‘1 <
:. (.3 . on.
5 :
S
,2 .fl
: .3.» «
9%“
. .Wflniodt.
. u." w
h...
a:
r
..
~9v .:
. .
1:2,.“
i.
l,
. ,4...
a: bun» aw. _.
.2 :
than 13!:
voila... I
.
381111
ï¬ï¬mfl? . q _ , .1, _ . . ._ .
; . x . : _ $an 7 f , ..:_...:
. :x. V
. ...
Wis-3
300!
LIBRARY
iicl“Slam Sm:
University
“Wm
This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled
A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF MARKET-DRIVEN TELEVISION NEWS
MAGAZINES: COMMODIFICATION, CONGLOMERATION AND
PUBLIC INTEREST
presented by
Kuo-Feng Tseng
has been accepted towards fulï¬llment
of the requirements for
Ph.D. Mass Media
degree in
Date 7’2 5’1260]
MS U is an Afï¬rmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0: 12771
PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.
DATE DUE
DATE DUE
DATE DUE
SDI-flD 2194 9063
$013.4) ~@193
M 9, 4n2905
6/01 C‘JCIRC/Datooue.965-p.15
A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF MARKET-DRIVEN
TELEVISION NEWS MAGAZINES:
COMMODIFICATION, CONGLOMERATION AND PUBLIC INTEREST
By
Kuo-Feng Tseng
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulï¬llment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
College of Communication Arts and Sciences
Mass Media Ph.D. Program
2001
ABSTRACT
A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF MARKET-DRIVEN
TELEVISION NEWS MAGAZINES:
CONGLOMERATION, COMMODIFICATION AND PUBLIC INTEREST
By
Kuo-Feng Tseng
In the past few years, the television news magazine format has become
increasingly pervasive in network prime time programming. Economics is the primary
motivation behind the growth because news magazines are signiï¬cantly less expensive to
produce than entertainment dramas and comedies; the ratings are occupying spots in the
Nielsen top 20; the advertising revenues are proï¬table; and they can create long-term
loyalty of viewership.
The news magazine has been characterized by its in-depth, investigative approach
to journalism. Networks claim that news magazines provide a public service for their
audiences, acting as watchdogs and uncovering issues for public debate. However,
shifting news standards to incorporate entertainment programming strategies has raised
numerous criticisms that news story sensationalism and corporate synergy are intervening
with news professionalism.
This study applies a market-driven journalism model and proposes that media
commodiï¬cation and conglomeration are the two major factors influencing the setting of
news agendas and diversity of news sources. It conducts a content analysis of eight weeks
of network news magazine programming, including 60 Minutes, 60 Minutes 11, 48 Hours.
20/20 and Dateline. Other cable and syndicated news magazines are included for a
comparison of news content and advertising: CNN with Time, CNN News Stand, MSNBC
Weekend Magazine, Entertainment Tonight, Inside Edition and Extra.
This study ï¬nds that competition for audiences and advertising has made news
merge with entertainment. Compared with prior research, the proportion of sensational
news stories has increased, with a shift toward crime, scandal, lifestyle, health, celebrity
coverage and entertainment, and away from public policy of political, economic, and
foreign affairs. Overall, news stories are employing a more featurized and people-
oriented approach to stories and events.
The signiï¬cantly high Spearman’s correlation coefï¬cients among news
magazines indicate that their category rankings are similar. Therefore, this study ï¬nds
that the patterns of news topics, advertising, and news sources are consistent with each
other. Accompanying the demographics data, the results indirectly support the theory of
audience commodity that news topics are manipulated to capture certain lifestyles of
audiences and sell the desired advertising.
Furthermore, this study ï¬nds that the diversity of news topics and sources is
restricted by the synergy of corporations, which usually occurs in the conglomerate or
partnership media with printed magazines. News magazines mix used or prior video
images to repackage new stories and reduce production costs, especially in the cable and
syndication programs. In addition, the promotion of entertainment programming and
publishing books are often found in the syndicated programs.
Copyright by
Kuo-Feng Tseng
2001
Dedicated to my family
and those who are concerned with media commodity and giant conglomerates
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Upon completing the Mass Media Ph.D. program, my greatest debt is to Dr. Barry
R. Litman for directing this dissertation. His encouragement and advice have played an
invaluable role in the production of this thesis and in my accomplishments as a Ph.D.
student at Michigan State University.
Dr. Thomas F. Baldwin, Dr. Charles Steinï¬eld, and Dr. Kenneth Boyer, who
served on my dissertation committee, are to be commended for their valuable
contributions to the writing of this dissertation and for their thoughtful supports.
Specially thanks to MMPHD director Dr. Charles Salmon and the former secretary Linda
Tallman. Without their encouragement, I may not have continued to study here. Also
thanks to Dr. Stephen R. Lacy who helped me greatly to clarify the statistics of research
method. In addition, I have to thank Chien-Chu Gu, Ya-Chien Wang and Hua-San Lin
who helped me collect and analyze the labor-intensive content analysis.
Furthermore, I offer my warm thanks to my parents who have continued to
support me ï¬nancially and spiritually overcome the difï¬culties 1 have faced during my
studies. In addition, thanks to my wife Yen-Ping for her encouragement in
accomplishing this study. Finally, to my lovely son Joshua, your special presence has
made my life worth the adventure while earning a Ph.D.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES xi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of Problem 1
Purpose and Signiï¬cance of Study 4
Overview of this Dissertation 6
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW 8
Marketplace of Television News Magazines 8
The Decline of Ratings and Advertising in Broadcast Network ---------- 10
The Growth of Television News Magazine in Economic Perspective --- 12
The Criticisms of the popular News Magazines 19
Public Interest of Television News Magazines 23
News Topics and Agenda Settings 23
Diversity of Topics/Sources, Marketplace of Ideas and Public Sphere -- 27
Market-Driven Journalism Model 28
Media Commodiï¬cation Theory 29
Conglomeration for Synergy and Conflict with News Professionalism - 33
Review the Impacts of Market-Driven News Magazines on Public Interest ----- 35
Sensationalism Topics and Big Name Hunting 3 5
Self—Censorship of Journalists, Synergy Promotion and Cost Efï¬ciency 38
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES 4l
Commodiï¬cation of News Media and Public Interest 4]
Characteristics of News Formats to Attract Audiences 41
Advertising Categorization and Audience Commodity 44
Marketplace of Ideas and Story Topics 44
Conglomeration of News Media and Public Interest 45
Ownership Affects the Use of News Sources and Topics Selected ------ 45
Reducing Production Cost Affects Use of News Sources and Topics -- 46
CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH METHODS 48
Procedure of Data Collection 48
Coding Scheme 49
Reliability Test 53
Data Analysis 55
vii
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS 57
General Information of News Content and Advertising 57
Differences of Story Topics and Formats 64
Difference in News Topics 64
Difference in News Subjects 71
Difference in Breaking/Investigative and Uniqueness/Duplication ------ 74
Difference in Special Formats 77
Advertising Categorization 79
The Institution and Demographics of News Sources 86
Conglomeration and Public Interest 94
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION 97
Commodiï¬cation: Market Segmentation and Audience Commodity ------------- 97
Product Differentiation and Market Segmentation 97
Advertising Differentiation and Audience Commodity 100
Conglomeration for Efï¬ciency and Synergy 102
Synergy of Program Promotion from Integrated or Partnership Media- 102
Cost Efï¬ciency by Importing Stories or Video from Integrated Media- 104
Impacts on Public Agenda Setting and Marketplace of Ideas 106
Ratings Competition and Tabloid on News Topics and Agenda -------- 106
Synergy/Efï¬ciency, Audience Commodity and Marketplace of Ideas - 111
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION 11 5
Summary 115
Implications to Policies and Theories 116
Limitations of Study 118
Future Research 12 0
APPENDIX
A. Schedule of Television News Magazines 122
B. Coding Protocol 123
C. Story Coding Sheet 126
D. Advertising Coding Sheet 128
E. Prior Researches 129
F. Chi-square and Cramer’s V test 130
REFERENCES 140
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Top 10 programs average ratings, share and households in the 1998-99 season -2
Table 2: Top 10 programs annual advertising revenues and spot costs, 1998-99 season --2
Table 3: Prime time rating and share of audience by viewing sources, 1985-1999 -------- 9
Table 4: Network ratings in prime time, 1960 -— 1999 10
Table 5: Percentage of advertising in major media (1995-1999, 8 in millions) ----------- l 0
Table 6: Television advertising volume components (8 in millions) 10
Table 7: Network’s prime time clutter: national non-programming minutes, 1991-00 --11
Table 8: News magazine ratings, 30-second advertising cost, and total revenues, 1999 —16
Table 9: The rating/shares and ranking trend of network news magazine, 1992-2000 ---17
Table 10: Trends of advertising 30-second cost of news magazines and network
prime time, 1992-2000 18
Table 11: Nielsen ratings of demographics for the 1997-98 season 19
Table 12: General news interests in local newscasts 1996 and 1998 20
Table 13: Different media annual revenue of the conglomerates in 1999 ($ billions) ----22
Table 14: Media products and markets of the conglomerate groups 22
Table 15: Total number of news magazine programs coded in eight weeks 61
Table 16: Percentage of news content and advertising based on time (minutes) ---------- 61
Table 17: Format percentage of news content based on time (minutes) 62
Table 18: Format percentage of advertising based on time (minutes) and number of
30-second spots 63
Table 19-1: Categorization of news topics based on the “number†of stories -------------- 68
Table 19-2: Categorization of news topics based on the “time†of stories (minutes) ----- 69
Table 20: Spearman’s rho correlation of story topic categorization based on the
“number†of stories 70
Table 21-1: Percentage of public issues or celebrity as the subject based on the
“number†of stories 73
Table 21-2: Percentage of public issues or celebrity as the subject based on the
“time†of stories 73
Table 22-1: Percentage of breaking/investigative based on “number†of stories --------- 76
Table 22-2: Percentage of uniqueness/duplication based on “number†of stories -------- 76
Table 22-3: Percentage of uniqueness/duplication and uniqueness/duplication
Based on “time†of stories 76
Table 23: Characteristics or techniques to attract audiences 78
Table 24: Percentage of advertising categorization in television news magazines ------- 82
Table 25: Spearman’s rho correlation of story topics categorization based on the
“number†of stories 83
Table 26: Advertising percentages in total television industry 84
Table 27: Percentage of audience demographics in terms of age, set, education,
Occupation, and income 85
Table 28-1: Percentage of institution of news sources 90
Table 28-2: Percentage of institution of news sources after weighted “time†-------------- 90
Table 29: Spearman’s rho correlation of news sources based on “number†of stories ---92
Table 30: Demographics of news sources 93
Table 31: The percentage of ï¬le video/source ownership and proportion 96
Table A: Schedule of television news magazines 122
Table E-l: Sutherland’s study, 1997 129
Table E-2: Committee of Concerns Journalists 1997 129
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Public agenda setting and news media 26
Figure 2: A model of commercial news production 29
Figure 3: The relationship of news content, audience, ratings and advertising ------------ 31
xi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Statement of Problem
In the past few years, the networks’ television news magazine1 format has become
increasingly pervasive in prime-time programming. For example, in the spring of 1999, a
second edition of CBS’s 60 Minutes was unveiled, ABC expanded to four showings of
20/20, and NBC revised its program schedule to air Dateline ï¬ve nights a week. These
twelve hours of news magazines accounted for nearly 20% of all network prime time
programming (Stroud, 1998; Turner and Hosenball, 1998; Zoglin, 1999).
Economics is the primary motivation behind the increased pervasiveness of news
magazine programming (Rupertus, 1999). They are signiï¬cantly less expensive to
produce (as much as 50% less) than entertainment comedies and dramas, which can run
more than $1.2 million per episode (Coe, 1994; Miller, 1998; Stroud, 1998). The ratings
of network news magazines are high, frequently occupying spots in the Nielsen Top 20
ratings (Table 1, Nielsen Media Research, 2000). Also, news magazines are attractive to
advertisers and proï¬table for networks. The annual advertising revenues generated by
network news magazines are listed at the top of the prime time programming in the 1998-
1999 season (Table 2, Hollywood Reporter Guide, 1999; Weintraub, 1998). In addition,
' This study focuses analyses on the traditional network prime-time investigative journalism because of
their high ratings and influences, including CBS’s 60 Minutes, 60 Minutes 11, and 48Hours, ABC’s 20/20,
and NBC’s Dateline. However, it also includes the cable and syndicated programs for comparison of news
content and advertising. The news magazine programs of cable network are CNN with Time and CNN
News Stand of CNN network, and Weekend Magazine with Stone Philips of MSNBC. The syndicated
unlike most successful entertainment programs aired for only few years, a prestigious
news magazine can last for decades (McClellan, 1998).
Table 1. Top 10 programs average ratings, share and households, in the 1998-99 season
Rank Program Network Type Rating Share Ave. # of
Households
1 ER. NBC Drama 17.8 29 17,660,000
2 FRIENDS NBC Sitcom 15 .7 26 15,650,000
3 FRAISER NBC Sitcom 15.6 25 15,520,000
4 NFL MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL ABC Sport 13.9 22 13,850,000
5 JESSE NBC Sitcom 13.7 22 13,630,000
6 VERONICA’S CLOSET NBC Sitcom 13.6 21 13,610,000
7 60 MINUTES CBS News 13.2 21 13,100,000
8 TOUCHED BY AN ANGEL CBS Drama 13.1 20 12,990,000
9 CBS SUNDAY MOVIE CBS Movie 12.1 19 12,010,000
10 20/20 ABC News 10.6 18 10,500,000
15 DAT ELINE NBC News 8.7 15 8,600,000
Note: Based on a strict prime day-part, 9/21/98 —— 5/26/99.
Source: 2000 Report on Television, Nielsen Media Research, 2000, p. 20.
Table 2. Top 10 programs annual advertising revenues and spot costs, 1998-1999 season
Rank Program Network Hours Annual 30 Second
Weekly Reven ue* Spot CostM
1 ER. NBC 1.0 $355,651,700 $545,000
2 NFL MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL ABC 2.5 $352,325,000 $380,000
3 DATELINE NBC NBC 5.0 $314,363,900 $1 10,000
4 20/20 ABC 3 .0 $23 1,557,400 $128,000
5 TODAY NBC 5.0 $214,261,700 -
6 FRASIER NBC 0.5 $192,019,400 $466,000
7 TONIGHT SHOW WITH JAY LENO NBC 5.0 $179,513,600 -
8 FRIENDS NBC 0.5 $169,008,800 $510,000
9 ALLY MCBEAL FOX 1.0 $166,306,200 $300,000
10 X-FILES FOX 1.0 $160,943,100 $300,000
30 60 MINUTES CBS 1.0 $101,698,400 $240,000
Note: 1. Figures from September 1998 through May 1999.
2. 5 programs weekly of Dateline, 3 of 20/20, and 1 of 60 Minutes.
3. The 30 second spot costs for Dateline and 20/20 are averages.
Source: *Hollywood Reporter Guide to the Television Season, (26): 38, September 1999.
"Advertising Age, September 20, 1999, pp], 12.
tabloid programs in this study are Entertainment Tonight, Inside Edition and Extra. The scheduling of
programs is listed in Appendix A.
As the competition from other multichannel television programming has become
greater over the past quarter century, the networks have seen their share of the national
commercial TV audience dwindle from 100% to about 50% in prime time and about 39%
on a total day basis. Thus, the network share of advertising budgets, meanwhile, has
fallen from 100% to about 59 cents for every national TV dollar placed by an advertiser
(Mandese, 2000). Therefore, the networks need programming strategies to attract
audiences and advertisers. With the advantages of low production fees, high ratings and
long-term loyalty of viewership (Rupertus, 1999), news magazines originally were
developed as defense mechanisms, used to ï¬ll problematic programming slots. Now,
news magazines are a network’s “secret weapon†because they alleviate programming
pressures, ï¬ll problematic slots and generate respectable ratings (McClellan, 1992;
Stroud, 1998).
The television news magazine has become characterized by its in-depth,
investigative approach to journalism. Networks continually claim that news magazines
provide a public service for their audiences, acting as watchdogs and uncovering issues
for public debate (Rupertus, 1999). Shifting news professionalism to incorporate
entertainment programming strategies has been criticized as market-driven journalism
(Demas, 1998; McManus, 1994; Rupertus, 1999; Underwood, 1993; Winch, 1997). The
competition for ratings results in more tabloid content and styles in news magazines (Pew
Research Center, 1998; 1999; Sutherland, 1997), and crime and sex stories have become
typically the most popular topics (Ehrlich, 1996; Grabe, 1996; 1999).
In addition to producing sensationalistic stories to commodify audiences, news
magazines are owned now by conglomerates and may help achieve corporate synergy.
For example, some of them have repackaged duplicated images and stories for efï¬ciency
(Carter, 1998a; Gay, 1997; Mifflin, 1999). Others also have been criticized for using
news stories to promote their conglomerate entertainment programs or products
(Glaberson, 1995; Guensburg, 1998). Furthermore, the conglomerates might intervene
with journalist professionalism when it conflicts with the interests of their parent
companies (Bill, 1996; McClellan, 1998).
Ironically, network news magazine programs have become the most watched
news genre and the most trustworthy sources of news information for most Americans.
According to a Gallup Poll survey, 51 percent of audiences trust the information from
network news magazine programs, whereas 43 percent trust the information on nightly
newscasts and 37 percent trust national newspapers (Sawyer, 1998). News magazines are
expected to build public agenda for policy debates and allow a diversity of voices to be
heard (Protess et a1, 1991). However, under economic pressures and programming
competition, can the market-driven news magazines balance between pursuing ratings
and advertising revenue and, at the same time, fulï¬ll their duty to the public interest?
Purpose and Significance of Study
Most of the existing research has analyzed television news magazines from the
perspective of cultural studies (Bird, 1998; Ehrlich, 1996; Langer, 1998; Sholle, 1993).
Some of these studies concerned the relationship between the reader and the context, as
well as the meanings interpreted. Others conducted a content analysis and compared the
news formats and presentation styles in the news magazines (Demas, 1998; Esposito,
1996; Grabe, 1997, 1999; Sutherland, 1997). However, very few of them ever analyzed
the rise of news magazines from the perspective of economics (Rupertus, 1999).
Therefore, this study attempts to unveil the economic rationale behind the
pervasiveness of news magazines and applies a content analysis to examine their impact
on the public interest. First, it systematically examines their annual trends in ratings,
advertising revenues, spot costs and conglomeration ownership. Then a discussion of the
implication of public agenda setting and the marketplace of ideas, which are deï¬ned as
the public interest in this study, and the role of media as the “Fourth State†in the citizen
society is presented.
This study applies a market-driven journalism model to analyze the television
news magazine market (McManus, 1994; 1995). It proposes that the commodiï¬cation
and conglomeration of media are the two major factors influencing news contents.
Theories of the commodiï¬cation of the news product, the ratings and the audience
explain how advertising skews news content toward tabloidism (McManus, 1992, 1995;
Meehan 1984, 1986, 1993; Smythe, 1977). The industrial organization model analyzes
how seeking for efï¬ciency and synergy of the conglomerate media could restrict the
diversity of news sources, topics, and public agenda building (Bagdikian, 2000;
McChesney, 1997; Murdock, 1982; Williams, 2000).
There was a time when economics were not considered proper criteria by which
to produce the news. News divisions performed a public service, and they were not
expected to be proï¬table. However, this approach by no means represented utopia.
Furthermore, overly dry, disengaging news cannot justify itself as a public service if it
alienates the very public it claims to serve (Rupertus, 1999). However, as the pendulum
has swung far to the opposite extreme, we should consider what constitutes news and
entertainment, and the balance between media as the platform for selling a product in the
market, and as the “Fourth State†in the citizen society (Ang, 1991; Dahlgren, 1995;
McChesney, 1997).
Overview of this Dissertation
In the next chapter, this study examines the theoretical and empirical literature
related to the marketplace and criticism of television news magazines; the market-driven
journalism model of commodiï¬cation and conglomeration; and public agenda setting and
the marketplace of ideas of public interest.
Based on the introduction, literature review and proposed model, Chapter 3 raises
speciï¬c research questions and associated hypotheses. It emphasizes the impact of news,
audience, and ratings as commodities and conglomerate ownership on news content. Key
concepts of the questions and hypotheses are also examined.
Chapter 4 discusses the methods and procedures used in this project (i.e.,
measurement and data collection). Also included in this chapter are the descriptions of
how coding variables have been operationalized, as well as the rationale for the
procedures used in the content analysis of television news magazines.
Chapter 5 reports the results of the content analysis and responses to the questions
and hypotheses. Then theoretical and methodological explanations for these observed
ï¬ndings are then discussed in Chapter 6.
Finally, Chapter 7 completes the presentation of this dissertation research with
concluding observations. In addition to a summary of findings, this chapter discusses the
limitations stemming from conceptual caveats and drawbacks associated with the
measurement and research design adopted in the current study. Finally theoretical and
practical implications as well as future research are also presented.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter ï¬rst examines the decline in ratings and advertising within the
broadcasting industry and the economic rationales for the grth of news magazines.
Then it reviews the criticisms of sensationalism and mega-ownership in those popular
news magazines when entertainment programming strategies and corporation ownership
intervene with professional standards of journalism.
Public interest is an ambiguous concept deï¬ned as the public agenda setting and
the marketplace of ideas in this study. The market driven journalism model, which
includes the theories of media commodiï¬cation and conglomeration for synergy, are
introduced to explain the problems of the current marketplace of news magazines.
Finally, the impacts of commodiï¬cation and conglomeration of news magazines on
public interest and raises those concerns for research questions and hypotheses in the next
chapter are discussed.
A. Marketplace of Television News Magazines
1. The decline of ratings and advertising in broadcast networks
The broadcast networks continuously lose ratings and advertising. The total
ratings of the broadcasting networks has dropped from 44.8% to 31.7% (Table 3) and the
three major networks, ABC, CBS and NBC, lost almost 50% of audiences between 1985
and 1999 (Table 4). Although the percentage of the total television advertising revenues
has remained around 23-24% of all media in the past few years (Table 5), the percentage
of networks’ advertising revenues among the total television industry dropped from
37.9% to 27.3% between 1985 and 1999 (Table 6). On the other hand, the rating of basic
cable networks increased from 3.6% to 24.3% and the advertising revenues of the cable
networks increased from 4.7% to 20.7% in the same period.
Cable television networks have become the major competitors to broadcast
networks in news, entertainment and educational programming (Baldwin et al, 1992a;
1992b; Wirth, 1990; Youn, 1994), and advertising revenues (Dimmick et a1, 1992;
Glascock, 1993). Although a single cable network cannot generate as much rating and
advertising revenues as each of the broadcast networks, over a hundred cable channels
are now in existence and they cumulatively become a powerful competitor to the
networks.
Cable programming can target niche audiences and advertisers are more
willing to pay for the desired target audiences (Dimmick et al, 1992; Rust, 1988).
Table 3. Prime time rating and share of audience by viewing sources, 1985 - 1999
Network Basic Cable Independent Pay Cable Public
Rating Share Rating Share Ratin Share Rating Share Rating Share
1985 44.8 74 3.6 6 9.7 16 4.0 7 2.6 4
1987 43.3 73 4.7 8 10.5 18 3.3 6 2.7 4
1989 38.7 66 7.5 13 11.7 20 3.9 7 2.4 4
1991 38.4 67 11.6 20 7.8 14 3.4 6 2.3 4
1993 40.8 70 13.6 23 5.7 10 3.0 5 2.3 4
1995 38.5 66 15.9 27 6.5 11 3.2 5 2.2 4
1997 33.7 58 19.8 34 6.8 12 3.8 6 2.2 4
1999 31.7 54 24.3 41 6.5 11 4.2 7 1.9 3
Note: Prime timeis Monday-Sunday, 8-11 PM September - August.
Source: 2000 Report on Television, Nielsen Media Research.
Table 4. Network ratings in prime time, 1960 - 1999
ABC CBS NBC FOX UPN WB PAX
1959—60 17.6 21.0 18.1 - - - -
1969 — 70 16.4 20.0 19.9 - - - -
1979— 80 19.5 19.6 17.4 - - - -
1984 — 85 15.4 16.9 16.2 - - - -
1989-90 12.9 12.2 14.6 - - - -
l990—91 12.5 12.3 12.7 6.4 - - -
1992 —93 12.4 13.3 11.0 7.2 - - -
1994—95" 12.0 11.1 11.5 7.7 3.4 1.9 -
1996 — 97 9.2 9.6 10.5 7.7 3.2 2.6
1998 — 99 8.1 9.0 8.9 7.0 2.0 3.2 0.7
Note: 1. * UPN and WB are rated as ofJanuary 9, 1995.
2. Each season prior to 1995-1996 was from September to April.
Source: 2000 Report on Television, Nielsen Media Research.
Table 5. Percentage of advertising in major media (1995-1999, S in millions)
Major Media 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995
Television $50.4M 23.4% 23.6% 23.6% 24.3% 23.2%
Newspapers $46.6M 21.7% 22.0% 22.2% 21 .9% 22.3%
Direct Mail $41 .4M 19.2% 19.7% 19.7% 19.7% 20.2%
Radio $17.2M 8.0% 7.5% 7.2% 7.0% 7.0%
Yellow Pages $12.7M 5.9% 5.9% 6.1% 6.2% 6.3%
Magazines $11.4M 5.3% 5.2% 5.2% 5.1% 5.3%
Internet $ 1.9M 0.9% 0.5% 0.3% -- --
Others $33.5M 15.6% 15.6% 15.8% 15.9% 15.9%
Total $215.3M 100% $201.6M $187.5M $175.2M $162.2M
% Change +68% +75% +70% +75% +74%
Source: The Television Bureau of Advertising, 2000.
Table 6. Television advertising volume components ($ in millions)
Network Cable Spot Local Syndication
1999 Total
$50.4M $14.0M $10.4M $10.5M $12.7M $2.9M
1999 27.7% 20.7% 20.8% 25.1% 5.7%
1998 28.8% 17.9% 22.3% 25.5% 5.5%
1997 29.5% 16.4% 22.7% 25.9% 5.2%
1996 30.8% 15.2% 23.1% 25.8% 5.2%
1995 30.7% 13.5% 24.1% 26.4% 5.3%
1990 33.9% 8.5% 26.8% 27.0% 3.8%
1985 37.9% 4.7% 28.2% 26.8% 2.4%
1980 44.7% 0.6% 28.5% 25.8% 0.4%
Note: FOX in syndication prior to 1990, now in network. WB and UPN currently are in syndication.
Source: The Television Bureau of Advertising, 2000.
10
In addition to losing ratings and advertising, the average production fees of
network programming have increased greatly from 1970 ($200,000) to 1995
($1,000,000). For example, advertising revenues did not keep up with the rise in
production costs in the 19903, and network proï¬ts declined drastically, although the
networks introduced severe cost-cutting measures, including huge cutbacks in personnel
and departmental budgets (Eastman & Ferguson, 1997; Head et al, 1998).
Networks introduced their most surprising economic move by adding one or two
extra commercial spots to some of their most highly rated programs, in essence letting
ratings influence the amount of time devoted to commercials (Eastman & Ferguson,
1997, p.113). From Table 7, the amount of national non-programming time per hour has
increased from approximately 12 minutes in 1991 to over 15 minutes in 2000 and it
would be even greater if the local station breaks were added (Fleming, 1997; Ross, 2000).
Table 7. Network’s prime time clutter: national non-programming minutes, 1991-2000
ABC CBS NBC FOX
2000 15:16 14:01 15:06 14:34
1996 12:58 12:41 12:58 13:21
1991 11:28 11:56 11:47 12:12
Note: The national non-programming minutes include network ads, promotions and public service
announcements (PSAs) and do not include local station breaks.
Source: Broadcasting & Cable, March 31, 1997 and Advertising Age, August 7, 2000.
Networks have tried numerous strategies to boost their ratings (Adams, 1988,
1993; Atkin & Litman, 1988; Eastman et al, 1995, 1997; Lin, 1995). For example, the
programming strategies of lead-in, inheritance effects or count-programming strategies
were used to retain audience flows (Cooper, 1996; Tiedge & Ksobiech, 1986; 1987;
Webster, 1985). However, developing new program formats usually requires substantial
11
costs for audience research and production, and no one can predict exactly what kinds of
formats will truly appeal to what kind of audience demographics (Owen & Wildman,
1992).
The Big Four networks now introduce nearly ï¬ve dozen new programs to their
prime time schedules each year. In the 19903, 75% of new series typically fell by the
wayside. Some were pulled within a few weeks and some were kept on the schedule only
until their replacements were readied (Eastman & Ferguson, 1997, p.122-123). For
example, in the 1999-2000 season, of the 11 new comedies that debuted on the six
broadcast networks last fall, only four remained on the air. Of those four, only one,
UPN’s The Parker, could be considered a success and the other three were on the verge
of cancellation (Martin, 2000). So, there might be only one or two new dramas or
sitcoms in the weekly top 50 ratings/share of the 1999-2000 season (Accas, 1999).
2. The growth of television news magazines in economic perspective
In order to survive the competition of multichannel television industry, networks
need to develop programming strategies for increasing advertising revenues, cutting
production fees and creating a long-term loyalty of viewership (Rupertus, 1999). The
television news magazines ï¬t these patterns and began to grow quickly. Originally, news
magazines were developed to ï¬ll problematic programming slots, but now they alleviate
programming pressures, ï¬ll problem slots and generate respectable ratings (McClellan,
1992; Stroud, 1998). Nearly two news magazine shows appeared everyday during prime
time of the 1999-2000 season.
12
Table 8 shows the launch year, ownership, ratings, spot costs and advertising
revenues of television news magazines. Before 1985, only 60 Minutes on CBS (produced
since 1968), 20/20 (1978) on ABC and Entertainment Tonight (1981) of the syndication
were available. However, toward the end of the 19803 and the beginning of 19903, the
number of network news magazine programs increased so quickly that by 1994 there
were ten hours weekly in prime time and six programs in syndication. Although many
news magazines appeared in prime time programming, most of them were only shown for
a short time, like those on NBC and FOX, and few of them survived. However, once the
loyalty of viewership has been established, the programs can last for decades. Table 8
shows that if the ratings of news magazines fell below 6.0 — 7.0, they would soon be
removed from the prime time schedules.
Before the 19903, NBC had problems developing a prestigious news magazine
(like 60 Minutes on CBS and 20/20 on ABC) until the success of Dateline NBC in 1992,
which initiated new competition in news magazine programming. Dateline has expanded
its shows annually since 1993 and was aired up to ï¬ve nights weekly in 1998.
Furthermore, 20/20 merged with Prime Time Live and other ABC news magazines to
create four nights of 20/20. Finally, 60 Minutes 11 on CBS was unveiled in 1999 to join
the battle. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that several syndicated programs,
such as Hard Copy, American Journal, and A Current Affair, ended their shows in 1997-
1998 because the audiences, the topics and the guests had been ceded to the networks
(Schlosser, 1999).
Overall, the news magazines are a low-cost, flexible, long-term, proï¬table
alternative to the high-cost, less versatile, high risk, short running entertainment sitcoms
l3
and dramas (Rupertus, 1999). Therefore, unlike the unpredictable ratings of new dramas
or sitcoms, the offspring of the news magazines usually have stable ratings. Table 9
shows the ratings and weekly ranking trends of network news magazines between 1992
to 2000. Although their ratings have dropped signiï¬cantly over the past few years, their
weekly rankings are nearly the same or even better, such as with Dateline. This means
that although network news magazines lost audiences, they did not lose as much as the
average networks did and their rating performances were better than other entertainment
programs.
Table 10 shows the 30-second spot costs of news magazines and other network
prime time programming. Although the advertising prices and revenues of news
magazines are not as high as those for top entertainment programs at the same rating
base, with their low production fees, the prime time news magazine can generate big
proï¬ts. For example, according to data from Advertising Age, the average one-hour news
magazine can be expected to gross roughly $2.7 million, that is for a program that costs
up to $700,000 to produce as compared to $1 to $2 million in production costs for a
standard hour-long drama (Jensen et al, 1998).
In addition, prestigious news magazines can last for a long time and contribute
signiï¬cant proï¬ts to networks. For example, in 1997, advertisers spent a total of $791
million on news magazines, up 12% from 1996 and 20% from 1995 (Weintraub, 1998).
Dateline has helped NBC News achieve annual pretax proï¬ts of $115 million, compared
with annual losses of close to $130 million in the early 19903, before Dateline debuted.
In addition, Dateline accounts for 20% of NBC’s prime time advertising revenues in
1999 (PBS, 1999). Annual proï¬ts at ABC News are now $75 million, due in large part to
14
the 20/20 franchise. Furthermore, 60 Minutes is certainly one of the most proï¬table
programs in the history of television. Its contribution to CBS’s bottom line over the past
30 years is said to exceed $1 billion (McClellan, 1998, July).
News magazines can be used to ï¬ll in problem slots, apply counter-programming
strategy and generate rather high ratings. For example, stories addressing women’s
health issues on Dateline NBC now run opposite ABC Monday Night Football. Thus, the
male-oriented features are used to counter-program shows that target females, such as
Dharma & Greg and The Nanny (Carter, 1998a; Stroud, 1998; Miller, 1998).
News magazines have been able to attract groups that are demographically
appealing to advertisers. Some advertisers, such as cosmetic and packaged goods
companies, prefer to sponsor a news magazine like Dateline NBC because it brings in a
more signiï¬cant portion of the 18-34 year-old demographic than entertainment programs
(Weintraub, 1998). In addition, a news magazine like 60 Minutes tends to attract males
with higher socioeconomic status. This is appealing to advertisers such as investment
companies (Merrill Lynch, for example) and luxury car companies (Table 11; Weintraub,
1998).
Table 8. News magazine ratings, 30 second advertising cost, and total revenues in 1999
Program Launch Conglomerate Rating Advertising Cost Total Revenues
Year Ownership Per 30 second (S in millions)
Network
60 Minutes 1968 Viacom (CBS) 13.2 $ 240.000 $ 101.7M
60 Minutes 11 1999 9.5 $ 196,000 $ 70.0M
48 Hours 1988 8.1 $ 80.000 $ 35.0M
20/20 1978 Disney (ABC) 10.6 $ 130,000 $ 231.6M
($85.000-$160,000)
Dateline 1992 GE (NBC) 8.7 $ 1 10,000 $ 314.4M
($89.000-$138,000)
Cancelled show
West 57th 1986-89 Viacom (CBS) 6.0
With Connie Chung 1989-95 Viacom (CBS) 7.5
Public Eye to Eye 1997-97 Viacom (CBS) 6.0
Day One 1992-95 Disney (ABC) 7.0 ($60,000-$160,000) ($20.0M —
Turning Point 1989-97 Disney (ABC) 7.5 $80.0M)
Prime Time Live 1989-98 Disney (ABC) 8.0
With Jane Pauley 1991-92 GE (NBC) 6.0
With Tom Brokaw 1992-92 GE (NBC) 6.0
With Maria Shriver 1992-92 GE (NBC) 6.0
Front Page 1993-94 News (FOX) 5.0
Cable
CNN News Stand 1998 AOL/Time Warner 0.5 $ 10,000 $ 30.0M
CNN with Time 1998 AOL/Time Warner 0.5 $ 10,000 $ 10.0M
MSNBC 1998 GE(MSNBC) 0.2 $ 8,000 $ 8.0M
Weekend Magazine /Microsofl
Syndication
Entertainment Tonight 1981 Viacom 5.7 $ 1 12,000 $ 50.1M
Inside Edition 1988 Viacom 3.3 $ 23,000 $ 14.1M
Extra 1994 AOL/Time Warner 3.7 $ 67,000 $ 65.8M
Access Hollywood 1996 News (FOX)/NBC 3.5 $ 34,000 $ 40.0M
Cancelled show
National Enquirer 1999 Nat’l Enquire/MGM 2.0 ($5,000-$10,000) ($5.0M —
Free Sjeech 1999 USA Cable 1.0 $10.0M)
End show
Hard Copy 1989-98 Viacom 5.0-2.0 ($10.0M -—
American Journal 1993-98 Viacom 3.0-2.0 ($10,000-$50,000) $ 50.0M)
A Current Affair 1987-97 News (FOX) 3.5-2.0
Note: Figures from September 1998 through May 1999.
Source: 1. The ratings for end show of network news magazines compiled from “Electron magazines†of
Spragens (1995).
2. Total revenue: Hollywood Reporter Guide to the Television Season, September 1999.
3. Syndication revenues and spots: Advertising Age, 71 (3): January
ooom I N92 ._:a< 1 32060 .296 25 358305 Co 8:94 >283 Eat 85:“ .3 8:950 Sac nuoSom
.otmv mmiS 6le ovtcm - ml. mug—-Noa—
:0le mmlf ante mmlmmu - m1. #0: -mp3—
:hlow at: 2.12 001mm - Elm no: -voo
:mlf mmlfl Gwlw “Klan . 21m oo:-noo
:01: wmlom :NIE ow10n - 21m 29 -ooo
.KIE ovlom :mIE melmm - 21m :5 -bmm
:01? - :nlE moi mm mvzom 21m coo -woo
522 - Swim melmm OVImN 21w 25.â€-ooa—
9:5: = 82.52 32.52 a;
05.3.5 92:— 25,—. 25...“— :NBN 3. :0 cc â€Ev—=5—
mCmd— oné— 0N\©.m_ med— - chNm mag . Noo—
:\v.o_ vm8.m_ mN\o.m_ 2%.: I NdeN â€$2 - moa—
0:00—6:02
22.: EN... onï¬H 22.0 I 090.: maa - vam—
w_-m.o_-om\w.:
â€â€”2.: NN\v.N_ oné. N_\v.\. . wm\m.v_ coo. - mayo—
SENSE...
ERA: _N\o.N_ mN\v.N_ NCNS - MN\.\..M_ hoe - coo—
mSNdéNR... m_\a.w-_m\m.:
ERA: â€Inno— wCNd— 2E.» . MN\_.: woe - baa—
Ntmï¬Ã©tod :RSALEAZ
0:00 - htwd 23.5 33.x NN\v.m_ aoe - M39
wise—hem. vtvwéted
33.x - 286 N31. 33.x _N\m.m_ ooom - 33
e8: : a 8.2::
253.5 oz:— oEF 25...— :Qon 3. co 8 “=25—
Soom I ma: 8&5...me 990: x8256: we each wig—:8 can moï¬nmewï¬ufl 2C. .a 035:
17
.88-?2 £388.83 dw< w:_8_to>u< .80 ton—2 .8558 Eat .5538 .3 3:953 880 895cm
.82 253 3: 258 255 8 88 8555.38 28 855.05 88.. N82
58.8 8 52.8 8 25.: 8 58.828 58.88 52.88 58.88 58.8.8 52.8.8 .08
88.8.8 2: .2 .8 2.8.8 _ 8 58.828 88.38 58.88 25.8 _8 22.88 88.88 :82
25.8 8 25.8 8 25.8 8 25.8 8 25.8 8 25.8 8 25.8 8 25.8 8 25.8 8 5:552
25.88 25.888 25.88 25.88 25.88 25.888 25.88 25.88 25.88 5:528:
08:
52.8 8 52.8 8 25.: 8 52.828 25.8 8 52.8 8 58.8 8 58.88 8 58.8 8 .88
58.828 58.828 58.828 25.58 58.828 58.828 58.828 58.828 58.88 :82
25.8 8 25.8 8 25.8 8 25.8 8 25.8 8 25.8 8 25.8 8 25.8 8 25.2. 8 5555.2
25.88 25.88 25.88 25.888 25.88 25.88 25.88 25.88 25.88 535.32
05.
58:8 8 25.; 8 58.8 8 25.8 8 58.8 8 58.: 8 25.8 8 58.8 8 25.8 8 .58
58.828 58.88 52.828 58.528 58.828 88.8.8 52.8.8 58.88 58.58 :82
25.8 8 25.8 8 25.8 8 25.8 8 25.8 8 25.8 8 25.8 8 25.8 8 25.8 8 5:552
25.28 25.88 25.88 25.88 25.88 25.88 25.88 25.28 25.88 5:558:
880
- - - - - - 25.828 25.528 -
- - - - - 25.88 25.8 8 25.28 -
- - 25.8 _ 8 25.528 25.2 .8 25.528 25.8 .8 25.8.8 25.8.8
- - 25.828 25.2 _8 25.88 25.2 .8 25.2 .8 25.828 25.828
25.828 25.88 25.828 25.528 25.28 25.528 25.2 .8 25.8 8 25.8 8
25.828 25.528 25.828 58.2 .8 58.828 58.2 _8 25.2 .8 58.2 .8 88.828 28.855 05.25
- - - - - - - 25.828 -
- - - - - 25.528 25.828 25.8 8 25.88
25.88 25.88 25.88 25.828 25.828 25.8.8 25.8.8 25.88 25.88
25.8 8 25.88 25.828 25.28 25.88 25.88 25.8 8 258:8 25.88
58.28 25.828 25.828 58.88 58.88 88.828 88.828 25.828 25.88 2855 .88
25.828 25.88 25.8.8 25.88 25.8 8 25.8 8 25.8 8 25.8 8 25.8.8 8:5: 88.
- - - - - - - 25.828 25.88 = 8552 8
25.88 25.28 25.88 25.888 25.88 25.88 25.88 25.88 25.888 8552 8
82 82 8.8. 88. 82 82 82 88. 88 5282..
Seem I moo C 80% 85888-8 88 .«o 888 $585th 0:5 BEE 8.80382. 8858 0588me 830: .80 85:22. .2 2an
18
Table 11. Nielsen ratings by demographic for the 1997-98 season
Network/Program Household M 18-34 F 18-34 M 35-49 F 35-49 M 50+ F 50+
CBS 60 Minutes 13.8 3.1 3.0 6.5 6.8 17.4 19.5
CBS 48 Hours 8.] 1.9 2.6 3.3 4.4 7.8 10.8
ABC 20/20 10.8 2.8 5.0 5.2 7.6 8.1 11.7
NBC Dateline 7.6 2.0 3.1 4.6 4.6 6.5 9.0
Source: Nielsen Media Research, American Demographics, 20 (1 1): 31+, November, 1998.
3. The criticisms of the popular news magazines
The increasing growth of the popular news magazines indicates the convergence
of news and entertainment programming, and have been criticized for being market-
driven journalism, instead of news professionalism (Consoli, 1998; Rupertus, 1999;
Weintraub, 1998). Two major criticisms are directed toward news magazines: using
sensational stories and formats to promote ratings and advertising revenues, and the
conglomerate ownership intervening with journalist professionalism (Grossman, 1999;
Paige, 1998; Zoglin, 1998).
In the past decade, soft news, deï¬ned as stories that focus on a human-interest
topic, feature or non-policy issue, has dramatically increased on the national network
newscasts (McCartney, 1997; Riffe and Holm, 1999; Scott and Gobetz, 1992). The local
television news has also been found to place more emphasis on sensationalism than on
public affairs (Davie and Lee, 1995; Hoffstetter and Dozier, 1986; Ryu, 1982; Slattery
and Hakanen, 1994; Wulfemeyer, 1982).
The increase of soft news in both national and local broadcasts has occured
because it can attract more audience attention. The play theory and the uses and
gratification model explain that the consumption of soft news can be viewed as a vehicle
by which such enjoyment is obtained, and therefore audiences prefer soft news
(Palmgreen & Rayburn, 1985; Rayburn, et al, 1984; Stephenson, 1988). For example,
according to the surveys of the Pew Research Center in 1996 and 1998, crime stories
were the most popular topic in which audiences were interested (Table 12).
Following the high demand trend of soï¬ news, crime and sex stories are the most
prominent topics in syndication tabloid journalism and are now moving into prime-time
network news magazines (Ehrlich, 1996; Esposito, 1996; Grabe, 1996; 1999; Paige,
1998). A study from the Center for Media and Public Affairs (1997) found that almost
all stories on the top six syndicated news magazines were related to crime, sex,
accident/disasters and self-destructive behavior (Media Monitor, 1997). However, as the
audience, the topics and the guests have been ceded from the syndication to the networks,
over half of the tabloid news magazines were pushed out of the market (Schlosser, 1999).
For example, Dateline is now more focused on sensational stories of crime and disasters,
and 20/20 reported a signiï¬cant proportion of stories related to entertainment celebrities
(Demas, 1998; Sutherland, 1997).
Table 12. General news interests in local newscasts
1998 . 1996
Rank Topics Percentage Rank Topics Percentage
1 Crime 36% 1 Crime 41%
2 Health 34% 2 Community 35%
3 Community 34% 3 Health 34%
4 Sports 27% 4 Sports 26%
5 Local government 23% 5 Local Government 24%
6 Science & Technology 22% 6 Science & TechnologL 20%
7 Domestic politics/policy 19% 7 Religion 17%
8 Religion 18% 8 Political news 16%
9 Business & ï¬nance 17% 9 International affairs 15%
10 lntemational affairs 16% 10 Entertainment 15%
1 1 Entertainment 16% 11 Consumers news 14%
12 Consumer news 15% 12 Business & ï¬nance 13%
13 Culture & Arts 12% 13 Famous people 13%
14 - - 14 Culture & Arts 10%
Source: Pew Research Center, 1996, 1998.
20
In addition to the criticism of the sensationalism approach, news magazines are
now owned by large conglomerates and the corporations’ business interests may conflict
with their journalistic professionalism. Tables13 and 14 list the media revenues, products
and markets of the conglomerates of the three major broadcast networks and CNN cable
network. Most of them have cross-ownership of broadcast, cable, magazine, motion
picture, Internet, and publishing businesses.
Several ethical cases in the media are related to corporate companies intervening
with the news selection when the story conflicted with the parent company’s interests
(Glaberson, 1995; Guensburg, 1998). For example, Disney forced 20/20 to drop a story
criticizing the safety of the Disneyland parks (McClellan, 1998). The CBS network
intervened with a 60 Minutes story about public health and smoking for fear of being
sued by the tobacco companies (Bill, 1996). In addition, news magazines are criticized
for promoting the entertainment programming and publishing industries of their
conglomerates (Carter, 2000; Doreen, 1996; Lawrie, 1995).
21
Table 13. Annual revenue for different conglomerate-owned media in 1999 ($ in billions)
Viacom Disney GE AOL/Time
Warner
TV/Radio $ 6.88 $ 4.98 $ 5.38 $ 0.48
Cable TV $ 3.68 $ 3.08 $ 0.58 $11.58
Maggine $ OB $ 0.38 $ OB $ 3.78
Newspaper S OB $ OB $ OB $ OB
Others $ 1.08 $ 0.48 $ OB S OB
Media $11.48 S 8.68 S 5.88 $15.68
Revenues
Total Revenues $20.38 $23.48 $1 1 1.68 $34.28
% Media of total 56.2% 36.8% 5.2% 45.6%
revenues
Source: Advertising Age, 71 (35): August 21, 2000.
Table 14. Media products and markets of the conglomerate groups
Viacom Disney GE AOL/Time
Warner
Broadcasting CBS, UPN ABC NBC, PAX (32%) W8
Cable network MTV, VH1, TNN, Disney Channel, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, CNan,
CMT, Nickelodeon, ESPN, Lifetime, A&E, The History CNN/S1, CNN
Showtime, The A&E, The History Channel, National Headline, Court TV,
Movie Channel Channel, E! Geographic Channel TBS, TNT, HBO,
Entertainment Cartoon Network,
Comedy Central
Motion Picture Paramount, Walt Disney, Warner Brother,
Blockbuster Video Miramax Films, New Line Cinema
Buena Vista
Radio Inï¬nity Broadcast ABC Radio Network
Music Famous Music Disney Music NBC record Warner Music
Buena Vista Music
Internet CBS Internet ESPN.com, NBCi.com, AOL, Netscape,
MTVi Group lnfoSeek, Go.com MSNBC.com Web/MD
Magazine ESPN magazine, Time, Life, People,
Disney magazine, Fortune, Money,
Family fun, Sport Illustrated,
Discover Entertainment
Weekly
Publishing Simon & Schuster Buena Vista Warner Publishing
Disney Children
Others: Walt Disney World, WWF“ Six Flags parks
Theme Park, Disneyland, Atlanta Braves,
Sports Hockey, Baseball Hawks, WCW",
Hockey
Note: *WWF: World Wrestling Federation; WCW: World Championship Wrestling
Source: Broadcasting & Cable, August 28, 2000, pp. 32-57.
22
B. Public Interest of News Magazines
The concept of public interest, a term with roots in the law governing regulation
of the communication industry, is criticized for ambiguity (McQuail, 1992, p. 20-30;
Mosco, 1996, p.168-169). It has been deï¬ned as a clearer test of the marketplace of ideas
(Entman and Wildman, 1992) and as an extension of the public sphere to refer to those
interests that transcend commercial gain and consumerism (Melody, 1990). However,
the news media can decide what news is, and the public usually considers those
frequently appearing news stories as important to the public agenda, helping to enact
public policy reforms (Protess et a1, 1991). Therefore, this study analyzed news story
topics and the diversity of news sources to measure the performance of public interest in
news magazines.
1. News topics and agenda setting
Where does the public obtain its information about issues and policy alternatives?
Many models of public opinion suggest that presentation of issues in the media play an
important role in shaping the attitudes of the public (Fan, 1988; McClosky and Zaller,
1984; Page and Shapiro, 1992; Stimson, 1991; Zaller, 1992, 1994). For example, media
serves as the primary mechanism by which elite opinion is communicated to the public
(McCombs and Shaw, 1972; Lyengar and Kinder, 1987).
This is accomplished through the sheer amount of attention given by media
outlets to various issues; the more coverage an issue receives, the further up the agenda it
supposedly moves. Agenda setting explains why the public considered certain issues in
the information environment to be more important than others (McCombs and Shaw,
23
1993). Experimental evidence demonstrates that when news coverage focuses more on a
particular issue, people are more likely to cite the issue as the most important concern
facing the nation (Lyengar et al., 1982).
Modern journalism, which is supposed to instruct and direct public opinion by
reporting and discussing events, usually is simply a mechanism for controlling collective
attention (Park, 1972). Those issues or events receiving a greater degree of media
attention become the issues and events that are uppermost in the minds of most citizens
(Splichal, 1998). Some researchers who have reviewed the empirical agenda-setting
studies ï¬nd that a relationship is likely among media emphasis on an issue, the salience
of that issue, and public opinion regarding the actors associated with the issues (Weaver,
1984). The agendas presented by the mass media do have an impact on their recipients.
The media seem to be particularly influential in making some issues more salient that
others. The mass media have — either as means of expression of public opinion or as
instruments of influence — a crucial role in the democratic political process, regardless of
whether they create agendas on their own or merely reflect those created in or by other
components of society (Splichal, 1998).
Networks claim that news magazines provide a public service for their audience,
acting as watchdogs and uncovering issues for public debate (Rupertus, 1999). By
bringing problems to the public’s attention, the investigative news attempts to alter
societal agenda — “agenda setting†— the notion that the news media can directly influence
the public’s priorities (Protess et al, 1991). The basic goal of the journalists is to trigger
the agenda-building processes (Figure 1). From this perspective, although television
24
news magazines do not ask us what to think, but rather tell us what to think about by
showing certain topics and agendas in their programming (Cohen, 1963).
The study of agenda setting has often centered on the relationship between the
agenda set forth in the media and the agenda of the public. That research has usually
been concerned with verifying the existence of an agenda-setting effect by the media.
Less often, studies examine how the media agenda develops (Berkowitz, 1987). Weaver
and Elliott (1985) describe this process as “agenda building,†where the focus is on how
the press interacts with other institutions in society to create issues of public concern.
However, instead of analyzing the effects of media agendas on public opinion,
this study examines the interactive relationship between news topics and other
institutions, such as advertising and media organizations. The theories of media
commodiï¬cation and conglomeration are discussed in the following sections to illustrate
how news story topics have been potentially distorted in the investigative news
magazines.
25
Figure 1. Public agenda setting and news media
Contextual factors
Historical circumstances,
journalistic norms, political
climate, availability of
alternatives
l
Center stage
Journalists/
News organizations ‘——->
Policy-
makers
V
l
The investigative report
2\.
The public audience
Policy Impact
(Reforms)
Deliberative
lndividualistic
Substantive
Media coverage
and policy
implementation
Source: Protess, D. L. et al (1991). The Journalism of Outrage, p. 251.
26
2. Diversity of pews topics/sources, marketplace of ideas and public sphere
The concept of the marketplace of ideas is deï¬ned as an open forum to which all
ideas have access and where all are fairly and judiciously considered (Entman and
Wildman, 1992; Mosco, 1996; Schwarzlose, 1985). The social responsibility theory,
identifying the media as the vehicle for social dialogue, has found expression in the
concept of the public sphere (Aufderheide, 1991, 1992; Dhalgren, 1995). However,
despite its centrality to the assessment of media performance and the formation of media
policy, diversity is an ambiguous concept, difï¬cult to deï¬ne adequately and to measure
effectively (Napoli, 1997; Owen, 1977).
The diversity of ideas is measured by an underlying dimension of political
concerns. The notion is that the more distinct thoughts, analyses, criticism, and the like
that are available on issues of social and political importance, the better off society is
(Entman and Wildman, 1992). However, the diversity of ideas is hard to measure
quantitatively and product diversity and access diversity are often used as an index to
measure the diversity of ideas.
Product diversity is the range of variation in product attributes that may be valued
by consumers. Most prior studies have focused primarily on content diversity in the form
of television program types, such as drama, sitcom, news, and sports (Grant, 1994; Lin,
1995; Litman, 1979). In terms of news diversity, prior research focused on the categories
of news story topics, for example, politics, economics, entertainment and crime stories
(Atwart, 1989; Bae, 2000; Stemple, 1985).
Access diversity requires that media gatekeepers have no incentive to exclude
divergent viewpoints (Owen, 1975). Implicit in most discussions of access diversity is
27
the assumption that ensuring non-prejudicial access to media is equivalent to ensuring
that all ideas are given the emphasis they deserve. Therefore, access, which is reflected
in the diversity of voices, is crucial to the success of the news media as a social forum
(Hansen, 1991).
Access diversity in terms of news content is the diversity of news sources.
Sources are the center of news, and veriï¬able sources are essential to the credibility of
journalism (Comrie, 1999). To a large extent, news coverage is the sum of quotations in
the news (Salwen, 1995). Accordingly, sources of news impact the presentation and
construction of news. For example, Berkowitz (1987) also argues that sources play a
large part in shaping the information from which people unconsciously build their images
of the world.
Prior studies focused on categorization of news sources in terms of demographics
like institution, race, gender, and age (Berkowitz, 1987; Brown, et a1, 1987; Grade,
1999). Prior research found that Washington-based, institutional, elite, white males
dominate as news sources in both newspaper and television (Brown et. al, 1987; Chibnall,
1977; Sigal, 1973; Soloski, 1.989)
C. Market Driven Journalism Model
In Figure 2, McManus (1994) presents a market-based model of commercial news
production. Viewers trade their attention or subscription to media ï¬rms in exchange for
information and advertisers pay money in return for the attention of potential customers.
Owner-investors contribute capital and expect to share in proï¬ts and growth in the value
of stock. In the following, the media commodiï¬cation theory explains how news topics
28
generate audience segmentation and advertisers pay for the audience commodity. The
theory of conglomerates explains how corporate interests may conflict with journalistic
professionalism and how the business strategies of synergy and efï¬ciency may affect
diversity of news topics and sources.
Figure 2. A model of commercial news production
Investors/Owners
l 1
Parent Corporation
11
Media Firm _' Advertiser
News Department
Organization Culture
News ——+ News Workers
Sources 4—
News Decision
11
Customers
General Public
Source: McManus, J. H. (1994). Market-Driven Journalism: Let the Citizen Beware? p. 23.
1. Media commodification theory
Smythe (1977) claimed that all mass media industries produce but a single
commodity — the audience. Networks design programs and construct schedules
speciï¬cally to attract certain kinds of viewers in large groups and then sell those
29
audiences to advertisers. In Smythe’s formulation, the messages were merely bait, just a
“free lunch†designed to lure the audience to the point of sale. Once attracted, the
audience then spent its “leisure time†with the mediated bait in such a way that media
industries could organize that audience into salable categories for purchase by advertisers
(McManus, 1992).
Furthermore, Meehan (1984) argued that neither messages nor audiences are
exchanged, only ratings. Those ratings are produced at a particular juncture by a single
company that seeks to maximize its proï¬t and minimize its cost. The ratings per se must
no longer be treated as reports of human behavior, but rather as products -— as
commodities shaped by business exigencies and corporate strategies (Meehan, 1986).
Therefore, from Figure 3, the ratings become the index to decide how much the
advertisers are willing to pay for the commercial spots, and the advertising revenue
becomes the major evaluation of the programming performance: The oligopoly
competition will only focus on how to increase the ratings. Advertisers have no
functional concern with the meaning or consequences of mass communication except
insofar as it provides a mechanism for the delivery of their messages to prospective
consumers (Bogart, 2000). How audiences interpret programming and construct their
meaning in the process is not important for either producers or advertisers. The
competition for the high ratings will revert back to dominate the programming formats
and content, and in indeed, might be in conflict with the performance of public service
claimed by the networks.
30
Figure 3. The relationship of news content, audience, ratings, and advertising
l
News
Content +—V Audience .__, Ratings ——> Advertising
Sold f
To syndicates, television can be seen as a channel for communicating to
consumers living in markets, while an alternative view emphasizes television’s role in a
democratic society and its ability to communicate with citizens living in communities
(Brown, 1991). In line with public service ideals, this channel of communication is
supposed to provide audiences with socially useful information. Thus, the newscast
should enable audiences to fulï¬ll their democratic rights and duties. Ideally, viewers are
addressed as rational citizens, concerned with collective issues (Hagen, 1997).
However, rather than each audience member being considered as an equally
important citizen (as we would strive for in a normative public sphere), news media are
following in the footsteps of urban newspapers and general interest magazines that were
not concerned with losing certain segments of their audiences while trying to attract
segments that were more economically attractive (McManus, 1992). National advertisers
are paying not for news quality, but for audience “quality†and quantity and are expected
to support the program that generates the largest audience likely to purchase the products
offered, at the lowest cost per thousand viewers.
31
Another result of having advertisers foot most of the bill for news is a pressure to
ignore those parts of society that advertisers do not care to reach, such as the poor and
elderly (Bogart, 2000). Understandably, retailers are reluctant to purchase the attention
of those segments of society who cannot or do not consume their products. Scholars
suggest that a proï¬t-driven news media will concentrate on more “dumbed-down news
and entertainment†rather than reporting and investigating events (Bagdikian, 2000).
News magazines are so focused on ratings that they use audience research to track
the public’s preferences—not program-by-prograrn, not piece-by-piece, but minute-by-
minute. Producers will learn from seeing these kinds of ratings graphs which segments
are likely to be the ones that draw an audience. These are the stories news magazines
know can do well, and will interest audiences. Thus they have a way to guarantee that
they are going to reach the desirable audience that they are trying to reach by doing this
kind of programming (PBS, 1999; Sawyer, 1998). The research method of focus-groups
tests story ideas via the networks (Paige, 1998).
The editorial judgments about what the news magazines are going to air each
night are shaped by demographics, ratings, and research. For example, 20/20 was trying
to compete against a dramatic show like Hill Street Blues. In order to do that, 20/20
needed to target their stories at competing demographic groups. For example, if Hill
Street Blues was reaching an urban audience, 20/20 would try to reach a southern
audience with a large group of stories about country and western music stars. Obviously
this programming was aimed at particular communities to try and bring in those viewers
(PBS, 1999).
32
Dateline now “out-pulls†CBS’s venerable 60 Minutes some nights in advertising
dollars; the show has become NBC’s secret weapon for ï¬xing programming trouble
spots. On Wednesdays, it involves a more male-oriented show featuring dangerous
animals, travel and adventure, science and technology and other material to counter-
program shows more skewed toward females, like CBS’s The Nanny. A time when
Dateline creates a softer, more featured show aimed at women is when it is up against
ABC Monday Night Football. Part of the success of Dateline has been to ï¬gure out not
just good stories, but good stories that work in good time spots (Stroud, 1998).
2. Conglomerates for synergy and conflicts with news professionalism
In addition to the criticisms of commodiï¬cation in news products, the
conglomeration of news media has raised another concern for journalist professionalism.
The wave of media mergers and acquisitions has become more severe in the past decade.
It has been driven by technological change, the liberalization of regulations governing
ownership, and the ready availability of capital (Litman and Sochay, 1994; Ozanich and
Wirth, 1998). With technological progress and international deregulation, the
conglomerate media have expanded markets and capital globally (Albarran and Chan-
Olmsted, 1998; Carveth, 1992; Gershon, 1993; 2000).
The goals of media conglomerates are usually recognized for economies of scale,
scope and synergy (Litman and Sochay, 1994; Picard, 1996; Turow, 1992; Whalen and
Litman, 1996). For example, in the cable television industry, the big MSOs swap their
cluster systems to reduce operational cost (Chipty, 1995; Ford and Jackson, 1997). The
33
vertical integrated cable systems usually prefer to package their own programming
networks, instead of independents (Ahn and Litman, 1997; Chan-Olmsted, 1996).
Scholars have criticized the increasing conglomeration within the various
communication industries for leading to a decline in diversity of expression and
homogeneous content products (Bagdikian, 2000; Conrad, 1997; Picard, 1996; Schiller,
1981). Three recurring and compelling rationales for their fears of media consolidation
and mega-corporate journalism are (1) ï¬nancial pressures, (2) stifling of free discourse,
and (3) news content manipulation (Parker, 2000).
Television news has become too money-making to be left to news people. When
the news went public and had to answer to stockholders earning higher proï¬ts, the picture
changed and newsroom budgets began to be squeezed to increase proï¬ts. The result is
often passive news, soft news, personality news, crime news and news as entertainment
(Parker, 2000).
Another fear is that large companies will be driven strictly by proï¬ts and will
begin to cut comers in news coverage. As media companies grow larger, the likelihood
that a story will lead journalists to their employer’s door increases (Conrad, 1997). Yet,
many reporters will not feel comfortable covering a story in a manner that portrays their
parent company in a negative light for fear of retribution. A survey by the American
Society of Newspaper Editors found that 33% of all editors said they would not feel free
to print a story that damaged their company.
The most troubling fear for conglomerate opponents, though, is the control over
news and public affairs programming that could be- exerted by corporate interests. These
large corporate controllers are engaged in a signiï¬cant level of manipulation of, and
34
interference with, news content in pursuit of their own corporate self-interests
(Bagdikian, 2000). For example, the influence of parent companies on news content
might produce an increase in the quantity and quality of company-related materials
mentioned on the news. Such synergy biases do occur, but not evenly and more often in
the vertically integrated corporations (Williams, 2000).
D. Review of the impact of market-driven news magazines on public interest
Based on the discussions of theoretical concepts, the market-driven news
magazines may not work as a watchdog to uncover issues for public debate. Overall, the
news product is produced to attract audiences, generate high ratings and sell to desired
advertisers. The news magazines usually skew news stories to audience preferences,
focusing on sensational topics and famous celebrities, instead of news professionalism.
The conglomerate media produce not only news products, but also other entertainment
programming and even consumptive goods. If a news story conflicts with corporate
interests, the conglomerate might intervene with the news agenda. In addition, to
increase conglomerate synergy, news stories might accompany business marketing
strategies to promote entertainment programs, publishing or other corporation products.
1. Sensationalism topics and big name hunting
The commercial television news magazines are market-driven journalism. In
addition, the increasing grth of news magazines is based on the lack of popular
entertainment dramas and sitcoms. The news magazines not only compete with one
another, but they also have to compete with other entertainment programming (Zoglin,
35
1992). The success of news shows is determined by the ratings and advertising revenues,
but not news of value to the public interest (PBS, 1999).
The market-driven news magazines usually set their news topics from the
perspective of audience interests. In order to attract audiences, many stories on news
magazines are related to crime, sex, family, health, consumer issues, and show business,
which are also the most popular topics in which are people interested (Weintraub, 1998;
Pew Research Center, 1999; Zoglin, 1992).
A database search of news magazine topics, conducted by the Media Research
Center, revealed that while 20/20 also did some serious stories during a two-month
snapshot — the silly segments more frequently outnumbered the substantive (Paige, 1998).
For example, consider such stories as the woman who used plastic surgery to remake
herself as a Barbie doll; children of sperm-bank donors; husbands who do not listen to
their wives; fat football players; the health beneï¬ts of telling the truth; modeling-school
scams; and poetry-publishing. This is not a category of Jerry Springer moronathons; it is
a sample of “news†segment on ABC’s 20/20 during the ï¬rst two months of 1998 (Paige,
1998). The same situation was found in episodes of Dateline where crime and trial
related stories overwhelmingly dominated news topics (Paige, 1998; Sutherland, 1997).
In addition to crime or sex stories, news magazines often “produce†shocking
consumer news to attract audience attention. In the last three years, the news magazines
have aired more than 50 segments on auto safety — some of them innocuous consumer
tips, but many others featuring allegations of lethal product defects (McGinn and Turner,
1999). For example, Dateline got into trouble for staging an explosion while
investigating GM truck safety (Giltin, 1993). ABC’s primetime news magazines have
36
suffered a pair of embarrassing legal setbacks: a $10 million libel judgement that a
Florida banker won against 20/20 and a $5.5 million verdict against Prime Time Live
over its use of hidden cameras to investigate Food Lion supermarkets (Gunther, 1997).
Critics contend that in the revved-up effort to lure prime time viewers, some TV
news magazine segments are also resorting to dramatic production techniques that not
only resemble an entertainment show - but look suspiciously like those used in the more
tabloid-oriented shows. The most blatant example occurred when Dateline rigged a GM
truck to provide a ï¬re. More subtly, pictures are overlaid with heavy music to enhance
emotions, action is slowed, and the cuts are quick (Reibstein, 1994).
The constant race for ideas leads to a tendency to sensationalize and the
competition for stories, moreover, becomes ï¬ercer. For example, no fewer than ï¬ve
network magazine shows have explored doing a story on a New York City woman who
took a video camera onto the streets to record instances of sexual harassment. Four of the
shows offered her money as inducement and she eventually picked CBS’s Eye to Eye
with Connie Chung (Time, July 12, 1993).
Probably the most intense competition among the news magazines is for the big,
celebrated interview of the moment - Michael J. Fox on his Parkinson’s disease, Ken
Starr on his investigation of the president and, of course, Kathleen Willey and Monica
Lewinsky on their alleged Oval Ofï¬ce encounters (PBS, 1999). There were exclusive
interviews with the tabloid press star of the week. These shows compete ï¬ercely for such
interviews - not just with one another, but also with the daytime talk shows and
syndicated magazine shows (Zoglin, 1992).
37
For example, an estimated 74 million people tuned in to see at least part of ABC’s
20/20 episode that featured Barbara Walters’ interview of Monica Lewinsky, with an
average number of viewers at any one time approaching 50 million. At $800,000 per 30-
second spot, the episode’s advertising rates were about 5 times the show’s standard price.
Estimated take for the two hour telecast: $30 million (Trigoboff, 1999).
2. Self-censorship of journalists, synerfl promotion and cost efficiency
Critics were concerned that the synergy-inspired mergers among media
conglomerates would damage the creativity and free of expression (Barber, 1995;
Croteau and Hoynes, 2001; Jaquet, 1997; Landay, 1999; Solomon, 2000). Self-
censorship becomes joumalism’s ineffable hazard in the conglomerate media (Solomon,
2000); removing stories that are thought to be detrimental to the corporation (Herman &
Chomsky, 1988; Lafayette, 1998) or the placement of stories that are thought to be
helpful to the corporation (Williams, 2000).
Several cases have illustrated how news coverage was in danger as news
organizations came under ever-increasing pressure to please their parent
company/investors (Glaberson, 1995; Guensburg, 1998). For example, an NBC Today
show segment in November of 1990 on consumer boycotts failed to mention a major
boycott of GE products at the time (Putnam, 1991). A media watchdog group had
charged that the executive producer of 20/20 kept producers on his program from
investigating stories about dangers of nuclear energy and other environmental hazards
because his wife was a public relations executive with clients in the energy industry
(Carter, 1993).
38
More recently, 60 Minutes was overpowered by the fears of CBS lawyers of a
theoretical lawsuit if an interview with a whistleblower from Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp. was aired (Bill, 1996). Walt Disney Co.’s ABC News unit rejected a
proposed news story for its 20/20 television news magazine that was critical of Disney’s
theme-park operations (Guensburg, 1998; McClellan, 1998; Orawall, 1998).
In addition to the intervention from conglomerates, news magazines sometime
report news stories to market other corporate-owned products. For example, anchor Tom
Brokaw repeatedly promoted the book The Greatest Generation on NBC News shows;
and NBC owns nearly 25% of the book’s proï¬t (Rosenwein, 1999). ABC’s Good
Morning America spent two hours covering Disney World’s 25th Anniversary, including
an interview with CEO Michael Eisner (Kaufman, 2000). The May 20, 1996 cover of
Time magazine featured a movie still from Time Warner’s Twister for a science story on
tornadoes, coinciding with the movie’s release.
News magazines might also produce news stories to promote other entertainment
programs. For example, CBS radio stations are already regularly promoting
developments on the television show Survivor, even on news programs. The Early Show
is at the center of CBS’s strategy is to take advantage of the surging ratings for Survivor,
especially among younger viewers (Carter, January, 2000). Furthermore, 48 Hours also
did an episode recently to report on the unseen Survivor 11 (Grossman, 2000). Prime
Time Live of ABC interviewed a gay celebrity whose show was aired on the ABC
network (Carter, April, 1997).
In order to reduce production costs, many news magazine programs on cable
networks imported stories from their conglomerate or partner broadcast networks. For
39
example, Lifetime has managed to produce its prime time news magazine by striking a
deal with the news division of one of its parent companies, ABC network. ABC News is
supplying footage for the program, Lifetime Magazine. As a result, the cost of producing
Lifetime Magazine is about one-third that of a typical broadcast network news magazine.
Probably 90% of the material that comes into ABC News never airs. ABC News footage
is also used in The Discovery Channel’s reality series, Justice Files (Brown, 1994). Arts
& Entertainment Network (A &E) helps hold down the costs of its reality programming by
exchanging footage with programming partners, including the BBC (Brown, 1994).
40
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES
Many researchers have analyzed prime-time news magazines or syndicated
tabloid journalism from the perspective of cultural studies. They focused on the
meanings and interpretations between the text and the audience in the context of culture
and society. However, this study analyzes the growth of market-driven television news
magazines from an economic perspective. It conducts a content analysis to examine the
impact of media commodiï¬cation and conglomeration on public agenda setting and the
marketplace of ideas. Research questions and hypotheses are discussed here, but speciï¬c
deï¬nitions of variables and research methods are presented in the next chapter.
A. C ommodiï¬cation of news media and public interest
1. Characteristics of news content and formats to attract audiences
According to the theory of audience commodity, different news topics are
expected to attract different “lifestyles†of audiences and sell to speciï¬c advertisers. For
example, 60 Minutes has been the leader of the traditional news magazines for over 30
years and it is good at the hard news of politics, international affairs and social justice. In
addition, since little of the population of audiences are interested in the hard news, it is
supposed that other competitors like Dateline and 20/20, would show more soft news in a
41
product differentiation approach, such as crime, health and entertainment stories, to
attract other majority of audiences. This study would ask:
Hl-l: More soft news will be found in the new competitors, such as Dateline and
20/20, than 60 Minutes.
H1-2: More soft news will be found in the tabloid journalism than the broadcast
network and cable news magazines.
In addition to the different news topics are expected to be found between 60
Minutes and Datelines, there should be similar story topics among other news magazines
too, such as within hard news of 60 Minutes [/11 and CNN network, or soft news of all
syndicated programming. This study would ask:
H1-3: 60 Minutes, 60 Minutes 1], CNN with Time, and CNN News Stand have the
similar category ranking; 48 Hours, 20/20, Dateline, and MSNBC have the similar
category ranking; the rest syndicated news magazines have the similar category ranking
too.
The features of news stories can also affect ratings and advertising. Audiences
like to watch the interviews of their favorite celebrities. If news magazines can interview
a “big†celebrity, it will generate huge ratings and advertising revenues. For example, the
ratings/share of 20/20’s interview with Monica Lewinsky were 33/50, which was three
times the 11/18 average of 20/20’5 rating/share. The 30-second advertising spot during
that interview was over $800,000, which was ï¬ve times the $160,000 average of a 20/20
advertising spot. It generated an estimated 74 million viewers and earned an estimated
$30 million for ABC (Trigoboff, 1999). This study would ask:
H1-4: The famous celebrities and well-known people take the major proportion of
featured stories among the news magazines.
42
Except for the news topics and celebrities, news magazines can use different
formats to attract audiences. For example, sexy and nude video images are frequently
used in the tabloid journalism. A hidden camera is often used in investigative journalism.
Recently, Dateline let their audience be the on-line jury involved in a crime story
investigation, which attracted audiences by allowing them participate. This study would
ask:
H1-5: 20/20 and Dateline will show signiï¬cant more sexy, nude and hidden-
camera video image than 60 Minutes [/1].
Hl-6: Syndicated tabloid news magazines will show more sexy and nude video
images than the broadcast and cable news magazines.
News magazines are supposed to do the in-depth investigative stories. However,
the producer of Dateline said that audiences like “breaking news†for sure, so news
magazines may show more stories that happened within the past week, instead of
spending months to do an investigation (PBS, 1999). In addition, except for showing the
popular duplicated stories in most programs, news magazines investigate unique news
stories and differentiate themselves from other competitors (Atwater, 1984; Bae, 2000).
Atwater (1984) described that each additional local station within a market
contributed to a community’s information pool with respect to unique news stories. Bae
(2000) also found that unique news stories could be used as product differentiation to
attract audiences. In addition, Atwater (1984) found that soft news stories were
signiï¬cantly more likely to be unique than were hard news items. Soft news stories are
often used to differentiate the local news products of competing stations. This study
would ask:
43
H1-7: 20/20, Dateline and syndicated news magazines will use more breaking
news than 60 Minutes {/11 and CNN network?
H1-8: 20/20, Dateline and syndicated news magazines will use more unique soft
stories than 60 Minutes 1/11 and CNN network?
2. Advertisipg categorization and audience commodity
To argue that the commodity of news product and audience are sold to the desired
advertisers, certain types of news contents should attract speciï¬c demographics of
audiences and advertisers. Therefore, there should be an association between news topics
and advertising types. For example, advertisements for cosmetics or grocery products
may often appear during episodes covering topics like women’s health or celebrities,
which target female audiences. This study would ask:
H2-1: 60 Minutes {/11 and CNN network have more high social-economic
advertising, such as ï¬nancial services, than other news magazines.
H2-2: 60 Minutes and 60 Minutes 11 have the similar advertising category
rankings; 48 Hours, 20/20, and Dateline have the similar advertising category rankings;
cable news magazines have the similar advertising category rankings; and syndicated
news magazines have the similar advertising category rankings.
H2-3: Those news magazines which have the same rankings of news topics
categories will also have the same rankings of advertising.
3. Marketplace of ideas and stogy topics
News sources consist of news content, and the diversity of sourcing can lead to
marketplace of ideas. Most prior research has found that white, male, govermnental
ofï¬cers dominate the news sources in traditional television newscasts. News sources are
related to the news topics. Thus if the story is about politics, most of the sources could
come from politicians. If it is a crime story, most of the news sources could come from
44
the police, lawyers, victims or suspects. How similar will the news sources be if their
story topics are similar to each other? This study would ask:
H3-1: Those news magazines which have the same rankings of story topics
categories will have the same ranking of news sources categories.
H3-1: 60 Minutes and CNN network will have more news sources from
government, professional, white and male than other news magazines?
H3-2: Syndicated news magazines will have more news sources from celebrities
than other news magazines.
B. Conglomeration of news media and public interest
1. Ownership affects the use of news sources and topics selected
In order to create efï¬ciency and synergy, the conglomerate media are expected to
use more news sources from their integrated news organizations. For example, AOL/TW
owns CNN news networks and other printed magazines, such as Time, Fortune,
Entertainment Weekly, and Sports Illustrated. Therefore, the cable news magazines
could apply news stories and sources from those printed magazines to reduce production
cost and create synergy.
In addition, the publishing industry has come to rely on strikingly symbiotic
relationships with TV programs, especially national news magazines. Most books on the
best seller lists are propelled by national TV exposure, which can triple or quadruple
sales. On the other hand, ï¬erce network competition exists for celebrity authors because
of a plethora of news magazine programs with a voracious need for material (Carvajal,
1996; Case, 1998). This study would ask:
H4-l: The conglomerate will use more news stories and sources from their
integrated or partnership media than the non-conglomerate media among news
magazines.
45
Except for using the news stories and sources from their integrated media, the
conglomerates can also promote their entertainment programming or other related
products by showing them on their news magazines. For example, 20/20 may show
stories and interview celebrities related to an ABC drama and sitcom, or CNN News
Stand may review a movie produced by Time Warner. This study would ask:
H4-2: The conglomerate will show stories related to their network entertainment
programming or other conglomeration products.
2. Reducing productiop costs affects Lbs—use of Jugws sources and topics
selected
The hottest trend in television news programming is taking previously reported
stories, adding updated material and perhaps a new title and putting them on the air
(Carter, 1998a). Several of these “new†hours are actually repackaged, with past news
stories updated to inform viewers about what has happened since the original story (Gay,
1997; Mifflin, 1999). 1
Another way to reduce production cost is to follow up a prior story and re-
broadcast a large amount of the ï¬le video after networks continuously cut their budget for
news production (McClellan, 1998). Although some of those stories may be newsworthy
to follow up, it really saves more time and money than to produce a new story from
scratch, and producers have the data to know which kinds of stories can attract audiences
(PBS, 1999).
In addition, some of the stories may be directly re-broadcasting in other
conglomerate media (Carter, 1998a; Gay, 1997; Mifflin, 1999). For example, the stories
46
on Dateline NBC can be re-airing on MSNBC’s Weekend Magazine, or the stories of
CNN with Time can be showing in CNN News Stand. This study would ask:
H5-l: More ï¬le video will be found in the conglomerate than the non-
conglomerate to reduce the production cost.
H5-2: More stories will be found in the conglomerate directly re-broadcasting in
its integrated media than the non-conglomerate.
47
CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH METHODS
This study applied content analysis to examine the influences of media
commodiï¬cation and conglomeration on public agenda setting and the marketplace of
ideas in television news magazines. Eight weeks of news magazine programs were
recorded and coded. The procedure for content analysis was derived from “Mass Media
Research†by Wimmer & Dominick (1994) and “Analyzing Media Message†by Riffe,
Lacy & F ico (1998). Details of data collection, coding scheme, statistical analysis and
reliability testing are discussed in the following segments.
A. Procedure of Data Collection
This study focuses on the analysis of network investigative news magazines
because their ratings are high, they increase to twelve-hours in prime time, and they claim
that they will uncover issues for public debate and work for public interest. However,
this study also included the cable news magazines and the syndication of tabloid
journalism for comparison of advertising and news content.
The network investigative news magazines include 60 Minutes, 60 Minutes 11, 48
Hours on CBS, four 20/20 programs on ABC and ï¬ve Dateline programs on NBC.
Cable news magazines are referred to as those news magazine formats in the all-news
networks, including CNN with Time, ï¬ve nights of CNN News Stand, and two days of
48
Weekend Magazine with Stone Philips on MSNBC. The tabloid news journalism, such as
Entertainment Tonight, Inside Edition and Extra, are shown every weekday and are
included for comparative analysis. The schedules for these programs are listed in
Appendix A.
This study recorded eight weeks of news magazine programs on network
channels, cable news channels and the syndicates from Oct. 4 to Nov. 28 in 1999, which
covered the new Fall season, instead of re-run programming. They generated 96 hours of
network news magazines, 64 hours of cable news magazines and 60 hours of syndicated
programs. Also there were over 1,400 story segments and 6,000 spots of 30-second
advertising.
The ratings data from the network, cable channels and syndicated programs were
collected from Nielsen Media Research which was compiled in the weekly issues of
Broadcasting & Cable.2 The 30-second advertising spot costs were collected from
several issues of Advertising Age. Demographic audience characteristics, such as age,
gender, education, occupation and income, were obtained from Simmons Market
Research 1997.
B. Coding Scheme
Each story is the unit of analysis and was coded according to the coding protocol
in Appendix B. Operationally, a news story is deï¬ned as “a piece reported from one
2 Although we could ï¬nd the ratings of the top 20 cable programs in Broadcasting & Cable, most of them
were sports or re-run dramas as well comedy programs. The news magazine programs on cable networks
were not available but their ratings were usually below 1.0.
49
location, or which had the same person or group of persons reporting (or being
interviewed), or which had one primary topic†(Wicks & Walker, 1993, p.103).
First, the story was coded into topic categorization. There were a total of 15 topic
categories based on earlier studies (Pew Research Center, 1999; Sutherland, 1997). They
were also divided into two subgroups in this study: “Elite Interest†and “General
Interestâ€. The “Elite Interest†subgroup included (1) “Politics/Govemmentâ€, (2)
“Economics/Businessâ€, (3) “Foreign/Diplomacyâ€, (4) “War/Defenseâ€, (5) “Social
Conflictâ€, (6) “Educationâ€, (7) “Health/Welfareâ€, (8) “Science/Technologyâ€, and (9)
“Art/Cultureâ€. The “General Interest†subgroup included (10) “Crime/Courtâ€, (11)
“Scandalâ€, (12) “Accident/Disasterâ€, (13) “Consumer Alertâ€, (14) “Entertainment/
Sportsâ€, and (15) “Other Human Interestâ€.
Then, each story was coded into different subject categories. The categories of
subjects were created to ask who or what was the major feature that appeared in the news
magazines. They were classiï¬ed as (1) “Public Policy/Societyâ€, (2) “Corporate/Productâ€,
(3) “Celebritiesâ€, (4) “Famous People†and (5) “General Publicâ€. “Celebrities†usually
means movie, television or music stars. “Famous People†are familiar to almost
everyone, such as politicians or businessmen, but exclude celebrities. Other feature
proï¬les are coded as the “General Publicâ€. If the subject of the news story is not a
feature proï¬le, then it is coded as “Public Policy/Society†or “Corporate/Productâ€. For
example, the introduction of a new medicine or a new movie is coded as
“Corporate/Productâ€. However, if the story focuses on the impact of the new medicine
on society and its public policy issues, it would be coded as “Public Policy/Societyâ€.
50
Each story was coded according to when the news happened and when the story
was produced to show on television. It was divided into (1) “Breaking news†and (2)
“Investigative newsâ€. The “Breaking news†means that the story recently happened and
was produced within one week because of audience demand or its importance. The
“Investigative news†means that the story happened at least one week ago and reporters
spent several weeks or months to investigate the story. Therefore, usually the “Breaking
news†is responded to the market or included for its news value but the “Investigative
news†is arranged by media agenda setting.
A news story was also coded according to its uniqueness: (l) “Uniqueness†and
(2) “Duplicationâ€. A unique news story refers to a news story covered by only one
program, but a duplicated news story means that it has been reported by at least two or
more news magazine programs during the eight weeks.
In addition to the news topic, subject of story, breaking report and uniqueness,
each story was also coded according to its special formats to attract an audience,
including (1) “Emotional Feelingâ€, (2) “Nudeâ€, (3) “Hidden-Camera†(4) “Live Reportâ€,
and (5) “On-line Participationâ€. A one- or two-minute news story on network evening
news programs usually was reported in an objective perspective without mixing elements
of emotional feelings. However, a ten-minute or even half-hour news story on a news
magazine was sometimes narrative like a drama and mixed with those theatrical
elements. Nude images were usually found in the syndicated journalism and were
considered a strategy to attract audiences. A hidden-camera was often used in network
investigative programs to satisfy the curiosity of the audience. Live reporting is usually
used to show breaking news and to provide the latest information to the audience.
51
Recently, with the popularity of Internet, news magazines allowed audiences to interact
with stories through on-line participation. For example, an audience could be the on-line
jury to help decide the verdict in a crime story.
Except for those characteristics of news stories to attract audiences, news stories
were examined to see whether they applied ï¬le video images to reduce production costs.
They were coded to indicate if there were video images from (1) “News Archiveâ€, (2)
“Movie/TVâ€, (3) “Book/Magazineâ€, (4) “Prior Story†and (5) “Audience-Madeâ€. They
were also coded according to how much those video images had been used: (1) Light, (2)
Medium and (3) Heavy. If the ï¬le video images took less then one-third of the program
time, it was coded as light; less than two-thirds and larger than one-third as medium; and
over two-thirds as heavy. To ask whether the news media prefer to use their
conglomerate or partnership media, each news story was coded as (l) “Conglomeratedâ€
and (2) “Non-conglomerated†from their book publishing, printed magazine, movies,
television, cable, Internet or other related products.
The news source is another unit of analysis and is deï¬ned as the individual’s
sound and image quoted in the news story. The categorization of news sources was based
on prior studies (Grade, 1999) and coded according to their institutions: (1)
“Government/Militaryâ€, (2) “Business/Analystâ€, (3) “Lawyerâ€, (4) “Police/Prosecutorâ€,
(5) “Academics/Expertâ€, (6) “Teacherâ€, (7) “Celebrity†(8) “Book Authorâ€, (9)
“Journalistâ€, (10) “Special Interest Groupâ€, (1 l) “Student/Childrenâ€, (12) “Working
Class†and (13) Middle Class. Most of the institutions of the news sources in the
“Working†and “Middle†classes were unclear as they usually appeared as a
friend/relative of the feature’s subject, or the criminal/victim. So they were also coded as
52
(1) “Friend/Relativeâ€, (2) “Criminal/Victimâ€, and (3) “Other Speciï¬c Working/Middle
Classâ€. In addition, the demographics of news sources, such as gender, race and age,
were also coded for comparison.
Each of the 30-second advertising spot was the unit of analysis and coded based
on the 18 categories3. They were divided into four major sub—groups: “Generalâ€, “High-
Techâ€, “F inance/Businessâ€, and “Program Promotionâ€. The “General†group included
(1) “Food/Restaurantâ€, (2) “Home Hardwareâ€, (3) “Apparelâ€, (4) “Personal Careâ€, (5)
“Medicine/Healthâ€, and (6) “Movie/Video/Mediaâ€. The “High-Tech†group included (7)
“Electronicsâ€, (8) “Automotiveâ€, (9) “Telecommunicationâ€, and (10) “Computer/
Internetâ€. The “Financial/Business†group included (11) “Financial Serviceâ€, (12)
“Express Mailâ€, (13) “Jewelry/Watchâ€, and (14) “Travel/Resortsâ€. The “Program
Promotion†included (15) “Network/Local†and (16) “News Magazine Itselfâ€. Finally,
(17) “Govemment/Organization†and (18) “Others†were also included.
C. Reliability Tests and Data Analysis
The basic intercoders reliability is usually measured as 2M/(N1+N2) (Wimmer &
Dominick, 1997, pp. 128-129)4. This study checked the reliability of the coding scheme
by applying Cohen ’s Kappa. Cohen’s Kappa = (fo-fc)/(N-fc), but (Po-PC) / (1 -Pc) is a
more precise reliability coefï¬cient because it incorporates a correction for the extent of
agreement expected by chance alone (Riffe et al, 1999).5 Since the sub-samples for
3 Some advertising spots are lS-second, 45-second or 60-second and are converted to the unit of a 30-
second spot.
4 Holsti’s simple agreement = 2M/(N1+N2), where M is the number of coding decisions on which two
coders agree, and N1 and N2 refer to the total number of coding decisions by the ï¬rst coder and second
coder, respectively.
5 The coefï¬cient Kappa is the proportion of chance-expected disagreements which do not occur, or the
proportion of agreement after chance agreement after chance agreement is removed from consideration:
53
reliability tests were randomly selected, standard errors of the Cohen’s coefï¬cient were
also obtained.6
For a 95 percent level of probability and an assumed 90 percent agreement
between the coders in a population size of approximately one thousand, at least 90 stories
(approximately 10 percent of the population) should be selected for intercoder reliability
testing (Riffe, Lacy & F ico, 1998, p. 127).7 Because each news magazine has different
numbers of stories and programs, in order to include stories from all programs,
systematical stratiï¬ed sampling was used. The 10 percent of stories from each news
magazine were randomly selected and a total of 130 stories were used for the reliability
test in this study.
8 Cohen ’s Kappa
All reliability coefï¬cients were within the acceptable range.
(and standard error for the coefï¬cient) was 0.87 (SE = 0.051) for news topics; 0.92 (SE =
0.023) for news subjects; 0.89 (SE = 0.046) for breaking news; 0.85 (SE = 0.043) for
news uniqueness; 0.88 (SE = 0.038) for special formats; 0.850 (SE = 0.045) for
categories of used video; 0.82 (SE = 0.064) for amount of re-used video; 0.88 (SE = 0.32)
for conglomeration; 0.96 (SE = 0.021) for advertising, and 0.91 (SE = 0.030) for news
source institution.
Cohen’s Kappa = (fo — fc) / (N — fc), where fo is the frequency of units in which coders agree, fc is the
frequency of units for which agreement is expected by chance, and N is the total number of units coded.
Kappa = (Po — Pc) / (1 — Pc), where P0 is the proportion of units in which the coders agree, and Pc is the
proportion of units for which agreement is expected by chance.
‘5 88k = \I [fo (1 — fo) / N] /(N - fc), or 88k = \/ [Po (1 — 90)] / 4 N (1 - Pc). See Cohen (1960) for details.
7 n = [(N — l)(SE)2 + PQN] / [(N — l)(SE)2 + PQ], where N = the population size (number of content units
in the study), P = the population level of agreement, Q = (l - P), n = the sample size for the reliability
check, SE = standard error of percentage level of probability.
54
Spearman Correlation
Spearman’s rank correlation was used to test the correlation between news
magazines in terms of their categorization variables. The Pearson correlation is
appropriate only for data that attain at least an interval level of measurement. Normality
is also assumed when testing hypotheses about this correlation coefï¬cient. For ordinal
data or interval data that do not satisfy the normality assumption, the Spearman’s rank
correlation coefï¬cient is available. The rank correlation coefï¬cient is the Person
correlation coefï¬cient based on the ranks of the data if there are no ties (adjustments are
made if some of the data are tied). If the original data for each variable have no ties, the
data for each variable are ï¬rst ranked, and then the Person correlation coefï¬cient between
the ranks for the two variable is computed (SPSS, pp.297).
The null hypothesis tested by the Spearman statistic is one of no association:
H0: no association between X and Y
H1: monotonic relationship between X and Y
The Spearman statistic, called the Spearman rs, is actually a Pearson r computed
on the ranks. Although rS could be computed by simply computing the Pearson r directly
on the ranks, sometimes we can use a simpler computational formula.
6213.2
rs = 1-
N (N-l) Di = rank ofX — rank on for all pairs for I from 1 to N
3 A minimum reliability coefï¬cient, as a rule of thumb, is about 90 percent when using Holsti’s formula,
and about 0.75 or above when using pi, kappa, or alpha (see Wimmer & Dominick, 1997, pp.128-129).
55
The Spearman test statistic is also the measure of association. As such, it is
strictly speaking a measure of the degree of correspondence between the ranks of the
sample observations rather than between the observations themselves. The interpretation
is, therefore, the same as Person correlation coefï¬cient except that the relationship
between ranks, and not value, is examined.
Vertical Diversity and Niche Breadth
Vertical diversity of programming was deï¬ned by the number of program formats
offered by a single program over the eight weeks and was measured by niche breadth
(NB). The index of niche breadth (NB) was constructed by the following formula:
NB = 1 / [Phi
Where Ph is the proportion of each content category h. The measure ranges from
a low of l to a high limit of the number of content categories and shows the number of
categories that a program utilizes (Dimmick, 1992; Hellman & Soramaki, 1994). For
example, ï¬ï¬een categories in the types of news stories are available. So the niche breadth
(N B) of each news magazine ranges from 1 to 15. The higher the niche breadth, the more
diversiï¬ed the types of news stories are.
56
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS
This chapter reports the results obtained from the content analysis of the
television news magazines. First, it shows the general information of news content and
advertising. Then following are the different strategies used to attract audiences and their
impacts on public agenda setting. The third part is the results of the advertising
categorization and audience demographics. The ï¬nal section explains the impact of
media ownership and commodiï¬cation on the marketplace of ideas.
A. General Information of News Content and Advertising
Table 15 shows that a total of 249 programs were recorded and 31 were missed in
this study. The news magazine programs sometimes might be replaced by special events
or movies if networks thought that those events could generate higher ratings and
advertising revenues than the scheduled news programs. In addition, since each episode
of a news magazine is independent, its schedule is flexible to change. For example, the
Major League Baseball World Series replaced two programs of Dateline NBC weekly.
Except for Dateline missing 12 scheduled programs, others usually missed one or two
programs between October 4 and November 28, 1999.
Table 16 shows that networks usually spend more time on news content and less
time on advertising than cable and syndicated programs. In the networks, 70.2%
57
(Dateline) to 76.7% (60 Minutes) of the total programming time was devoted to the
actual news content; 68.8% (CNN News Stand) to 71.0% (CNN with Time) in the cable
programs; and only 57.0% (Entertainment Tonight) to 62.0% (Extra) in the syndicated
programs. On the other hand, 23.3% (60 Minutes) to 29.8% (Dateline) of the total
programming time is devoted to advertising in the networks; 29.0% (CNN with Time) to
31.2% (CNN News Stand) in cable programs; and over 38% (Extra) to 43%
(Entertainment Tonight) in the syndicated programs.
In Table 17, most of the news magazines spent approximately 5% of program
time for the introduction and conclusion. Except for 60 Minutes and 60 Minutes 11, other
news magazines spent some time (1.2% to 9.4%) to preview their upcoming stories. This
was especially true for the syndicated programs where 7.0% to 9.4% of their program
time was spent to repeat continuously the same preview. Some of them also spent time
on quizzes, weather or small talk. Especially CNN News Stand takes 14.8% of
programming time in “sound bytes, quiz and short talkâ€. Therefore, in the syndicated
programs, only 74.2% (Entertainment Tonight) to 84.3% (Extra) of the actual program
time was devoted to news stories, and over 15.7% to 25.8% was used for introduction,
program preview and quizzes. CNN News Stand devoted only 77.5% of programming
time to news stories. Other network or cable programs usually devoted approximately
90% of time to news stories.
Except for 48 Hours and CNN News Stand, the average number of news stories of
each program was approximately 3 (2.6 to3.6) in the broadcasting and cable networks.
The syndicated programs usually had more stories even though they were only half-hour
programs: 7.6 on Entertainment Tonight, 5.2 on Inside Edition and 6.5 on Extra. 48
58
Hours devoted all of the programming time in a single topic, and CNN News Stand
usually had an average of up to 6.0 stories. Excluding 48 Hours (40.5 minutes) and CNN
News Stand (5.4 minutes), the average time of each story was 11.2 minutes (CNN with
Time) to 14.9 minutes (Dateline) on broadcast and cable networks and 1.7 minutes
(Entertainment Tonight) to 3.0 minutes (Inside Edition) on syndicated programs.
We should note that the standard deviations (SD) of story times in 20/20,
Dateline, MSNBC and CNN with Time were very large. Also, the MAX was up to 40
minutes and the MIN was as small as 2 minutes. Therefore, the time of each story in
those programs was very diversiï¬ed and there would be large skews if we used the story
as a unit of analysis. The story time should also be measured in order to do further
analysis.
In Table 18, the advertising time we measured was only referred as that time
during the programming. We did not include those before or after the programming
because we could not distinguish them from other programs. For example, the total
advertising time (17.3 minutes) for 48 Hours is calculated by the total program time (60.0
minutes) — news content time (42.7 minutes), but the average advertising time during a 48
Hours program was measured as (14.9 minutes) in this study. Most of the advertising
spots were measured in 30-second spots as a unit. So, there were on average 29.7 30-
second spots during 48 Hours in the 14.9 minutes of advertising time.
In addition, the advertising time was divided into national spots and local spots.9
The local spots may take 7.6% (CNN News Stand) to 19.7% (48 Hours or Dateline) of
9 Actually, the advertising usually is divided into (1) national, (2) regional and (3) local according to the
advertising agents. However, since we did not know whether the regional advertising belongs to (1)
national or (2) regional, we assumed the regional advertising is like the national type. The local advertising
is easier to distinguish from the national or regional type.
59
total advertising time in network and cable programs, and 100% in syndicated
programsâ€). Since the local spots are different in local communities, we only categorized
the national spots for further study (but included the local spot of the syndicated
programs for comparison). The number of national 30-second spots was from 21.2 (60
Minutes) to 26.4 (MSNBC Weekend Magazine) on broadcast and cable networks.
In addition to being sold to advertisers, the advertising spots were also used to
promote programs themselves or other network programs. The networks devoted 17.0%
(20/20) to 20.8% (60 Minutes) of the national advertising time to promote other network
programming; 4.1% (CNN News Stand) to 4.8% (CNN with Time) on the cable networks;
and 2.6 % (Entertainment Tonight) to 8.8% (Inside Edition) for the local stations. Also,
the news magazines spent 4.2% (20/20) to 1.9% (60 Minutes 11) of the national
advertising time to promote themselves; 0.4% (MSNBC Weekend Magazine) to 2.2%
(CNN with Time) on cable programs; and 0.7% (Entertainment Tonight) to 4.5% (Extra)
on the syndicated programs.
'0 Few of the advertising spots on the syndicated programs could be regional or national, but they were also
coded for local spots. The advertising of the syndicated programs are used only as an example for
comparison with broadcast and cable networks, and do not represent the syndicated advertising in other
communities.
60
08.8 $0 8 08.8 cam. _ m ..\°o.o~ .88 8&8 .58 $me 5.2 «8.2 082 85.58 8
v: w: on. S: E. 2: a: E. n: 2. 3.. o: 2:: .32 8822
:68 0.8. 3 .8: «$8 08. _ a. $08 02.8 9%. _ a $2; .x.~. _ a x»: $62 .528 $2. 8
f: 2: _.: n; 8.8 a. _ v .8 8.8 $8 68 as. 88 2:: .92 8222
082 .82 .82 ..\..8_ $8. $8. ..\..8_ $8. $8. $8. $8. 082 922:5
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 2:: 5885
SEE 9.5m 08:. 2:8me .28. ï¬ne: : SSE—2 835—2
85 82; Hm :62 zzu 5:, zzu “5383 8:28 85m 80 8 8 8
3... E8£> 58:; 220 3.222 0:2 3: 80
323.2% «Emu #5502 â€53333.5
$235.5 0:5 no woman mammmtgum can “:8on $56: no 09350qu .3 wish
.EwEok EmEEatmEm 28:. .._..m 98 3:33 Burton: :0 motoE< 9950a; 33E 3... .N
.:motom 253 :30QO Swan; 8.3.2: 05 9.58305 mo 8:83 mEEwoa 0225 BEE
Um? 8:3ch .339: .o 3:05 38% .3 Boa—Q2 333.: 29$ 5:? «305m 95 .5 one 3845 9:8on 2: mo “8:. $568 mo 8.33 2%? 2.: wet—5 .—
â€802
2 a
m _ N N o m N. m m _ _ _ 8 a mean:
onmv
R 8 8 w... w 2 8 Q a a a a u .32 386
83
8 8 8 8 w 2 8 NM 8 w w m a :29 388m
3333 me???
n m m m _ N V. v m _ _ _ 5285 8 8
SEE v55 2E... 058%.). .88. was: : 3352 8.252
«Em 8?: Eu :62 220 5.3 220 “.8383 8:23 88 80 8 8 8
3% .535 38:; zzu 0:222 2.2 U: 9.0
5336:; 03:0 {9502 â€52303.5
38? 530 E @068 mï¬ï¬‚woa 058..me $50: no 828:: 130,—. .2 £an
61
Bo 9o a... m. Wm ~.~ ..m m.~ We. mam m... We. as... be: 2.5.
Ev _.m. Qn do. 00.. m... n.~v ..Nm v.~v v.~v Ev. ï¬e. 2:: boa x<2
a... 0.. o... v.m vs 5.0 o... 9m wd m. a... N. uE: boa... am
be: 58
v.~ o... .... v.« N... .2: av. ~.~. of Wov ad. ..m_ .o 2:: aweo><
a
We Nm as 0.0 gm Wm 0N NM m. . m n 3.8: .o a uwab><
.mv~..
~v~ .3 3.. gm om ov an 5 av .. .~ .~ 3.88 .o a .2:
I'll l I l
$m.v.. $0.2 $~.v.. $0: $mwa $. do $9.9 $20 $. .No $w.vm $98 $08
mm. 02 EN. Own Ayov v.3†mam van a. .v mdv Nov :v 0:... more; .33
$6~ $m_m $N.~ $mv. $0... $9. $2. $0... $3. $9.. $0.. $~.m
l m... o... v.. .0 o... v... N... o... v.. 0... ca v.~ 3.5 :05 5 ~50
$os $.s $vd $6~ $~.. $v.~ $o.~ $m.~ $2. $8.. $0... $3.
m. m. o. I m... o.. ... N. m... a... ed o... 22:325.“.
$o.e $3. $3. $. .m $m.m $o.v $o.v $v.m $. .v $n.m $ov $..v 8.3.28
... ... v.. ..N m. 0.. ed nN a. v.. ~.~ 0.. v5 5.5255...
$8. $8. $8. $8. $8. $8. $8. $8. $8. $8. $8. $8. .558 man: .9
9». mm. .s. M... oNv Ev ..~v oNv mvv ï¬mv ovv odv 2:: .32 0352
SEE. .ESm 2:; 2.5—um: .MMF 2.6... = 8.3.2 8553.
3...". 92m... Hm. 932 220 5.3 220 9.8.8? 2:85 as... mmu wv co 8
3... 88a; 33:; 220 2.222 Unz 0.: who
323.3% 03.5 .2230: â€mango—.3...—
AmoSEEV on... no woman. 68:00 950: he owï¬zoohx. 88.81.. 6. 03a...
62
.05 .30. m: 00.50 ...:o 0.03 2.8%.... 00.00.05? 0... ..o 0.0% w:.m...0>..~ 0.... .N
$055.: 0.3. mm 8.33:. m. EEmo... .58... av w:..=.. 0:... w:.m...0>..a 08.90 0.. ..
.Am0...:.:. ...va 0:... E0800 0.30: I @055... 060. 0:... Ego... .So. 0:. .3 00.0.3.8 m. .58... mv .0 $055.: 2... 0:... w:.m.:0>..0 .So. 0... 6.8.88
5.... .w:.m...0>..0 ......mo... .3... ...... 0.0.0.. 0... 02>... .o: .....00 03 02.80.. EEwo... 0... 8...... 3:0E0m...0>..0 0... 00.50 ..5. 00.3008 ...:0 0.5 $2.... 0.... :. ..
.082
$2. $x... $3 $3. $2. $3. $. NN $~.~ $2.. $8. $62 $0.... 8%
3 w. m... N. 0.. m. Wm :8 v... a .... 3. 8852.. .23
$3 $3 $2. $8 $2 $v.o $0.. $3. $3 $3 $8.. $2 8% 8:08...
8 8 ..o No 2. ..o o... o. 2. a... v... m... :8... Esme.
$2. $3. $3 $3. $3. $3. $3.. $3. $2. $0.2 $.28 $2.: 6%
m. N. v... o. ... N. 0... o... 3 on v... a... 8.859.. 0.53.02
$8 . $8 . $8. $8. $8 . $8 . $8. $8. $8 . $8 . $8 . $8. .8. 888
a... 0,: v2 ~.v~ .2 .....N .....N 0.2 ZN a...†~..~ 0.8 8 .282... .
$8. $8. $8. $0.. $3 $0.0. $3. $0.2 $.22 $3. $5. $5 .flm
...m. 0.: v... o.~ m.†m... ..0 2 o... ...m m... a. 0:80.. on .80...0 .
8 8 $0 $v,~o $.28 $1.. $3.. $. 2. $3.. $8.. $3.. $2... 8% 880.
o o 0 NE ..NN NR .....N 0.2 ZN QR EN o2 8 .280: .o a
$8. $8. $8. $8. $8. $8. $8. $8. $8. $8. $8. $8. 503.2. Q<
...m. 0 m. ...m. Nom :2 2m 08 ..R ....N ..8 .8 .....N 880. 8.0 a .23
$68 $. .... $3. $. .8 .. $.. E $3.. $00.. $.. 8 $3.. $. ,8 $v... $0,... “£325
3 .0 .... ..m. we ...: m... 0,2 .2. 3.. ON. v.2 E32: 05:... 9.
$68 $3.. $2... $0.8 $~...~ $5: $8. $08 $2 $0.2 $0.... $3. Esme...
n. o... N. 0.... 0... mm v.~ 3 ..~ .... Na 0. 5:2: 05.2.9.
$8. $8. $8. $8 . $8 . $8. $8. $8 . $8. $8 . $8 . $8 . 0:...
v... 2. ma. 2.. ...: 2: 0.: .... m... 2. .... o... 05:58.. .20:
:o....0m. 0:05 0E. H 0:.Nnmm—2 .Soh .455: .. 8552 00.2.2
9:... 00.2.. Eu .302 220 5.3 220 83.003 05.0.5 8.8 80 ..v 8 8
>9... E0005 E02...» 27.0 0.29). Umz 0.: many
5.33.23 0.0.5 0.83.02 â€583.03....
8% .0800... cm .0 .0085: .05. 30.558. 0:... :o 0000.. m:.m....0>.00 ..o 0mS:00.0.. .088... .w. 0.0:...
63
B. Differences of Story Topics and Formats
1. Difference in news topics
Most of the niche breadths (NBS) are small, which means the news topic
proportions are not evenly distributed in the news magazines. CNN News Stand (9.45)
and 60 Minutes 11 (8.32) have larger NBS and covered most topics. Other broadcast and
cable programs, such as Dateline (6.13), 20/20 (7.13) and MSNBC (7.15), were small and
usually skewed to speciï¬c topics. The syndication programs were very focused on the
tabloid stories and their NBS were smaller: Inside Edition (4.89) and Extra (4.60). 48
Hours had single crime topics and NB = 1, and Entertainment Tonight focused on
entertainment stories with NB = 1.66.
In Table 19-1, the categorizations were divided into two subgroups, “Elite
Interest†and “General Interestâ€. The percentages of the “Elite Interest†on 60 Minutes
1/11 and the CNN network were much higher than others: 60 Minutes (81.0%), 60 Minutes
11 (66.7%), CNN with Time (75.9%) and CNN News Stand (61.9%). Other programs had
dropped Signiï¬cantly in “Elite Interestâ€: 20/20 (23.0%), Dateline (20.5%) and MSNBC
(32.6%). The percentage of “Elite Interest†of 48 Hours and the syndication programs
were very low or even zero: 48 Hours (0%), Entertainment Tonight (0%), Inside Edition
(6.0%) and Extra (3.7%).
In the subgroups of “Elite Interestâ€, 60 Minutes emphasized the topics of
“Foreign/Diplomacy†(19.0%), “Health/Welfare†(14.3%),, “Art/Culture†(14.3%),
“Politics/Govemment†(9.5%), and “Social Conflict" (9.5%). However, 60 Minutes I]
spent more topics related to “Social Conflict†(19.0%), “Health/Welfare†(14.3%) and
64
“Economics/Business†(9.5%). CNN with Time devoted more stories to
“Health/Welfare†(20.7%), “Politics/Govemment†(10.3%), “Foreign/Diplomacyâ€
(10.3%), “Social Conflict†(10.3%) and “Art/Culture†(10.3%). On the other hand, CNN
News Stand devoted many stories to “Economics/Business†(24.8%), and also had a
Signiï¬cant number of stories related to the topics of “Politics/Govemment†(8.4%) and
“Science/Technology†(8.0%).
The topic of “Health/Welfare†was the most popular on 20/20 (9.2%), Dateline
(8.2%) and MSNBC (13.0%). Besides, 20/20 also put an emphasis on
“Politics/Government†(6.9%), Dateline on “Science/Technology†(6.8%), and MSNBC
on “Education†(8.7%) and “Science/Technology†(8.7%) in the subgroup of “Elite
Interestâ€. No one story topic was related to “Economics/Businessâ€, “Foreign/
Diplomacyâ€, “War/Defense†and “Art/Culture†on 20/20, Dateline and MSNBC.
In the subgroups of “General Interestâ€, except for CNN with Time (6.9%), CNN
News Stand (5.3%) and Entertainment Tonight (5.5%), “Crime/Court†was the most
popular story topic and usually over 20% in the news magazines. Even 60 Minutes and
60 Minutes I] devoted signiï¬cant stories related to crime/court topics and 48 Hours spent
all of the stories on the single crime/court topic: 60 Minute (19.0%), 60 Minutes II
(19.0%), 20/20 (26.4%), Dateline (30.1%), MSNBC (19.6%), Inside Edition (21.4%) and
Extra (20.7%).
Except for “Crime/Courtâ€, 20/20 devoted stories evenly in other topics: “Scandalâ€
(12.6%), “Consumer Alert†(9.2%), “Entertainment/Spot†(10.3%) and “Human
Interest/Myth†(12.6%). Dateline emphasized “Accident/Disaster†(16.4%), “Consumer
Alert†(13.7%) and “Entertainment/Sports†(9.6%), and MSNBC focused on
65
“Accident/Disaster†(13.0%), “Consumer Alert†(10.9%), and “Human Interest/Mythâ€
(19.6%).
In the syndicated programs, except for “Crime/Courtâ€, “Entertainment/Sport†and
“Scandal†were the most popular topics: Entertainment Tonight (75.5% and 16.6%),
Inside Edition (30.3% and 20.9%) and Extra (32.6% and 20.7%). In addition,
“Accident/Disaster†and “Human Interest/Myth†also were found to be Signiï¬cant on
Inside Edition (11.9% and 9.0%) and Extra (7.0% and 14.0%).
In Table 19-2, if we examined the “time†of news stories, instead of the “numberâ€
, of stories, we found that most of the percentages in each category were quite similar.
However, the percentages of some categories had increased or decreased greatly because
the SD. of the stories is very large (Table 17). For example, the percentages of
“Crime/Court†had increased from (30.1%) to (53.5%) of Dateline and from (19.6%) to
(41.5%) of MSNBC. This was because their story times in “Crime/Court†were much
larger than the average story time. Actually, most of the “time†percentages of
“Crime/Court†in other news magazines had Signiï¬cantly increased from the “numberâ€
percentages, which means that the “Crime/Court†category not only had more stories but
also allocated a longer time for each story.
Table 20 Shows the Spearman’s correlation between each of the news magazines.
The highly Signiï¬cant coefï¬cients indicate the similarity of the topic rankings. For
example, 60 Minutes, 60 Minutes 11 and CNN with Time (r = 0.556 — 0.715) are in a
group; 2000, Dateline and MSNBC (r = 0.580 — 0.795) are in a group; and the three
syndicated programs, Entertainment Tonight, Inside Edition and Extra (r = 0.846 —
0.881) are in a group. However, 48 Hours is not associated with other news magazines
66
because of only focusing on the topic of “Crime/Courtâ€. In addition, Signiï¬cant
correlation (r = 0.580 — 0.800) exists between the groups of 20/20, Dateline and MSNBC
and the group of syndicated programs, because both of the groups emphasize news topics
on “General Interestsâ€.
67
ï¬gum 0322
as
3... .sï¬am
8.. <8. 302
mg? {08— .1.— egg—— ECU—hwy:
M... £8. «...... 1...}
M_.O o\eOO_ gmdn o \EoF—Efl:
. \.o cam 53:8
. n. 5 $8. i o\oco_ .xké {ac who—<5 :2...
25 me o oo— ï¬bo. t. .\ew.cm .IXBWI. .xb .xb 135.2.“Mmuum
. .\. ..8. 1.31.1 . o
we 3. o. .\.oo. .0 $35 1%.“.11 .xuo Mo â€MN... MW :..cc\a=tc
co... 8 :8. so .3 IE1 Sm“ Sm. . .x... ...... ...»... .30. .Sczsmm.
<8. \ x . an ..\.m. so .... ...... . i. so. so 1.8.... :23... “6:2
. . .. ...... $3 ..x... . .\... .xe. . . 1 e... 2:
$8. . EL e... .\.o sad. 3.... ..o... .. .3. \.8 :68 .fl. oczstacuem
i ..\.o 3 ._ . _ . . \. \oc . \ .\.n awe. 15.3:
3.3 .3 SM... :3 .\.o :3. .... . ï¬x :2. ...»... ...... 2.... ......El
1 .\ . .\. e... ...... so .\.. ... $2. .. ... s. .
saw. ...... m .... Sm... s... so... . in x... Wm â€wâ€... ..M. ......8 ......â€
Qua Sm. ...... ......o so.» swam .\.¢ ..x.~. :5 .\..o “...... . t ....
.\.~. :6. . $0.2 {one . Reed... .\.c $0 $0. So go;— .\.o «EEEEEEHmI
1.8M... N .\.o. a .\.m.m . .\& mp 1.\.c1|1 .3»... .\.N.o ..\.o. .\oo .2... Mod. www.c_m=m\mo_so=woml
.... s. N . «A... :2... s... sq ...... ...... so a... .2... 595.8%...
E N . soc .\.m. x... ..o... . ... . .~ . . . . . . 3
E3 . . N x . \. Sm :0 .\.o .\.m o :3 5N
.\ 2.. .\.o S... $5, $5 ...... g... :5... ...o s... I 3.3% ... a
. s... .x... .x... e... SN. . .x... .x... ...... so I .N
.\.o, :5; x... .\.m ...... . ..\.¢ .x.o s... ......v I .~ 85...: Sue...
k... so. so s... . ...... so so ...... I h .. 8
$2 .xh. .\.o £64 .\.n. . .xb .\.h~ av use: 33528
S... x.“ .\.c SN. . e... .\.o t. .38. ....
...... ...... so sax e... . I a at U
.\.o .xb .\.o .\ev.~ I 3. ogN 1 mm
so. s2 so 1 a 2.3.22 ......E a
.x... o $2 I e- 2...... 28.83 gt. 9.52363
$0 I can 2.3m 5.3 220 0:2 3.3.502 .
I EN 302 220 Um—Zmz
NE SEE Em
02m... ZZU
aim . Scour» «Bab
E0063?
3...
HOmflflOM—uflhm
. t _ 032.
mouuo _ a
aoumnto
one: 832 £50: .«o
05 :0 fl
.3835.
notSm mo 2
68
$833.5 more... mo :08? 05 .8 women 833 £50: mo aouantomoï¬o $2 2th
69
€2.83 ...... :8 2.. a .5088... ... 8.3.2.8 ......
......sé .2... 8... 2.. 3 2.88.8... .. 8.3.88 ..
.83 883 883 .23 .83 :83 383 .88 55 9.2.8
-- ...»... :82. 8... 8m- .88. :88. :85 ....m. .8. 3.... sum.
.83 .83 .83 6.3 :83 884 do: .83 88% SEE.
-- :3... a... 98.- .. S. :88. :8... 88. ..8.- 8w. 8.2..
.83 .23 .88 28% 83 ES 22% .83
-- .... .. 9.8 8m. .88. ...:8. 8.... 88.- .8. Hm.
55 :83 933 .83 38.8 .23 .83 293302
-- 28.- .m..- ..8. 8m- 8.. 8.. 8o. 22o
.. .3 5.3 38% A. 88 6.3 .888 as...
-- a..- :8 ... ..- E... .88. :25 a. 220
88% :88 .8: .85 £5 8.88.).
-- :88. 88. 0.... .8. 8...- 828,.
A83 83 .83 838
-- :8. 8... 88.- EN. 2.....8
.83 $3.8 83$
-- 8... 28.- EN. 38
8: em: 25:
-- 8... ...... ....
9.9%. .. 855.).
-- .83. 8
mow—~52
-- 8
.235 25,—. oeï¬aumï¬ =
EVE—em 9592 Q 3.3—00>? £3: 82:52 â€8:22
sum 8.8. .5. 220 220 0:28). 8:35 an..." a. 8 8
motowm mo $38.5: 05 :0 women :ocantowoï¬o 0&8 beam mo cots—oboe 2t Pamgoqm cm 033.
70
2. Difference in news subject
The niche breadths (NBS) of 20/20 (4.44) and Dateline (4.13) are higher than
others, which means their stories are evenly distributed across different subjects. The
smaller NBS mean that programs are more focused on speciï¬c subjects. For example, 60
Minutes (2.96) and CNN with Time (2.42) are more focused on “Society/Policy Issuesâ€.
The syndicated programs devoted a signiï¬cant proportion to “Celebritiesâ€.
Over half of the subjects in 60 Minutes (52.4%) and CNN with Time (55.2%) are
related to the “Society/Public Issuesâ€. Following are CNN News Stand (37.6%), 60
Minutes 11 (28.6%), Dateline (24.7%), 20/20 (23.0%) and MSNBC (17.4%). The
syndicated programs usually have very low percentages (<5%) related to public issues.
A signiï¬cant percentage of “Corporation/Product†in MSNBC (30.4%), Dateline
(21.9%) and 20/20 (13.8%) is present because they reported many stories related to
consumer products or new medicine. CNN News Stand showed numerous stories about
the business of corporations and new technologies, and had a very high percentage
(36.3%) in “Corporation/Productâ€. Because Entertainment Tonight introduced many
movies and TV programs, it also had high percentage (28.3%) here.
Most of them showed approximately 10%-15% of “Famous Figureâ€, which
included famous politicians, businessmen or writers, but excluded celebrities.
“Celebrities†are the most popular features in the syndication programs: Entertainment
Tonight (58.3%), Inside Edition (48.8%) and Extra (46.3%), and 20/20 (16.1%) and
Dateline (8.2%) also have signiï¬cant percentages here.
Except‘for Entertainment Tonight (2.4%) and CNN News Stand (5.8%), other
news magazines had very high percentages of stories using “General Public†as the main
71
subject: 48 Hours (85.7%), MSNBC (43.5%), 60 Minutes 11 (38.1%), Dateline (34.2%),
20/20 (33.3%), CNN with Time (31%) and 60 Minutes (19.0%). This is because most of
the “Crime/Courtâ€, “Accident/Disaster†and “Human Interest/Myth†topics are related to
the everyday life of the general public.
In Table 21-2, most of the percentages based on “time†of stories are similar to
those based on “number†of stories. However, because SD of the story times in Dateline
and MSNBC are large, their percentages of “Society/Public Issuesâ€,
“Corporation/Service†and “General Public†had changed. In the “Society/Public Issuesâ€,
Dateline had decreased from (24.7%) to (12.7%) and MSNBC had decreased from
(17.4%) to (8.6%). In the “Corporation/Product†category, Dateline lost percentage from
(21.9%) to (11.8%) and MSNBC lost percentage from (30.4%) to (16.4%). On the other
hand, Dateline had an increased percentage of “General Public†based on time from
(34.2%) to (55.1%), and MSNBC increased from (43.3%) to (67.1%). This is because
most stories related to ‘Society/Public Issues†and “Corporation/Service†on Dateline and
MSNBC are shorter, but on the other hand, the story times related to “General Publicâ€,
like “Crime/Court†or “Accident/Disaster†are usually extremely long.
72
$0.5— o\oo oo— O......co. o\oo.oo_ 3902 $062 $3.30. $0.2: $0.8— o\oo.oo_ $9.5— o\oo.oo_ Esm
....â€ch .....mwm 9% m $0.: Ramon £0. .50 ...».m cm £90.; £953. e\ow.mw 9%.? £3.90. 0:2... .3280
can NV 980.ch exec xv. fond o\oo.o o\ov.m came fave. foo. o\oo.o o\oo.c o\om.v bangou
o\om,m 98...... «ac _ _ o\oo. _m a\o_.w o\cm.m $0M. o\oo.o_ fave; o\o~.3 $.63 o8â€: 23w... .3253
...\o. .0 3w . v. «3 cm o\o~.om fee. m $3: «a: _ o\o.. N— e\oo. m 3.5 fem . v food Uncoktgcfloï¬ou
o\o__w £32m .....v _ {chem o8. ._m {cow o\°...~_ o\oo.o_ o\om.o~ food o\oo.w~ $0.3m 02%. Bizntboï¬om
_.:m N89. â€23. Comm. mémm 9on 03.: names. wdmw m.mm~ e. :N WEN 8.5.... (.0 0E: 38H
5.5%. 285 68:. 2:8me .88. Ego: : 3.252 82.52
as... 8.2. 9m. .52 226 5.3 220 28.83 8:28 8.8 Eu 8 8 ..c .58.:
3h Econ; 583.» 220 UmZmE Umz Um< mmU
guazuiw 9350 1.5502 â€5.39395
AmOHQGmEv 2.085: :0 woman wovmflzm on: ma mvfltnoso HO mozmmm USDSQ .«O owwucoouom .NnmN BDNH
«KN wwN mmN v0.†NVN EM 2 .v 33‘ SM mm. _...m ooN 5.58m 2.22
980.co— c\oo.oo_ Rococ— o\oo.oo_ $0.02 o\oo.oo_ fao ...: $98. $9.5. $5.8. 98...: 980.5— Ezm
o\o~...m «3.? ......Vm <on ..\oo. _ m o\°m.mv 30.? £33†$0.9. $5.3 o\ev.mm {exam 232332.00
«3.3 oaw .wv .....mwm o\o~.~ o\oo.o {one ......Nx o\o_ .o. 98.: $90 o\oo.o obwé b.3200
°\aw.m £3. w axon... $0.3 o\am_o_ o\av.v oxac... o\oc.~_ 9%.: o\om.2 98m... fem: 83w... 325“.
3N0 o\eo.m ......mxm o\cm.om o\ov.m {oven 9.... .N o\ow.m _ o\o~.m $99 on». v exam.» SavoiEo:EoEoU
Game face. 0.3..— o\oc...m o\om.mm $3: ...... cm o\oo.mm facsm o\oc.o $0.: o8â€. mm 03:. u.._n:n<bo.oom
482.
SN SN can oNN om ow Q. 5 3 n .N .N 8.5.: t8 .... .38.
5...: 9.8m 6E2. 058me :28. mass: = 352.2 3.252
«em. 8.8. Em. 962 22.6 5.3 220 9.8.83 8:25 .58 80 8 8 8 5.8...
35. E635 Econ; 220 “Elm: UmZ Um< mmU
5.33.3.3 03.5 2.8.3qu wean-8.23.5
:boï¬: no woman 86.3.5 05 8 83.528 :0 33mm. 233.. .«0 $8595.. ..-—N 2%...
73
3. Difference in breakingï¬nvestigative and unigueness/dupLication news
“Breaking†news means that the story happened, was produced and shown within
one week. Because CNN News Stand is designed to report the most important news in
one day, the percentage of breaking news is high (31.9%). Also, since CNN with Time is
designed to report the important news in one week, the percentage of breaking news is
also high (27.6%). Other syndicated programs usually show many headline stories
related to celebrities and also have high percentage of breaking news: Entertainment
Tonight (23.4%), Inside Edition (38.8%) and Extra (22.3%).
On the broadcast networks, 20/20 (29.9%) and Dateline (23.7%) have higher
percentages of breaking news, because they have up to four or ï¬ve programs weekly and
need more stories as ï¬ll-ins. On the other hand, 60 Minutes and 60 Minutes I] usually
devote several weeks or months to do investigative stories, and they have a lower
percentage of the breaking news. Since the stories on 48 Hours were one hour long and
related to crime/court, they were usually shown with dramatic elements and took longer
to produce. A large percentage of MSNBC stories directly copied from Dateline were
found. Usually those stories are not related to the breaking stories so MSNBC (10.3%)
did not have a high percentage here.
For syndicated programs, many stories related to celebrities or accident/disaster
are very similar and therefore the duplication of stories is high: Entertainment Tonight
(40.0%), Inside Edition (49.8%) and Extra (45.5%). CNN News Stand (27.6%) usually
reported the daily headline news stories, which were likely to have similar topics with
other news. In addition, several stories on CNN with Time were repackaged and
rebroadcast on CNN News Stand (36.7%), which made both of them present duplicated
74
stories. CNN News Stand also reported a large number of accident/disaster topics and
introduced many movie previews, which were similar to Entertainment Tonight.
The duplicated stories on 20/20 and Dateline are also high (41.4% and 31.5%)
and many of them are similar to each other or the syndicated programs. A very high
percentage of MSNBC stories (64.5%) were directly copied from Dateline. Most stories
on 60 Minutes and 60 Minutes 11 are unique, and the crime stories on 48 Hours are not
duplicates of others either. In Table 22-3, most of the percentages based on “time†of
stories are similar to those in Table 22-1 and 22-2.
75
$88. $8 8. $08. $88. ...... 8. $88. $88. .88. $88. $88. $88. 88. £8
...... . .. $8... $2.. $3... $0.... $0... .88 $2. $8.... $8.: $3 $0... 8.8.35
$2... $0.3. $2.. $88 $_ 8 $08. $8.: $2... $0.8 <88 $3.. $_ 8 88:...
......8 $88 $2. $3... $3... $88 $8.: $2. $3.8 $88. $20 $. 8 828.82..
$8.... $_ .8 $2... $8....“ $v . m $3. $...- $88 $8... $8... $2. .8... 8285
..E 28 3.... .....NN. 2.2 3.8 8... X8. â€8.. ....QN ....R 3.: 8...... ... 2.... .20..
:o.....m 23m 9E... ocï¬awn—z .. 835.).
23 8.8. Hm. 882 22... ...... 226 83.83 2......8 8.8 8.6 28: .... 8.8.2 8 8 8.8...
3.5% ..o :85... no woman 3&2 cosmosaï¬tmmocoixg .88 o>tmwumo>c<wï¬xmos ..o owï¬cooeom .m-~m 03m...
$8 8. $88. $88. $88. $0 8. $88. $88. $88. $88. 88. .88. $88. .....m
$w$ $88 $88 $58 $.Z $3... $2». $2.. $3 $2.. $8.... $2. 8.8.35
$3... $~8 $28 $2.. ......wï¬ $38 $28 $08 $2... $2.. $3... $~8 2.....5
NE .8 8.. 82 8 2. 2 S a. h .N .N 8.5.8.. .. .28
5:6,â€. 2.3m 2E... ocï¬awï¬). .. 8.352
8.5 8.8. Hm. 882 226 ...; zzo 2.8.83 M.....28 8.8 8... :8... .... 8.8.5. 8 8 8.8...
8.5% ..o ....3835 :o 383 3&9 Stagingmmocosgcn ..o owflcoobn. .N-Nm 63m...
$5: $m. ... $88 $. 8 $2. $2... $3. $. 8 $3.. $88. $28 $~8 2.8882.
$.52 $8.8 $8.8 $8. . ... $.. 2 $2.. $5 8 .88 $8... $3. $3 .8... 8.82m
5...:
N...†.8 8m 8m 8 .... m S a. h .N .N 8.8.88 .. .28
SEE 83m 2:; 8.882 .. 8.8.:
8.8. 8.8. Hm 832 226 5.3 220 83.83 85.38 8.8 86 88: .... 8.8.2 8 8 8.8...
3.. Soon; 33a; 7.7.0 0&sz DMZ Um< mmU
gauge—ram 03:0 ...—9502 maï¬a—33m
8.8% ..o $2.82... no .6683 889 o>nmwumo>=<wcflmoï¬ ..o owï¬coeon. ..-Nm 65....
76
4. Difference in special form
In Table 23, using dramatic image/music topics to raise audiences’ emotional
feelings is the most popular strategy to attract audience attention. The stories of
“Crime/Court†and “Disaster/Accident†usually mixed with these dramatic elements. For
example, 48 Hours (71.4%), 20/20 (12.6%), Dateline (23.3%), MSNBC (17.4%), and
even in 60 Minutes 11 (19.0%) exhibited these kinds of ingredients. Although Inside
Edition and Extra had many crime/court related stories, most of their stories were shown
in only two to five minutes and brought less dramatic emotional feelings.
Except for the emotional feelings, many of the syndicated stories were
accompanied with “Nude/Sex†images: Entertainment Tonight (11.0%), Inside Edition
(12.4%) and Extra (22.7%). In addition, even 20/20 ( 10.3%) and Dateline (9.6%) had
many stories related to these images.
A signiï¬cant proportion of Dateline (9.6%) and 20/20 (10.3%) news used hidden—
cameras to investigate stories. The on-line live participation is another special strategy
for Dateline to let the audience be involved in the programs (19.2%). Most of the stories
were related to “Crime/Courtâ€, and audiences pretended to be jurors and voted on—line.
Only CNN News Stand often uses “Live-Link†to report stories and to debate on-screen
(23.9%), because most of the stories were produced in one day and did not allow enough
time to be investigated.
77
.25: gm: 8050 0:53 925.... ......on 3.05m 02.: .38 8.88 088 .202
$~8 $68 $...... $. .... $...... $2: $... . .. $...... $3.. $8.8 $...... $...... 252
$.... $.... $.... $.... $...... $.... $.... .8... $.... $.... $.... $.... ...... 2..
$3 $.... $2 $... $.... $.... $3. $.... $.... $.... $.... $.... .55 2...-..0
$... $.... $8 .. $.... $.... $~.~ $3 $...... $.... $.... $.... $.... «8.5.8.8.:
$.... $... $... . . $.... $.... $2 $.... $...: $.... $.... $.... $.... 8...... 5.8882
$3 $...: $.... $. .3 $...... $...: $3. $. .2 $... . a $... . . $...... $.... 8...... .8255
g ...N ....N ..NN 8 .... E ... .... h .~ .~ ...................N “......8
SEE v.85 08:. 2:5.me .88. 8.5: = 8552 8552
.....m. 8.8. Em. 882 zzu 5.3 220 83.83 ......28 8.... 8.0 .... 8 8 5.82..
3h Eons; Econ; ZZU UmZm—z UmZ Um< mmU
ߢ_~NU_—w=%W 07—60 JHOEOZ â€Huang—wflauhm
80:06.... .08.... 3 £552: 1.2.38. .0 mocmtoï¬ï¬‚anu .mm 038,—.
78
C. Advertising Categorization
The large niche breadths (NBS) of advertising categorization means that the news
magazines can attract a wide variety of advertisers, such as 20/20 (11.01), Dateline
(10.83) and 48 Hours (9.92). The niche breadths of 60 Minutes (6.92), 60 Minutes 11
(7.76), MSNBC (5.89) and CNN programs (7.65 and 5.16) are much smaller, which
usually focus on high socioeconomic advertising, but not food or apparel. The niche
breadths of the syndication are not very large either, Entertainment Tonight (7.67), Inside
Edition (9.27), and Extra (7.05), but they focus on “General Product†advertising, which
targets the general public.
From Table 24, except for 60 Minutes and 60 Minutes 11, most of the broadcast
and syndication programs have large percentages in “General Consumer Productâ€:
Entertainment Tonight (59.3%), Inside Edition (53%), Extra (33.7%), 48 Hours (41.4%),
20/20 (36.3%) and Dateline (39.2%). On the other hand, 60 Minutes, 60 Minutes 11 and
the three cable programs have smaller percentage in the general consumer products: 60
Minutes (14.0%), 60 Minutes 11 (15.1%), MSNBC (16.5%), CNN with Time (8.3%) and
CNN Stand News (9.7%). However, “Medicine/Health†still takes a signiï¬cant
proportion in most of the programs. It should also be noted that almost no “Apparelâ€
advertising is present in cable programs and only constitutes a small percentage on 60
Minutes (0.6%) and 60 Minutes 11 (0.3%). In addition, no “Personal Care†advertising
was found in CNN programs.
Most of the “Electronics†and “Telecommunication†advertising was found in
signiï¬cant proportions in all programs. “Automotive†was the popular advertising in all
programs with most of them over 10%. In addition, the three cable news programs have
79
very large percentages in “Computer/Intemetâ€: MSNBC (32.2%), CNN with Time
(19.5%) and CNN News Stand (37.2%).
The large percentages of “Financial Service†were found on 60 Minutes (27.3%),
60 Minutes 11 (19.5%), CNN with Time (22.0%) and CNN News Stand (18.2%).
Following those are 48 Hours (10.8%), 20/20 (9.7%), MSNBC (10.6%) and Dateline
(5.3%). Only small percentages of “Financial Service†were found in syndicated
programs. In addition, the most signiï¬cant percentages of “Travel/Resorts†were found
in the cable programs: CNN with Time (13.2%), CNN News Stand (8.8%) and MSNBC
(3.7%).
Large percentages of “Network Programming Promotion†were found in
broadcasting and cable networks: 60 Minutes (18.4%), 60 Minutes 11 (20.5%), 48 Hours
(20.9%), 20/20 (17.0%), Dateline (18.0%) and MSNBC (15.4%). In addition, some of the
news magazines spend a portion of advertising time to promote their own programs:
20/20 (3.9%), Dateline (3.6%), CNN with Time (3.9%), Inside Edition (4.5%) and Extra
(4.6%). Because the program Extra was shown at midnight, a very large percentage
(27.9%) of “Adult†advertising was found and included in the “Other†category.
In Table 25, the Spearman’s correlation coefï¬cients show that 60 Minutes and 60
Minutes 11 are very similar in advertising ranking with r = 0.826. They also have
moderate relationships with the three cable programs with r = 0.538 — 0.765. The three
cable programs have high coefï¬cients with r = 0.777 —O.855. 20/20, Dateline and
MSNBC have very high coefï¬cients between them (r = 0.811 — 0.954). They also have
moderate relationships with the three syndicated programs (r = 0.518 — 0.641). The three
80
syndicated tabloids have strong relationships of advertising rankings among them (r =
0.775 —- 0.892).
Table 26 shows the percentages of advertising categorization in network, cable,
spot and syndication. The percentages of “Food/Restaurant†(23.1%, 18.2%), “Home
Hardware†(8.3%, 1 1.6%) and “Personal Care†(8.6%, 5.9%) are extremely high in both
broadcast and cable networks. However, comparing these results with Table 24, those
percentages of categories are a little smaller in network news magazines and signiï¬cantly
low in cable news magazines.
On the other hand, the percentages of “Financial and Insurance†(5.6%, 8.4%) and
“Computer and Software†(2.7%, 3.1%) are much lower in both broadcast and cable news
magazines, which means that the broadcast and cable news magazines can attract
audiences with higher socioeconomic demographics than other programs.
Table 27 shows the demographic data of audiences from Simon Marketing
Research 1997. It shows that the older audiences have a higher percentage in broadcast
and CNN network, especially for 60 Minutes. The younger audiences were found in
MSNBC and the syndication programs. Males have a higher percentage in CNN network
and females have a higher percentage in 20/20, Dateline and the syndicated programs.
The audiences of CNN programs have signiï¬cantly higher education, include more
professional managers, and earn larger incomes than audiences of other news magazines.
8]
Econ;
me
{9502 maï¬a—=8:—
moï¬newmï¬ 9.6: E5328 5 nomaantomoumo wcmmmtoza .«o owï¬eoeom .3 2pm...
82
82.5-3 .25. .3. 2.. ... sauce»: m. 5.5.280 ......
Ave—5-3 .03. 35 2: 8 ESE—Em fl noun—850 ...
883 88.. 8.8.. .33 8.3 823 $3 83.. 8%.. 883
-- .....E. :8... 83..- 8? 8...- ....3. «mm. ......m. m... 82.- «Em
88.8 8%.. 885 828 8.3 :83 88.8 883 88.. .523.
-- :3... $..- NS; 88. .88. 3... ER. So. 2...- 8.8.
8.3 :3... 82.. :88 88.. 88.. 8%.. 83..
-- Sm- 8m- 3.... ...NR. 8... .8... 8..- an..- Hm
88.. 888 883 2...... 883 8:: 8:... 293.82
-- :2... :8... N. .. 8.. «8. ...:m. :88. 220
88.. 483 84.3 8.3 883 :83 2.5
-- it. «8. ..m. 88. 8.8. :85. 8.. 220
88.. 88.8 82.8 88.. 88.. 2.882
-- ....om. .83. SA. 8%. :NS 2.2%,.
883 883 83.. 82..
-- :38. .... .... 8:. 8m. m5:33
88.. 88... 83..
-- :8... t... S... 8.8
828 4.53 ea...
-- ..S. 2.... ....
88.. = 33...:
-.. ....va. c0
mogE—Z
-- 8
2.8m 25,—. oï¬naMaE =
.353— mtoz Q 3.3—09>? 9:5: 82.52 «8:52
:3. 3.2.. Hm zzu 220 0:52 8:23 .52 a. 8 8
8.8% .«o 59:5: :0 woman :ocï¬towoï¬o 8&9 beam mo cons—obs 2t Pamgomm mm 2an
83
.30. .v .opEoï¬ow dw< w:.m.tu>:< “venom
.w:.m.to>um ..o 3.20:: 52:8 2.. :. .383.
0:: 60.8.58... 68308.. 2:0... :. 8.5.0:. 2: 8:...» 88w 0:: 82.8.. .0... 5.0 .526 Sam «mom .880 28: £20. 43.2.03 8.5.0:. :83. .N
.w:.m.to>.uu ..o £9298 0:3:8
2.. :a... 20:. $o~ 0:88 m. bomoï¬o ..oao .0 83:022. 2.. 8 £2889... wEEEEon 38428382 0030:. .o: 80.. 95.. @3828 .83 2F .. .802
e 6.8. $0.0... a code. $0.00. .So...
o .3: $3V e 6... $...: $2.5
o .0. a ....0 o .Nd $2. 20.838: :8 338m .89.
a a... o Ls. a .0... $0... :83.
o .v. . o .06. o .m... o\ .. 8.2.5:: .0 0:: EuEEo>oO
$5. $ 9N o .0.†e .a. . 883398...
$m.. $.... a .N... o N. . :08? 0:: 952
o ... n $m.0 a “v... o .00 00:88:. 0:: 3.28:.»
o .... $.... .. .. ..H o ....m 033:8 Es Esmeoo
o ...... $...: 9 ...... $9M 8.6358820...
o 8.0 $...vm e ...... $. .3 o>..oEo.=<
$0.N $...o o ....m $.... 8.88%..
$0.0 $1: a ....v $10 28282223.).
$0.2 $0. . o ....0 $v.o 6.8235202).
$0.. _ $m.. $86 $0... 030 .288:
$m. . $2. $o.m $3“ moozm>o.:mm<
$...... $...m $0.. . $2. 253.5... 28:
$. .0N $...0. $3: $. ..N Bomb Eo>um>§ESmoMEoom
838.83 >... Sam «3:0 0.3.592
835.2 ... w:.m.:o>.v< .0N 0.03.
84
.500. 0.0.383. 0:08.35. 8.50 8.300
02.8. 2.. ..0 02.0.0805. 2.. 2030:. .0: 0.0 280:. .8036... 2.... .N .00. 2. 0. 02:38 m. 8...? 60.8.2.0... .328 2.. 0. 8.802 m. x20... 2.... .. .202
NN. N0 00. .5 00 0N. 00 00 00 00 00.
$0.VN $N.0. $0.. N $. .V. $V.0_ $0.0N $0.5. $0.0. $V.0_ $0... $5.0. 80. 0:0 000.30
N0. 00 00 00 00 00. 00 .0 00 05 00.
$0.0N $0.0N $5,0N $. .0N $. .0N $. .00 $N.5N $0.0N $0.0N $0.NN $0.0N 000.000.000.05
05 00 50 NV. 00. 00 50 ... 00 00. 00. 0.0:. 05. 000.03
$0.0. H0 $0.V. $N.0N $0.0. $0.0. $0.0. $0.0. $0.N. $..0. $N.V. 2:02.. .3220:—
05 0N. 05 .0. 00. N0 0.. 0N. 0V. NON 00.
$0.0. $0.NN $V.N. $0.0N $. .VN $0.V. $0.0N $V..N $0.0N $0.00 $0.5. 02:3.
00. VV. 0N. 05 00 00 0.. V0. 00 05 00. 5qu2.00;
$N.0. $N.0. $5.0. $5.0 $5.5 $0... $0.0. $0.0. $N.0. $V.0. $0.0. .0 EoEonEED
0.. 00 N0 00 05 00. 05 00 55 00 00.
$N.5N $N..N $N.0N $N. . N $V.0. $0.0N $0.0. $0.0. $00. $. .0. $5.VN .8103 .003
00 .0. 0N. 00 .0. 0.. 00. .0. V0 V5 00. 0.00
$0.5. $0.0. $0.0N $0.0. $0.0. $5.NN $0.0. $N.0. $0.5. $0.0. $0.0. 00.28.008.560...
00 00 00. 00. N.. 00. 50 V0. 00 00. 00. ..u wag—0:05.022;
$0.0. $0.0. $0.0. $0.0N $VON $0.0. $5.5. $. .0. $0.0. $0.0. $0.0. :0000809
00 00 00 .0. 00. N0. 00 00. 00 00. 00.
$0.5. $0.V. $0.0N $0.5N $V.0N $0. . N $0.0. $N..N $5.5. $. .0N $0. . N 20:00.0 002.00
00. NN. 00. 5.. 00 0.. 00. 50 00 00. 00.
$V..N $0.VN $0..N $NON $0.0. $0..N $0.0N $. .0. $0.5. $0.0. $00. 0-. 902.00
00. V0. 00 00 00 00 .0. .0. 00. 50 00. .0080 am...
$0.0 $N..0 $0.50 $0.0... $0.0 $0.00 $V00 $5.00 $0.V0 $..50 $0.00 sou-3:00
00. 0.. 0.. 00 50 00 00. 00. 00 N0. 00.
$0.00 $0.0 $0.00 $N.0V $N.0V $0.0 $N.00 $000 $0.0V $V.00 $_ .N0 22:0“.
00 .0 00 N. . V. . .0. N0 V0 00. 50 00. p.03.
$NOV $5.00 $0.... $0.00 $0.V0 $0.0V $0.0V $. .0V $.00 $5.0... $0.5V new
.5 00. 00 00. 50. V5 ... 0.. 0N. 05. 00.
$0.VN $0.50 $0.00 $0.0.M $5.5V $5.0N $0.00 $V..V $0.0V $N..0 $0.00 +00
00. 00 00. 50. 05 V0 00. 0.. .0. 05 00.
$0.V0 $5.00 $0.V0 $N.V0 $VVN $.00 $. .N0 $N.00 $0.N0 $N.0N $0.0 0Y0».
NN. 00 00 00 V0 00. 00 .5 00 .V 00. V0.0.
$0.0V $0.—0 $0.00 $5.0. $0.5N $0.VV $0.0N $VON $5.NN $0.0. $. .00 00¢.
III-Ila 9502 25% 0:03.02 I 2:0... 855: la...
sum. 2.2. Em. 2:... 220 ....s 220 :52 2:25 2.2 .... 8 35m
3.0 Econ?» E000?» ZZU UmZmE DMZ Um< mMU
8.08.050 0.000 ...—0.507. 0:88.595
2:02.. 08 60.30800 £00838 .08 .000 00 2:2 :. 8.2.8.0088. 00:20:< ..0 000.820.. . 5N 200...
85
D. The Institution and Demographics of News Sources
The niche breadths (NBS) of 48 Hours (3.81) and Entertainment Tonight (2.32)
are extremely small because the news sources of 48 Hours skewed to “Police/Prosecutorâ€
and “Doctor/Psychologistâ€, and Entertainment Tonight skewed to “Celebrities†and
“Journalistsâ€. CNN with Time has higher NB = 8.77 and has the news sources evenly
taken from all categories except for “Celebritiesâ€.
Table 28-1 showed the percentages of institutions of news sources. The source of
“Govemment/Military†was highly represented in 60 Minutes (19.0%), 60 Minutes 11
(18.4%), and CNN with Time (14.4%). Following that are CNN News Stand (9.7%),
MSNBC (8.7%) and Dateline (8.2%). “Business/Analysts†usually appears in CNN News
Stand (18.8%), and 60 Minutes (7.6%) as well as 60 Minutes [1 (8.2%) also had
signiï¬cant sources from business.
The percentages of “Police/Prosecutor†were high in most news magazine
programs, especially in 48 Hours (23.6%), Dateline (16.0%) and MSNBC (10.5%). Other
programs also had signiï¬cant percentages of sources from police ofï¬cers and
prosecutors: 20/20 (8.9%), Inside Edition (9.1%), Extra (7.7%), 60 Minutes (7.6%) and
60 Minutes 11 (7.2%). The percentages of the “Lawyer†category were high in 60
Minutes (8.6%) and 60 Minutes 11 (6.1%) and most of other news magazines had
approximate 5.0%.
The percentages of “Doctor/Psychologist†were high in 20/20 (14.1%), MSNBC
(12.2%), 48 Hours (10.4%) and Dateline (9.9%). Inside Edition (7.0%), Extra (7.7%)
and CNN with Time (6.8%) also had signiï¬cant sources from doctors and psychologists.
Except for 48 Hours (1.9%) and CNN News Stand (1.6%), the percentages of
86
“Academics/Expert†were approximately 5.0% in most network and cable news
magazines. The percentages of “Interest Group†were signiï¬cantly high in 60 Minutes
(5.7%), 60 Minutes 11 (5.1%) and CNN with Time (5.3%).
The percentages of “Celebrity†usually were high in the syndicated programs:
Entertainment Tonight (62.6%), Inside Edition (16.7%) and Extra (16.3%). In addition,
20/20 (8.6%) and CNN News Stand (10.2%) also had signiï¬cant sources from celebrities.
The percentage of “Journalists†was very high in CNN news magazines and the
syndicated programs: CNN News Stand (28.1%), CNN with Time (15.2%), Entertainment
Tonight (16.7%), Inside Edition (11.6%) and Extra (15.7%). In addition, the percentages
of “Book Author†sources were signiï¬cantly high in the syndication programs:
Entertainment Tonight (7.8%), Inside Edition (6.1%) and Extra (6.2%).
Except for Entertainment Tonight (6.8%) and CNN News Stand (12.0%), most
news magazine programs usually had one-third to two-thirds news sources and were
categorized into “Working Class†and “Middle Classâ€. This is because most of those
news sources usually appeared as “Friends or Relatives†of the subject without speciï¬c
information so that they could not be coded into a speciï¬c category. In addition,
“Suspect/Criminal†and “Victim/Survival†sources were also found to be a signiï¬cant
percentage in most programs.
In Table 28-1, we coded the news sources without considering how long they
appeared, but the percentages in Table 28-2 were weighed with frequency.†Except for
some changes, most of the results were consistent with those of Table 28-1. The
†Originally, we tried to measure the time of each news source. However, without a special computer
program, it was almost impossible to measure the time for over three thousand news sources. Therefore,
instead of measuring time, we measured the frequency of each news sources. Because the time of each
frequency was not equal, there may be some bias in adopting this measurement. But at least this
87
percentage increased in Table 28-2 and meant that the time of news source was longer
than the average. For example, the percentage of “Government/Military†has been
increased in 60 Minutes (19.0% to 24.3%), and thepercentage of “Business/Analyst†in
60 Minutes 11 also increased (8.2% to 13.2%). The “Celebrity†percentage on 20/20
increased (8.6% to 13.6%) and “Journalist†on CNN News Stand increased too (28.1% to
33.5%).
On the other hand, the percentages decreased in Table 28-2 and meant that the
news source usually appears for a short time. For example, “Doctor/Psychologist†on 48
Hours decreased (from 10.4% to 4.1%). “Police/Prosecutor†on Dateline decreased
(16.0% to 12.7%). “Govemment/Military†on CNN with Time decreased (14.4% to
9.8%).
From Table 29, the signiï¬cantly large coefï¬cients of Spearman’s correlation
indicate that some news magazines have similar rankings of news sources. The
coefï¬cient between 60 Minutes and 60 Minutes 11 is very high (r = 0.955). The
coefï¬cients among 48 Hours, 20/20, Dateline and MSNBC are also signiï¬cant (r = 0.658
— 0.822). The coefï¬cient between Inside Edition and Extra is very high (0.950), and they
have moderate coefï¬cients with Entertainment Tonight (r = 0.560 — 0.611).
Table 30 showed the percentages of demographics of news sources. Generally,
the males appeared more often as news sources than the females did in news magazines.
Especially on 60 Minutes (75.2%), 60 Minutes II (75.6%) and CNN News Stand (75.8%),
over three-quarters of their news sources came from males. On the other hand, the
females usually appeared in the syndicated programs more frequently than in most of the
measurement tried to consider the time effect and this is the best that can be done without better
technological support.
88
network and cable news magazines. Although the percentages of “Female†were not over
50%, they were higher on the syndicated programs: Entertainment Tonight (44.7%),
Inside Edition (41.0%) and Extra (40.2%). The percentage of “Female†on 48 hours
(42.5%) was similar to the syndicated programs.
Most of the news sources came from the whites, especially for the syndicated
programs where the whites took nearly 90%: Entertainment Tonight (90.3%), Inside
Edition (93.0%) and Extra (89.9%). CNN News Stand (92.1%) also had a high
percentage of white sources. Minorities appeared more often as the news sources in 60
Minutes, 60 Minutes 11, 48 Hours and CNN with Time. The percentages of “Blacks†were
higher in 60 Minutes (13.3%), 60 Minutes 11 (20.4%), 48 Hours (12.3%) and CNN with
Time (12.9%).
The age groups of news sources were skewed to the older population in 60
Minutes, 60 Minutes II and CNN programs. In the age group over 65 years old, 60
Minutes was 6.7% and 60 Minutes 11 was 7.1%. In the age group 51 — 65 years old, 60
Minutes was 47.6%; 60 Minutes 11 (48.0%); CNN with Time (43.9%); and CNN News
Stand (45.5%). The majority of age groups in other news magazines were usually in the
36 — 50 years old category. In the syndicated programs, the age group of 21 —- 35 year
olds also had signiï¬cant proportions: Entertainment Tonight (21.8%), Inside Edition
(17.9%) and Extra (21 .4%).
89
:33;
:83;
53:5
many
3.8.5»: Mignon—:85
38:8 95: mo 303335 .«o 893:8qu 2F .Tam 033.
90
Econ;
:83;
«29.502 9.5—868.5
:25? 68.363 coca 80.38 950: we 5339.5 mo mowflaueoa 2C. .N-wm Bomb
91
.8253 .25. So 2: a 28%»; a 8:288 ....
.Asté .22 3o 2: a 255:»: a 8:228 ..
~83 88¢ 983 as: 53 A83 883 as: @3 $3
-- :53. L 8. com. :o. â€8. Law. Ev. 2m. an- N: .- ES
53 83V 9.3 843 ~83 on: Avmmfl 893 ES SEE
-- .80 0mm. â€8.- at. 8%. n8. Sm. am. a. .- 022:
at: 883 :3. 683 $3 ~23 $3 as:
-- 32.. t _. 8m. «2. m2. as. E; N2: Hm
$3 8me 833 A85 @qu GEO 3N3 253302
-- 3o. 5.- So. 87 ~25 38.- $..- 220
853 A83 A83 A33 ~33 689 25
-- «an. 2 n. 3%. «mm. can. an a. 220
A53 A83 82: 53 E 3 gamma:
-- E. :5. ram». :2. a? 8%:
A83 82: as: $3
-- :03. :88. 5. NS. 8:38
33 as; 389
-- $3. 8m. 8m. 88
~83 8:: use:
-- $4. 5.. we
82: = use:
.. 3.wa ow
855.2
-- 8
1.35 25,—. oEuamaE =
5:3 :52 a. 22.83 2.5: 82.52 82.52
23. ~22: Em 220 220 2.st 258.5 :2." a. 8 S
3:on mo 398:: cc comma 80.88 36: .«o noun—oboe on“ 958.3on am 033.
92
Econ;
Econ;
58a;
4.8502 «52.3395
82:8 950: we moEQmeoEuQ .3 055.
93
E. Conglomeration and Public Interest
Table 31 shows the percentages of news stories which used sources from other
media. News archives were found to be used heavily on CNN with Time (55.2%) and
CNN News Stand (50.0%) and moderately on other networks, but lower on the syndicated
programs. The movie and television program videos were heavily used on Entertainment
Tonight (69.7%), Inside Edition (46.3%) and Extra (40.3%), and took a signiï¬cant
proportion on 20/20 (17.2%), Dateline (12.3%) and CNN News Stand (14.2%).
Large percentages of stories on CNN with Time (48.8%), CNN News Stand
(28.8%), and the syndicated programs have included information or sources from printed
magazines or books; Entertainment Tonight (25.5%), Inside Edition (24.9%), and Extra
(35.1%). The syndicated programs applied many raw materials from print magazines,
although those magazines might not have vertical integration with the conglomerates.
People magazine of AOL/TW was the most popular one used for the syndicated
programs to select news stories. In addition, many books describing celebrities were also
found on the syndicated programs.
60 Minutes 11 (9.6%) showed several stories which followed their prior stories.
Many stories on MSNBC Weekend Magazine (54.5%) came from prior Dateline stories
and some stories on CNN News Stand (5.5%) came from CNN with Time.
Audience-made videos, which were usually about disasters or strange phenomena,
were also often found on Inside Edition (8.7%) and Extra (6.6%). In addition, Dateline,
20/20 or MSNBC have also used videos from audiences.
Except for CNN with Time (31.0%) and CNN News Stand (45.5%), other
television news magazine programs did not show much content or sources from their
94
conglomerates. Dateline (14.7%) and MSNBC (13.0%) had several stories from their
partnership with People magazine and the Discovery Channel.
The ï¬le video images were often found to be used heavily in the syndicated
programs because many of their stories were to introduce the release of movies and
programs, or the proï¬les and scandals concerning celebrities: Entertainment Tonight
(50.7%), Inside Edition (32.3%) and Extra (30.2%). To increase efï¬ciency and reduce
the production costs, CNN programs also heavily re-used video images from other
conglomerate programs, like CNan and CNN sports. In addition, 20/20 and Dateline
also have a signiï¬cant proportion of stories with re-used videos from other news archives
or entertainment programs.
95
$30 $m. _ 0 $0.: $0.00 $0.3. $3.0 $2.0. $_ .00 $0.00 $0.02 $0.3 $600 a: 33
$_ .00 $0. 0». $6 _ m $~0~ $3. $0. 2 $0.0N $2. $0.0N $0.0 $0.2 $0.2 3.: 52022
$30 $20 $600 $0.00 $3.0 $000 $0.; $0.0N $0.0. $0.0 $0.2 $00 a: 00.5
$0.00 $0.00 $20 $0.3. $0.9. $0.; $0.00 $3.0 $0.00 $00. $30 $00. 20.050.35.002
$_ .0 $0.0 $0.2 $0.00 $0.00 $0 m. $2: $60 $0.. $0 $0.0. $0 20552008
$0.2 $0.2 $~2 $0.0m $3.. $0.00 $0.00. $3.0 $0.~ $00_ $0.; $0.: 252
$0.0 $3 $_ .0 $0 $0 ......30 $60 $0.0 $0.~ $0 $0.0 $0 0%; .2850
$0.0 $4.1 $0.0 $0.0. $0 $0.3. $0.~ $3 $0.~ $0 $0.0 $0.0. 88.0.90 5:0
$_ .2 $0.40 $022 $0 .00 $0.3. $0.2 $_ .2 $5.0m $0.2 $0 $4.3 $0 u=_§w§\._oom
$0. _ 0 $0.00 $600 $3; $0.0 $2. $0.2 $~.: $0.~ $0 $0 $0.0 Z0502
$0.: $0 0. $0.0 $0.00 $30 $0.2 $0.2 $5.0m $0.2 $0 $0.0_ $0.0_ 025.0 0.302
~00~_0
SN SN 00m 0.8 0m 0.. Q 00 0.. n .m R 8:050 a .300
02:3 05% 08:. grams: .88. 0:6: : 03:52 3552
Sea. 255 Hm «.32 zzo 5.3 226 05333 3:38 098 006 0.. 00 00 .5020
3... E305 530$ 220 Umsz DMZ Um< mmU
:ozaauim 9300 ...—9592 3:03—58:
come—omen was S5356 8.5003003 303.8 .00 mowflcoouom 2.2. in 2an
96
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION
This chapter extends the discussion of results reported in Chapter 5, linking the
ï¬ndings with existing literatures and theories. Insights and guidances are used to qualify
the empirical observations and explain why they are or are not consistent with the
research questions of the study.
A. Commodification: Market Segmentation and Audience Commodity
1. Product differentiation and market segmentation
The media commodities the audiences for the advertisers by representing
“lifestyle†categories in the styles, forms and context of the programming (Jhally, 1990).
Prior studies have found that the content and presentation styles of news magazines were
distinct to attract different demographics of audiences between the traditional network
news magazines and the tabloid ones (Grabe, 1999; Russomanno and Everett, 1996). The
topics of most tabloid news magazines were related to crime/violence, sex and
accidents/disasters (Media Monitor, 1997) and the traditional news stories were still
clearly different from the tabloid ones (Russomanno and Everett, 1996).
However, several researchers comparing news topics within those network news
magazines found that some of the new programs, such as Dateline and Prime Time Live,
had more crime and entertainment stories than 60 Minutes, although hard news topics still
97
represent a signiï¬cant proportion (Committee of Concerned Journalists, 1997;
Southerland, 1997).
The small niche breadths (NBS) of news magazines also indicated that most of
them usually focused on certain news topics. For instance, 60 Minutes and 60 Minutes 11
and CNN programs emphasized the hard news of public policy; 20/20, Dateline and
MSNBC covered mostly soft news but also some hard news; and 48 Hours and the
syndicated programs devoted almost all of their stories to soft news.
However, it was also found that the proportions of hard news in several network
news magazines were signiï¬cantly reduced from those found in the 1997 studies
(Appendix B, Table E-l and Table E-2). For example, nearly 80% of stories on 20/20,
Dateline and 48 Hours were related to crime/court, scandal, accident/disaster, consumer
affair, entertainment or other human interests. Dateline had over 30.1% of stories and
53.5% of time related to crime and court, and 48 Hours contributed all stories to a single
topic — crime stories. Even 60 Minutes and 60 Minutes 11 report the largest proportion of
stories (19%) in crime/court topics and 60 Minutes [I began to broadcast more stories
related to scandal, disaster/accident and other human interests.
The generation of shows that spawned the term “tabloid television†is dying, and
tabloid news magazines have also diminished because certain kinds of tabloid-style
stories have migrated to the traditional news organizations (Mifflin, 1999 Jan). Thus, the
boundary between traditional news magazines and tabloid ones is blurring or merging
(Rupertus, 1999). The signiï¬cantly large coefï¬cients of Spearman’s correlation indicate
the similarity of news topic rankings among the news magazines, especially between the
traditional news magazines and the tabloid ones. The topic rankings of 20/20, Dateline
98
and MSNBC Magazine (r = 0.580 — 0.795) are not only similar with one another but also
with the syndicated tabloids (r = 0.580 — 0.800), like Entertainment Tonight, Inside
Edition and Extra, who have 80 % of stories in entertainment, crime/court, and scandal.
In addition to the differentiation of news topics, this study also found that a
pervasive shift toward a featurized and people-oriented approach to the news is present,
moving away from traditional straight news accounts, which is consistent with the 1997
ï¬ndings of the Committee of Concerned Journalists. This tends to make the news more
thematic and the journalist more of a story-teller and mediator than a reporter.
The use of the “big names†of celebrities and famous people is one of the best
strategies to attract audiences (PBS, 1999; Trigoboff, 1999). Although the syndicated
programs devoted almost half of their story topics to celebrities, most of them did not
actually interview those celebrities, but only re-used video images from television and
movies. The network news magazines could actually interview those famous celebrities
or other famous people. For example, during the eight weeks of coding, this study found
four 2000 Presidential candidates appearing on 60 Minutes, 20/20 and Dateline; Bruce
Willis on Dateline; and the founder of Playboy magazine on 20/20.
The producer of Dateline mentioned that audiences deï¬nitely like to watch
“breaking news†(PBS, 1999; Zoglin, 1998). This study found that “breaking newsâ€
items were popular on 20/20, Dateline, CNN News Stand, and the syndicated tabloid
programs because those programs needed more stories to ï¬ll in their daily schedules.
In order to seek topics that could attract audiences, many of the news stories had
appeared repeatedly earlier in news magazines. This study found that 20/20 and Dateline
often competed with the same stories. For example, a case where a mother made her
99
daughter sick to get attention and another case of fraud found in breast plastic surgery
were both used on 20/20 and Dateline. In addition, the crime and scandal of celebrities
were the most popular topics and none of the syndicated programs would ever miss
using them.
Several special formats that could be used to attract audiences were found in news
magazines. The nude/sexy video images were so popular in the syndicated tabloids that
they had one erotic story every day in programming (Media Monitor, 1997), and now are
moving to the prime time news magazines, like 20/20 and Dateline. For example, the
shows of Playboy magazine in 20/20 and “world’s sexiest men/women†of People
magazine in Dateline were also appearing in the syndicated programs.
Court TV on Dateline is a new format that allows audiences to become on-line
juries and thus be involved in the court decision, and more than 20.5% of such stories
were found on Court TV. Dateline NBC has teamed with MSNBC.com to make
interactive television a regular feature of the broadcast. The interactive segments focus
on issues and court cases. Viewers vote on the issues by logging on to Dateline ’s Web
site, www.dateline.msnbc.com. At the end, a ï¬nal tally of on-line votes is displayed. In
court cases, viewers can see whether their opinions match the real-life verdicts revealed
at the end of each broadcast (Johnson & Bianco, 1999).
2. Advertising differentiation and audience commodity
Television programs usually target the general public and therefore most of the
advertising is related to food/restaurant, home hardware, personal care, medicine,
automotive and movies (Television Bureau of Advertising, 2000). Comparing the
100
advertising categorization of total television with that of news magazines, this study
found that network and cable news magazines have higher percentages in “Financial
Service†and “Computer/Internet, but lower percentages in “Food/Restaurantâ€, “Home
Hardware†and “Personal Careâ€. On the other hand, the percentages of advertising
categorization in the syndicated tabloid are much more similar to that of the total
television programming.
60 Minutes, 60 Minutes 11 and CNN programs have higher percentages in
“Financial Serviceâ€; the three cable programs focused on “Computer/Internet†and
“Travel/Resortâ€; and 48 Hours, 20/20, Dateline and the syndicated programs have more
advertising in “General Productâ€, like food/restaurant, home hardware, personal care, and
movies.
The Spearman’s coefï¬cients of advertising categorization show extremely high
similarities in advertising rankings in 60 Minutes and 60 Minutes [1; highly consistent in
20/20, Dateline and 48 Hours; the cable network programs in a group; and the syndicated
programs in a group. The patterns of advertising correlation are similar to those of news
story topics, indirectly indicating an association between news content and advertising.
If the demographics data from Simon Media Research were included, it would
show that the patterns of story topics, the patterns of advertising and audience
demographics are consistent with each other. For example, for 60 Minutes, Dateline and
Extra, the story topics had gradually shifted from public debate to crime and
entertainment stories; the demographics of audiences shifted from professional managers
to the general public; and the advertising from ï¬nancial management to food, personal
care and supermarkets.
lOl
This is consistent with the ï¬ndings of some professional journals that news
magazines apply the characteristics of topics differentiation and audience segmentation to
counter-program and target special advertising (Carter, 1998a; Stroud, 1998; Miller,
1998; Weintraub, 1998). In addition, it also supported the arguments of audience
commodity that audiences are grouped by programming and sold for the targeting of
speciï¬c advertisers (Bogart, 2000; McManus, 1994; Meehan, 1984, 1986; Smythe, 1977)
B. Conglomeration for Efï¬ciency and Synergy
l. Synergy of program promotion from integrated or partnership media
For the synergy of promotion, television news magazine may select news stories
related to their conglomerate media or partnership media (Carter, 1997, 2000; Kaufman,
2000). For example, this study found that ABC’s 20/20 had a story related to Suddenly
Susan, a sitcom program on ABC. The story on 20/20 described the suicide of an actor
and used a great deal of video image from the sitcom. Dateline reported several stories
based on the headlines of People magazine, which has a partnership with Dateline. For
instance, Dateline showed a story of “Who are the top ten sexy men in the world?†with
information that came directly from the content of People magazine.
However, although this study did ï¬nd several examples where 20/20 and Dateline
promoted their conglomerate programs, the frequency was not tremendously high. The
only conglomerate that tried to create the synergy was AOL/Time Warner, which owns
Internet, cable network, broadcasting, magazine, publishing and movie industry
organizations. CNN with Time and CNN News Stand, produced by AOL/Time Warner,
were created to achieve synergy from Time, Fortune, Money, Sports Illustrated and
102
Entertainment Weekly (Cauley and Reilly, 1998; Pogrebin and Barringer, 1998). This
study found a tremendous number of news stories on CNN with Time (44.8%) and CNN
New Stand (28.8%) are from those conglomerates that produced printed magazines and
television magazines which could combine perfectly for synergy and efï¬ciency.
The television appearances of authors may coincide with book releases to
promote sales. For example, after the release on Friday of their book, The Death of
Innocence (Thomas Nelson), the Ramseys were scheduled to appear in a taped interview
on Friday night’s 20/20 and every day the next week on NBC’s Today show (Janofsky,
2000). This study found that many books’ authors appeared on the CNN network and the
syndicated programs and approximately one-quarter of the stories on every daily program
was related to a book publishing. Especially for the syndicated programs, they needed
headlines of those celebrity portrait books, which uncovered the secrets of the celebrities,
designed to attract the general public.
In addition to the synergy of news stories, the book authors or journalists of the
conglomerates may also become the major news sources for television news magazines.
For example, some books published by Time Warner may be introduced on CNN with
Time or CNN News Stand. Tom Brokaw, the anchor of NBC News, has done two
promotional stints for his new book The Greatest Generation, for which NBC owns 25%
of proï¬ts, on the Today show, NBC’s top-rated morning program, appearances on
MSNBC and CNBC cable networks, and MSNBC.com. In addition, Dateline NBC
devoted an hour of prime time to Mr. Brokaw and his book in the form of a one-hour
documentary (Rope, 1999).
103
Other news magazines without direct ownership across different media have
partnerships with other magazines, especially for the syndicated programs. In this study,
we found that at least one story in each program came from the print magazines, most of
which were People, TV Guide, US, Talk and Entertainment Weekly. Recently, Time
participated in producing reports for two programs on the ABC television network - the
20/20 news magazine and the morning program Good Morning America (Carter, January,
2000), and Dateline had a partnership with People magazine which has provided headline
stories since 1998.
2. Cost efficiency by importigg stories or video from integrated media
Except for the synergy of using stories from their conglomerates or partner media,
the direct way for programs to reduce production costs is to import video images from
their conglomerates. Three levels are applied to ï¬le video: (1) partly adding used video
images as news sources or evidences to support the story; (2) producing a follow-up story
by re-broadcasting part of the prior story; and (3) directly importing the whole story from
their other conglomerate programs.
The hottest trend in television news programming is taking previously reported
stories, adding updated material and perhaps a new title and then putting them back on
the air (Carter, 1998b). For example, one of MSNBC’s signature show was a nightly
program called Time and Again, which basically recycled NBC News footage (Gay,
1997)
For television news magazines, indoor interviews may constitute most of the
production process, and are not expensive to produce. However, except for the
104
interviews, news magazines still need a great deal of video images to match virtually the
narrative of reporters, and producing those videos may be costly. Therefore, if news
magazine programs could supply part of their video images from their conglomerate
media’s news or program archives, they could save much in time and money.
This study found that except for CBS, news magazines frequently add used video
images to narrate the story, especially in the syndicated and cable programs. For
example, many stories on 20/20, Dateline, and the syndicated programs were related to
entertainment celebrities and they used many video images from movies or television
programs. Entertainment Tonight introduced many newly released movies or television
programs, and you could watch those videos in almost the whole story’s time slot.
The second situation of applying used video is to present follow-up stories.
Several of these “new†hours are actually re-packagings, with past news stories updated
to inform viewers about what has happened since the original story. For example, 48
Hours: Monday Mysteries earned such solid Nielsen ratings in the summer of 1998, its
debut season, that CBS executives asked CBS News if there was anything else that could
be done with the genre. The result is 48 Hours: Tuesday Adventures, which will revisit
adventure stories from various past CBS News programs, not just from 48 Hours itself
(Mifflin, 1999b).
Usually the prior video takes at least one-third or sometimes even half the time of
the total program. For example, in this study 60 Minutes 11 has two stories that were the
follow-up of the 21 ones, Dateline and 20/20 have approximately ï¬ve follow-up stories
each, and the syndicated programs usually have one follow-up story in every daily
program.
105
The last strategy employed by television news magazines to reduce production
costs is to completely import stories and videos from their conglomerate media. For
example, NBC’s business model makes sense for news. By embracing cable, it is able to
share resources and amortize costs across NBC News, CNBC, and MSNBC (Gunther,
1999 Feb). A extremely high percentage of stories of MSNBC Weekend Magazine were
taken directly from the prior stories on Dateline NBC. CNN News Stand also imports
some stories from prior CNN With Time episodes, or the syndicated programs apply some
stories from the network news magazines. For example, the story of the Playboy founder
used by 20/20 was broadcast on both Inside Edition and Extra.
C. Impacts on Public Agenda-Setting and Marketplace of Ideas
1. Ratings competition and tabloidism on news topics and agenda
Prior researchers found that news magazines used a “minute-by-minute†rating
monitor to analyze which topics and dramatic elements can attract audiences (PBS, 1999;
Sawyer, 1998). Almost everyone in magazine-land agrees that the “good†stories are
consumer rip-offs, miscarriages of justice, “tear†tales of people victimized by bad
doctors or trampled on by insensitive government agencies (Time, 1993). This study
found that the most popular agendas in news magazines were related to crime, scandal,
health, consumer alerts, disasters and celebrities, which is consistent with prior studies.
The phenomenon of merging news and entertainment is the result of market‘
driven journalism. The public’s “interestâ€, or the ratings number, decides what news
agendas and topics should be. As audiences considered crime and health related stories
to be the most interesting topics (Pew Research Center, 1996, 1998), this study did ï¬nd
106
that crime and health/welfare related stories were the top two topic categorizations in
almost all programs.
Since up to four 20/20 and ï¬ve Dateline showings are presented weekly,
producers of news magazines are hard-pressed to ï¬nd new subject matter. A lawsuit can
offer all the elements of a made-for-TV drama, with suffering victims and big business
playing the stereotypical villain (Stewart, 2001). Although the crime rates have actually
decreased in the past few years, this study found that the percentage of crime stories
dramatically increased in all programs (Media Monitor, 2000). For example, 48 Hours
devoted all of their stories to crime topics. Also, Dateline showed over 51% of story time
in crime/court stories accompanied with audience on-line participation.
Crime and other soft news are not only popular in the traditional and tabloid news
magazines, but also in the national and local newscasts. According to a study by the
Center for Media and Public Affairs, crime news on network evening newscasts has
tripled since 1993, at a time when homicide rates nationwide are dropping (McClellan,
1997). A survey of 100 local station newscasts found that 72% of those newscasts led
with stories about crime and violence (McClellan, 1997). The study found that 42.6% of
all stories monitored that evening addressed one of four violent topics - crime, disasters,
war and terrorism. Another 32.7% of the monitored news content that evening was
consumed by what the survey calls “fluff and trivialityâ€, including story teasers, other
chitchat, soft news and celebrity stories. At the same time, the survey found that
reporting about education, the environment and other important social issues “was almost
invisibleâ€.
107
Except for the crime stories, consumer alarm stories can also attract audience’s
attention and were another popular topic on Dateline and 20/20. News magazines might
provide in-depth reporting and helpful information about consumer products, but they
also regularly (as much as 40% of the time) report alarming stories unfairly (Jensen, et al,
1998). They stated that when it comes to consumer reporting, “If you scare them, they
will watch†could be a slogan for news magazines shows. The same topics of car testing,
insurance fraud, and doctors or diet drugs continuously appeared on 20/20, Dateline and
MSNBC. For example, in the past three years over 50 stories related to car safety were
found in the news magazines.
In addition, many of these alarming consumer reports were accompanied with
hidden camera footage. The growing use of hidden cameras by TV news magazine
shows, including Prime Time Live, 20/20 and Dateline, is part of a ratings-driven descent
by the major networks into the swamp of tabloid journalism. Teaser promos for the
programs hype concealed-camera feats to snag viewers who like to watch people who do
not know they are being watched (Starobin, 1997).
This study also found that a large percentage of news stories on 20/20, Dateline
and the syndicated programs happened in one week, which means the stories have to be
produced in a short time and are based on the audience interests as well as being timely.
Most stories on 60 Minutes, 60 Minutes 11 and CNN with Time were not produced in one
week, and most usually took several months to do the investigative stories. Thus,
producers can make their own decisions to select stories and create a public agenda.
However, news departments are just another program supplier that must compete
for prime-time ratings against the enormous lobbying efforts of the Hollywood studios
108
and the networks’ own entertainment production companies. It is the network
entertainment presidents who decide what type of programming will air in prime time.
The fact is that the networks are entertainment companies (Consoli, 1998). That is not
news; that is ï¬ller. If NBC found ï¬ve more Seinfelds, there would be two or three fewer
Datelines on the air (Zoglin, 1998)
Everything on TV is based on the ability to deliver an audience that the
advertisers want. News magazines are analyzed the same way as entertainment
programming. Right now, an appetite is evident for this type of programming (Consoli,
1998). But if viewers are starved for news, the prime time fare provides a limited diet.
Competing for an audience against shows like LA Law and Quantum Leap, these
programs face demands that nightly news shows do not. A prime time news magazine
has no obligation to cover the “important†news; its goal is simply to win enough viewers
to survive. Thus, these shows gravitate toward the same crowd-pleasing subjects: sex,
crime, consumer rip-offs, health news, and human-interest weepers. Important, but more
remote issues — the budget deï¬cit, education policy, the workings of Congress — are
either ignored or reduced to small-scale “people†stories (Zoglin, 1992).
A news magazine like 60 Minutes tends to attract males with higher
socioeconomic status. This is appealing to advertisers such as investment companies
(Merrill Lynch, for example) and luxury car companies (Weintraub, 1998). So why don’t
Dateline and 20/20 devote their stories to hard news and thus attract the similar audiences
and advertisers? As the Television Bureau of Advertising shows (2000), most of the
television advertising is targeting general audiences and is related to food, supermarkets,
personal care, home hardware, movies, automobiles, and telecommunication. Instead of
109
competing for the niche audience with 60 Minutes, this study found that 20/20 and
Dateline focused more on the general public and advertising. They might cover a few of
the hard news stories, but most are related to crime and entertainment news.
In addition to the preference of audiences and advertisers affecting the news
agenda, both the traditional and tabloid news shows’ producers rely heavily on outside
groups for assistance (Paige, 1998). Both of them use free-lance ï¬eld crews and it is not
uncommon for those crews to alternate work between news magazines and tabloid shows
(Dewerth-Pallmeyer and Hirsch, 1994).
The tabloid shows are much more reliant on local newspaper stories than are the
national news magazines. That ï¬ts with their focus to try to identify with people and
show them that extraordinary things can happen to ordinary people (Dewerth-Pallmeyer
and Hirsch, 1994).
Clearly the content of these various genres differ. Tabloid shows surely feature
more titillation and demonstrate sensationalistic approaches that would not ï¬t in news
magazines. Still, the similarities on occupational, organizational and interorganizational
levels are striking. Therefore, it is not surprising when, at times, the content and the
forms that used to separate the genres begins to blur. When the differing programs are
owned by similar conglomerations, when they utilize the same ï¬eld crews, when they
both appeal to similar audiences, it only makes sense that they will begin to share
journalistic or non-joumalist traditions (Dewerth-Pallmeyer and Hirsch, 1994).
Except for 60 Minutes still doing some serious news stories, critics argued that
other news magazines, like 20/20, Prime Time and Dateline, forgot the important national
agenda and focused on the entertainment and tabloid stories (Cohen, 1997). Overall,
110
compared to 60 Minutes, 20/20 and Dateline did provide more differential stories.
However, most of those stories were produced based on audience interests and were used
to compete with other entertainment programs. As more and more stories on 20/20 and
Dateline were found to have similar topics with Entertainment Tonight, Inside Edition
and Extra, they maybe should be considered as entertainment programs instead of “newsâ€
magazines.
“What the news business really needs is a good disaster,†former PBS news
anchor Robert MacNeil recently suggested to CNN’s Larry King. “1 see a downward
spiral in a whirlpool until there is some almighty crisis in this countryâ€. But in a world
where bad news is good news, and no news is worse, the competition between news
magazines to make mountains out of molehills remains ï¬erce (Paige, 1998).
2. Syneggy/efficiengy, audience commodity and marketplace of ideas
Except for the skews of sensationalism, the ownership or partnership of the
conglomerates could also affect the selection of stories. To reduce production costs and
cross promotion, news magazines of the conglomerate media restrict the diversity of
topics by selecting news topics from printed integrated media or importing stories
directly from other integrated television programming.
To work for corporate synergies, CNN with Time and CNN News Stand have
worked with Time, Fortune, Money and Entertainment Weekly of AOL/Time Warner
printed magazines. This study found the cable programs applied the stories and sources
directly from their conglomerate magazines. Dateline and People magazine made a
partnership deal. People magazine would offer stories for Dateline and People staffers
111
would appear on Dateline news programs (Johnson, 1998). Dateline showed a 2-hour
special on March 1, 1998 to celebrate People magazine’s 25th anniversary (Granatstein,
1998). This study found that several People headlines and content were broadcast on
Dateline too.
The history of recent mergers suggests that when media companies synergize
their brands, they do not add to them. They “dilute†them. They are in some ways
contradictory values (Rosenstiel and Kovach, 2000). As news and entertainment merge,
and television and magazines work together, critics should not expect that the converged
prime-time television news magazines could accomplish their promise of serving the
public interest.
For an entertainment company with a news division, synergy presents a particular
problem — how should such a company cover stories about itself? Where the value of a
product lies in its independence, synergy can damage it (Duncan, 1998). However, in
some ways the idea of conflict of interest may itself become antiquated. The
interdependencies inside AOL/Time Warner will be so myriad that any claim by its
journalists to independence — and therefore worries about conflicts — may no longer be
realistic. The problem is in covering not just AOL, but all of the Web, e-commerce,
entertainment, cable, telecommunication and on and on.
News sources supplying of the “content of newsâ€, and the diversity of sourcing is
the fundamental core of the marketplace of ideas. This study found that the patterns of
Spearman’s coefï¬cients of news sources were consistent with those of news story topics,
indicating that the news sources usually were correlated with the story topics. For
example, “Police/Prosecutor†and “Lawyer†were usually found in “Crime/Courtâ€,
112
“Government Ofï¬cer†was found in “Politics/Governmentâ€, and “Celebrities†were
found in “Entertainmentâ€. Therefore, a diversity of story topics can project a diversity of
news sourcing.
However, this study also found several exceptions where the Spearman’s
correlation of news topics did not match with that of news sources, for example, the
group of 20/20, Dateline and MSNBC Magazines, and the group of the syndicated
tabloids; or the group of 60 Minutes and 60 Minutes 11, and the group of CNN programs.
The major difference is that large percentages of news sources in both the syndicated
tabloid and CNN programs come from journalists or book authors.
Grabe et a1 (1999) compared news sources of Hard Copy and 60 Minutes. They
found that compared to traditional news media, a smaller portion (10.2%) of 60 Minutes
sources are afï¬liated with government positions, but the elite groups still take 41.3%. On
the other hand, Hard Copy gives voices to those on the periphery of socioeconomic
power by using more members of the working class, women, young people and those
without graduate degrees as news sources. However, the qualitative nature of ordinary
people’s appearances in tabloid news needs further systematic investigation, for tabloid
critics point out, tabloid news often makes a spectacle of those who appear in their
stories.
Compared with the Grabe’s et a1 (1999) analysis of 60 Minutes and Hard Copy,
this study found similar results, in that the elite dominate news sources of 60 Minutes and
the working people make up a signiï¬cant portion on Hard Copy. They revealed striking
differences between tabloid and traditional news magazine sourcing patterns. By
comparing Spearman’s coefï¬cients, this study conï¬rms the distinct difference of news
113
sourcing between traditional and tabloid news magazines. However, except for 60
Minutes and 60 Minutes II, the difference seems to be getting smaller.
The major goal of democratic societies is citizen participation in the political
process. Thus an actively involved public is considered one of the foundations of
democracy. Citizen participation in public discussion is an essential element in the
process of deï¬ning societal goals. While striving for autonomy, these organizations are
under constant pressure of capital and political powers (Splichal, 1998).
114
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION
Journalism has been criticized for being market-driven for a long time and many
studies have applied the theories of commodiï¬cation and conglomeration to analyze the
content and market structure of news media. However, no prior study applies those
theories to examine the rising marketplace of the television news magazines. Most of the
researchers analyzed news magazines from the perspective of cultural studies.
As news magazines dominate prime-time programming for economic reasons, this
study examines the trends of their ratings and advertising, conducts a content analysis,
and applies the theories of the market structure and audience commodity to examine their
impacts on public interest. Moreover, it provides empirical quantitative data to
compensate for the qualitative research of cultural studies and helps us to understand the
economic rationales behind broadcast network programming strategies in the converging
digital media age.
Summary
Don Hewitt, 60 Minutes executive producer, said “Behind every news magazineâ€
— with a couple of exceptions, notably one show with a ticking stopwatch —- “there is a
failed sitcomâ€. “If that sitcom hadn’t failed, that news magazine would not be thereâ€
(Sawyer, 1998). Schedule friendly, time-flexible and cheap to produce, news magazines
115
have recently been the networks’ genre of choice to cover lineup holes left by failed
entertainment programming (Bernstein, 2000).
Based on the economic rationales, this study reviews the marketplace of the
ratings and advertising revenues of television news magazines, helping academics and
professionals to understand their pervasiveness in prime time. Compared with prior
research (Appendix E), this study ï¬nds that the competition of the 12-hour prime time
news magazines results in more tabloid topics and formats, especially in 48 Hours, 20/20
and Dateline.
The story topic rankings between several news magazines were signiï¬cantly
similar, and those patterns were also found to be consistent with advertising and audience
demographics. This indirectly supports the theory of audience commodity that networks
use news content to attract certain “lifestyles†of audiences and sell them to the desired
advertisers.
Finally, the conglomerates may apply news topics and news sources from their
integrated media, especially for those that have vertical integration 'of television and
printed magazines, such as AOL/Time Warner. However, for other network news
magazines, like 60 Minutes of CBS, few stories are related to its conglomerate Viacom
but Dateline of NBC had showed several stories related to its partnership media of
People magazine, Discovery and Animal Plant.
Implications to Media Policies and Theories
In the 2000-2001 season, only 60 Minutes remained in top 15 weekly Nielsen
ratings, and the others were the reality programs, game shows and several hit dramas and
116
sitcoms. For example, seven of the top 15 ratings of 2001 season are the reality shows
such as Survivors 11, Big Brother and CS1 (CBS), and four copies of the game show Who
Wants to a Millionaire (ABC). With the re-emergence of drama and reality TV craze
hitting it big in the 2000 season, the number of hours devoted to news magazines has
shrunk to 9-hours weekly. However news magazine staffs have remained largely intact,
leaving the news divisions ready and willing to lend a hand if need be (Flint, 2000).
The phenomenon is consistent with what Don Hewitt, 60 Minutes executive
producer, said “That behind every news magazine, there is a failed sitcom and if that
sitcom hadn’t failed, that news magazine would not be thereâ€. Now networks ï¬nd that
reality and game shows are more easily to produce and attract desired audiences, then the
number of television news magazines programs shrink. The decreasing of news
magazine programs is not because few good news stories are available, but simply
because other substitutions can perform better in attracting audience and advertising than
news magazines can.
The results of this study suggest that the increasing of news magazine programs is
only marketing strategy of broadcasting networks. While other types of programming,
such as reality or game shows, can attract the majority of audiences and advertising,
networks will change their strategies to those programming.
This study found that the patterns of the Spearman’s correlation rhos in story
topics, advertising types and institutions of news sources were similar. That is, news
topics and audience demographics were co-related to advertising, and that news sources
were co-related to news topics. As the competition for ratings and advertising becomes
more severe, the news topics will focus more on the “big names†of celebrities and other
117
famous features, which usually can generate high ratings and more advertising revenues.
Furthermore, ordinary people could still often appear in videos about the topics of crime,
court, disaster and accidents. The merging of news and the entertainment genre in the
prime time, which has been incorporated with the business strategies, has made it almost
impossible for network news magazines’ to keep their promise of acting as a watch dog
to uncover issues for public debate.
In addition, this study also found that conglomerated media might use news
stories and news sources from their vertical and horizontal conglomeration. Furthermore,
as the conglomerates become bigger and spread across different media, it should be
notice that the marketplace of ideas might become the mono-dialogue of this
conglomerate media. For example, as the merger of AOL and Time Warner occurs, it is
expected that more Time Warner programs or magazines will take an advantageous
position in the platform of AOL. In addition, as news magazines expand to weekly
programs, more news partnerships will come from other cable networks and print
magazines. For example, some stories for the ï¬ve weekly episodes of Dateline come
from the Discovery Channel and People magazine.
Limitations of Study
Although this study did provide quantitative data and evidence to support research
hypotheses and questions, several limitations are evident. First, without prior
programming video, this study only did the content analysis for the current market
structure. Although it compares the news topics and sources with prior research, it could
not analyze the changes in advertising in different market structures. For example, if the
118
CNN network was not owned by Time Warner, there might be less news sourcing from
Time, Fortune and Money magazines. In addition, there might have been a different
format and topics for Dateline when it was a weekly program, whereas now it is aired
ï¬ve nights a week. Therefore, this study can be a good benchmark for future study as the
market structure changes.
Secondly, in order to compare the relationships among advertising, news content
and audience, this study included all news magazine programs of broadcast, cable and
syndicated organizations and coded eight weeks of programming. For those weekday
programs, like CNN News Stand or Inside Edition, they generated 40 programs and over
120 stories, which is sufï¬cient to represent the population. However, for the weekly
programs, like 60 Minutes or 48 Hours, the eight programs and 24 stories included might
not completely represent the population as they should because the errors in each story
could have a signiï¬cant effect.
Overall, to ï¬nd the effect of conglomeration, all news programs of the
conglomerated media need to be analyzed. However, this study only examines the news
magazines during an eight-week span. Many of the duplicated stories might come from
outside of the news magazine and before the eight-week period. For example, some
stories from CNN with Time were found in CNN News Stand. Therefore, if we could
code other programs of CNN networks, we might ï¬nd more news directly imported from
other integrated news programs. In addition, many stories from MSNBC Weekend
Magazines were found to be directly from Dateline. However, since we only coded the
news program for eight weeks, it is possible that more unduplicated new stories may have
been duplicated if we checked Dateline before the eight-week period.
119
Future Research
This study compared the relationship among news topics, advertising and
audience demographics. The basic data for audience came from the Simmons Market
Research. The percentages of audience demographics in different programs were found,
but individuals and their relationships with programs were unknown. Therefore, if a
survey from the perspective of audiences were conducted, we could have understood
what rationales are used by audiences to choose among the different news magazines, and
then conduct more complicated measurement between variables. For example, we may
ask, What characteristics of news stories attract various audiences? What are their
“lifestyles†in terms of advertising categories? And we could apply regression model or
factor analysis to test other speciï¬c hypotheses.
For analyzing the problem of duplicating ï¬le images from the conglomerates, the
future study should do at least a six-month study of all a conglomerate’s integrated news
programs. For example, if all of the CNN programs were analyzed, we might have found
that only a few stories were made originally for CNN News Stand. Then if we extended
the data to six months for the analysis of Dateline NBC and MSNBC, we might ï¬nd that
nearly all programs of the MSNBC’s Weekend Magazine came from Dateline NBC.
In the society of information superhighway, information can be duplicated or re-
packaged in different formats, such as text, graph, data, voice and video. Therefore, in
the convergence of Internet society, audiences are able to search for information of audio,
video and graphics (news, entertainment or everything) and buy product from online
immediately. To test the theories of commodiï¬cation and conglomeration, it would be
120
interesting to conduct a content analysis of online web news stories and advertising in the
future.
.56 8 58 Eat Eustaï¬ 2m £5:on 6886:? 05 no 8162.8 och .88
:meo_2 9:an 05 Set 29:88 5 Eco 2m 6th :5 $2.8m mugs .«H mt SMEï¬ EmEEetmEm .mEEon 38065? 2: mo 8:628 2:. .N
.3282 295 2:8on mo 8.83 Ewï¬ :5 .32 .mm ..onEoSZ 2 v .3080 Eat 3:88.. 203 moENawaE £502 ._ “Bo Z
2< comm I om;
mbxm abxm mbxm abxm abxm
muse: av
23m 2% 29m 25m 23m
@502 220 @502 220 £502 220 9502 220 m>32 220 SE co; _ I cox:
oQoN oNBN omBm umz 05.850 omz 228:0
25 5.3 E6
.82 2383 .82 2.8.83 2: 8;: I 85
UmZmE UmZmE UmZ 2:6:5 = 8552 cc
2m 85 I coma
omZ 3:030 oQom
SE a?» I omï¬
omz 2:3qu .....m .._..m gum gum Qum—
8552 8 828 022: Exam 8.2: .828 022; 836m 8?: 826m 8%: 2.: can I 8s
mac—Sm , . 53.52% ans—um:— haemnsah. huge—.33 haemozh Ina—E32 8.5%—EH.
moENmmmE .9562 53323. mo Esconom 3.. 5.5254.‘
122
Appendix B: Coding Protocol
Television news magazines are deï¬ned as programs containing a series of segments
bound with a common program framework. They include the network investigating news
magazines, the tabloid journalism, and the cable news magazines. The network and cable
news magazine programs originally showed in one-hour weekly segments, but now some
of them are shown daily. Three or four segments are in a show with approximately 10 to
15 minutes for each segment. The syndicated programs usually show in a half-hour
weekday episode with 4 to 5 segments and each segment usually lasts less than 5
minutes.
11.
The network investigating news programming includes 60 Minutes, 60 Minutes 11, 48
Hours, 20/20 and Dateline NBC.
Cable news magazines include CNN with Time, CNN News Stand, and Weekend
Magazine with Stone Philips on MSNBC.
The syndicated tabloid news format aims for audience’s emotional response and
disregards conventional notions of journalistic objectivity, including Entertainment
Tonight, Inside Edition, and Extra.
News Story Topics
1. Government/Politics: election, congress, legislative process, public policies
2. Business/Economics: bank, commerce, stock market, employment, prices
3. Foreign/Diplomacy: foreign policies, international relationship
4. War/Defense: conflict between countries, national defense
5. Social Conflict: conflict and controversy between social groups, such as abortion
6. Education: school activity, family discipline.
7. Health/Welfare: public health, diseases, cures, social welfare
8. Science/Technology/Computer: development of new product, natural science
9. Culture/Art: classic and popular art, i.e. music, drawing, and festival
10. Crime/Court: trials, civil suits, murders, assaults, prosecution, robberies
ll. Scandal: Government corruption etc.
12. Accident/Disaster: natural disasters, i.e. floods, tornadoes, earthquake
13. Consumer Alert: problem product damaged to consumers
14. Entertainment/Sport: movie or TV stars’ everyday life: suicide, sex life, clothing
15. Other human interest/Myth: unexplained myth.
Examples of People Categories for Stories
.V'PPNT“
Society/public policy: national defense, social welfare
Corporation/service: company merger, movie introduction
Celebrities: movie and TV actor/actress
Other famous people: politician
General public: ordinary people
III. News formats and techniques
1. Emotion
2. Nude
3. Hidden—Camera
4. Live report
5. On-line participation
IV. Breaking vs. Investigative
1. Breaking: news happens within one week
2. Investigative: news that happened least one week before
V. Duplicated vs. Unique
1. Duplicated: any story appearing on two or more programs. Duplicated stories
cover basically the same news events, but content may be somewhat different in
details.
2. Unique/Differentiation: any story covered by only one program.
VI. News stories using conglomerate media material
Books
Magazines
Movie
Network entertainment programs
Network news or cable news
MPPNT‘
VII. How news stories apply used video material
. Light: less than 1/3 of used video
. Medium: less than 2/3 but more than 1/3 of used video
3. Heavy: more than 2/3 of used video
Nu—n
VIII. Examples of Institution Afï¬liation
Government: federal, state, city officials
Business Professions: employer in bank, business
Non-business Professionals: doctor, lawyer, teacher
Academics: college professor etc
Celebrities: singer, movie & TV actor/actress
Journalists: TV reporter, magazine editor
Special-Interest Group: anti-smoking, anti-abortion
Middle-class people: staff, small store owner
. Working-class People: cab driver, construction worker
10. Housewives
11. Students
098999939?
[24
IX.
09°89‘P‘PP’N!‘
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Product Examples of Advertising Categorization
F ood/Restaurant: McDonald; Wendy’s, Meijer; Wal-Mart; Kmart
Home hardware & Furniture
Personal Care: Oreal; Revlon
Medicine: Advil,
Movie/Media
Automotive: GM; Ford; Toyota
Electronics Stores: Best Buy; Circuit City
Telecommunication: AT&T; MCI
Computers/Internet: IBM; DELL; Microsoft, Apple
Financial & Investment, Insurance: AE; Visa; Merrill Lynch
Express Mail
Jewelry & Watches
Travel, Hotel, Airplane and Car-rental
Movie & Media: Time Warner, Viacom
Government & Organization: US Government; American Cancer Organization
Others: not belong to above categories
Network Promotion: NBC; ABC; CBS
Program Promotion
125
Appendix C: Story Coding Sheet
l. Programming ID:
I. 60 Minutes ( )
2. 60 Minutes II ( )
3. 48 Hours ( )
4. 20/20 ( )
5. Dateline NBC ( )
6. CNN News Stand ( )
7. CNN with Time ( )
8. MSNBC News Magazine ( )
9. Entertainment Tonight ( )
IO. Inside Edition ( )
11. Extra ( )
I]. Date of Program: __ - _ - __
III. Story Description:
IV. Time of the Story: minutes, seconds
V. Story Categorization of Addressing Issues
1. Govemment/ Politics ( )
2. Business/Economics ( )
3. Foreign/Diplomacy ( )
4. War/Defense ( )
5. Social Conflict ( )
6. Health/Welfare ( )
7. Education ( )
8. Science/Technology ( )
9. Culture/Art ( )
IO. Crime/Court ( )
ll. Scandal ( )
12. Accident/Disaster ( )
13. Consumer Alert ( )
l4. Entertainment/Sport ( )
15. Other Human Interest ( )
VI. Subject of Story
I Nation/Society ( )
2. Corporation/Service ( )
3. Famous People ( )
4. Celebrity ( )
5. General Public ( )
VII. Breaking vs. Investigative
1. Breaking ( )
2. Investigative ( )
VIII. Duplicated vs. Unique Story
I. Duplicated ( )
2. Unique/Differential ( )
126
IX.
XI.
XII.
PPPNr>
News story using conglomerate material
News Archive
Movie
Book/Magazine
Prior story video
Audience made tapes
9993*)?
Conglomerate vs. Non-conglomerate
l. Conglomerate
2. Non-Conglomerate
How news stories apply used material
1. Light
2. Medium
3. Heavy
News Sources
Institutional Afï¬liation
Government
Business Professions
Non-business Professionals
Academics
Celebrities
Journalists
Special-Interest Group
Working-class People
. Housewives
0. Students
1. Other/Undetermined
““09999‘99’55’7‘
Gender
1. Male
2. Female
Race
Caucasian
African American
Latino
Asian
PPNT‘
ge
20 and younger
21-35
36- 45
46-65
Over 65
(
AAA/“N
(
(
(
(
(
AAAAAAAAAAA
AAA/K
AAA/â€NA
VVVV
vvvvv
127
Appendix D: Advertising Coding Sheet
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Programming title of the advertising:
~—°9°S9.V'P.w!°.—
O.
I.
Date: __-_-
Product title of the advertising:
60 Minutes
60 Minutes II
48 Hours
20/20
Dateline NBC
CNN News Stand
CNN with Time
MSNBC News Magazine
Entertainment Tonight
Inside Edition
Extra
Time of the advertising:
Categorization of Advertising
p9°>‘.°‘5":‘>.‘*’!":"
Id—O‘hd—Id—i—lfl
OONQUtwa—‘O
Food & Supermarket
Home Hardware
Apparel & Shores
Personal Care
Medicine
Movie & Media
Electronics Stores
Automotive
Telecommunication
. Computers/Internet
. Financial & Investment
. Express Mail
. Jewelry & Watches
. Travel & Resort
. Government
Others
. Network Promotion
. Programming Promotion
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
seconds
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
128
Appendix E: Story types of prior studies
Table E-l: Emphasis of Prime Time News Magazine Shows, 1997 Fall
60 Minutes 48 Hours 20/20 Prime Time Dateline
Government 5 .6% 0 0 O 1 .4%
Economy 0 0 O 0 0
Foreign/Diplomacy 0 0 3.3% 13.3% 0
Health/Welfare l 1.2% 0 36.7% 0 16.4%
Education 5.6% 0 0 0 0
Science/Technology 5.6% 25.0% 0 6.7% 1 .4%
Art/Culture 5.6% 0 0 0 0
Sub-total 33.6% 25.0% 40.0% 20.0% 19.2%
Crime 27.8% 15.0% 16.7% 26.7% 25 .9%
Accident/Disaster 0 0 0 0 9.6%
Consumer Affair 5.6% 0 16.7% 13.3% 15.1%
Entertainment/ Sport 5 .6% 5 .O% 6.6% 13.3% 5 .5%
Personality/Profile 22 2% 5 .0% 3.3% 0 19.2%
Human Interest 0 45.0% 10.0% 26.7% 4.1%
Religion 5.6% 5.0% 6.7% 0 1.4%
Sub-total 66.8% 75.0% 60.0% 80.0% 80.8%
Source: Committee of Concerned Journalists, 1997
Table E-2: Story classiï¬cation of 60 Minutes and Dateline in 1978-80 and 1993-95
60 Minutes Dateline Difference of ranking
1978-80 (1) 1993-95 (2) 1993-95(3) D1 = (1A2) D2 = (2)—(3)
Politics/Govemment 4 2 5 2 3
War/Defense 8.5 5.5 12.5 3 7
Diplomacy/Foreign 4 9 10 5 1
Economy 8.5 8 6 .5 2
Agriculture 12 14.5 15 2.5 0.5
Transportation 12 12 8 0 4
Health/ Welfare 2 l 4 1 9
Education/Art 6 5.5 12.5 0.5 7
Science/invention 10 14.5 7 4.5 7.5
Crime 1 3 l 2 2
Accident/disaster 14 12 10 2 2
Popular amusement 4 7 2 3 5
Human Interest 7 4 3 3 I
Morangroblem 1 5 10 10 5 0
Other 12 12 14 O 2
The Spearman‘s Rho of(1) and (2) is 0.623 (p<0.01);
The Spearman’s Rho of (2) and (3) is 0.618 (p<0.05).
Source: Sutherland, P. (1997), “A comparison of content and presentation styles of the 60 Minutes and
Dateline NBC television news magazines, AEJMC 1997.
129
Appendix F: Chi-square contingency table and Cramer’s V test
In order to use the chi-square contingency table and Cramers’ V test, the sampling
data have to be able to represent the population. This study used the stratiï¬ed sampling
procedure to select the new fall season, between October 4th to November 28th, and
conduct a content analysis. Although few bias might be found in the stratiï¬ed sampling,
the data in this study are still representative and the bias is acceptable. Especially the
new fall season can actually represent the population we describe, instead of the re-run
programming in the summer.
However, there is an argument to only use the purest random sampling method to
apply the chi-square contingency table. Therefore, the ï¬nal version of this research keep
the results but has moved all related information of chi-square contingency table and
Cramer’s V test to the Appendix F.
Chi-square contingency table
Chi-square (X2) tests are appropriate for data which have been measured on a
nominal scale. Such data do not have quantity or magnitude, so they are qualitative.
They are expressed as labels or names, they posses some characteristics, or they have
been assigned to one of several categories. So qualitative data usually result in frequency
counts of subjects in each of the categories (Toothaker, 1986, pp.514).
Problems in categorical data analysis separate into two types: “goodness-of-ï¬tâ€
problems and “contingency table†problems. Problems of goodness of fit are those where
we are asking whether the frequencies or proportions in the K categories of a single
I30
categorical variable ï¬t some predetermined pattern. Are the frequencies all equal? Are
the frequencies such that they could have come from a normal distribution?
The second type of problem is one where we are dealing with two categorical
variables which form a table of frequencies known as a contingency table. We want to
know whether the two categorical variables are “independentâ€, as shown by the
frequencies in the table. Another way to state the same question in this study is, are the
distributions of frequencies across levels of one categorical variable “program†the same
for all levels of the second categorical variable “story type�
The chi-square test for independence of categorical variables is sensitive to any
type of difference in the populations. For this test, it is best to think of the hypothesis in
terms of equality of distributions across categories of one of the variables. For example,
is the distribution for the program type of “60 Minutes†across the story type categories
the same as that for the program type of “Dateline� Do the frequencies of “Politics†or
“Crime†distribute the same for “60 Minutes†and for “Dateline†across the story types
categories?
The hypothesis test by the chi-square test for contingency table is~a nonparametric
hypothesis about entire distributions. The null and alternative hypotheses are:
Ho: distribution; = distributionz = = distributionk
H1: some difference in the distributions
An optional way to state the hypotheses is given as:
Ho: variable A is independent of variable B
H1: variable A is not independent of variable B
The “independent†means that the occurrence of one event does not change the
probability of occurrence of another event. Stating independence in terms of conditional
I31
probability, we say that events A and B are independent if: P (A I B) = P (A). In other
words, two variables are independent if the percentage of the population in any particular
category of one variable is the same across all categories of the other variable.
For the example on story types and program category, the null hypothesis would be:
H0: distribution(60 Minutes) = distribution(20/20) = = distribution (Dateline)
Or Ho: story type is independent of program category
These hypotheses are nonparametric since they contain no parameters. If we
reject Ho, we cannot pinpoint speciï¬c types of differences; we can say only that the
distributions of 60 Minutes and Dateline differ across story types.
The X2 statistic for testing independence of categorical variable is
(Ojk - Ejk)2
X2 = z
Ejk
(Where Ojk is the observed frequency for the jkth cell, Ejk is the expected frequency for
the jkth cell, and the summation is over all cells.)
If the categorical variables are independent (Ho true), then the frequency which
we would expect for any cell is simply a function of the row and column totals for that
cell. The expected frequency for any cell is the product of the column and row marginal
frequencies divided by the total frequency, or
Ejk = (columnj total)(rowk total) / N = P(columnj total) P(rowk total) N
(where if A and B are independent events, P (A and B) = P(A) P(B))
132
This study next analyzes whether it is plausible that, in the population, programs
and story types are independent. It determines whether the observed sample differences
between 60 Minutes and Dateline in their conditional distributions could be due to
sampling variation. If the variables are truly independent, would sampled differences of
this size be likely? Or are the observed differences in percentages so great that statistical
independence in the population is implausible? (Agresti & Finlay, 1997, 248-260)
To convert the X2 test statistic to a P-value, we use the sampling distribution of
the X2 statistic. This distribution indicates how large X2 must be before strong evidence
exists that H0 is false. The X2 statistic for testing independence of categorical variables
has a sampling distribution which is approximately ï¬t by a X2 distribution with degrees of
freedom equals to df = (R —l) (C — 1). We test Ho by finding the critical value for a
chosen on, say on = 0.05, with df = (R — l) (C — 1). The decision rules would be to reject
Ho if the statistic was larger than or equal to the critical value, or, from a computer, to
reject Ho if the obtained probability value were less than or equal to 0.05.
Crimer’s V
If the variables are independent, there is no relationship between them and the
value of one has no effect on the values of the others. However, if they are not
independent, then some kind of association exists. In addition to study the existence of
an association in the population, we need to obtain a descriptive measure of the degree of
association, or the strength of relationship, between the variables in the sample data. A
Cramer’s V was used to determine the associations between the variables in the
contingency tables (Riffe et al, 1998, pp. 169).
133
In an r x c contingency table, the chi-square test is used to investigate the
existence of an association between two categories of classiï¬cation. Particularly when
the P-value is so small that the null hypothesis of independence between categories is
rejected, a descriptive measure of the degree of association or strength of the relationship
is desirable and useful. The test statistic X2 is itself a measure of the lack of agreement
between the observed frequencies and those estimated under the assumption of
independence. Accordingly, X2 can be considered a measure of association between
categories in the sense that it is approximately equal to zero if the categories are
independent and it increases as the deviations between observed and expected
frequencies increase in the absolute value (Gibbons, 1997, pp.363-365).
However, X2 is not a satisfactory descriptor because its magnitude is considerably
affected by the number of items classiï¬ed (N) and also by the number of degree of
freedom (which is determined by the dimensions of the table). A relative measure of
association is needed for any interpretation about the strength of relationship.
The traditional relative measure, called the contingency coeflicient, is deï¬ned by
\l Xz/(X2+N). This value is zero whenever X2 is zero, and it increase as X2 increases.
However, its maximum is not necessarily equal to one; that maximum depends on the
dimensions of the contingency table. Therefore, contingency coefï¬cients of two different
tables are not comparable as measures of strength of association unless the tables have
the same dimension.
Since X2 does have a known constant maximum value for any contingency table
of ï¬xed dimensions, a better relative measure of association is obtained by dividing X2 by
its maximum value. It can be shown that the largest possible value of X2 in any r x c
134
contingency table is N (H), where t is the smaller r and c. The resulting measure of
association, frequently called the Cramer’s statistic, is then deï¬ned as
Cramer’sV=\/ {Xz/N (t— 1) }
(where X2 = the Chi-Square for the table, N = the sample size, t = min (r, c) is the lesser
of the rows or columns.)
Based literally on the computed chi-square measure, V also takes into account the
number of cases in the sample and the number of values of the categorical variable being
interrelated. V is then interpreted like other measures of association, in that it is a statistic
that measures that departure from independence divided by the maximum value of that
statistic.
Since V2 is always a liner function of X2, any probability concerning a value of X2
holds also for the corresponding value of V2. Accordingly, a P-value obtained for X2 is
equal to a P-value for value of V2. In other words, the signiï¬cance of V depends on the
signiï¬cance of X2.
The chi-square test is a test of independence; it provides little information about
the strength or form of association between two variables. The magnitude of the
observed chi-square depends not only on the goodness of ï¬t of the independence model
but also on the sample size. If the sample size for a particular table increase n-fold, so
does the chi-square value. An advantage of the Cramer’ statistic is that values of V may
be used to compare contingency tables of different sizes with respect to r and c and tables
based on samples of different sizes.
In many research situations, the strength and nature of the dependence of
variables is of central concern. Indexes that attempt to quantify the relationship between
135
variables in a cross-classiï¬cation are called measures of association. No single measure
adequately summarizes all possible types of association. A particular measure may have
a low value for a given table, not because the two variables are not related, but because
they are not related in the way to which the measure is sensitive. Therefore, no single
measure is best for all situations. The type of data, the hypothesis of interest, and the
properties of various measures must all be considered when selecting an index of
association of a given table (SPSS, pp.209-210).
The chi-square statistic itself is not a good measure of the degree of association
between two variables. However, its widespread use in tests of independence has
encouraged the use of measures of association based on it. Cramer’s V based on the chi-
square attempts to modify the chi-square statistic to minimize the influence of sample
size and degrees of freedom as well as to restrict the range of values of the measure to
those between 0 and 1. Without such adjustments, comparison of chi-square values from
tables with varying dimensions and samples sizes is meaningless. However, since
Cramer’s V is to measure the nominal level data, it does not explain variance but the
comparison of Cramer’s V still help to understand more about the strength of association
than the chi-square.
Results
In Table 19-1, the chi-square contingency table test is signiï¬cant in either
broadcast programs or all programs, [X2(56, N=209) = 381.38, p<0.001; X2(14O, N=1243)
= 1324.68, p<0.001], and the Cramer’s V = 0.418 (broadcast only) and 0.326 (all
programs) indicate a medium association. These results support the idea we can reject
I36
the null hypothesis and conï¬rm the distribution of story types among programs different
in 99.9% conï¬dence level. The larger Cramer’s V in broadcast only means that a higher
strength of association in broadcast exists only than all programs.
However, we should notice that many of the percentages and the frequency of
categories were extremely small or even zero, especially for 48 Hours, which may violate
the principle of chi-square contingency table that the minimum frequency of each
categories should be at least ï¬ve. In addition, although the chi-square contingency tables
are signiï¬cant in both broadcast networks and all programs, the majority of the
differences may come from 60 Minutes 1/11, 48 Hours and CNN network. The
percentages of categories in other programs are actually similar.
In Table 21-1, the chi-square contingency table test is signiï¬cant in both
broadcast and all programs, [X2(24, N=209) = 48.46, p=0.002; X2(4O, N=1243) = 766.90,
p<0.001], and the Cramer’s V = 0.241 (broadcast) and 0.321 (all programs) indicate a low
association. These results support the idea that we can reject the null hypothesis and
conï¬rm that the percentage distributions of news subjects are different among broadcast
and all programs in a 99.9% conï¬dence level.
In Table 22-1, the chi-square contingency table test is not signiï¬cant in broadcasts
but is signiï¬cant in all programs, [X2(4, N=209) = 13.84, p=0.008; X2(10, N=1243) =
57.23, p<0.001], and the Cramer’s V = 0.272 (broadcast) and 0.215 (all programs)
indicate a low association. These results did not support the hypothesis that the
percentage distributions of breaking/investigation topics are different among broadcasts
but support the difference in all programs. This is because the percentage of the breaking
I37
news on CBS programs is small, and 20/20 as well as Dateline have similar percentages,
although both of them have signiï¬cant proportions in the “Breaking†news category.
In Table 22-2, the chi-square contingency table test is signiï¬cant in both
broadcast and all programs, [X2(4, N=209) = 28.39, p<0.001; X2(10, N=1243) = 42.20,
p<0.001], and the Cramer’s V = 0.369 (broadcast) and 0.184 (all programs) indicate a
medium association in broadcast programs, but low association in all programs. These
results support the hypothesis that differences are presentin the percentage distributions
of uniqueness/duplication news among the broadcast and all programs.
In Table 24, the chi-square contingency table test is signiï¬cant in both broadcast
and all programs, [X2(68, N=1806) = 206.42, p<0.001; X2070, N=4799) = 2425.95,
p<0.001], and the Cramer’s V = 0.169 and 0.225 indicates a small association. These
results support the idea that we can reject the hull hypothesis and conï¬rm that the
percentage distributions of advertising categorization are different among the broadcast
and all programs in a 99.9% conï¬dent level.
However, the signiï¬cant differences come from both broadcast networks and all
programs. If we separate broadcast networks into subgroups, such as 60 Minutes and 60
Minutes 11, or 20/20, Dateline, and 48 Hours, no signiï¬cant difference of chi-square
contingency table in those subgroups is present. The results are consisted with later
ï¬ndings that the Spearman’s correlation between 60 Minutes and 60 Minutes 11 are very
high but not signiï¬cant correlation between 60 Minutes and Dateline, which means chi-
square signiï¬cant difference.
In Table 28-1, the chi-square contingency table test is signiï¬cant in both
broadcast programs and all programs, [X2(52, N=1057) = 175.36, p<0.001; X2(130,
138
N=2726) = 1633.96, p<0.001], and the Cramer’s V = 0.204 and 0.245 indicates a small
association. These results support the idea we can reject the hypothesis and conï¬rm that
the percentage distributions of news sources are different among broadcast and all
programs in a 99.9% conï¬dent level.
However, here is the same problem as we found in the story types. Several of the
category frequencies are very small which may violate the principle of chi-square
contingency table. In addition, although signiï¬cant differences appear in both broadcast
network and all programs, basically we can separate those programs into two subgroups,
such as 60 Minutes and 60 Minutes 11, or 20/20 and Dateline. Therefore, we can ï¬nd no
signiï¬cant difference in those subgroups is apparent and we can ï¬nd the same support
from later results of Spearman’s correlation.
In Table 31, the chi-square contingency table test is not signiï¬cant in either
broadcast programs or all programs, [X2(4, N=209) = 13.36, p=0.081; X2(10, N=1243) =
16.96, p=0.065], and the Cramer’s V = 0.174 and 0.205 indicates a small association.
These results did not support the hypothesis that the percentage distributions of news
contents of the conglomerate ownership were different among broadcasts and all
programs.
Table 31 also shows the proportions of re-used video sources and their usage
proportion. The chi-square contingency table test is not signiï¬cant in broadcast
programs, but signiï¬cant in all programs, [X2(8, N=209) = 14.68, p=0.066; X2(20,
N=1243) = 165.32, p<0.001], and the Cramer’s V = 0.174 and 0.205 indicates a small
association. These results did not support the hypotheses that re-used video sources were
different among broadcasts, but support the difference in all programs.
139
V. Reference
Adams, W. (1988). Scheduling practices based on audience flow: What are the effects on
news program success? Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 74(4),
pp.839-858.
Adams, W. (1993). TV program scheduling strategies and their relationship to new
program renewal rates and rating changes. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media, pp.465-474.
Agresti, A. & Finlay, B. (1997). Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ahn, H. and Litman, B. R. (1997). Vertical integration and consumer welfare in the cable
industry. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 41, 453-477
Albarran, A. B. and Chan-Olmsted, S. (Eds) (1998). Global Media Economics:
Commercialization, Concentration and Integration of World Media Markets.
Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
Alger, D. (1998). Megamedia: How giant corporations dominate mass media, distort
competition, and endanger democracy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleï¬eld
Publishers, Inc.
Ang, I. (1991). Desperately Seeking the Audience. London: Routledge.
Atkin, D., & Litman, B. (1986). Network TV programming: Economics, audiences, and
the ratings game, 1971-1986. Journal of Communication, 36(2), 32-50.
Atwater, T. (1983). A market analysis of content diversity in local television news. A
dissertation submitted to Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Atwart, T. (1984). Product differentiation in local television news. Journalism Quarterly,
55(3), pp. 757-762.
Atwart, T. (1986). Coonsonance in local television news. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 30(4), pp. 467-472.
Atwart, T. (1986). News format in network evening news coverage of the TWA
hijacking. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 33 (3), pp. 293-304.
Aufderheide, P. (1990) After the Fairness Doctrine: Controversial broadcast
programming and the public interest. Journal of Communication, Vol.40(3),
pp.47-72.
140
Aufderheide, P. (1991). Cable television and the public interest. Journal of
Communication, 42(1), 52-65.
Bae, H. S. (1998). Product differentiation among the cable national all-news networks
and across the cable and broadcast evening newscasts. A dissertation submitted
to Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Bae, H. S. (2000). Product differentiation in national TV newscasts: A comparison of the
cable all-news networks and the broadcast networks. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 44(1), pp.62-77.
Bagdikian, B. (1985) The US. media: Supermarket or assembly line? Journal of
Communication, pp.97-109.
Bagdikian, B. (2000). The Media Monopoly. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Baldwin, T. F. Barrett, M., and Bates, B. (1992a) Influence of cable on television news
audience. Journalism Quarterly, 69(3), pp.651-658.
Baldwin, T. F., Barett, M, and Bates, B. (1992b) Uses and values for news on cable
television. Journal of Broadcasting & Cable Television, pp.225-233.
Barber, B. R. (1995). From Disney World to Disney’s world. New York Times Current
Events Edition, August 1'â€, pp.A15.
Barron, J. (1999). Public Lives. New York Time, January 20, pp.BZ.
Beibstein, L. (1994). The battle of the TV news magazine shows. Newsweek, April 11,
pp. 61-65.
Berkowitz, D. (1987). TV news sources and news channels: A study in agenda-building.
Journalism Quarterly, 64, pp.508-513.
Berkowitz, D. & Beach, D. W. (1993). News sources and news context: The effect of
routine news, conflict and proximity. Journalism Quarterly, 70(1), pp.4-12.
Bernstein, P. (2000). Biz goes on mag jag. Variety, Sept 11-17, pp.50.
Bierbaum, T. (1999). Number for 60’ hold 18-49. Variety. June 7-13, pp.25, 28.
Bird, S. E. (1992). For Enquiring Minds: A Cultural Study of Supermarket Tabloids.
Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.
Bill, K. (1996). Tobacco residue. Broadcasting & Cable, June, 24‘“, 126(27), pp. 32.
141
Bogart, L. (2000) Commercial Culture: The Media System and the Public Interest.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brennan, T. (1983). Economic efï¬ciency and broadcast content regulation. Federal
Communications Law Journal, 35, 1 17-138.
Brennan, T. (1989). The Fairness Doctrine as public policy. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 33(4), 419-440.
Brennan, T. J. (1990). Vertical integration, monopoly, and the First Amendment. Journal
of Media Economics, 3, 57-76.
Brown, J. D., Bybee, C. R. Wearden, S. T., and Dtraughan, D. M. (1987). Invisible
power: Newspaper news sources and the limits of diversity. Journalism
Quarterly, 64, pp.45-54.
Brown, D. (1994). The academy’s response to the call for a marketplace approach to
broadcast regulation. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, Vol.11, pp.257-
273.
Brown, R. (1994). Cable borrows broadcast footage. Broadcasting & Cable, May 9,
pp.38.
Brown, T. (1998), Don’t call it journalism. New York Time, July 14, pp.A14.
Campbell, R. (1991). 60 Minutes and the News. Urban, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Carter, B. (1997). After the Hype, the numbers. New York Times, April 30, pp.C18.
Carter, B. (1998a). The man reshaping prime time; Television news magazines keep
spreading: Here is way. New York Times, June 8, 1998.
Carter, B. (1998b). Networks ï¬nd old news can become new hits. New York Times, July
20‘“, pp.D-8.
Carter, B. (1999). Critics say ABC opened its checkbook for a news source. New York
Times, May 31, pp.C2.
Carter, B. (2000a). At CBS, the lines between news and entertainment grow fuzzier. New
York Times, June 26, 2000, C].
Carter, B. (2000b). NBC shelves 2 sitcoms. New York Times, October 25, pp.E10.
Carvajal, D. (1996). Uneasy marriage of interests for television and publishers. New York
Times, November 10th, pp.1-5.
142
Carvajal, D. (1999). Disney combines a book unit with ABC in reorganization. New York
Times, April 9th, pp.C-5.
Case, T. (1998). Fascinated with TV, titles sometimes push the issue. Advertising Age,
October 19, pp.sl6-318.
Chan-Olmsted, S. M. and Litman, B. R. (1988). Antitrust and horizontal mergers in the
cable industry. Journal of Media Economics, 3-28.
Chan-Olmsted, S. M. (1996). Market competition for cable television: reexamining its
horizontal mergers and industry concentration. Journal of Media Economics,
9(2), 25-41.
Chan-Olmsted, S. M. (1997) Theorizing multichannel media economics: An exploration
of a group-industry strategic competition model. The Journal of Media
Economics, 10(1), 39-49.
Chan-Olmsted, S. M. (1998). Mergers, acquisitions, and convergence: The strategic
alliances of broadcasting, cable television, and telephone services. Journal of
Media Economics, 11(3), 33-46.
Chipty, T. (1995). Horizontal integration for bargaining power: Evidence from the cable
television industry. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 4(2), 375-
397.
Consoli, J. (1998). All the news that ï¬ts. Adweek, June 1, 39(22), pp. U12-U14.
Coe, S. (1994). The reality is that some network reality bites. Broadcasting & Cable,
May 9, 1994, pp.29-30.
Cohen, R. M. (1997). The corporate takeover of news: blunting the sword. In Erik
Barnouw (Eds), Conglomerates and the media. New York, NY: The New Press.
Committee of Concerned Journalists (1997). Changing deï¬nitions of news. [online]
Available http://joumalism.org/lastudy.html.
Comrie, M. (1999). Television news and broadcast deregulation in New Zealand. Journal
of Communication, spring, pp.42-54.
Compaine, B. M. & Gomery, D. (1982). Who owns the media? Competition and
concentration in the mass media industry. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Conrad, K. (1997). Media mergers: First step in a new shift of antitrust analysis? Federal
Communications Law Journal, 49(3), pp.675-700.
143
Consloli, J. (1998). All the news that ï¬ts. Adweek, June 1, pp.U12-Ul4.
Cooper, R. (1996). The status and future of audience duplication research: an assessment
of rating-based theories of audience behavior. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 40, pp. 96-111,
Croteau, D. & Hoynes, W. (2001). The business of media: Corporate media and the
public interest. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Daniel, W. W. (1990). Applied Nonparametric Statistics. Boston: PWS-KENT Publishing
Company.
Dahlgren, P. (1995). Television and the public sphere: Citizenship, democracy and the
media. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Duncan, E. (1998). Technology and entertainment: Don’t read all about it The
Economist, November 21 , p.86.
Dearing J. W. & Rogers, E. M. (1996). Agenda setting. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Demas, J. (1998) A content analysis of Dateline NBC and NBC Nightly News: The
inï¬ltration of the you-formation story into news magazines and mainstream news.
Paper presented to the annual meeting of Association for Education of Journalism
and Mass Communication, 1998.
Demers, D. (1993). Effect of corporate structure on autonomy of top editors at US.
dailies. Journalism Quarterly, 70(3), 499-508.
Demers, D. (1994). Structural pluralism, intermedia competition, and the growth of the
corporate newspaper in the United States. Journalism Monographs.
Demers, D. (1996). Corporate newspaper structure, proï¬ts, and organizational goals. The
Journal of Media Economics, 9(2), 1-23.
Demers, D. (1997). Corporate newspaper structure, editorial page vigor, and social
change. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 73(4), 857-877.
Demers, D. (1998a). Structural pluralism, corporate newspapers structure, and news
source perceptions: Another test of editorial vigor hypothesis. Journalism and
Mass Communication Quarterly, 75(3), 572-592.
Demers, D. (1998b). Revisiting corporate newspaper structure and proï¬t making. The
Journal of Media Economics, 11(2), 19-45.
144
Demers, D. (1999). Corporate news structure, social control and social change. In D.
Demers & K. Viswanath (Eds.) Mass media, social control and social change: A
macrosocial perspective. Iowa State University Press.
Demers, D. & Merskin, D. (2000). Corporate structure and the managerial revolution.
The Journal of Media Economics, 13(2), 103-121.
Dewerth-Pallmeyer, D. & Hirsch, P. M. (1994). TV news magazines vs. the new tabloids:
Getting past content — an organizational perspective. Paper presented at the annual
convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication (AEJMC), Qualitative Studies Division.
Dimmick, J. R., Wurtzel, A., and Lometti, G. (1975) Television journalism vs. show
business: A content analysis of eyewitness news. Journalism Quarterly, 52, pp.
213-218.
Dimmick, J. W., Patterson, SJ, and Albarran, AB. (1992) Competition between the
cable and broadcast industries: A niche analysis. Journal of Media Economics, pp.
13-30.
Diamond, E. (1991). The Media Show: The Changing Face of the News 1985-I990.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Doreen, C. (1996). Uneasy marriage of interest for television and publishers. New York
Times, Nov. 10, pp.1-5.
Fan, D. P. (1988). Predications of public opinion from the mass media. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.
Eastman, S. T., Neal-Lunsford, J ., and Riggs, K. E. (1997). Coping with grazing: Prime-
time strategies for accelerated program transitions. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 391, pp.92-108.
Eastman, S. T., Newton, G.D., Riggs, K. E., and Neal-Lunsford, J. (1997). Accelerating
the flow: A transition effect in programming theory? Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 41, pp.265-283.
Eastman, S. T. & Ferguson, D. A. (1997). Broadcast/cable programming: Strategies and
practices. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Ehrlich, M. C. (1996). The journalism of outrageousness: Tabloid television news vs.
investigative news. Journalism & Mass Communication Monographs, pp.1-24.
Fleming, H. (1997). PSA slice shrinks as commercial pie grows. Broadcasting & Cable,
March 31, pp.19.
145
Entman, R. and Wildman, S. (1992) Reconciling economic and non-economic
perspectives on media policy: Transcending the “marketplace of ideasâ€. Journal
of Communication, Vol.42(l), pp.5-19.
Flint, J. (2000). NBC unveils fall lineup that takes some risks. Wall Street Journal, May
16, pp.BlO.
Esposito, S. (1996) Presumed innocent? A comparative analysis of network news', prime-
time newsmagazines', and tabloid TV's pretrial coverage of the OJ. Simpson
criminal case. Communications and the Law, 18(4), 49-72.
Ferrall, V. Jr. (1989) The impact of television deregulation on private and public
interests. Journal of Communication, Vol.39(1), pp.8-38.
Finn, C. L. (1993). The epistemology of tabloid television from a postmodern
perspective. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC), Radio/Television
Journalism Division.
Ford, G. S. and Jackson, J. D. (1997). Horizontal concentration and vertical integration in
the cable television industry. Review of Industrial Organization, 501-518.
Gallagher, M. (1982). Negotiation of control in media organizations and occupations. In
Gurevitch, M., Bennett, T., Curran, J ., and Woollacott, J. (Eds.) Culture, Society
and The Media, pp.118-150, London: Methuen.
Gay, V. (19973). Everything old is news again. Brandweek, March 17m, 38(11), pp.58-
512.
Gay, V. (1997b). Send in the clones. Mediaweek. September 22, pp.32-35.
Gershon, R. A. (1993). International deregulation and the rise of transnational media
corporations. Journal of Media Economics, 6(2), pp. 3-22.
Gershon, R. A. (1997). The transnational media corporation: Global message and free
market competition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc.
Gershon, RA. (2000). The transnational media corporation: Environmental scanning and
strategy formulation. Journal of Media Economics, 13(2), pp.81-101.
Gibbons, J. D. (1997). Nonparametric Methods for Quantitative Analysis. Columbus,
OH: American Sciences Press Inc.
Giltin, T. (1993). Hyping the news. The Nation, March 15, pp.328-329.
146
Glaberson, W. (1995). 60 Minutes case part of a trend of corporate pressure, some
analysts say. News York Times, Nov. 17, pp. 814.
Glascock, J. (1993) Effect of cable television on advertiser and consumer spending on
mass media, 1978-1990. Journalism Quarterly, 70(3), pp.509-517.
Goodman, W. (1995). In jackson-Presley romp, echoes of two mergers. New York Times
Current Events Edition, June 16, pp.D20.
Grabe, M. E. (1996). Tabloid and traditional television news magazine crime stories:
Crime lessons and reafï¬rmation of social class distinctions. Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, 73(4), 926-946.
Grabe, D. A. (1997). Mass media and American politics. Washington, DC:
Congressional Quarterly Inc.
Grabe, M. E. (1998). Tabloid vs. standard news: The effects of tabloid and standard
television news on viewer evaluations, memory and arousal. Paper presented at
the annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication (AEJMC), Baltimore, MD.
Grabe, M. E. (1999) Television news magazine crime stories: A functionalist perspective.
Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 16(2), 155-171.
Grabe, M. E., Zhou, S., and Barnett, B. (1999) Sourcing and reporting in news magazine
programs: 60 Minutes versus Hard Copy. Journalism and Mass Communication
Quarterly, 76(2), pp. 293-311.
Granatstein, L. (1998). People plans TV special. Mediaweek, December 7, pp.5.
Greco, A. N. (1996). Shaping the future: Mergers, acquisitions, and the US. publishing,
communications, and mass media industries, 1990-1995. Publishing Research
Quarterly, 5-15.
Grossman, L. (1996). CBS, 60 Minutes, and the unseen interview. Columbia Journalism
Review, January, 34(5), pp.5969.
Grossman, L. (1999). Will success spoil network news. Columbia Journalism Review,
May/June, pp. 58-60.
Grossmam, L. (2000a). Blacking out ABC news: From robber barons to media barons.
Columbia Journalism Review, July/August, 39(2), pp.60-61.
Grossman, l. (2000b). Shilling for prime time: Can CBS News survive Survivor?
Columbia Journalism Review, Sept/Oct, pp. 70-71.
147
Guensburg, C. (1998). When the story is about the owner. American Journalism Review,
December, 20(10), pp. 10-1 1 .
Gunther, M. (1997). Is this Roone’s last hurrah? Fortune, February 17, pp.76-77.
Gunther, M. (1999). The new face of network news. Fortune, February 1, pp.76-82.
Hagen, I. (1997) Communicating to an ideal audience: News and the notion of the
informed citizen. Political Communication, 14, pp. 405-419.
Hamilton, J. T. (1996). Private interests in “public interest†programming: An economic
assessment of broadcaster incentives. Duke Law Journal, 45, 1177-1192.
Hansen, K. A. (1991). Source diversity and newspaper enterprise journalism. Journalism
Quarterly, 68(3), pp.474-482.
Head, S. W., Sterling, C. H., Schoï¬eld, L. B., Spann, T. and McGregor, M. A. (1998).
Broadcasting in America: A survey of electronic media. Boston, NY: Houghton
Mifflin Company.
Hendriks, P. (1995) Communications policy and industrial dynamics in media markets:
Toward a theoretical framework for analyzing media industry organization The
Journal of Media Economics, 8(2), 61-76.
Herman, E. S. & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing content: The political economy of
the mass media. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Hellman, H. & Soramaki, M. (1994), Competition and content in the US. video market.
The Journal of Media Economics, 7(1), pp. 29-49.
Hoffstetter, CR, and Dozier, D. M. (1986). Useful news, sensational news: Quality,
sensationalism and local TV news. Journalism Quarterly, 63, pp. 815-820.
Hoynes, W. (1994). Public Television for Sale: Media, the Market, and the Public
Sphere. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
. Hundt, R. E. (1996). The public’s airwaves: What does the public interest require of
television broadcasters? Duke Law Journal, 45(6), 1089-1129.
Jamieson, K. H., & Campbell, K. K. (1997). The Interplay of Influence: News,
Advertising, Politics and Mass Media (4‘h ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Company.
Janofsky, M. (2000). Ramseys step into spotlight with book and TV interviews. New
York Times, March 17, pp.A14.
148
Jaquet, J. (1997). Concerning creativity. The Nation, March 17th, 264(10), pp. 10.
Jensen, E. Osborne, D. M., Progrebin, A. and Rose, T. (1998). Consumer Alert. Brill ’5
Content, October.
Jhally, S. (1990). Codes of advertising: F etishism and the political economy of making in
the consumer society. New York: Routledge.
Johnson, P. (1998). Dateline may link up with Content watchdog. USA Today, May 13,
pp.D3.
Johnson, P. & Bianco, R. (1999). Dateline viewers make the case for interactive TV. USA
Today, August 3, pp.D3.
Kafl(a, P. (1999). Anchors away. Forbes, March 22, pp. 248.
Kaufman, L. (2000, March 27). The sock puppet that roared: Internet synergy or a
conflict of Interest? The New York Times, p.Cl.
Krasnow, E. G., & Goodman, J. N. (1998). The “public interest†standard: The search for
the Holy Grail. Federal Communications Law Journal, 50(3), 605-635.
Krugman, D. and Reid, L. (1980) The public interest as deï¬ned by FCC policy makers.
Journal of Broadcasting, Vol.24(3), pp.311-325.
Lafayette, J. (1998). Critical ABC News story on Disney dies. Electronic Media, October
19, p. 1A.
Landay, J. M. (1999). Mergers threaten democracy. USA Today, September 10th, pp.28A.
Langer, J. (1998). Tabloid television: popular journalism and the “Other Newsâ€.
London: Routeldge.
Lawrie, M. (1995). Media. News York Times Current Events Edition, Sept. 4, A39.
Lyengar, S., Peters, M. D., and Kinder, D. (1982). Experimental demonstrations of the
not-so-minimal political consequences of mass media. American Political Science
Review, 76, 848-858.
Lyengar, S. & Kinder, D. (1987). News that matter: Television and American opinion.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lee, T. and Hwang, H. (1997). The impact of media ownership: How Time and Warner’s
merger influences Time’s content. Paper presented at the annual convention of the
149
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC),
Magazine Division, Chicago.
Levin, G. (1997). Television news folk fast becoming ‘mag hagâ€. Variety, August 1, pp.
1, 69.
Lichty, L. W., Gomery. (1992). More is less. In P. S. Cook, D. Gomery, & L.W. Lichty
(Eds), The Future of News: Television-Newspaper- Wire Services-Newsmagazines
(pp.3-33). Washington, DC: The Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
Lieberman, D. (1991). 20/20 Foresight: Will it take exorcisms - or excellent reporting —
to keep this newsmagazine hot in all summer? TV Guide, June 8, pp.8.
Lin, C. A. (1995). Network prime-time programming strategies in the 19805. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, pp.482-495).
Litman, B. R. and Sochay, S. (1994) The emerging mass media environment. In R. E.
Babe (Ed.), Information and communication in economics. pp.233-257. New
York, NY: Kluwer.
Litman, B. R., Shrikhande, S., and Ahn, H. (2000). A portfolio theory approach to
network program selection. Journal of Media Economics, 13(2), 57-79.
Littleton, C. (1996). Taking a read on magazines: The strong survive in syndication.
Broadcasting and Cable, November 4, pp. 26-29.
Mandese, J. (2000). Networks facing a most uncertain fate. Advertising Age, February 14,
pp.S4-S16.
Madsen, A. (1984). 60 Minutes: The Power & The Politics of America ’s Most Popular
TV News Show. New York, NY: Dodd, & Mead Company.
Maney, K. (1995). Megamedia shakeout: The inside story of the leaders and the losers in
the exploding communications industry. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Marta, J. L. & Grabe, M. E. (1995). Tabloid television exposed: The architectural
structure of Hard Copy. Paper presented at the annual convention of the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
(AEJMC),Washington DC.
Matusow, B. (1999). Big name hunting. Washingtonian, March, pp. 68-73.
McCartney, J. (1997) News lite. American Journalism Review, July.
150
McChesney, R. W. (1997). Corporate media and the threat to democracy. New York,
NY: Seven Stories Press.
McChesney, R. W. (1999). Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in
dubious times. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
McClellan, S. (1992) TV news magazines get prime shelf space. Broadcasting & Cable,
November 16, 1992.
McClellan, S. (1994). Reality 1994: Magazine prime earners in prime time. Broadcasting
& Cable, May 9, 1994.
McClellan, S. (1997a). Violence, fluff lead local news, says survey. Broadcasting &
Cable, May 19, pp. 34.
McClellan, S. (1997b). Crime spree on network news. Broadcasting & Cable, August 18,
pp.28-30.
McClellan, S. ( 1998a). 60 Minutes 11 in the works? Broadcasting & Cable, July 6, pp.29-
30.
McClellan, S. (1998b). Cutting edge at ABC News. Broadcasting & Cable, September
21, pp.44-48.
McClellan, S. (l998c). Extra, extralz Cut out the extra. Broadcating & Cable, September
21,pp.46.
McClellan, S. (l998d). CBS rewrites news division. Broadcasting & Cable, October 12,
pp.16-17.
McClellan, S. (1998e). ABC spikes Disney world story. Broadcasting & Cable, October
19, 128(43), pp. 50-52.
McClosky, H. & Zaller, J. (1984). The American ethos: Public attitudes toward
capitalism and democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McCombs, M. E. & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.
McCombs, M. E. & Shaw, D. L. (1993). The evolution of agenda-setting research:
Twenty-ï¬ve years in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Communication, 43, 58.
McManus, J. H. (1992). What kind of commodity is news? Communication Research,
19(6), 787-805.
151
McManus, J. H. (1994). Market-Driven Journalism: Let the Citizen Beware? Thousand
Oak, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
McManus, J. H. (1995) A market-based model of news production. Communication
Theory, 4(5), pp.301-338.
McGinn, D. & Turner, R. (1999). Battle behind the screen. Newsweek, May 17, pp.53-54.
McQuail, D. (1993) Media Performance: Mass Communication and the Public Interest.
London: SAGE Publications.
Media Monitor (1997). Deï¬ning journalism down: Visual and verbal images in tabloid
TV news shows. Center for Media and Public Affairs, Nov.-Dec., 10(5).
Meehan, E. (1984) Rating and the institutional approach: A third answer to the
commodity question. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, pp.216-225.
Meehan, E. (1986) Conceptualizing culture as commodity: The problem of television.
Critical Studies in Mass Communication, Vol.3, pp.448-457.
Meehan, E. (1993) Commodity audience, actual audience: The blindspot debate. In
Wasko J, Mosco V. and Pendakur, M (Eds), Illuminating The Blindspots: Essays
Honoring Dallas W. Symthe, pp.378-397. Ablex Publishing Corp. Norwood, New
Jersey.
Melody, W. (1990). The information in IT: Where lies the public interest. Intermedia,
18(3), pp.10-18.
Mifflin, L. (1995a). The mainstream networks are co-opting what was once too lurid for
prime time. New York Times, January 18, pp.Cl.
Mifflin, L. (1995b). Media. New York Times Current Events Edition, September 4, pp.
A39.
Mifflin, L. (19950). ABC suspends 20/20 producer over pay for access to subject. New
York Times Current Events Edition, November 10, pp.A28.
Mifflin, L. (1998). Has 60 Minutes punted its ratings? New York Times, November 23,
pp.C9.
Mifflin, L. (1999a). So many programs, so few bodies. New York Times, April 19, pp.C9.
Mifflin, L. (1999b). Network news magazine show may look familiar but each has its
own personality traits. New York Times, May 24, pp.C12.
152
Mifflin, L. (1999c). Big television shocker: Tabloid shows go soft. The New York Times.
May 24, 1999.
Mifflin, L. (1999d). Summer air, tick with TV updates. New York Times, June 215‘, pp. C-
14.
Miller, S. (1998). TV Turns Mag Rack: Nets turn to newsmags as rating pillar. Daily
Variety, November 20, 1998.
Mosco, V. (1990). The mythology of telecommunications deregulation. Journal of
Communication, 40(1), 36-49.
Mosco, V. (1996) The Political Economy of Communication.“ Rethinking and Renewal.
London: SAGE Publications.
Murdock, G. (1982) Large corporations and the control of the communications industries.
In by Gurevitch, M., Bennett, T., Curran, J., and Woollacott, J. (Eds), Culture,
Society and The Media, pp.118-150, London: Methuen.
Nielsen Media Research (2000). 2000 Report on Television. Nielsen Media Research.
Owen, B. and Wildman, S. (1992). Video Economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Page, B. & Shapiro, R. Y. (1992). The rational public: Fifty years of opinion trends.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Paige, S. (1998). That’s infotainment. Insight on the News, June 8, 14 (21), pp. 8-11.
Palmgreen, P. and Rayburn, JD. (1985). A comparison of gratiï¬cation model of media
satisfaction. Communication Monographs, 52: 334-345.
Parker, J. (2000). The CBS-Viacom merger: Impact on journalism. Federal
Communications Law Journal, 52(3), pp.519-530.
PBS (1999). Television news magazines. [online] Available http://www. pbs.org.
Pearlstine, N. (2000). The merger and our journalism. Time, January 24, pp.8.
Pew Research Center (1996). TV news viewership declines. [online] Available
http://www.people-press.org/mediarpthtm
Pew Research Center (1998). Internet news takes off. [online] Available
http://www.people-press.org/med98rpt.htm
153
Pew Research Center (1999). Striking the balance. [online] Available http://www.people-
press.org/press99rpt.htm
Picard, R. G. (1996). The rise and fall of communication empires. Journal of Media
Economics, 9(4), 23-40.
Pogrebin, R. & Barringer, F. (1998). CNN retracts report that US used nerve gas. New
York Times, July 3, pp.A2.
Protess, D. L. et a1 (1991). The Journalism of Outrage: Investigative Reporting and
Agenda Building in America. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Putnam, T. (1991). The GE boycott: A story NBC wouldn’t buy. Extra, Jan/Feb.
Rainey, R. R. and Rehg, W. (1996). The marketplace of ideas, the public interest, and
federal regulation of the electronic media: Implications of Harberrnas’ theory of
democracy. Southern California Law Review, 69, 1923-1987.
Ramstad, G. (1997) A model for structural analysis of the media market. Journal of
Media Economics, Vol.10(3), pp.45-50.
Rayburn, J. D., Palmgreen, P., and Acker, T. (1984) Media gratiï¬cations and choosing a
morning news program. Journalism Quarterly, 61(1), pp. 149-156.
Reibstein, L., Brant, M., and Biddle, NA. (1994). The battle of the TV news magazine
shows. Newsweek, April 11, 1994.
Rice, L. (1996). Network news magazines: competition is king. Broadcasting & Cable,
November 4, 1996.
Rich, F. (1997). Marv spins ABC. New York Times, November 11, pp.A27.
Riffe, D. and Holm, L. S. (1999) A quarter century of television network news: Fewer,
longer and softer news items. Paper presented at the annual convention of the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC),
Division of Radio-Television Journalism, New Orleans.
Riffe, D. Lacy, S. and F ico, F. G. (1999). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative
content analysis in research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Rosenstiel, T. & Kovach, B. (2000). The bad business of media mergers. Committee of
Concerned Journalists, [online] Available http://www.journalism.org/aoltw.html.
Rosenwein, R. (2000). Why media mergers matter. Brill ’s Content, January.
154
Rope, K. (1999). Publishing: NBC boosts Brokaw book and gets boost back. Wall Street
Journal, January 25, pp.Bl.
Ross, C. (2000). NBC blasts beyond the 15—minute barrier. Advertising Age, August 7,
pp.3, 56.
Rupertus, J. (1999) Prime time news: Effects associated with the rise of the television
news magazine format. Paper presented at the annual convention of the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC),
Division of Radio-Television Journalism, New Orleans.
Russomanno, J. & Everett, S. (1996). Television newscasts, news magazines and tabolid:
Blurring boundaries? 1996 convention paper presented at the Broadcast Education
Association meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Russonmanno, J. A. & Youm, K. (1996). The 60 Minutes controversy: What lawyers are
telling the news media. Communications and the Law, 18(3). Pp.65-91.
Rust, R. T. (1988). A programming and positioning strategy for cable television
networks. Journal of Advertising, 17(4). Pp. 6-13.
Rutenberg, J. (2000). Diane Sawyer scheduled after “Millionaireâ€. New York Times, May
22, pp.C17.
Ryu, J. S. (1982). Public affairs and sensationalism in local TV news programs.
Journalism Quarterly, 59, pp. 74-78, 137.
Sawyer, D. (1998) 3,000 Minutes. The New York Times Magazine, 20 Sept. 59-63.
Scott, D. K. and Gobetz, R. H. (1992) Hard news/soft news content of the national
broadcast network, 1972-1987. Journalism Quarterly, 69(2), pp. 406-412.
Schwarzlose, R. A. (1989). Marketplace of ideas: A measure of free expression.
Journalism Monographs, 118, 1-41.
Sitmson, J. A. (1991). Public opinion in America: Moods, cycles, and swings. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Sholle, D. (1993). Buy our news: Tabloid television and commodiï¬cation. Journal of
Communication Inquiry, 17(1), pp. 56-72.
Slattery, K. L. and Hakanen, E. A. (1994) Sensationalism versus public affairs content of
local TV news: Pennsylvania revisited. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic
Media, pp. 205-216.
155
Smythe, D. (1977) Communications: Blindspot of western Marxism. Canadian Journal
of Political & Social Theory, 1, 1-27.
Solomon, N. (2000). Coverage of media mergers. Nieman Reports, 54(2), pp.57-59.
Soloski, J. (1989). Sources and channels of local news. Journalism Quarterly, 66(4),
pp.864-870.
Splichal, S. (1998). Ownership, regulation and socialization: Rethinking the principles of
democratic media. Journal of European Communication.
Spragens, W. (1995). Electronic Magazines: Soft News Programs on Network Television.
Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
SPSS (1993). SPSS for windows: Base system user’s guide release 6. 0. Chicago, IL:
SPSS Inc.
Starobin, (1997). Why those hidden camera hurt Journalism. New York Times, January
28, pp.A21.
Steele, (1995). Experts and the operational bias of television news: The case of the
Persian Gulf War. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(4),
pp.799-812.
Stempel, G. H. (1985). Gatekeeping: The ix of topics and the selection of stories.
Journalism Quarterly, 62(4), 791-796.
Stempel, G. H. (1988). Topic and story choice of ï¬ve network newscasts. Journalism
Quarterly, 65(3), 750-752.
Stephenson, W. (1988). The Play Theory of Mass Communication. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.
Stewart, G. (2001). No news is good news. Best ’s Review, February, 101(10), pp.76.
Stoker, K. (1995). NBC’s Dateline debacle: A systems analysis of news organizations
and the public trust. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association
for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC), Qualitative
Studies Division, Washington, DC.
Streeter, T. (1990). Beyond freedom of speech and the public interest: The relevance of
critical legal studies to communications policy. Journal of Communication, 40(2),
43-63.
Stroud, M. (1998). Can Dateline thrive on night No. 5? Broadcasting & Cable, August
10, 1998, pp.32.
156
Sutherland, P. (1997). Sensational: A comparison of content and presentation styles of
the 60 Minutes and Dateline NBC television news magazine. Paper presented at
the annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication (AEJMC) , Division of Mass Communication and Society.
Tiedge, J. T., & Ksobiech, K. J. (1986). The lead-in strategy for prime-time TV: Does it
increase the audience? Journal of Communication, pp.51-63.
Tiedge, J. T., & Ksobiech, K. J. (1987). Counterprogramming prime time network
television. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 29, 23-34.
Time (1993). The magazining of TV news. Time, July 12, pp. 50-51.
Toothaker, L. E. (1986). Introductory Statistics: For the Behavioral Sciences. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Trigoboff, D. (1999). The selling of Monica. Broadcasting & Cable, March 8‘“, 129(10),
pp.6-10.
Turner, R., and Hosenball, M. (1998). The Datelining of TV. Newsweek, May 4, 1998,
pp.50-52.
Turow, J. (1994). The organizational underpinnings of contemporary media
conglomerates. Communication Research, 19(6), 682-704.
Turow, J. (1997). Media Systems in Society: Understanding Industries, Strategies, and
Power. New York: Longman Publishers.
Underwood, D. (1993). When MBAs Rule the Newsroom: How the Marketers and
Managers Are Reshaping Today’s Media. New York, NY: Columbia University
Press.
Voakes, P. S., Kapfer, J ., Kurpius, D., and Chem, D. S. (1996). Diversity in the news: A
conceptual and methodological framework. Journalism and Mass Communication
Quarterly. 73(3), 582-593.
Walker, J. R. (1988). Inheritance effects in the new media environment. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 32(4), pp.391-401.
Wanta W. (1997). The public and the national agenda: How people learn about
important issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Waterman, D. (1995). Vertical integration and program access in the cable television
industry. Federal Communication Law Journal, 47, 511-534.
157
Waterman, D. (2000). CBS-Viacom and the effects of media mergers: An economic
perspective. Federal Communications Law Journal, 52(3), pp.531-550.
Webster, J. G. & Phalen, P. F. (1994). Victim, consumer, or commodity? Audience
model in communication policy. In James S. Ettema and D. Charles Whitney
(Eds), Audiencemaking: How the media create the audience? Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
Weintraub, A. (1998). More news is good news... maybe. American Demographics,
November 1998.
Whalen, P. T. and Litman, B. R. (1996). Short-circuited mergers in the mass media:
Credible and incredible evidence. In Warner, C. (Ed.), Media Management
Review, Landon: Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc.
Wicks, R. H. & Walker, D. C. (1993). Differences between CNN and the broadcast
networks in live war coverage. In B. S. Greenberg, & W. Gantz (Eds), Desert
Storm and the mass media (PP. 99-112). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Williams, D. (2000). Synergy bias: Conglomerates and promotion in the news. Paper
presented at the annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism
and Mass Communication (AEJMC), Division of Mass Communication and
Society.
Willnat, L. and Weaver, D. H. (1998). Public opinion on investigative reporting in the
19903; Has anything changed since the 19805? Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, 75(3), 449-463
Wimmer, R. D. & Dominick, J. R. (1994). Mass media research. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Winch, S. P. (1997). Mapping the cultural space of journalism: How journalists
° distinguish news from entertainment. Westport, CT: Praeger Publisher.
Wirth, M. O. (1990). Cable’s economic impact on over-the-air broadcasting. Journal of
Media Economics, pp.39-53.
Wulfemeyer, K. T. (1982). A content analysis of local television newscasts: Answering
the critics. Journal of Broadcasting, 26, pp. 481-486.
Young J. R. (1997). An investigation of the theory of the commodity and its application to
critical media studies. Dissertation .com Inc.
Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origin of mass opinion. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
158
Zaller, J. (1994). Elite Leadership of mass opinion: New evidence from the gulf war. In
W. Lance Bennett & David L. Paletz (Eds), Taken by storm. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Zoglin, R. (1992). Prime time lively. Time, February 17, pp.85.
Zoglin, R. (1998). The 10 o’clock news. Time, May 4, pp. 66-68.
Zoglin, R. (1999). 60 Minutes More. Time, January 20, 1999, pp. 100.
159
1111111ll‘ljljjljljilllljiillj11