. .. .mgun “on

, ‘......‘.u

«at-‘-
‘ - -..-'- 6 manic
H . ..

.
If!

5 . a...
“ 1

E. 351’

. a .4

Z i ‘37" 61
1 ~34: at
1.: "3. an.
E :1 3!." he"

I¥¢$uz

1% WW6
7 a -e K.

'_ '7'

f

h

. '1 u

i
. .

u .

r f’
I 7 -v v

. r, '
J; A fflf

. n “my

11' ' 3...?” n

" u .. Ki 1- ‘ "‘0"
v v‘ 537%.;3 “'2‘“
V . .‘ ,Na-MI. .u .
. T R {1‘25
1
i
1

'7
fi.’
.3
”r"
.L'
.N
E
g
5
'7.
.
w?
l

4.4"
1-.

-A.

~ .1.

5. 15-4,."
,.. '.' . “'.

. N 4 .’

 

 

~.
r
'.

. f‘vt‘n-

.[ 1

<-

. J .-

4 as

~J\?AY

- a .
n

u
'I

53"?!‘3'3’16 ”‘5' 133531. ‘L‘ '~
,~ ”‘1‘ ‘6" - nzéré‘y: .- ~31 3:5“:

. 7'»; .3 3' . fl .6" ’mz‘ein“?

’ '. -'.. $3,: T “W “'1'.

:1 '

.A

v .4» a «
W..4,‘1‘r’“-flm«y
v?"
2- ...~.~m‘u+.:.‘r:z~
ll HI I V
ml"

:22“... .. .. .
~ .-'.:6-. , - {n .3
\v' 6.,

4,153;
. 4 ,1;
- um; ,
“3.1.53.1 ”g

L...“ .
'5

.5

1...}.ccvw;

“x .. 7.,
;’ 1.231.:

"0- n’ '
+-u .mn
w m

can

u. \

4

. .
. J!»

4 ‘1‘: 93

~:5. :um.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.» I ."l
'4“ 1,2532?!
1" r . 4" u / Q

. ..

 

 

GANS STATE

lllllllllllllllzlllll

 

 

 

 

 

 

llllllllll!lllllllllllllllll

300917 1558

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
The Influence of Funding Sources on

Editorial Page Content in College and

University Student Newspapers in Michigan
presented by

Daniel 0. Myers

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.A. degree in Journalism

 

 

 

 

v

M 57/-

Major professor

Date lq/Q’V/7O

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

i LIBRARY ,
Michigan State
University

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

9.333 32333 L
QTIVW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

gs. J

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[xx

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

J

msu Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution ‘
lemma-9.1

 

THE INFLUENCE OF FUNDING SOURCES
ON EDITORIAL RAGE CONTENT

IN COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENT NEWSPAPERS IN MICHIGAN

BY

Daniel 0. Myers

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
School of Journalism

1990

ABSTRACT

THE INFLUENCE OF FUNDING SOURCES
ON EDITORIAL PAGE CONTENT

IN COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENT NE'SPAPERS IN MICHIGAN

BY

Daniel 0. Myers

While all media are vulnerable to external pressures on
content, reports of censorship and recent court decisions on
press freedom at the high-school level indicate student
newspapers may be especially vulnerable. This study attempts
to discern whether funding sources for college and university
newspapers in Michigan affect the content of editorial pages.
Starting with Herbert Altschull's economic model of media
behavior, it is hypothesized that college media will follow
the interests of the media paymaster--in most cases, the
college administration.

The study consisted of a survey of college newspaper
advisers and an analysis of the newspapers' editorial pages.
Attempts were made to reach the 33 Michigan daily and weekly
college student newspapers listed in the 1990 We
Englisng;_1gg:_figgk. Issues from 18 papers were obtained; 13
surveys were returned. Results found some correlation between
administration control of funding and coverage of on-campus

issues, but the data were not conclusive.

TABLE OF

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . .
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . .
I. PROBLEM AND CONTEXT .

II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
III. LITERATURE REVIE' . .
IV. HYPOTHESES . . . . . .

V. METHODS . . . . . . .

VI. RESULTS . . . . . . .
VII. DISCUSSION . . . . . .
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX A: CODING INSTRUMENT

APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE . .

CONTENTS

iii

iv

10
17
30
34
39
47
53
56

62

Table
Table
.Table

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Effect of Adviser's Newspaper Experience

Public v. Private Schools . . . . . .

Independent v. Curricular Newspapers .

iv

43

45

46

47

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Funding Sources . . . . . .

Figure 2: Groups Mentioned . . . . .

INTRODUCTION

College and university student newspapers are often a
part of a journalist's education. Students learn the elements
of the newspaper business, including reporting, editing and
production. Sometimes they also learn about censorship.

While all media are vulnerable to external pressures on
content, reports of censorship and recent court decisions on
press freedom at the high-school level indicate student
newspapers may be especially vulnerable. Administrators may
also be able to use persuasive measures more subtle than
simple censorship, such as instituting an editorial board
sympathetic to administration interests. In the case of
newspapers run as part of the school's journalism program,
grades may be used as a means of insuring a docile school
newspaper.

Administration attempts to control student newspaper
content often take the form of an assertion that the
university has a right to control content if university funds
are used in the newspaper's production. College
administrators may assert that they function as the publisher
of the student newspaper, and thus have the right to censor
content.

This study attempts to discern whether funding sources

2
for college and university newspapers in Michigan affect the
content of editorial pages. Starting with Herbert Altschull '5
economic model of media behavior, it is hypothesized that
college media will follow the interests of the media

paymaster; in most cases, the college administration.

I. PROBLEM AND CONTEXT

College newspapers, despite their claims of editorial
independence from the institutions which create them, are far
from financially independent. In a survey of the editors of
all college dailies in the U.S., Atkins1 found only nine of
the papers to be completely independent. One of the major
ties between college newspapers and the institution they cover
is funding. Atkins found that, on average, 15 percent of the
newspaper's budget came from the university in the form of
mandatory student fees or direct grants.2 Under this figure
are subsumed arrangements including mandatory fees designated
for the support of the paper, student activity fees collected
and disbursed by the administration and activity fees
collected by the administration and disbursed by the student

government.

‘Paul A. Atkins. WW.
(Morgantown, W.Va.: Communi-Tech Associates, 1982), p. 3.

2Id., p. 16.

3

Despite the legal protection offered to public schools,
administrators may attempt to censor, chill, or suppress
college level publications. One way they can go about this is
by cutting back or suspending funding. A recent case in
Minnesota illustrated this when the Board of Regents of the
University of Minnesota changed the newspaper's mandatory
student fee funding to allow students to obtain a refund in
response to a spoof issue many people found offensive. The
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held the board had acted
unconstitutionally.3

Protection for student publications arises from the First
and Fourteenth amendments. The First Amendment guarantees
religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press,
freedom of assembly and freedom to petition.‘ The Fourteenth
Amendment extended the protection of First Amendment rights to
all levels of government.5 Because administrators at state
colleges and universities are considered part of the
government, the constitution prevents them from acts of

censorship.6

In Eanish_xI_nnixersitr_2f_nisseuri.fioard_ef_§uraters.7

3mm. 719 F.2d 279 (1983).
‘U.S. Constitution, amend. i.
5see W 268 0.8. 652 (1925).

6see Iinker___l__nes__u2ine___Indenendent__semmnnitx__§cheol
District, 393 U. S. 503.

7410 0.3. 667 (1973).

4
the court clearly stated that the First Amendment applied to
college campuses. The court stated a graduate student could
not be expelled for her part in the distribution of an
underground newspaper featuring four-letter words and an
editorial cartoon depicting police officers raping the Statue
of Liberty and the Goddess of Justice.

This principle extends to the cutting off of funds in
order to affect content. In W} a
Massachusetts court stated, "[w]e are well beyond the belief
that any manner of state regulation is permissible simply
because it involves an activity which is part of the
university structure and is financed with funds controlled by
the administration." In the case of W,’ the
4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the president of a
black college who took funding away from the student newspaper
because of an editorial against allowing whites to attend the
school. The court ruled that "[t]he state is not necessarily
the unrestrained master of that which it creates and
fosters....If a college has a student newspaper, its
publication cannot be suppressed because college officials
dislike its editorial comment." Other cases support the view

that funding cannot be used as a weapon to suppress the

8308 F.Supp. 1329 (D.Mass. 1970).

9477 F.2d 456 (4th Cir. 1973).

college press.1o

Publications at private colleges and universities are not
as protected. While not conceding that newspapers at private
colleges are unprotected, Inglehart11 states that private
college administrators are not prevented from acts of
censorship by ‘the constitution, nor do} the courts seem
prepared to assert protection for publications using other
points of law. Theoretical grounds advanced for the
protection of private college student publications have
included the use of the college catalog as a contract or that
the student newspaper is a public forum. So few cases have
reached the courts in this area that there is no clear
direction in the courts. A student who distributed
publications on the private campus of Princeton university
without permission won the right to do so on appeal.12
Despite this case, the courts still seem to favor the private
3

colleges.

One recent public school case which has caused

10For example, see Stanlgy_yL_nagzatn, 719 F.2d 279 (1983),

(cited above) and yg§g_gL_§Qngaxtzkgpfi, 353 F.Supp. 149 (Neb.
1973), aff'd. 478 F.2d 1407 (8th Cir. 1973), cert. denied 414

U.S. 1135, (1973), (court denied student's request that funds
be cut off from campus newspaper because of editorials with
which he disagreed).

11Louis E. Inglehart,

Contributions to the Study of Mass Media and Communications,
Number 3, (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1985), p. 65.

“machine, 84 N.J. 535, 423 A.2d 615, 619 (1980).
BInglehart, op. cit., p. 69.

6
controversy is that of flagelwood y, Kunlmgign,“ which
involved the suppression of a high school newspaper by the
school principal.
Before W, free-speech cases at the high school
level were based on the case of W

Independent Community School District,” where the Court held
that student First Amendment rights could not be abridged

unless their expression would "materially and substantially
interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in
the operation of the school."

The Court in 1131311934 distinguished between two types of
student speech: school-sponsored and incidental expression.
For school sponsored speech, W states that "educators
do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial
control over the style and content of student speech in
school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their
actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical
concerns . "1‘

Despite the controversy this case has raised", it does
not specifically apply to college publications. The Court

expressly stated this: "[wJe need not now decide whether the

“484 U.S. 260 (1988).
P 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
16484 U.S. 260 (1988), 273.

"see, for example, Nancy J. Meyer, "Assuring Freedom for the

College Student Press after Hazelreed." YilEflIiifiQEQDIXQIEIEY
W 24 (1989): 53-76.

7

same degree of deference [to a school administrator's
decisions regarding content] is appropriate with respect to
school-sponsored expressive activities at the college and
university level."18

However, some college administrators have apparently
decided that.fiazglwoog opens the door for them to restrain the
college student press. The Student Press Law Center reported
receiving calls from college students and advisors concerned
about the impact of Hazelwggd decision on the college press.
Some reported threats of censorship from administrators who
saw the case as "an excuse to begin censoring."19

In addition, in its decision the Court referred to
ma, which dealt with a campus speech issue, stating
fiazglwggd 'was consistent with the earlier case in. its
differentiation between speech that is sponsored by the school
and speech that is not. The Court stated Banish "involved an
off-campus 'underground' newspaper that school officials
merely had allowed to be sold on a state university
campus."20 The Court seemed to be asserting that the
distinction between school-sponsored and unsponsored
expressive activities can be applied at the college level.

This assertion may lead to a broader interpretation of

“484 U.S. 260 (1988), note 7.

"Student Press Law Center, Lar__ef__the__§tudent__zrees
(Washington, D.C.: Student Press Law Center, 1988), p. 90.

20484 U.S. 260 (1988), note 3.

8
flagglwggg, extending it to the college level.

In Ihis. dissent, Justice Brennan noted. the ‘previous
absence of a distinction between school sponsored and
unsponsored speech and the relation to free speech cases on
college campuses. Citing both Eapisn and.the case of Healy v,
James”, Brennan wrote:22

Particularly telling is this Court's heavy reliance on
Tinker in two cases of First Amendment infringement on
state college campuses....In neither case did this Court
suggest the distinction, which the Court today finds
dispositive, between school-sponsored and incidental
expression."

The Student Press Law Center also notes another
disturbing fact. The Court qualified the statement that

flagglwggg does not apply to state colleges in the very same

sentence in which it appears:23

It is of some significance that the Supreme Court said it
need not rule "now" on the rights of college students.
One could infer that the Court might be willing to
examine the extent of college student's rights in the
future and perhaps even extend the flagelwggd ruling to
them. For the Court to do that, however, it would have
to ignore or overrule some important decisions it has
handed down in the past 20 years.

But the Court may be willing to make that leap. That it

is willing to limit student speech rights on college campuses

can be seen in the decision of W

21408 U.S. 169 (1972). The court ruled a student could not be
prevented from forming a chapter of the SDS at.a state college
merely because college officials disagreed with the
organization's political message.

22484 U.S. 260 (1988), 282.

23Student Press Law Center, op. cit., p. 90.

9

£935,“ where the Court limited a student's right to hold
"Tupperware parties" in his dorm room. The Court based this
decision on the commercial nature of the speech, but it showed
a willingness to limit student speech at institutions of
higher education that is troubling. Commercial speech, that
is, speech involved in the solicitation of a transaction, most
notably advertising and sales pitches, is less protected than
"core" speech, such as political debate and discussion. In
SUM, the majority opinion characterized the university's
interest in "promoting an educational rather than commercial
atmosphere on SUNY's campus“5 as substantial; presumably,
then, it would pass as a "legitimate pedagogical concern."
Although Tupperware parties are far removed from campus
newspapers, the willingness of the court to find educational
atmosphere a substantial reason for curtailing speech is
troubling. It would seem that college students are no longer
assumed to be younger adults; rather, they are older children.

The college press, at least at public institutions,
enjoys constitutional protection under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments. The bulk of case law, despite some
troubling exceptions, supports the right of the student to
free speech. Prior restraint, censorship, restriction of
funds and harassment of student reporters and editors is also

prohibited. Only legitimate time, place and manner restraints

2"109 S.Ct. 3028.

25Id., 3032.

10
can be imposed.

"All of this is very reassuring to the student journalist
in the state college," writes Inglehart, "except that from
time to time college officials ignore the legal restraints and
case precedents and fire, punish, censor, restrain, chill, or
destroy a campus newspaper, yearbook, or magazine."

It is the object of this study to examine how college
administrators may influence content, even if their attempts

do not lead to the courts.

II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Altschull found journalists to be "cavalier” about the
influence of money on their livelihood. Although they were
cognizant of costs and their own salaries and expenses,
Altschull found little attention given to details of financing
the news product:26

The advertiser is often held in contempt: he and his kind
are not welcome in the newsroom, and the reporter or his
editor would cheerfully go to prison rather than allow
his news judgment to be influenced by the crass
commercial world of the advertiser...beyond the surface
of reality he does not permit himself to go--for in the
shadows...lies the verity that would surely explode the
comforting folklore of the independence of the press.

Altschull states "the content of the press is directly

“U; Herbert Altschull, Agent§_gfi_£gyg:, (New York: Longman,
1984), pp. 253-254.

ll
correlated. with. the interests of those ‘who finance the
press."27 Sometimes it is easy to determine the 'media
paymasters, such as in the case of the Soviet Union. In other
cases, it is more difficult to trace who the media financiers
are.

Altschull found four basic patterns in the relationship
of media and. media financiers. K He identified them as
official, commercial, interest and informal!”

In the official pattern, the content of the newspaper,
magazine, or broadcasting outlet is determined by rules,
regulations and decrees....No nation is free of official
controls; the variations come in the degree of autonomy
that is permitted. In the commercial pattern, the
content of the press reflects the views of advertisers
and their commercial allies, who are usually found among
the owners and publishers. . . .In the interest pattern, the
content of the medium echoes the concerns of the
financing enterprise....In the informal pattern, media
content mirrors the goals of relatives, friends, or
acquaintances, who supply money directly or who exercise
their influence to ensure that the tunes of the piper are
heard.

Altschull notes these patterns are often overlapped. He
also states that it would be a grave error to assume they
function at a purely national level. Although it is possible
to argue the press is subject to less control in one country
than another, press control varies from publication to
publication within a country's borders.

Nor does Altschull claim that the boundaries set by the

media paymaster for the functioning of media outlets are set

271d. , p. 254.

z"Id. , p. 254.

12
in stone. They vary over time, depending on the needs of the
financier. Nevertheless, Altschull states, "No newspaper,
magazine, or broadcasting outlet exceeds the boundaries of
autonomy acceptable to the paymasters.W”

Shoemaker:so has identified five separate "pre-theories"
of influence on media content which she harmonized with
Altschull's assertion. These are that the media are a channel
("mirror") conveying an exact picture of social reality to an
audience with little or no distortion; content is a function
of media routines: content is influenced by journalists'
socialization and attitudes: content results from social and
institutional forces: anducontent.is the result.of ideological
positions and a tool of the status quo (the "hegemony" or
"mass-manipulative" approach).

Shoemaker reviewed more than 100 studies of influences on
mass media content and grouped them under these
classifications. With the exception of the "mirror" theory,
which she rejected, she found that the approaches were related
to each other and to Altschull's economic approach:"’1

These approaches may form a theoretical hierarchy, from

the routines of newsgathering approach at the media task

level of analysis, to the ideological approaches at the
macro level: Why is the news gathered in ways which may
at times result in distortion? Because media employers

2"Id. , p. 255.

imPamela J. Shoemaker, with Elizabeth K. Mayfield, "Building
a Theory of News Content: A Synthesis of Current Approaches,"

Webs 103 (June 1987). p- 2-
3'Id., p. 21.

l3

and employees make decisions about how the job should be
done. Why do they make such decisions? Because of
economic, cultural, and technological imperatives. Why
are these imperatives effective in controlling the media?
Because the media are part of the status quo and have
been influenced by the ideology of those in power to
conform.

In preparing a theory of news content, Shoemaker
'postulates that media paymasters influence content. The
different ideologies of financing interests will interact to
influence content. These interactions will exert both direct
and indirect influence on all aspects of the mass
communication process : 32

The influence of financier ideology on content is not
necessarily direct. It operates through the process of
gathering, shaping and transmitting news, with differing
patterns of competition, interaction with social and
institutional sources, journalists' orientations, and
newsgathering routines resulting from each unique mix of
financing sources.

Often, these ideologies will conflict. Shoemaker
theorizes that in these cases, content will reflect the
strongest ideological position. The position will be mediated
by other, opposing viewpoints.”

In the college setting, funding comes from both
"interest" sources--the administration and campus community--
and from commercial sources. As mentioned before, Atkins“
found 15 percent of the funding for college dailies came from

student fees or directly from the campus administration:

”op. cit., p. 23.

”Id. , p. 24.

3"op. cit., p. 16.

14

however 80 percent came from advertising revenue. Commercial
sources, even though they may account for a large proportion
of funding, may have their ideological influence weakened by
the special position of college newspapers. Atkins discovered
84 percent of the dailies said.they had no serious competition
on campus. He noted that campus dailies are difficult to
compete against because of high readership among the student
population.

Shoemaker theorizes " [t]he more a media vehicle is funded
by 'commercial' sources, the more its content will reflect.the
ideologies of audiences and advertisers."35 Media seek
profits by increasing advertising revenue. Because advertises
seek both specialized and diverse audiences, media will serve
these audiences. College newspapers serve the needs of the
campus community. Often, various factions within this
community will be in ideological conflict with each other.

An illustration of this can be seen from the late 1960s,
when the University of California, at that time organized into
one system with several campuses, convened a special
commission to examine the "nature, role, and quality" of the
student newspapers. The commission was convened in response
to student unrest at Berkeley, UCLA and the other University
of California campuses. In 'the commission's report, a
journalism professor pointed out the conflict between the

ideologies of campus groups inevitably led to occasional

'”op. cit., p. 24.

15
conflicts between the college papers and administratorsr56
The professional journalist's task is to serve his
readers, not the news source. And this is the cause of
much of the consternation on the campus. The student
journalist sees his readers as students....The
nonstudents are the people whose activities he
scrutinizes, particularly administrators. . . .On the other
hand, the administrator sees the student press much as he
views other service groups.

Campuses may no longer be torn like they were in the
19605, but one legacy of those times is a more independent
student press. Campus dailies, to avoid censorship problems,
cut ties to the administration and student governments.”'

Advertisers will seek to place advertising in papers that
can deliver a large audience of college students. In the case
of large campus dailies, which are able to limit or sever
financial ties to the administration, the commercial ideology
will probably dominate. Shoemaker hypothesizes that media
vehicles financed by commercial sources will use graphic
devices :more extensively' and feature less complex, ‘more
readable content.”

In the case of smaller schools, commercial sources will
probably not make up the majority of the newspaper budget.

Because papers at smaller schools have smaller circulation,

they will be less attractive to advertisers. More funds will

9: .2‘1 :.:--_9 ' {5°01 0‘ 1‘ 9‘ -. new. :: 01-!
"*t- 1"“°.‘1 0 9‘ I“:

Q‘ -Q‘! o
California,Norman E. Isaacs, chairperson (Washington D.C.:
American Council on Education, 1970), p. 20.

”Atkins, op. cit., p. 17.

”op. cit., p. 24.

16
come from the administration rather than advertising. The
administration will then function as an ”interest" group in
its influence on content. Shoemaker hypothesizes that content
in media vehicles funded by interest groups will be more
specialized, reflecting only topics of direct interest to the
groups"9

The administration, as the form of government for the
college environment, also may function in an official control
pattern. This may take the form of an administrative advisor
or board of control which exercises some authority over the
newspaper content. In some cases this authority will be
strong, in others weak. It may be that the advisor has no
formal authority, and only advises student editors. However,
despite the informal nature of such advice, the source (a
person or board delegated authority by the administration) may
tend to result in influence on content. This may be due to
the implied or actual threat of censorship or removal of
funds, or no threat at all: merely self-censorship on the part
of students who are aware that their funding is partially in
the control of the administration.

If the administration can be seen as a media paymaster in
the case of college newspapers, we can also see how
Shoemaker's theoretical hierarchy can be applied to the
college setting: Media routines, which affect content, are

affected by budgets, which in turn are under at least some

3"op. cit., p. 25.

17

control by the administration. Student newspaper employees
may make decisions to accept or institute routines because
they are socialized in a particular manner, whether because a
certain type of student chose to attend a college because of
the school's reputation or by administrative pressure to
conform. Administrative actions, taken because of the
ideological position of the administration, will affect the
socialization of the student body.

College newspapers, like national media systems, do not
fit neatly into one niche. Interest, commercial and official
patterns of media control may intertwine. Even informal
effects on content may occur if a newspaper is funded by
student or alumni donations. Despite this mingling' of
interests, we may expect to see campus media, like the
professional media, follow Altschull's basic rule: media

content will reflect the ideology of the media paymasters.

III. LITERATURE REVIEN

Few studies are conducted on the operation of college
newspapers, and evidence of censorship is largely anecdotal in
nature. Few content analyses of college newspapers exist.

Atkins“o study of college dailies, mentioned above, is

a useful portrait of the elite college press. Atkins surveyed

"°op . cit .

18

all college dailies across the ‘U.S. to determine their
organization, independence from college administrations,
budget and operations. He achieved a response rate of 78
percent. Fifty-five percent of the papers had circulations of
more than 10,000. Although Atkins did not report specific
budget data, it is clear that more than 90 percent of the
papers had budgets of more than $100,000.

Atkins found that of the 80 newspapers surveyed, only
nine were completely independent of the college they served.
Atkins defined a newspaper as independent if it met the
following criteria: it could receive neither student fees nor
grants from the college or student administration, it had to
rent or own the quarters it occupied and pay for utilities, it
had to pay for equipment and supplies and pay any salaries of

its student staffers . ‘1

Four newspapers were found to be
independent except for utilities.

Atkins found advertising made up 80.5 percent of the
average dailies revenue. Grants from the college
administration and direct and indirect student fees made up
15.1 percent. As discussed above, the high percentage of
advertising revenue may offset the influence of the
administration on content.

Competition on campus includes campus radio and

television stations, weeklies, and minority publications.

None of these competitors threaten the existence of campus

"Id., 17.

19
dailies. Campus papers with large budgets are often as well-
produced as commercial papers, and often may be in competition
with them. Seventy-eight percent of the dailies noted
competition from off-campus sources in bringing news to
students, although such competition did not threaten the
paper's existence.

It is possible that this competition, however, may not
extend below the level of the large campus dailies. If
smaller papers specialize in campus news, it is likely they
will not be in competition with professional media vehicles.

The study found relatively little censorship. Seventy-
five percent of the newspapers surveyed had no non-student
reviewing copy. Fourteen editors out of the 16 interviewed in
the follow-up to the survey agreed or strongly agreed with the
statement "This daily is free of non-student censorship, even
when controversial stories or editorials are involved." Only
two indicated censorship problems occurred on their campus.
Atkins did not examine whether student publications were
"chilled" by threats or fear of administrative disapproval.

The dailies surveyed included some of the largest college
newspapers in the nation. Such large operations can use their
size as leverage if censorship problems occur. For example,
The W fought a successful legal battle to
restore student fee funding cut by the board of regents of the

University of Minnesota.‘2 Atkins reported the Minnesota

“WM. 719 F.2d 279 (1983).

20
M to be the second largest college newspaper in his study,
with a budget over $1.5 million in 1982. These papers, more
financially independent of the colleges they serve than
smaller papers, may not reflect the status of the majority of
college papers, many of which are weeklies and not included in
this study's sample.

In a content analysis of laboratory papers and
independent papers, Wilson”3 found no clear margin of
superiority for either type of publication. An independent
paper was defined as "a student produced news periodical
published at least once per week during regular academic
sessions that maintained no curricular or instructional
relationship to the academic journalism unit of its host
institution, or to any faculty members." A laboratory paper
was defined as "a student produced news periodicals published
at least once per week during regular academic sessions that
maintained a curricular or instructional relationship to the
academic journalism unit of its host institution." Wilson
used Associated Collegiate Press Guidelines to analyze content
of 12 California university student papers. Papers were
analyzed in five areas: category and content: writing and
editing: editorial leadership and opinion; physical appearance
and visual communication; and photography, art and graphics.

Independent papers scored higher than laboratory papers in

“Clint C. Wilson II, "Independent v. Laboratory Papers,"
Wis! 20 (Spring 1981): 10-13.

21
every category except graphics and photography, however, the
margin of difference was only statistically significant in
editorial leadership and opinion.

A survey and case study by Holmes“ found censorship to
be a problem at campus papers. The study consisted of a
survey of all 337 public university newspaper editors and
advisors. Responses were received from 129 advisors and 98
editors, a response rate of 38 percent and 29 percent
respectively. From data obtained in the survey, follow-up
visits were made to 18 campuses where "serious censorship" had
occurred. From the survey, Holmes identified "censorship at
the advisor level" in 'newspapers ‘where public relations
advisors supervised the papers. Thirty-nine percent of the
advisors were found to have newspaper backgrounds.

Despite assertions that there was censorship at college
newspapers, Holmes presents little evidence. It is unclear
how he determined the existence of censorship at the advisor
level. Holmes assumed low response rate was due to "many
advisors with a public relations philosophy [feeling]
threatened by the instrument." The presence of an advisor
with a public relations background does not necessarily mean
censorship. Nor did Holmes define what constituted "serious"

censorship.

“Ivan Holmes, "Censorship Dragon Remains Alive, Well at Campus

Papers." Journalism_zdusat9r 42 (Summer. 1987): 11-13-

22

Kopenhaver‘s found in a 1979 survey of the 400 members
of the National Council of Publications advisors that 50
percent of the advisors always or usually read paper copy
before publication, and 62 percent said advisors should
correct spelling and fact errors before publication. The
study found advisors at two-year public and private schools to
be more likely to respond that advisors should usually or
always read copy prior to publication, while four year public
institutions were more likely to reply seldom or never.
Kopenhaver's study did not indicate the return rate or
statistical significance of her results. Nevertheless, the
findings suggested the possibility that advisors were ill-
informed about First Amendment principles and what constituted
prior restraint.

In a more recent study of the attitudes of college
newspaper advisors, Ryan and Martinson“ found advisors to be
overwhelmingly against censorship. The study surveyed members
of the College Media Advisors membership list who were
newspaper advisors. Two hundred surveys were sent out, 123
were returned for a response rate of 61.5 percent. Over 90
percent agreed with the statement that the student newspaper

should be allowed to print a story it could prove was true

“Lillian Lodge Kopenhaver, "Advising Practices," gellege
W 20. (Spring 1981): 16-21.

“Michael Ryan and David L. Martinson, "Attitudes of College
Newspaper Advisors Toward Censorship of the Student Press,"

leurnalism_Quarterlx 63 (Spring 1986): 55- 60-

23
even if printing the story might embarrass the college or
university. Eighty-one percent placed student press freedom
over protection of the institution from potentially damaging
stories.

Despite this majority, Ryan and Martinson found it
troubling that a sizeable minority of college advisors were
willing to accept restraints. They found 26 percent of the
advisors willing to accept controls if the newspaper'was.given
a "privileged position" on the campus marketplace, and 21
percent who agreed or strongly agreed the college should have
some say in what was printed if the institution paid some
portion of the bills.

Although a minority, one would expect advisors to be
hostile toward censorship because of their' position as
teachers of First Amendment principles. Unfortunately, the
survey did not investigate the attitudes of administration
officials or students to find whether content control would be
supported by the college as a whole.

One interesting fact is that the survey found advisors
whose publications were at least partially funded by the
institution disagreed more strongly with the statement "the
institution should have the authority to prohibit publication
of articles it considers harmful." These responses may
indicate that advisors whose newspapers are partially funded.
by the administration are more aware of and more resentful of

administration pressures.

24

Because of the scarcity of content analysis of college
newspapers, it.was determined.to look at studies of the effect
of media financiers on the content of commercial newspapers.

Studies of presidential endorsements show a tendency for
newspapers to make such endorsements based on the ideology of
media owners rather than that of the editorial staff.

In a survey of editorial page editors, St. Dizier‘7
found that, although editorial page editors voted for Democrat
Walter' Mondale by a 55 to 34 percent margin in 1984,
endorsements from the newspapers went 57 to 33 percent in
favor of Republican Ronald Reagan. Editorial page editors at
daily newspapers with circulations of more than 50,000 were
surveyed to determine editorial page positions and newspaper
endorsement patterns. The sample was selected randomly from
listings in EQieer_egg_nglieher_1eer_fieek. St. Dizier found
newspapers were more likely to support Democratic platform
positions than Republican positions, regardless of who the
newspaper endorsed.

Editors described the owner of their newspaper as a
Republican 49 percent of the time: 17 percent were labeled
Democrats and 34 percent independent. Seventy percent of the
editors said their publishers were more conservative than they
were. St. Dizier hypothesized that the reason day-to-day
editorials followed Democratic positions while the newspapers

‘uByron St. Dizier, "Republican Endorsements, Democratic
Positions: An Editorial Page Contradiction," legrneliem

Qggfigefily 63 (Fall 1986): 581-586.

25
endorsed the Republican candidate was due to interference by
the publisher. Editors may be allowed to determine the day-
to-day positions of the editorial page, but, when presidential
election years come around, publishers decided who to endorse.
Chain ownership also may influence editorial pages
endorsements, although the evidence is conflicting. In a

‘3 in a study using the same data

separate study, St. Dizier,
as the study above, found significant indications that
publishers were more likely to be Republican and less likely
than to be Democrats at chain-owned. newspapers than. at
independent papers, and chain-owned newspapers more likely to
endorse Ronald Reagan in 1984. Independent newspapers were
found to be evenly split on their endorsements.

St. Dizier notes these data raise questions about the
independence of editorial page editors at chain newspapers.
"Apparently. . .taking a stand against the publisher's candidate
for president is an exception," he wrote.

.In an analysis of presidential endorsement data gathered
by Edi;e;__eng__zepliene;, Wackman, Gillmor, Gaziano and

Dennis” found that chain endorsements in presidential

election years were homogenous from 1960 to 1972, despite the

‘wByron St. Dizier, "Editorial Page Editors and Endorsements:

Chain-owned vs. Independent Newspapers," Negepepez_3eeeeren
{gunnel 8 (Fall 1986): 63-68.

“Daniel B. Wackman, Donald M. Gillmor, Cecilie Gaziano and
Everette E. Dennis, "Chain Newspaper Autonomy as Reflected in

Presidential Campaign Endorsements," Jeezneliem_gne:§e;ly 52
(Fall 1975): 411-420.

26
insistence of chain spokesmen that newspaper's endorsement
policies were independent of the chain. The authors
speculated editors might be free in terms of formal controls,
but informal practices such as hiring, management procedures
and "peer pressure" could push chain newspapers toward
uniformity.

Homogeneity was defined as 85 percent or more of the
papers in a chain endorsing the same candidate. Homogeneity
was found to be 80 percent in 1960 (Kennedy v. Nixon), 64
percent in 1964 (Johnson v. Goldwater), 76 percent in 1968
(Nixon ‘v. Humphrey), and 91 percent in 1972 (Nixon 'v.
McGovern). Data showed some difference in homogeneity for
large v. small chains, but the differences were not
consistent. Homogeneity was found to be less prevalent in
chains which had newspapers in more than one region.

Despite this evidence, some questions remain. The size
of the chains studied raises the question as to whether 85
percent was a sufficiently high threshold for homogeneity.
The chains studied were mostly under 10 newspapers in size
(81.5 percent in 1971).

A later study by Busterna and Hansenso contradicted the

findings of the Wackman study. Busterna and Hansen examined

Ediee;_eng_£nbliener_data from the elections of 1976 to 1984.

”John C. Busterna and Kathleen A. Hansen, "Presidential
Endorsement Patterns Within Daily Newspaper Chains," paper
presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication, Washington, D.C., August 1989.

27

The study found no evidence of homogeneity in chain-owned
endorsement patterns. This contradiction may be largely based
on the difference between the studies' definitions of
homogeneity. Busterna and Hansen stipulated that all
newspapers within.a chain.had.to endorse the same candidate to
be counted as homogenous. Using the criteria from the earlier
study, they authors found 65 percent homogeneity compared to
85 percent in the Wackman study. The authors speculated that
real changes may have occurred in the organization of chains
since 1972 to lead to less homogeneity. As chains become more
heterogenous and expand in size, the authors believed chain
control of editorial pages may have decreased. Further, the
authors state that the tendency for newspapers to endorse
Republican candidates overall may distort findings of
homogeneity.

Wagenberg and Soderlunds‘ studied the seven newspapers
of the Canadian Free Press chain during the Canadian election
of 1972. Taking the theme of editorialstas their coding unit,
the authors found no evidence of partisanship or collusion to
"push" certain issues. No uniformity of thematic selection or
partisanship was found.

The editorial page serves as more than a forum for
election issues, however. One question that remains is
whether ownership affects the day to day service a newspaper

S1Ronald H. Wagenberg and Walter C. Soderlund, "The Influence
of Chain-Ownership on Editorial Comment in Canada, " Mien

Queriegly 52 (Spring 1975): 93-98.

28

offers its readers as a information source on local issues.

Thrift52 studied "editorial vigor" in chain and
independent newspapers to determine whether editorial coverage
of local controversial issues declined after a newspaper was
acquired by a chain. He defined editorial vigor as consisting
of four ingredients: an editorial on a local topic, in
argumentive form and controversial in nature and containing
mobilizing information. Twenty-four West Coast dailies were
read and coded for two different periods between 1960 and
1975. Thrift compared the proportion of editorials which
fulfilled the requirements for a particular operational
definition of vigor in papers between chain-acquired papers
and independent papers in the periods before and after chain
acquisition. He found vigor did decline significantly in
newspapers after they were acquired by chains. It is possible
that local topics may have become less important to chain
owners, who presumably are removed from local concerns.

In a later study of 28 dailies, however, Hale53 found no
significant differences in editorial pages of newspapers
before and after they were acquired by a chain. Hale was

searching for diminished commitment to editorial pages due to

52Ralph R. Thrift, Jr. , "How Chain Ownership Affects Editorial

Vigor of Newspapers," W 54 (Summer 1977):
327-331.

53F. Dennis Hale, "Editorial Diversity and Concentration." in
' ‘ "I ‘l 7'. "I 1!". 9°C.?" ' \’. .; $9't l: "l

s ' d ' , ed. Robert G. Picard, James
P. Winter, Maxwell E. McCombs and Stephen Lacy (Norwood, N.J. :

Ablex, 1988), pp. 161-176.

29

"greed" and lack of local commitment. The newspapers
published about the same number of editorials, syndicated
columns and.cartoons, letters.to the editor, local columns and
cartoons, local art, and advertisements under both local and
chain owners. The only measure Hale found a significant
difference in was the publication of miscellaneous items on
the editorial page, a category that included. much. non-
editorial page material. Hale noted this could be considered
an improvement under in papers chains.

In reviewing the literature, it is obvious the evidence
for the influence of ownership on editorial page content is
mixed. This does not mean, however, that Altschull's basic
assumption, that the media reflect the interests of the media
financiers, is wrong. Different relationship among financiers
my mask the effects of media paymasters on content. For
example, chain owners and independent owners are likely to
have similar interests in the production of the newspaper.
The profit motive will be similaru While an independent owner
may take more of an editorial interest in local affairs, both
chain and independent owners will often have their interests
allied with advertisers. Thus the effects of chain ownership
will be masked by a congruency of interests.

Further, the socialization of journalists may mask the
influence of media financiers. It was discussed above how

Shoemaker has pointed out the effect of media financiers on

30
newsroom socialization and routines. Gans" noted that
journalists, because of their values, do not usually search
for stories with which to antagonize advertisers.

In the case of college newspapers, the major media
financiers are advertisers and the college administration.
Students may also have some influence on funding, through
student government or student groups. It may be that the
interaction of these groups offset influence from any one
source. Essentially, the greater funding from any one source,

the more that group's ideology will be represented.

IV . HYPOTHESES

Because of their position in a protected market, college
newspapers are not as beholden to advertisers as their
commercial counterparts. Atkins found that most campus
dailies were not threatened by off-campus competition for

55 In the case of smaller campus media,

advertising revenue.
or those which rely less on commercial sources for revenue and
accept more funding from interest groups like the campus
administration, the effect on content of administrative
control of funds should be more obvious. We therefore can
5"Herbert J. Gans, ' ° ' °

, (New York,
Pantheon Books 1979), p. 253.

55op. cit., p. 4.

31
expect to find Altschull's economic assumptions apparent in
the microcosm of the college and university system.

The hypothesis of this study is that the percentage of a
student newspaper's operating budget that is controlled by the
university or college newspaper is inversely related to the
amount of editorial page content that will be critical of the
administration. Simply put, student newspapers will be
reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them. If supported,
this hypothesis will lend credence to the assumption that the
ideology of media financiers influences media content.

The independent variable to be used in testing this
hypothesis is the percentage of newspaper funding which is
controlled by the college or university. Control is defined
as funding disbursed from university general funds or
supported by tuition, including fees and grants from the
college or university.

The dependent variable to be used will be criticism of
the university or college administration on the student
newspaper editorial page. Administration will be assumed to
include members of the college or university who are involved
in making policy decisions for the institution: for example
the provost, president, vice-presidents or deans.

The hypothesis is formally stated by two primary
hypotheses and five secondary hypotheses. The primary
hypotheses are:

(1) The greater the percentage of newspaper funding
controlled by the administration, the less editorial page

32

content will be critical of the administration.

(2) The greater the percentage of newspaper funding

controlled by the administration, the more administration

sources will be quoted in editorial page content.
In addition, because Altschull states that media financiers
often mask their influence, an alternate hypothesis is
proposed:

(3) The greater the percentage of newspaper funding

controlled by the administration, the less on campus

issues will be covered in editorial page content.

The data collected will allow us to test some additional
hypothesis. These are:

(4) The lower the percentage of student employees who are

journalism majors, the less critical editorial page

content will be of the administration.

A frequent complaint of those who criticize the student
press is lack of professionalism of student journalists.
However, many commentators point to the importance of the
college press as an education tool. "Administrators should
recognize that a student gains education and experience by
working on the campus newspaper," wrote one commentator.“
Journalism majors involved in campus papers are presumably
involved in that education in both classroom and "real-world"
experience at the newspaper. ‘While Journalism departments at

many colleges and universities may have few or no formal links

with the college paper, these programs are educating students

56’Patrick Siddons, "The Frustrations and Rewards of College
Journalism," in Enhancing Relationships with the Student
Press, ed. John H. Schuh, New Directions for Student Services,
no. 33 (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1986), p. 58.

33
in the principles of the First Amendment. As an educator
wrote in the mid-19605, "We may turn out well-trained
craftsmen from close control. But we want more than this--we
want journalists, and they are bred only in the context of
full liberty."57

(5) Newspapers which have faculty advisors with newspaper

experience will be more critical of the administration

than those papers with advisors without such experience.

Ryan and Martinson” found no significant variation in
the responses given to their questionnaire when analyzed by
media experience. Despite this, there seems to be an
assumption that newspaper experience ensures less
censorship.” Gans"o found journalists to be ready to assert
their moral and legal rights under the constitution to fight
censorship. It is probable that the professional values of
freedom of the press are carried from the newsroom over to the
new role as educator.

(6) Public institutions will have a higher percentage of

editorial page content critical of the administration

than private institutions.

Publications at public institutions are protected by the
First Amendment from administrative intervention. Because of
5"Charles E. Barnum, "The Student Newspaper: Activity or
Laboratory? The Modified Segregated Approach, " in W
SEW. eds- Herman A. Estrin and
Arthur M. Sanderson (Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Co.,
1966), pp. 35-37.
5“op. cit, pp. 57-58.

59

see, for example, Holmes, op. cit.

Mop. cit., p. 268.

34
the mass of case law and legal decisions upholding the rights
of the college press at public institutions, administrators
will be less likely to intervene in the operation of these
newspapers.

(7) Independent newspapers (not run as part of the

college journalism department or as part of a class

curriculum) will have more editorial page content
critical of the administration than non-independent
papers.

Wilson's61 finding that laboratory papers lagged behind
independent papers in editorial leadership and opinion
supports this assumption. Staff at independent papers need
not fear receiving a poor grade as a punishment for critical
newspaper content. Further, a paper that is funded as part of

the curriculum will probably receive more funding through

administrative sources.

V. IITHODS

The study consisted of two parts. The first part was a
content analysis of the editorial pages of 18 daily and weekly
college-level student newspapers in Michigan. Attempts were

made to reach the 33 Michigan daily and weekly college student

newspapers listed in the W for

“op. cit.

“W. (New York: Editor
8 Publisher Company, 1989), p. 11-85.

35

1990. Twenty five papers were reached.“ Samples were
obtained from 18 papers. .Although not a random sample, the 18
papers which responded did represent a reasonable mix of
colleges and universities in Michigan. Responses were
received from both two-year and four year institutions, as
well as large public universities and smaller, private
colleges.

The analysis was intended to gather data on the
percentage of editorial page space devoted to campus issues
and the characterization of the administration in editorial
content. Data was obtained on type of editorial page content,
sources used, groups mentioned in editorials and authors of
editorial material. Five editorial page items were coded by
two different coders to test of inter-coder reliability.
Coders agreed on coding decisions 87 percent of the time. A
second five articles were tested using the test-retest.method
found that over time coding decisions remained stable 86
percent of the time. The test examined 115 separate coding
decisions. Each editorial page item consisted of 23 separate
coding decisions.

Editorial pages were chosen because of the nature of the
information sought. The study sought to evaluate opinions
expressed about administrators. It was decided that opinions
“Campus newspaper offices were contacted by phone in April and
early'May of 1990. iMany schools had already ended session for
summer and newspaper offices were closed. In these cases,

where possible, advisors were contacted through their campus
offices.

36
would be more likely to be found on the editorial pages,
rather than in news content, where reporters would be expected
to strive for more objectivity.

Because of the variation in publication schedules of the
papers involved, editors were asked to supply a minimum of
eight copies to be used as two constructed weeks taken
randomly from March and April, 1990. A total of 135 papers
were obtained. The average number of issues per newspaper
consisted of 7.5 papers. A total of 371 editorial page items
were analyzed, ranging from 0 items in the lowest case to 54
in the highest. The average number of items analyzed was 20.

Only editorial material dealing with on campus issues was
analyzed. An on-campus issue was defined as one which has an
impact on the campus, such as tuition or student unrest.
Positions of on-campus groups or persons on off-campus issues
were counted if the primary focus of the article was the on-
campus effect of the position. Each item was measured in
square inches, not including headlines, graphics or
photographs. Editorial cartoons were not used.

Independent variables were operationalized as follows to
facilitate testing of the hypothesis: Eeyezeble items were
items which a reasonable person would consider favorable to
the administration. If the conclusion was unclear, an item
was favorable if more than 60 percent of statements about the
administration are statements a reasonable person would find

positive. Beleneee items were items where neither favorable

37
nor unfavorable statements made up more than 60 percent of
statements about the administration. Unjeyexeple items were
items a reasonable person would consider unfavorable. If the
conclusion was unclear, an item was unfavorable if more than
60 percent of statements about the administration were
statements a reasonable person would find negative. EEBLIQl
items were those where statements about the administration

were neither positive nor negative. Legepengen§_pepeze were

those papers without a formal, curricular connection to a

school's journalism program. mm were those

papers which were produced as part of a journalism class or
program- WEE—8.8mm included all
funds directly or indirectly granted to the paper through the
institution, including student activity fees. Publie_eeneel
referred to schools supported by state or local governments.
2W1 referred to schools supported by private
organizations.

Appendix A contains the coding instrument and coding
sheets. Complete definitions for the coding process will be
found there.

The second part of the study was a questionnaire mailed
to the advisors of all 25 newspapers contacted. ‘ Thirteen
advisors responded, for a rate of 52 percent. The survey was
designed to elicit the percentage of the budget controlled by
the college or university administration, the advisor's

perception of the newspaper's relationship with the

38
administration and advisor's newspaper experience.

In addition, advisors were asked whether there had been
instances of censorship in the past year at their paper.
Censorship in this case included stories or editorials pulled
because of administration reaction or for fear of that
reaction. Two papers reported instances of censorship, three
cases at one and one case at the other. Advisers were not
asked whether students modified stories or editorials for fear
of administrative pressure.

The questionnaire can be found in Appendix B.

Low response rate in this study can be ascribed to
timing. Contacts were made in April and early May of 1990.
Most colleges in Michigan follow the semester plan: therefore,
many papers were closed for the summer and many advisors on
vacation. The difficulty of gaining response limited the
effectiveness of the survey.

Correlations were used to find the relationship of
funding sources to material concerning the campus and the
administration. Correlations were evaluated using guidelines
suggested by Guilford and Williams. As reported in Weaver,
these guidelines state that a correlation of less than .20 is
almost negligible, a correlation of from .20 to .40 is
considered to be a definite but small relationship, a
correlation of .40 to .70 is a moderate correlation, .70 to

.90 is considered a high correlation, and correlations of more

39
than .90 are considered to have a very high correlation.“
Because the sample used was not a probability sample,
statistical significance was not used. Means were calculated
to measure differences between independent and curricular
papers, advisors with newspaper experience and those without,
and public and private schools. The standard error, a measure
of variance among the results, was used in those tests to
assess the strength of the means in measuring differences

between the groups.

VI. RESULTS

Thirteen newspapers returned the survey form. The
average budget was $236,500. However, the range was from less
than $10,000 to more than $1 million. One advisor declined to
give the budget total. Smaller campuses, those with
enrollments of less than 8,400 students, averaged more funding
under the control of the administration than larger schools.
Sixty-eight percent of the funding for the newspaper at the
smaller schools came from student fees or administration
grants on average, while for larger schools the average

percentage was 44 percent. The standard error was 8.4 and

“David H. Weaver, "Basic Statistical Tools," in Reseereh

BMW 2d ed-. eds- Guido H- Stempel
III and Bruce H. Westley (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice

Hall, 1989), p. 78.

40

12.1, respectively. The large standard error in the case of
larger schools is due to one school which reported a budget of
more than $1.75 million. This was more than twice the next
highest reported budget. The average sources of funds showed
28 percent from student fees, 26 percent from grants by the
college or 'university, and. 46 jpercent from. advertising.
Subscriptions accounted for less than one percent of newspaper
income. See Figure 1 for the average percentage of funding
sources.

Of the 18 papers sampled, 12 were from public and six
from private colleges. Seven of the advisors responding had
been employed in newspapers previously. The average editorial
space per issue was 295 square inches. Of that space, 19.8
percent was devoted to campus issues.

The overwhelming majority of items was letters to the
editor. The average number of letters to the editor per
newspaper was 13. Two papers had no letters about on-campus
subjects, while the maximum was 41, which occurred in one
case. The next closest category was newspaper editorials,
with 73 items. The average number of editorials was four.
Four papers had no editorials about on-campus subjects. The
maximum was eight, which occurred in three cases.

The administration was mentioned in 139 items, averaging
eight per paper. Two papers never mentioned the college
administration on the editorial page. Student groups appeared

246 times, averaging 14 times per paper. Two papers never

41
mentioned student groups on the editorial page. See Figure 2
for a percentage breakdown of groups mentioned in editorial
page items.

The greatest number of sources cited were individual
students, who were quoted either directly or indirectly 61
'times, averaging three times per paper. Administrators and
student group officials were each quoted 35 times, averaging
twice per paper. 1

The majority of authors were student individuals, who
were the authors of 199 items, averaging 11 per paper.
Student group officials accounted for 72 items (averaging 4
per paper), and 57 authors were not identified (averaging 3
per paper). Administrators were the authors of only 5 items.

Of those items dealing with the administration, the
statements about the administration were favorable 16 time,
balanced seven times, unfavorable 89 times, and neutral 58

times.

P re 1: Fund sources

Advel’tifii“g 46%

l s bsc ‘Ptmn

  

r

a.
n
m

G an“ 25*

 

ntloned

F re 2: 6'0“ “e

 

m
w
n
m

)
m
(

 

Annmatm
25% (139’

43
When examining the data in light of hypothesis 1, the
correlation was found to be too small to support the
hypothesis. There is no evidence that administrative control
of funding sources results in fewer unfavorable statements
about the administration. Table 1 shows a correlation of
-.06. There was a stronger positive correlation between

funding and favorable statements, +.30.

Table 1: Correlations

CON FAV’ NEU 'UNF .ADM PER MAJ

CON 1.00 0.31 -0.06 -0.59 0.01 0.30 -0.42

FAV 1.00 -0.03 -0.02 0.12 0.58 -0.11
NEU 1.00 0.86 0.95 0.07 -0.24
UNF 1.00 0.96 -0.02 0.01
ADM 1.00 0.15 -0.15
PER 1.00 0.01
MAJ 1.00
n = 12

LEGEND:

CON = percentage of funds controlled by administration
FAV = number of items favorable to administration

UNF = number of items unfavorable to administration

ADM = number of items mentioning administration

PER = % of editorial page space devoted to campus issues
MAJ = % of journalism majors on newspaper staff

 

44

Hypothesis 2 was completely unsupported. There was
almost no correlation between the number of times the
administration was mentioned and administrative control of
funding. The correlation shown on Table 1 of +.01 fell far
short of the threshold for a relationship to be supported.

Hypothesis 3 was similarly unsupported. As seen on Table
1, there was a correlation of +.30 between control and the
percentage of editorial space devoted to on-campus issues, but
in contrast to what was hypothesized, the correlation was
positive.

Hypothesis 4 was also unsupported. Table 1 shows the
correlation between the percentage of majors and unfavorable
statements about the administration was +.01, and favorable
statements were negatively correlated with the percentage of
majors at -.1. It is interesting to note, however, a
correlation of -.42, a low moderate correlation, between
control and the percentage of majors. This may reflect a
tendency of papers at schools with journalism programs to shy
away from funding with administrative strings attached.

Table 2 shows data used to test hypothesis 5. The mean
number of items classified as unfavorable to be seven for
papers with advisors with newspaper experience, compared to
3.7 for those with advisors without such experience. However,
the standard error is so high as to call into question the
significance of these findings. Favorable items were found to

be similar with both types of advisors.

45

Table 2: Effects of Advisor Newspaper Experience

No Newspaper Newspaper
Experience Experience
n=6 n=7
mean std. mean std.
error error
favorable to
administration 0.83 0.40 0.71 0.42
neutral to
administration 5.83 2.59 2.57 0.48
unfavorable to
administration 7.00 3.12 3.71 1.06
administration
mentioned 14.33 5.40 7.29 1.57
percentage of
editorial page
devoted to
campus issues 18.15% 5.42 22.39% 2.88

Hypothesis 6 was found to be somewhat supported as well.
As can be seen from Table 3, public institutions averaged 0.5
items favorable to the administration while private
institutions averaged 1.7. Again, however, the high standard
error made it difficult to be certain the effect was not the

result of random chance.

46
Table 3: Public v. Private Schools
—

Public Private
n=12 n=7
mean std. mean std.
error error

favorable to
administration 0.50 0.19 1.67 0.67
neutral to
administration 2.33 0.47 5.00 2.77
unfavorable to
administration 4.50 1.05 5.83 2.91
administration
mentioned 7.67 1.48 13.00 5.42
percentage of
editorial page
devoted to
campus issues 20.70% 3.10 18.18% 5.75

In the case of hypothesis 7, an adequate test could not
be conducted. Only two papers reported an affiliation with
journalism courses; of those two one was an award-winning
junior college paper which the advisor felt was supported by
the administration for that reason. Table 4 shows the data

for this hypothesis.

47

Table 4: Independent v. Curricular Newspapers

Independent Curricular
Newspapers Newspapers
n=11 n=2
mean std. mean std.
error error

favorable to
administration 0.82 0.32 0.50 0.50
neutral to
administration 4.18 1.47 3.50 1.50
unfavorable to
administration 5.00 1.68 6.50 5.50
administration
mentioned 10.54 3.05 10.50 7.50
percentage of
editorial page
devoted to
campus issues 21.54% 3.30 14.35% 1.25

VII. DISCUSSION

Because of the small size of the sample in this study,
the results are far from conclusive. No hypothesis was
supported strongly enough to conclude administrative
influence. It is clear, however, that within this sample

there was some correlation between funding sources and content

48
on editorial pages. Whether this is due to administrative
pressure or other reasons is unclear.

Papers from larger campuses may also have skewed the
results in such a small sample» Two of the largest papers had
the most independent funding; one received 97 percent of its
funding from advertising and the second 88 percent. The
advisor at the first of these schools felt that the funding
base of the paper was a prime reason it was free of
censorship:

I have never had a high ranking administrator or

Trustee ask to pull a story or to preview one--and I

don't expect to have it happen

The paper has a sound financial base--which is the
best way to have strength. There is NO threat of cutting
funding if you have that base to work from.

Legal considerations may also have an effect. First
Amendment protection and court decisions which prevent
administrations and students from cutting funding may make
college papers immune to the interests of the paymaster. Laws
protecting newspapers at public institutions apparently are
working. The standard errors reported in Table 3 show public
schools to be relatively stable compared to private schools.
This suggests that public schools are consistent because of
legal guidelines, while private schools may vary in the
freedom granted to school publications.

It is also possible that Altschull's economic model does
not fit the college press. Other factors may be affecting
content that have little to do with administrative actions.

Students often will bring pressure on the paper themselves.

49

This is hardly surprising, given the prevalence of items
dealing with student groups this study found. Atkins‘"5
reported several examples of college newspapers clashing with
black students and groups over alleged incidents of racism.
At the University of Virginia in 1981, the president of the
Black Student Alliance called for the shutting down of the
campus papers because of "institutionalized racism." More
recently, minority student employees at Michigan State
University's §&a§§_H§!§ staged a ten-day walkout over alleged
racial and sexual harassment.

Students may function as media paymasters. Student fees
collected by the administration may be seen by the student
body as "their" money, going’ to "their" paperu Thus,
Altschull's model may apply, but administration ideology may
not dominate.

Socialization may play a more important role in affecting
student content. The negative correlation between journalism
majors and administrative control of funding sources indicates
journalism majors may seek more independence from the
institution. This may reflect a social attitude on the part
of journalism majors that values newspaper independence.

Further evidence of the effects of socialization can be
seen in Table 2. Newspapers with advisors with newspaper
experience were more consistent than those with advisors

without such experience, as reflected by the standard error.

“op. cit., p. 52.

50
This may indicate the socialization effects of the advisor's
newspaper experience. Such an advisor may be expected to
communicate professional news values, while an advisor without
such experience could not do so.

Looking back to Shoemaker's theoretical hierarchy,“ we
can link this socialization to Altschull's theory of media
controlled by financiers. The socialization may be considered
as a function of the financing system of the media vehicle.
Nevertheless, when diffused through socialization, Altschull's
theory will undoubtedly lose some of its impact. If
socialization is the proximate cause of media content effects,
then the link to media financiers becomes more tenuous.

This may be apparent in cases where the student ideology
and the administration ideology may be congruent, thus
minimizing unfavorable statements. . This may be especially
true in the case of private schools. Students may choose to
attend a school due to its reputation, a reputation fostered
by the university or college administration. In the case of
one religiously affiliated school in this study, the advisor
indicated that this was indeed the case:

[This] is a different place in that student leaders, like

faculty, must subscribe to a particular understanding of

Christian.doctrine and life, but within...that framework

are allowed--even encouraged--to explore, debate, and

criticize. Thus student editors are allowed more freedom
than at most evangelical protestant colleges, but

less...than at state universities.

Altschull's economic theory of news content may not be

“see note 31 above, with accompanying text.

 

51

very useful for measuring content effects at the college
level. Because of the clash of ideologies and the myriad of
funding patterns, clear-cut demonstrations of media financiers
influencing content may not be seen. Student fees may be
distributed to the newspapers through student government,
directly by the administration, or may pass directly from the
student's pockets to the newspaper's coffers. How much
control does the administration actually have over these
funds? For this study, it was assumed that control had only
one dimension, but the results may indicate different kinds of
control are in play.

Most of the past studies have focused on administrators
and advisors to explain college media content. The literature
largely ignores the effect of the student on content. This
may be due to a biased perception on the part of researchers
that students are unimportant or that students, being
temporarily in control of the newspaper, cannot establish
long-term socialization effects.

However, students are the newspaper's audience, producers
and financial supporters. They also can, in effect, ' pass the
torch' to those who come after them, establishing some long-
term socialization effects. Future studies of this field
should consider the students. The high number of items which
mentioned student groups indicates they may be an important
factor in the determination of content. This study has found

no conclusive evidence that administrators influence newspaper

52
content. Perhaps they don't. Perhaps the student press has

been a student press all along.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Altschull, J. Herbert. Agenge ef Power. New York: Longman,
1984.

Atkins. Paul A. MW.
Morgantown, W.Va.: Communi-Tech Associates, 1982.

Barnum, Charles E. "The Student Newspaper: Activity or
Laboratory? The Modified Segregated Approach. " In W
s t r 5 edited by Herman A. Estrin

and Arthur M. Sanderson. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Co.,
1966.

Busterna John C. and Hansen, Kathleen A. "Presidential
Endorsement Patterns Within Daily Newspaper Chains." paper
presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication, Washington, D.C., August 1989.

o . New York: Editor
& Publisher Company, 1989).

Gans, Herbert J. Deeigingiflheeie_Nege: A Study of CBS Evening

News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time. New York: Pantheon
Books 1979.

Hale, F. Dennis. "Editorial Diversity and Concentration." In
' es‘ on e t o .2- .Ogo-o ° -.- v- — 0!

WW. edited by Robert G- Pieard
James P. Winter, Maxwell E. McCombs and Stephen Lacy. Norwood,

N.J.: Ablex, 1988.

Holmes, Ivan. "Censorship Dragon Remains Alive, Well at

Campus Papers." leeineliemLEgeeeee; 42 (Summer, 1987): 11-13.

Inglehort Louis E. W-
Contributions to the Study of Mass Media and Communications,
no. 3. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1985.

Kopenhaver, Lillian Lodge. "Advising Practices." gellege
Preee_3eyiey 20 (Spring 1981): 16-21.

Meyer, Nancy J. "Assuring Freedom for the College Student

Press after 85221119251" WW 2'4
(1989): 53-76.

53

54

Ryan, Michael and Martinson, David L. "Attitudes of College
Newspaper Advisors Toward Censorship of the Student Press."

Journalism_0uarterlx. 63 (Spring 1986): 55-60-

Shoemaker, Pamela J. with Mayfield, Elizabeth K. "Building a
Theory of News Content: A Synthesis of Current Approaches."

MW. 103 (June 1987)-

Siddons, Patrick. "The Frustrations and Rewards of College

Journal ism. " In Mam—BWMLEQM
-P;ese, edited by John H. Schuh, New Directions for Student
Services, no. 33. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1986.

St. Dizier, Byron. "Editorial Page Editors and Endorsements:

Chain-owned vs. Independent Newspapers." N§!§23221_B§§§3I2h
geeznel 8 (Fall 1986): 63-68.

St. Dizier, Byron. "Republican Endorsements, Democratic
Positions: An Editorial Page Contradiction." geegneliem

gee3§exly, 63 (Fall 1986): 581-586.

student Press Law Center. W.
Washington, D.C.: Student Press Law Center, 1988.

1‘ -1‘1 ‘ seas‘ ' {‘901. 0. 1‘ 9‘ '1 euu 8: er 01 9‘
ud-n ' -ss .- ,- ° -siq- . ,- 1' - :' .
Qeliiernie. Norman E. Isaacs, chairperson. Washington, D.C.:

American Council on Education, 1970.

Thrift, Ralph R. Jr. "How Chain Ownership Affects Editorial

Vigor of Newspapers." leerneliem_gner§erly 54 (Summer 1977):
327-331.

Wackman, Daniel 8.: Gillmor, Donald.M.; Gaziano, Cecilie: and
Dennis, Everette E. "Chain Newspaper Autonomy as Reflected in

Presidential Campaign Endorsements." Jen:neliem_gnez;ezly 52
(Fall 1975): 411-420.

Wagenberg, Ronald H. and Soderlund, Walter C. "The Influence
of Chain-Ownership on Editorial Comment in Canada. " mum

Quereexly 52 (Spring 1975): 93-98.

Weaver, David H. "Basic Statistical Tools." In

Research
WM. 2d ed- edited by Guido H-
Stempel III and Bruce H. Westley. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:

Prentice Hall, 1989.

Wilson, Clint C. II. "Independent v. Laboratory Papers."
Wis! 20 (Spring 1981): 10-13-

55

General References:

 

Hsia, H. J. .6 ' - _
Wen. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., 1988.

Rowntree, Derek. ' '
MeenemeEieiene. New York: Charles Scribner' 5 Sons, 1981.

Wimmer, Roger D. , and Dominick, Joseph R. mm
W, 2d. ed. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing
Co., 1987.

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: CODING INSTRUMENT

 

 

APPENDIX A: CODING INSTRUMENT
CODING INSTRUCTIONS:

The following definitions are to be used when analyzing the
content of editorial pages. ‘Results are to be recorded on the
coding sheet.

Read each item. If an item does not deal primarily with on-
campus issues, draw a line through it. Do not code those
items. An on campus issue is on which has an impact on the
campus, such as tuition or student unrest. Positions of on-
campus groups or persons on off-campus issues can be counted
if the primary focus of the article is the on-campus effect of
the position. Each item being coded should be measured in
square inches, not including headlines, graphics or
photographs. Do not use editorial cartoons.

Classification

1 Type of Content.
1.1 Editorial. Editorial written by the editors of the

newspaper or the editorial board. No byline.
Often in columns entitled "Our view" or similar
title.

1.2 Staff columnist.
1.2.1 Regular columnist. Column written by

writer featured regularly in paper.
Identified by notation such as "Smith's
column appears each Wednesday," or by
title indicating' editorial is regular
feature. Always with byline.

1.2.2 Other staff columnist. Column written.by
a staff member which is not a regularly
occurring feature. Always with byline.

1.3 Syndicated columnist. .A columnist distributed by a
national syndicate. Examples include Mike Royko,
Carl Rowan and Joseph Sobran.

1.4 Guest column. Column not written by newspaper
staff and not a syndicated columnist. Always with
byline.

1.5 Letters to the editor.

2 Groups identified in editorial. If an individual is
identified as a member of a group, or a group as a whole
is mentioned, mark a 1 in the appropriate space. Mark
all mentioned groups.

2.1 Administration. This group is composed of
university personnel who are engaged in making
policy decisions for the university or college.
Examples include college deans, university
presidents, provosts, vice-presidents, etc.

56

 

 

 

57

Faculty. Professors or teachers not engaged in
administrative decision making whose primary
responsibility is education or research.

Staff. Persons involved in operations of the
university who are not faculty or administrators.
Examples include secretaries, maintenance or
grounds workers. .Also includes unions representing
these people.

Student groups. Organizations composed of
students. May be university registered
organizations or ad-hoc organizations.
Affiliations such as "African Americans" or

"homosexuals" are acceptable. The newspaper is a
student group.

Off-campus groups. This includes city, state or
federal governments or government departments (eg.
city police), associations of persons not on campus
(eg. chamber of commerce), or off-campus
organizations. Loose associations such as "area
homeowners" or "local merchants" do not count;
organizations must have some formal structure to be
included in this area.

Other. Groups neither off-campus nor strictly on
campus, such as alumni, or national organizations
not directly involved in campus issues go here.

Source's identity. Identify sources quoted in the item
by marking total in the appropriate space. Mark for each
quote. Mark for both direct and indirect quotations.

3.1

Administrator. These persons are engaged in.making
policy decisions for the university or college.
Examples include college dean, university
president, provost, vice-president, etc.

Faculty member. Professors or teachers not engaged

in administrative decision making whose primary

responsibility is education or research.

Staff member. Persons involved in operations of

the university who are not faculty or

administrators. Examples include secretaries,
maintenance or grounds workers. Also includes
union representatives of these people.

Student.

3.4.1 Student group official. These persons
are identified as officials of student
groups, eg. president of the student
chapter of the NAACP. They must be
identified as such to be counted here.

3.4.2 Student individual. A student acting on
his or her initiative, not speaking for
any group.

Other. Include here off campus sources or other

sources.

58

Author's identity. Identify the author by marking the

appropriate number in space 5.

4.1 Administrator. These persons are engaged in.making
policy decisions for the university or college.
Examples include college dean, university
president, provost, vice-president, etc.

4.2 Faculty member. Professors or teachers not engaged
in administrative decision making whose primary
responsibility is education or research.

4.3 Staff member. Persons involved in operations of
the university who are not faculty or
administrators. Examples include secretaries,
maintenance or grounds workers. Also includes
union representatives of these people.

4.4 Student.

4.4.1 Student group official. These persons
are identified as officials of student
groups, eg. president of the student
chapter of the NAACP. They must be
identified as such to be counted here. A
signed editorial is counted here, since
it is assumed the editor is speaking for
the newspaper (a student group).

4.4.2 Student individual. A student acting on
his or her initiative to write the
editorial piece . Includes student
columnists.

4.5 Not identified.
4.6 Other.

Informational Item. The item is primarily intended to
give information about a subject and does not advance any
views or opinions. Mark a 1 if the item is
informational. An item should be either informational or
position.

Position on campus issue. Primary focus of editorial is
the statement of a group or person's position on a campus
issue. Enter the appropriate number in space 7. .An
item should be either informational or position.

6.1 Administration position (1)

6.2 Faculty position (2)

6.3 Staff position (3)

6.4 Student group position (4)

6.5 individual position (5)

6.6 newspaper position (6)

6.7 no position stated (0)

59

Conflict. An item contains conflict if it is about
groups in opposition. Mark a "1" if editorial involves
conflict. Mark "0" if item is not about conflict, and
mark "0" in each of the following boxes for question 8.

7.1

Groups involved in conflict. Mark a "1" if group
is involved in conflict.

1 Administration
2 Students
3 Faculty
4 Staff
5 Student groups

6 off-campus group

Opinion expressed of administration.

8.1

Favorable. Conclusion of editorial is such that a
reasonable person would consider it favorable. If
conclusion is unclear, an item is favorable if more
than 60 percent of statements about the
administration are statements a reasonable person
would find positive. (1)

Balanced. Not more than 60 percent of statements
about the administration are either favorable and
unfavorable statements. (2)

Unfavorable. Editorial is such that a reasonable
person would consider it unfavorable. If
conclusion is unclear, an item is unfavorable if
more than 60 percent of statements about the
administration are statements a reasonable person
would find negative. (4)

Neutral. Statements about the administration are
neither positive nor negative.

No statements about administration. (0)

6C)

CODING SHEET
NEWSPAPER CODE NUMBER

 

 

 

 

 

DATE
DATE CODED CODER
ITEM TITLE:
ITEM SPACE: sq. in
Classification
1 Type of Content. Enter the appropriate number. _____
1.1 Editorial. (1)
1.2 Staff columnist.
1.2.1 Regular columnist. (2)
1.2.2 Other staff columnist. (3)
1.3 Syndicated columnist. (4)
1.4 Guest column. _(5)
1.5 Letters to the editor. (6)
2 Groups identified in item. Mark a 0 or 1 in each space.
2.1 Administration.
2.2 Faculty.
2.3 Staff
2.4 Student groups.
2.5 Off-campus groups.
2.6 Other. '
3 Source's identity. Enter 0 to n for each space.
3.1 Administrator.
3.2 Faculty member.
3.3 Staff
3.4 Student.
3.4.1 Student group official.
3.4.2 Student individual.
3.5 Other.
4 Author's identity. Enter the appropriate number.
4.1 Not identified. (1)
4.2 Administrator. (2)
4.3 Faculty member. (3)
4.4 Staff member (4)
4.5 Student.
4.5.1 Student group official. (5)
4.5.2 Student individual. (6)
4.6 Other. (7)

5 Informational Item. Enter 0 or 1.

61

Position on campus issue. Enter appropriate number.

 

6.1 Administration position (1)
6.2 Faculty position (2)
6.3 Staff position (3)
6.4 Student group position (4)
6.5 individual position (5)
6.6 newspaper position (6)
7.7 no position taken (0)
Conflict. Enter 0 or 1.

7.1 Groups in conflict.

7.1.1 Administration. Enter 0 or 1.

7.1.2 Students. Enter 0 or 1.

7.1.3 Faculty. Enter 0 or 1.

7.1.4 Student groups. Enter 0 or 1.

7.1.5 off-campus group. Enter 0 or 1.
Opinion expressed of administration. Enter number.
8.1 Favorable. (1)

8.2 Balanced. (2)
8.3 Unfavorable. (3)
8.4 Neutral. (4)
8.5 No statements. (0)

APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE

code:

College/University newspaper advisor questionnaire
1. Please an out completely. All responses are confidential.

Position title: Is your position tenured? __Yes __No
Years in position? _ is your position supervised by an administration official? _ Yes _ No
Education: degree major field of study?
Experience: Years in newspapers_ Years in public relations
other experience (specify):
journalism professional organizations of which you are a member:
In my position] (check all which apply):

_ advise students on legal matters.

_ advise students on university/college policies.

__ approve stories before printing.

__ approve editorials before printing.

__ act as liaison between the newspaper and the administration.

__ Other (please specify: )

 

 

 

 

Does your school have (check the one that is most appropriate):
_ajournalismdepartment? -
_aproyamleadingtoajoumalismdepee?

journalismcourset?
_nojonrnalismpro¢nmorcourses?

Ifyourschoolhasajournalismprogamorclaases:

lsthesmdentnewspaperpartofaclassotrncthtm?_Yes No

Aboutwhatpercentageofthepapet’sstaffarejomnalismmajots?_%
Aremamnakmspaceformepapersopmauonprovidedbymemueguumvernty?_Yes_No
lfyeepleaseestimatethevahieofthematerialsorspacezs .
Howwaatheaudentnewapepcfandedlnnsalyurlmmindiatepaunml?
Smdentfeescollectedthroughcollegeluniversity:
Grantsfromcollegeluniversity:
Subsc'iption:
Newsstandsales:
Donations:
Othermspedfyt ):
Whatwaatbetotalstadeetnewspeperbudgetlnflseallms
lnthepeatyeeratyoerpeper.howmaaylaataaceahavethereheeaotz ,
storiespulhdbecatueofadmimsn-ationpreesure?__ ‘
editorialspulledbecmmeofadminiau'ationptme?_
smrietpulledbecauseoffearofadministrationreedon?_
editorialspulledbecauseoffearof adnu'nistrationreaction?_

 

 

$$$$$$t§

 

62

 

63

ii. The following questions aslt about your perception of the administration’s relationship to the
newspaper. Please check the response which indicates the degree to which you agree each statement
applies.
The college/university administration believes in the importance of freedom of the prcss.
_su'onglyagree
_38l‘¢¢
_n0tsure
__dinsree
stronglydisagree
Thestudent newspapercenprintastotyitcanproveisuueevenifprintingthatstorymayembarrass
the college/university.
_Stronslyasm
___38|’¢°
__notsure
__.dinsm _
_stronglydisagree "
Thesmdentnewspaperhastheh’eedommpublishwhatitwantsto.
_sconcyacee
_3l|'°¢
__notsure
__diasree
__mntlydinsm
Funding forthe studentnewspaperis notdependent onmaintainingthe goodwill ofthe administration.
.__smslyasree
__._381'°°
_notsure
_diume
_mnsivdislsm
“Hie collegeluniversity administration will not prohibit the publication of articles it considers harmful.
__stronglyagree
.._'F°¢
_notsure
__dintree
_sn'onglydisagree . , .'
Theadmimsmnonbefievamemflegmmqubatuncdbymmdependatmdemnuspapu
__mtly-sree
_W
__notsure
.._dinsm
__su'onglydisagree

 

 

64

The administration has a good relationship with the student newspaper.
stronglyagree
__3Bl’¢¢
____notsure
_dinsree
__stronglydisagree
The student newspaper is free from formal and informal faculty control.
_Stronslyasree
__38r¢°
__notsure
__dinsm _
__mns|ydiusre¢ -
Thesmdemnewspaperisfi’eefromformalandinformaiadminisuauveconuoL
__scontiyame
__3lf°°
__notsure
_dintree
_stronglydisagrce
The student body supports the principle of an independent student newspaper.
_str°ntlyatree
__3l|'°¢
__notsure
__..dinsm
__smslydintree _
‘l'hanltyou foryonrtlme. Please feelfreetousetheremainderofthissideforanycommentsyoumay
wish toadd. Usethebackofthispegeifnecessary.

 

 

 

MICHIGAN STQTE U

NIV. LIBRQRIES
IHHIIHlllllllllHlWlWHl
9171558

 

1IIWIIJIHIIWIHWWHI
3129300