderlund, W. (Eds.). (1990) . Mass media and the Caribbean. New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, S.A. UNESCO. (1989). Dominican Republic. In World communications: A ZOO-country survey of press, radio, television, and film (pp. 158-159) . New York: Unipub. Vedovato, C. (1986) Politics, foreign trade & economic development: A study of the Dominican Republic. London: Croon Helm Ltd. 254 Wagenheim, K. (1988, April 4). Investors bullish on the Dominican Republic (special adverstising section). Business Week, pp. 113-123. Weil, T. (Ed.). (1973). Area handbook for the Dominican Republic. Washington, DC: The American University. White, R. A. (1983) . Mass communication and culture: Transition to a new paradigm. Journal of Communication, 33 (3), 279-301. Wilkie, J. W. & Ochoa, E. (Eds.). (1989). Statistical abstract of Latin America, vol. 27. Los Angeles: UCLA Latin American Center Publications. W Adames, F.R. (1988) . La investigacion de la comunicacion en la Republica Dominicana. Estudios Sociales, 72, 37-49. Antola, L. & Rogers, E. M. (1984) . Television flows in Latin America. Communication Research, 11, 183-202. Atwood, R. (1986). Assessing critical mass communication scholarship in the Americas: The relationship of theory and practice. In R. Atwood & E.G. McAnany (Eds.), Communication and Latin American society: Trends in critical research, 1960-1985 (pp. 11-27). Madison, WI: University ofWisconsin Press. Boyd, D. A. (1988). Third World pirating of U.S. films and television programs from satellites. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media,32, 149-161. Boyd, D. A., Straubhaar, J., & Lent, J. (1989). Videocassette recorders in the Third World. New York: Longman Publishers. Brown, A. (1990) . Effects of the New World Information and Communication Order on Caribbean media. In S. Surlin & W. Soderland (Eds.), Mass media and the Caribbean (PP. 251-272) . New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, S.A. Chen, S.-L. (1987). The flow of television programs from United States to Latin America: A comparative survey of two weeks' television schedules in 1973 and 1983. (Master's Thesis: Michigan State University, EastLansing, MI) Curran, J. (1990) . The new revisionism in mass coumunication research: A reappraisal. European Journal of Comnunication, 5, 135-164. "‘ a.“ 255 Forgacs, D. (1988). An Antonio Gramsci reader: selected writings, 1916-1935. New York: Schocken Books Inc. Hardt, H. (1989). The return of the 'critical' and the challenge of radical dissent: Critical theory, cultural studies, and American mass communication research. Comnunication Yearbook, 12, 558-600. Hedebro, G. (1982) . Communication and change in developing nations: A critical view. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Howell, W.I., Jr. (1986) . World broadcasting in the age of the satellite: Comparative systems, policies, and issues in mass telecommunication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub. Corp. Jonnard, C. (1974). Dominican Republic. InCaribbean investment handbook (pp. 259-275). Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Data Corp. Lembo, R., & Tucker, jr., K. H. (1990). Culture, television, and opposition: Rethinking cultural studies. Critical Studies in Mass Conmunicationfl, 97-116. McAnany, E. G. (1986). Seminal ideas in Latin American critical communication research: An agenda for the North. In R. Atwood & E.G. McAnany (Eds.) , Communication and Latin American society: Trends in critical research, 1960-1985 (pp. 28-47). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Malagbn, A. (1986) . La prensa en Repfiblica Dominicana: Ideologia, informacion y noticias. Santo Domingo, DR: Editora Universitaria, UASD. Marques de Melo, J. (1984) . La investigacibn latinoamericana en comunicacibn. Chasqui, 11, 4-11. Marques de Melo, J. (1988). Communication and research in Latin America: A preliminary balance of the past twenty-five years. Media, Culture, and Society, 10, 405-418. Nordenstreng, K. & Schiller, H. (Eds.). (1979). National sovereignty and international communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Rogers, E. M. & Antola, L. (1985). Telenovelas: A Latin American success story. Journal of Communication, 35 (4), 24-35. Roncagliolo, R. (1986). Transnational communication and culture. In R. Atwood & E.G. McAnany (Eds.), Camnication and Latin American society: Trends in critical research, 1960-1985 (pp. 79-88). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. 256 Saéz, J.L. (1988). Periodismo y universidad: Genesis y evolucién del periodismo en las universidades Dominicanas. Estudios Sociales, 72, pp. 25-35. Sénchez, F. (1982). Alienacion y medios de comunicacion. Santo Domingo, DR: Editora Taller, C. por A. Serulle Ramia, J. & Boin, J. (1981). La inversion de capitales imperialistas en la Republica Dominicana. Santo Domingo, DR: Talleres Graficos de la UASD. Simpson Grinberg, M. (1986). Trends in alternative communication research in Latin America. In R. Atwood & E.G. McAnany (Eds.), Communication and Latin American society: Trends in critical research, 1960-1985 (pp. 165-189) . Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Tracey, M. (1988, March). Popular culture and the economics of global television. Intermedia, pp. 9-25. Varis, T. (1984). The international flow of television programs. Journal of Comnunication, 34, 143-152.