|
Magazines' Frames of "Sesame Street" and the Surrounding Debate, 1968-1994:
A Content Analysis
Submitted to the Graduate Education Interest Group
Stephanie Hay, M.A. Candidate
Ohio University
247 West Union 201D
Athens, OH 45701
740.589.5133 (home)
740.593.4883 (work)
[log in to unmask]
Alternative Contact: Dr. Joseph Bernt
740.593.4118
[log in to unmask]
Magazines' Frames of "Sesame Street" and the Surrounding Debate,
1968-1994: A Content Analysis
9
Introduction
Television to viewers of all ages in the sixties was a budding media, but
children, specifically, by 1961 proved to be a loyal—and later
profitable—target audience for networks.[1] Advertisers vied for exposure
on prime-time television and sunk their teeth into the new and expanding
"$50 billion-dollar industry" known as children's television.[2] But
concerned parents and advocacy groups questioned whether or not children's
television was a positive influence.[3]
By the late 1960s, American parents were disgusted by commercial networks'
lack of quality, educational programming. Most of children's programming
was low budget, filled with violence and bombarded with
commercials.[4] "Our concern is that children's shows do nothing," said
Evelyn Sarson, a mother of two and founder of Boston's Action for
Children's Television (ACT) group. "Children's programs today,
particularly the Saturday-morning cartoons, are merely fill-ins between a
string of commercials."[5] The group originated in 1970 to advocate quality
children's programming comparable to that of Joan Ganz Cooney and Lloyd
Morrisett's 1969 creation, "Sesame Street."
This study explores through content analysis the frames popular consumer
magazines used when describing "Sesame Street" and the debate surrounding
the show's merits as a positive influence and educational tool. No
research exists that determines how magazines framed "Sesame Street" and
the surrounding debate. This study's time period begins in 1968, the year
before "Sesame Street's" debut and the first year in which an article about
"Sesame Street" was published, according to The Reader's Guide to
Periodical Literature, and ends in 1994, the last year in which an article
was published. The articles will serve as an historical sample to
determine which praises and criticisms emerged in magazines' frames of
"Sesame Street," and the debate surrounding the program's merits.
Communication researchers may benefit by understanding some of the
components that may have contributed to the show's unprecedented
success. The study also may be beneficial to children's broadcasting
industry entrepreneurs who seek such success for their own programs and
would gain from understanding the factors that influenced "Sesame Street,"
apart from sheer content research.
Background of 'Sesame Street"
The show's idea began at a dinner party hosted in March 1966 by Cooney, who
was an educational programming producer at WNDT-TV in New York City. One
guest was Morrisett, vice-president of the Carnegie Corporation and a
childhood education associate. He joined Cooney in a discussion about
TV. At the time, 90% of households with less than a $5,000 annual income
owned a TV, a rate more than those who owned bathtubs.[6] There were an
estimated 12 million three- to five-year-old kids in the United States who
watched more than approximately thirty hours of television per week.[7]
Morrisett and Cooney considered the idea that television could be used to
educate preschoolers nationwide and to reach disadvantaged, inner-city
youth.[8]
Morrisett apparently thought about the idea, and in June 1966, the Carnegie
Corporation awarded Cooney a grant to study educational television programs
through WNDT for fourteen - eighteen weeks.[9] She was named president of
the Children's Television Workshop (CTW), which was the organization
Morrisett and the grant helped to create for children's television
research. The study's objective was to determine the feasibility of a
preschool education project that used television entertainment to teach.[10]
Cooney presented her final proposal in January 1968, almost two years
following the dinner party, after receiving help with developing the
guidelines for CTW's relationship with National Educational Television
(NET), which was the organization that agreed to air the program on its 170
stations. The fifty-five-page document was broken into six subsections that
asked for between $5-10 million to reach at least 6 million three- to
five-year-old kids.[11] The plan kept the backgrounds, problems and needs
of disadvantaged kids primary during planning and promotion.[12]
A press release in March 1968 describing the program stated:
The aim [of CTW] is to stimulate the intellectual and cultural growth of
young children—particularly those from disadvantaged
backgrounds. Television professionals will work in partnership with
educators, psychologists and other child-development specialists to fuse
education and entertainment into taped programs that will interest, engage
and instruct four-and-five-year-olds. The most professional and
sophisticated techniques of television will be used to teach subject matter
ranging from concepts of numbers and shapes to recognition of the alphabet,
and to advance such skills as language and reasoning.[13]
The program's scene resembled an inner-city street because the target
audience was disadvantaged children.[14] Morrisett recalled the creators
realized that in order to have a popular show, the program must appeal to
as many kids as possible.[15] Cooney later realized that to reach
inner-city kids, the program must be something with which urban
preschoolers could identify. The scene was designed complete with
sidewalks, a trashcan, a boarded-up excavation site and stoops of stairs
leading to a brownstone apartment buildings.[16]
The show debuted in November 1969, and a January 1970 article in Ebony
applauded the diversity both onscreen and behind the scenes, citing black
staff members such as cartoonist Tee Collins, actress Loretta Long, actor
Matt Robinson and producer Lutrelle Horne. The article detailed areas of
concern to Robinson, who played "Gordon" on the show. He said, "These kids
need less fantasy and . . . more realism in black-oriented problems." He
believed the show was too diluted by attempting to reach every
preschooler.[17] Morrisett responded that the show decided to teach
standard English instead of "Black English," which led to criticisms that
the program was racist and oppressive. On the other hand, he also recalled
that some people thought that "Sesame Street" was too black because it was
set in an urban area and employed a diverse cast.[18]
Diversity in the cast also can indicate non-human characters, or Muppets,
as applied to "Sesame Street." Muppets are Jim Henson's creations, a
mixture of marionettes and puppets, that were determined in the initial
stages of "Sesame Street's" research to maintain the attention of viewers
when interwoven with human hosts.[19]
As stated previously, this study asks whether or not "Sesame Street'
maintained its commitment to diversity by representing minorities, women
and inner city lifestyles in its characters.
Literature Review
Goffman offered a general concept of frame theory in 1974, saying a
situation is defined by the organization of social principles that control
events and by a receiver's involvement in the organization of those social
principles. Additionally, he held the way in which an activity is portrayed
or fabricated within a frame influences the receivers' perceptions of
reality.[20] Entman more recently applied general frame analysis to media,
asserting, "Media messages significantly influence what the public and the
elites think, by affecting what they perceive and think about."[21]
Entman's definition of framing provides this study's theoretical base:
To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them
more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a
particular problem definition, causal interpretations, moral evaluation,
and/or treatment recommendation for the item described.[22]
Entman determined that frames define problems by distinguishing costs and
benefits measured by common cultural values; diagnose causes through
identification of forces; make moral judgments by analyzing causes and
effects; and suggest remedies by offering justification for problems and
predicting effects.[23] Salience, according to Entman, increases the chance
that receivers will recognize information because salient information is
made, either consciously or unconsciously by the communicator, more
noticeable, meaningful, or memorable to that receiver.[24]
The ways in which information is constructed could influence society,
according to Gamson.[25] How that information is constructed is crucial to
understanding this study, which explores frames as a praise or a criticism
of the show. Criticisms of "Sesame Street" obviously were not salient
enough to elicit widespread disapproval and subsequent failure of the
program. Gender may play a role in the ways in which "Sesame Street" was
reported and, perhaps easily accepted. Zoch and Turk addressed this issue
to find that men were quoted more often than women, and women of lower
status were quoted more often than higher-status women in media
stories.[26] Seemingly, based on previous research, men may be quoted more
often than women about "Sesame Street" and the surrounding debate. Kosicki
and Pan advised that "media also have effects on the way issues are framed
through the choice of journalists, institutional traditions and workways,
occupational norms and values, and actions of policymakers who may be
chosen as sources."[27] Ostensibly, author gender as applied to "Sesame
Street" articles may influence source usage. Shoemaker and Reese noted,
"sources have a tremendous effect on mass media content, because
journalists can't include in their news reports what they don't
know…(sources) may also influence the news in subtle ways by providing the
context within which all other information is evaluated."[28] The "Sesame
Street" debate involves such potentially influential variables such as the
condensed and repetitive criticisms and praises, the gender of a source,
the gender of an author and the occupation of a source.
Studying the trends of how one medium frames another medium is necessary
today to provide a more thorough context and understanding of an historical
period. Howard perhaps best described her collection of print media and how
generally it has framed television's influence on children:
As I riffle through my file of newspaper and magazine clippings collected
over the last few years, television, it appears, has been responsible for
making children fat, lazy, murderous, violent, greedy, disrespectful of
their elders, illiterate and suicidal. These claims are contained in
reports of research, in pitches by lobbyists and in the opinions of leaders
as disparate as Prince Charles, Paul Keating (ex-Prime Minister of
Australia), Pope John Paul II and Bob Dole, Republican candidate in the
1996 U.S. Presidential election. With press like this, it is not hard to
see why television has such a bad reputation in the public mind.[29]
Under what conditions would these frames originate? Fraser identified three
sides to public discourse of television relevant to the "Sesame Street"
debates:
[The Right] discourse is probably the most dominant in public debate…a
number of concerns are brought together: a suspicion of new cultural forms
and their assumed effects, often expressed in moral panics; fears about
specific social and cultural groups; a perceived decline in moral standards
and organized Christianity; and the presence of sex, violence and 'bad'
language on TV. Users of this discourse seek to construct a consensus of
'ordinary viewers', particularly parents, who are set against anonymous
'manipulator', 'sociologist' and other 'so-called experts'.
[The Liberal] discourse shares the concern voiced by many on the Right…a
variety of medical and cultural arguments are used here to prove that TV is
both physically dangerous and intellectually inhibiting. The viewer is
predominantly defined as a passive 'TV addict', helplessly enslaved by the
mesmeric control exerted by the medium itself. Much of the blame here is
seen to lie with 'irresponsible' parents, who have merely abandoned their
children to an 'electronic child minder.'
[The Left] rests on similar assumption about the 'power' of television…the
viewer is seen as a dupe, a passive victim of ideological manipulation…It
feeds into popular conceptions of 'representation', in which the falsehoods
and stereotypes of TV are directly contrasted with 'reality'…that
[television] is largely responsible for preventing people, particularly the
young, from questioning dominant values and beliefs.[30]
Of particular interest to this study is how the debate has changed over
time, and how "Sesame Street" has changed over time perhaps in response to
such debates. Drake and Donohue suggested, "although both sides come to
the negotiation table with firm understandings of the problem, these
notions evolve over time because each side's arguments refine its focus on
an issue, thus reframing or redefining the issue by bringing light to new
considerations."[31]
Many of the common themes and criticisms of "Sesame Street" this study
explores for saliency already have been researched, although, as stated
previously, no study exists determining how magazines framed "Sesame
Street" and the surrounding debate specifically. CTW published a
bibliography of research conducted on a variety of aspects of "Sesame
Street."[32] Both CTW's team of researchers and also communication
researchers not affiliated with the program have conducted several studies
to prove that the show's educational objectives were met. In general, some
of these studies concluded that "Sesame Street" can teach, or that
preschoolers were more prepared when entering formal schooling after
watching "Sesame Street," or that format and content choices were based on
direct research of children's attention to television and retention of
information. (See Appendix A)
Several researchers have attempted to substantiate common criticisms framed
by the media surrounding "Sesame Street." In general, these studies have
concluded that "Sesame Street" cannot teach, or that it increases the
knowledge gap between advantaged and disadvantaged youth upon entering
school, or that it makes kids passive and lazy students, or that it is too
commercially-profitable amid its not-for-profit slogan. (See Appendix A)
One specific criticism that will be explored in this study was "Sesame
Street's" attempting to make information more affordable and convenient to
inner-city youth in order to decrease the knowledge gap. The gap occurs
when knowledge, like wealth, is not equally distributed throughout social
statuses, thereby rendering impoverished people information-poor in
comparison to their wealthier counterparts who can afford the cost of
information.[33] However, one year after "Sesame Street" debuted, Tichenor,
Donohue and Olien proposed that increasing information quantities may
actually increase the knowledge gap between different social class members.[34]
Healy offers her own critique of "Sesame Street" that touches on several of
the most salient criticisms:
A brain brought up on a steady diet of noisy, fast-paced, visually
demanding programs like "Sesame Street" is physically different—and thus is
equipped differently for learning—than a brain which has gotten its
intellectual nourishment primarily from personally absorbing play, social
interactions with peers, and intelligent conversation with real adults. In
fact, there is every reason to believe that "Sesame Street"-type
programming is related to the fact that teachers today increasingly
complain that their students can't listen; can't pay attention in class;
can't apply themselves to problems that demand persistence.[35]
The criticisms of "Sesame Street" may have been salient enough to warrant
responses and revisions on the part of CTW staff. However, as Lesser
points out:
What was most disappointing in the critical reaction was that it seldom
offered constructive suggestions about the problems it raised. It did as
some useful questions, however, about the educational goals we had chosen
and our methods for attaining them, about "Sesame Street's" possible
unintended effects, and about the ways "Sesame Street" portrayed
minority-group members and women.[36]
Methodology
Quantitative content analysis was employed to determine magazines' frames
of "Sesame Street" and the surrounding debate. Stempel defined content
analysis broadly as, ''a formal system for doing something that we all do
informally rather frequently, drawing conclusions from observations of
content."[37] This definition is particularly applicable to this study,
which includes textual examinations and qualitative aspects of content
analysis.
Riffe et al. stated that content analysis is a reliable and valid
instrument because:
in addition to modern scholars in journalism or mass communication,
researchers from other disciplines, such as sociology and psychology, have
focused on mass communication processes and effects, enriching and defining
mass communication as a field by contributing their own most productive
theoretical perspectives and research methods. Regardless of whether they
were optimistic, pessimistic, certain or uncertain about mass
communication's effects, researchers have often recognized content analysis
as an essential step in understanding those effects.[38]
Those various professions to which Riffe et al. refer have employed content
analysis to explore the effects of variables on social processes. One of
this study's variables, gender, was chosen based on previous research that
gender may influence source usage. The variable source occupation was
chosen based on previous framing research on public debates to determine
which occupations were most salient in the "Sesame Street" discourse.
This question's sample originated in the Reader's Guide to Periodical
Literature, a guide to popular consumer magazines by circulation, which
directs researchers of the keyword "Sesame Street" to the subhead
"Television in Education" to retrieve articles relating to "Sesame
Street." Other subheads such as "Children's Television Workshop" and
"Public Broadcasting Service" do not appear consistently from 1968 through
1994, which is the time period for this study. Articles relating to
"Sesame Street" that were included under these subheads also could be found
under "Television in Education."
The first article published on "Sesame Street," according to the Reader's
Guide of Periodical Literature, was published in 1968, and the last article
published in 1994. Forty-six articles relating to "Sesame Street" were
retrieved from this time frame. In order to identify articles directly
relating to "Sesame Street," the titles and subtitles of articles were
examined for keywords directly relating to "Sesame Street," such as "Sesame
Street," "Children's Television Workshop," "National Educational
Television," "Public Broadcasting," "Cooney," "preschoolers," "educational
television," "switched-on school," and "children's television."
All forty-six articles then were analyzed to determine how the media framed
"Sesame Street" and the surrounding debate. Content analysis was applied by
involving three coders to analyze the forty-six articles to determine what
criticisms and praises emerged and were shared by the articles in their
descriptions of "Sesame Street" and the surrounding debate. One pilot study
was conducted to determine intercoder reliability and instrument
clarity. Three coders were given ten articles total, and were asked each
to read the same ten articles, after a 20-minute information session on the
sample and accompanying instrument. The pilot study aimed to determine
what revisions to the coding instrument were merited, based on intercoder
reliability results and feedback from coders. Clarifications then were
performed based on low percentages of agreement and coder feedback. Three
new coders then were given the updated coding sheet and a 25-minute
information session about the study, sample and accompanying coding
sheet. These three coders then were given ten articles each, and the
researcher sixteen articles, to code for emerging praises and criticisms,
source genders and source occupations. The gender and occupation of sources
were coded to determine if either variable had an impact on how "Sesame
Street" was framed.
A source, as defined by this study, was any person, including the author,
who made a statement in direct relation to the television show "Sesame
Street." A criticism, as defined by this study, was any statement that
diverged from the CTW's goals for "Sesame Street." The CTW's main goal for
"Sesame Street" was to create a show that helped all children,
"particularly the disadvantaged," prepare cognitively for formal schooling
by teaching basic letters and numbers. Additionally, CTW wanted "Sesame
Street" to provide role models for children, be disseminated to as many
households as possible—especially inner-city households—at an affordable
price, provide a prototype for network stations to produce more quality
children's programming, and apply effective format and content from which
children could best retain information based on extensive research by CTW
staff. Therefore, a praise, as defined by this study, was any statement
that was in congruence with the CTW's goals for "Sesame Street."
Intercoder reliability for this study, based on percentage of agreement,
ranged from 72% for items 12, 16 and 23, to 87% for items 5, 20, 24 and 25,
to 100% for items 1, 2, 8, 21 and 22. The mean intercoder reliability for
this study is .88. (See Figure 1 in the Appendix B for complete coding
sheet.) Harris et. al said that values more than .65-.7 are acceptable
rates of intercoder reliability.[39] Therefore, this study's internal
consistency is acceptable.
Findings
This study determined that magazines framed "Sesame Street" favorably, and
created a traditional educator versus CTW spokesperson debate over the
show's merits. Sixty-eight percent of authors of articles praised "Sesame
Street," compared to 32% of authors of articles who criticized "Sesame
Street." Therefore, a trend emerged in that magazines overwhelmingly
favored "Sesame Street."
Table 1 illustrates the seven salient criticisms that emerged from a total
of seventy-eight, alleging that the show was too fast-paced and narrowly
focused, that it was too commercial and too successful, that it could not
teach, that it increased the knowledge gap, that it didn't reach its target
audience and was unaffordable, that it mixed fantasy and reality, and that
it made kids passive learners and lazy. (See Figure 2 in Appendix B for
complete results on magazines' frames of "Sesame Street" by criticism.)
Table 1: Magazines' Most Salient Criticisms of "Sesame Street"
Source occupation
& gender
Too
fast- paced, narrow
N/T /P
Mixes fantasy & reality
N/T/P
Can't teach
N/T/P
Makes kids passive/lazy
N/T/P
Educator MALE
FEMALE
INDETERMINATE
3/15 (21%)
1/15 (7%)
1/15 (7%)
0
0
0
2/15 (33%)
0
0
2/15 (22%)
0
1/15
Author of MALE
article FEMALE
INDETERMINATE
2/26 (14%)
2/26 (14%)
3/26 (21%)
1/26 (20%)
1/26 (20%)
1/26 (20%)
0
1/26 (17%)
2/26 (33%)
0
1/26 (11%)
1/26 (11%)
CTW staff MALE
Member FEMALE
INDETERMINATE
1/5 (7%)
1/5 (7%)
0
1/5 (20%)
1/5 (20%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"Critic" MALE
FEMALE
INDETERMINATE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1/8 (17%)
1/8 (11%)
0
3/8 (33%)
TOTALS:
14
5
6
9
Note: N/T/P= Number/Total/Percent
The most salient themes showed that 31% of criticisms held "Sesame Street"
was too fast-paced and narrowly focused. That children could not
comprehend the content because of its employment of quick editing styles
resembling commercials seemed problematic for some sources. The content
also was criticized for not being intellectually challenging enough and for
cultivating an entertained mind, rather than one programmed for learning.
For example, one author said, "One of the things that probably is wrong
with "Sesame Street" is the pace ('Always fast-paced and bouncy') which is
practically subliminal in technique and enough to drive a kid out of his
mind eventually."[40]
Another 18% of articles charged that "Sesame Street" made kids passive
learners and lazy, and 12% held that "Sesame Street" could not
teach. Passivity was observed both in a child's physical response to life
and formal education, and to visual images on television. Passivity also
was used to define the attitudes of power-holders such as broadcasters,
station management, the FCC and federal government in general, and of
parents. Healy noted that the visual devices of "Sesame Street" are
responsible for dulling children's natural attention to life inside the
classroom.[41] According to another author, "it doesn't matter how good
the show is if it doesn't teach its audience."[42]
Praises of "Sesame Street," like criticisms, addressed the educational
goals and format- related aspects of the program. Six salient praises
emerged from a total of sixty-nine articles, alleging that the show
provided role models, attracted everyone and was a hit, was an exception to
children's television that provides a prototype for other programs to
follow, reached a wide and diverse audience, taught and prepared kids for
school, and was run by an able staff that composed an applicable format and
conducted significant research in the area of children's television. Table
2 illustrates the most salient praises. (See Figure 3 in Appendix B for
complete results on magazines' frames of "Sesame Street" by praise.)
Table 2: Magazines' Most Salient Praises of "Sesame Street"
Source occupation
& gender
Attracts everyone/
it's a hit
N/T/P
Exception to kids' TV/ prototype
N/T/P
Teaches/ prepares kids
N/T/P
Great staff/ format/ research
N/T/P
Educator MALE FEMALE
INDETERMINATE
1/5 (04%)
0
0
1/5 (7%)
0
0
1/5 (6%)
0
0
0
0
0
Author of MALE
article FEMALE
INDETERMINATE
4/55 (16%)
5/55 (21%)
7/55 (29%)
6/55 (43%)
2/55 (14%)
2/55 (14%)
4/55 (22%)
2/55 (11%)
4/55 (22%)
1/55 (17%)
0
4/55 (66%)
CTW staff MALE
member FEMALE
INDETERMINATE
4/19 (16%)
2/19 (08%)
1/19 (04%)
1/19 (7%)
2/19 (14%)
0
2/19 (11%)
3/19 (17%)
2/19 (11%)
0
1/19 (17%)
0
TOTALS:
24
14
18
6
Note: N/T/P = Number/Total/Percent
In congruence with the 33% that held "Sesame Street" attracts everyone and
is a hit, one author said, "Not only has it drawn the highest audience
rating of all programs ever broadcast on the national educational
television network, but it is even drawing viewers in numbers that compare
with big commercial television programs."[43] The show—as one article
described, observable throughout this question's sample—was lauded:
from the moment it leaped onto U.S. television screens… 'Sesame Street' has
bounded from one milestone of success to another—widespread critical
praise, high viewer acceptance, Emmy Awards and a whole ancillary empire of
books and records.[44]
Another 18% held that "Sesame Street" is an exception to children's
television and is a prototype for other programs to follow, as illustrated
by one author, who said "Sesame Street's" effects on commercial television
would take time. "The major networks responded to demands for improvement
with a flurry of activity—appointments of children's programming
executives, highly touted 'informational' shows, discussions of the proper
role of commercial TV."
Preparing kids for school was a theme 29% held about "Sesame Street." "In
the first six months, "Sesame Street" had a marked effect on the learning
of three- through five-year-old children from widely diverse
backgrounds—including a strong and positive effect on disadvantaged youth,"
said one author.
Four salient occupations emerged in the "Sesame Street" debate from 150
total sources of both criticisms and praises. These occupations included
educators, authors of articles, CTW staff members, and "critics," which was
a term sometimes used as a general title in debate. The most salient source
occupations of both criticisms and praises were eighty-one (54%) authors,
twenty-four (16%) CTW staff members, and twenty (13%) educators. CTW staff
members were identified in the articles as being either spokespeople, on
the CTW Board of Directors, or a producer of the show.
These numbers were further examined to determine that fifteen (75%)
educators were used as critical sources of "Sesame Street," while only five
(25%) educators were used as sources of praise. Educators criticized the
show for creating passive children unable to learn in formal schooling,
while the five educators praised "Sesame Street" for teaching children
basic number and letter understandings before they entered formal
education. Nineteen (79%) CTW staff members were used as sources of
praise, while only five (21%) CTW staff members were used as critical
sources of "Sesame Street."
Those five critical sources thought the show did not help true,
disadvantaged youth identify with the show's characters and language
development. For example, Matt Robinson played "Gordon" on the show. In
an Ebony article, Robinson said, "This aim to reach the disadvantaged child
just won't be realized, I'm afraid. These kids need less fantasy and…more
realism in black oriented problems." He felt the format was too weak
because it was trying to reach such a vast viewing audience.[45]
Therefore, a trend seemingly emerged illustrated by Table 3 that the debate
surrounding "Sesame Street" tended to pin traditional educators as critical
sources against CTW staff members as praising sources. (See Figure 4 in
Appendix B for complete results on magazines' frames of "Sesame Street"
debates by source occupation and comment.)
Table 3:Magazines' Frames of the Debate Surrounding "Sesame Street" by Most
Salient Source Occupations
Fifty-five (37%) males were used as sources and fifty-one (34%) female
sources were used, while forty-four (29%) sources' genders were either
indistinguishable or not mentioned. Of the fifty-five male sources,
twenty-three (42%) criticized "Sesame Street" and thirty-two (58%) praised
"Sesame Street." Of the fifty-one female sources, twenty-four (47%)
criticized "Sesame Street" and twenty-seven (53%) praised "Sesame
Street." Therefore, males were not more likely than females to criticize
"Sesame Street."
All-in-all, this research question determined that magazines overwhelmingly
framed "Sesame Street" as positive for children in terms of its immediate
success and exceptional status as an educator and prototype for quality
programming, of its ability to prepare kids for school, of its qualified
staff, of its pertinent format and of its substantial research base. The
debate surrounding "Sesame Street's" merits as an educational tool tended
to pin educators, who opposed the show, against CTW spokespeople, who
favored the show. Also included in the debate were authors themselves, who
injected their own opinions about the show's positive influence over
children more than they injected opinions about "Sesame Street's" negative
influence.
Discussion/Conclusion
This study found that magazines seemingly framed "Sesame Street" favorably
and pinned educators against CTW staff members in the program's surrounding
debate. In addition, authors of articles included their own opinions of
"Sesame Street" more than three times as much as they included other
sources, seemingly opposite to Shoemaker and Reese's findings of source
usage in that authors often will state their opinions through the use of
sources.[46] However, one of those two criticisms that focused on format
was the most salient criticism, charging that the show was too fast-paced
and narrowly focused. The remaining five criticisms, including the two
subsequent salient criticisms that "Sesame Street" made kids passive
learners and lazy, and that it could not teach, focused on the show's
educational objectives and alleged consequences.
Only one praise, that the show was run by an able staff that composed an
applicable format and conducted significant research in the area of
children's television, focused on format rather than educational objectives
and widespread acclaim. That this only praise focused on format was not
surprising the researcher. Based on this study's findings, magazines
rarely framed "Sesame Street" in terms of its research or the
qualifications of its staff members. That such information was not salient
to its receivers seemingly might have led readers to believe that the show,
which received ample coverage on its educational objectives and immediate
success, did not have as much research and background as actually existed.
Consultants or counselors, activists, and parents rarely were
quoted. These findings were unforeseen to the researcher because such
titles as "parents" or "consultant" often were used to describe aspects of
"Sesame Street," but were not used often for actual quotations or
feedback. For example, in one article, "CTW Consultant Joyce Hakansson"
was described as being a key figure in "Sesame Street," but her opinion or
duties never were discussed.[47] Therefore, these source occupations were
not considered salient, although their topical mentions were
common. Parents were not salient sources in debate, either, although an
article used such a title to mention that a problem of "Sesame Street" was
"getting more parents in the ghetto to urge their kids to watch the
show."[48] Seemingly, the question needing answered is why parents may not
urge their children to watch, but such a question never is asked, and no
parents' opinions were sought in such an article.
Regardless, those sources who did register criticisms and praises of the
program deserve further attention. However, although the process of framing
packed criticisms into small, easily categorized statements, those
criticisms of "Sesame Street" obviously were not salient enough to elicit
widespread disapproval and subsequent failure of the program.
Lang and Lang concluded that a new medium could cause disequilibrium in
society. "Sesame Street" was innovative in its use of television as a
potential educational tool, but did not upset the status quo. Perhaps
those positive frames determined by this study to have existed influenced
this maintenance of status quo. The state of children's television in
general, as determined by this study to exhibit themes of violent,
commercialism, blaming and passivity, may have affected television's
immediate reception as being innovative in using television to
educate. Conversely, "Sesame Street's" attempts to use television
effectively as an educational tool were debated, so as long as dissenters
believed the show was unable to teach, than universal understandings were
not changed and, therefore, status quo was maintained. More extensive
research is needed to determine other factors that may have influenced
"Sesame Street's" success, such as governmental support, public opinion,
the number of stations carrying "Sesame Street," and the number of
households watching "Sesame Street."
Two criticisms used for coding—that "Sesame Street" was oppressive to
women and Blacks, and that "Sesame Street's" content appealed to the lowest
common denominator—emerged as possible trends. However, these two
criticisms were not quoted as often as the other criticisms, and were more
likely to not mention a source's gender or occupation. Four praises used
for coding—that "Sesame Street" was cost-effective, that it decreased the
knowledge gap, that it provided role models and that it reached a lot of
viewers from diverse backgrounds—were not as salient as other criticisms,
and were more likely to not have an attributed source's gender or
occupation. Consultants, counselors, activists, and parents, as used for
coding, likewise were not as often quoted as other occupations for either
criticisms or praises, as mentioned before.
This study has a few limitations that may be eliminated for future
research. Several of the authors of articles did not have accompanying
bylines, therefore rendering gender impossible to distinguish. Also, the
number of authors of articles that included criticisms and praises exceeded
the number of all other sources combined—such as CTW spokespeople, parents,
educators or counselors. This hindered determining a broader framing of the
debate because only two sources, educators and CTW spokespeople, were cited
for opinions outside of the author's own. This is particularly noteworthy
in that magazines, by pure nature of its medium, allow for more in-depth
and opinionated coverage of any particular issue. Therefore, authors of
articles may have felt justified in injecting their own opinions more than
seeking external sourcing, but sources were excluded who may have
contributed additional information and opinions.
Additionally, inherent to framing theory is the socially embedded quality
of frames in that, once such categorizations are established, alteration is
difficult because universal understandings must be challenged and
overhauled. Again, however, the breadth of the debate outside of authors'
own frames is constrained by the restricted source usage. Furthermore, the
number of articles published about "Sesame Street" dramatically dropped
after 1972, presumably because the show, by that time, was widely accepted
and no longer deemed newsworthy by magazines. This rendered research of
the debate's evolution and changing frames of "Sesame Street" during the
past 30 years difficult.
Therefore, future studies in this area may benefit by examining
large-circulation newspapers' framing of "Sesame Street." Newspapers may
provide a larger sample than magazines listed in the Reader's Guide to
Periodical Literature from which to gather information and determine if and
how the framing of "Sesame Street" changed over time (based on Drake and
Donohue's work on evolving debates) and if the public's opinion changed
according to frames employed by those newspapers' articles. A newspaper may
be more likely than a magazine article to include the author's byline, to
include at least one source from each side of the debate, and more likely
to attribute facts to specific sources instead of generalizations, such as
"critics."
Television program guides also may help to develop a broader understanding
of the debate surrounding "Sesame Street" through features not including in
this study's sample, which originated only in large-circulation consumer
magazines as detailed by the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature. In
other words, a more extensive investigation of print media's coverage of
"Sesame Street" may be merited for future research in this area.
What these conclusions mean outside of this study is that "Sesame Street"
seemingly was a unique program for magazines, a competitive medium, to
cover in that favorable commentary and public discourse of the program may
have contributed to its unparalleled success. Suppose another program,
such as "Three's Company" or "Star Trek," received a majority of positive
comments from journalists in a competitive medium to television, especially
more than 20 years subsequent to their debuts. Such conclusions beg the
question of how influential positive media coverage may be in other media's
successes. That educators today may continue to view "Sesame Street" as a
threat to formal education might have influenced by those first frames
magazines used in the program's initial years. Understanding these
historically-embedded frames, then working to construct new frames, may
help educators—who today continue to oppose "Sesame Street"—to see the
program's viability as an educational tool that may further children's
abilities to comprehend upon their reaching formal schooling.
Appendix A
Selected Bibliography of Studies on Cognitive Aspects of "Sesame Street"
Anderson, D. N., A.C. Huston, J.C. Wright and P.A. Collins. "Sesame Street
and Educational Television for Children." In A Communications Cornucopia:
Markle Foundation Essays on Information Policy. ed. R.G. Noll and M.E.
Price, 279-296. DC: Brookings Institute, 1998.
Ball, S. and G.A. Bogatz. "The First Year of Sesame Street: An Evaluation."
Educational Testing Service, 1970.
Burbank, Lucille. "Children's Television: An Historical Inquiry on Three
Selected, Prominent, Long-running, Early Childhood TV Programs." Temple
University, 1992, 326.
Chan-Olmsted, Sylvia M. "From Sesame Street to Wall Street: An Analysis of
Market Competition in Commercial Children's Television." Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media 40 (1996): 30-44.
Cook, T.D, H. Appleton, R.F. Conner, A. Shaffer, G. Tamkin, and S. Weber.
Sesame Street Revisited. NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 1975.
Cooney, Joan Ganz. "The First Year of Sesame Street: A History and
Overview." Report for the Children's Television Workshop, 1970.
Eaton, Carol B. and Joseph R. Dominic. "Product-Related Programming and
Children's TV: A Content Analysis." Journalism and Mass Communication
Quarterly 68 (1991): 67-75
Fisch, Shalom M., Rosemarie T. Truglio and Charlotte F. Cole. "The Impact
of Sesame Street on Preschool Children: A Review and Synthesis of 30 Years'
Research." Media Psychology 1, (1999): 165-190
Fisch, Shalom M. "The Children's Television Workshop: The Experiment
Continues." In A Communications Cornucopia: Markle Foundation Essays on
Information Policy. eds. R.G. Noll and M.E. Price, 297-336. DC: Brookings
Institute, 1998.
Gettas, G.J. "The Globalization of Sesame Street: A Producer's
Perspective." Educational Technology Research and Development 38 (1990): 55-63.
Jarvik, Laurence. PBS Behind the Screen. CA: Prima Publishing, 1997.
Kaplan, Mindy L. Does Psychology Live on Sesame Street? Thesis for
Hahnemann University Graduate School, 1989
Land, H.W. and N. Jericho. The Children's Television Workshop: How and Why
it Works. Nassau Board of Cooperative Educational Services, 1971.
Meichenbaum, D.H. and L. Turk. "Implications of Research on Disadvantaged
Children and Cognitive-Training Programs for Special Education." Journal of
Special Education 6 (1972): 27-50.
Mielke, Keith W. "Research and Development at the Children's Television
Workshop," Educational Technology Research and Development 38, (1990), 44-56.
Palmer, Edward L. Television & America's Children: A Crisis of Neglect. NY:
Oxford University Press, 1988.
Paulson, F.L. "Teaching Cooperation on Television: An Evaluation of Sesame
Street Social Goals Programs." AV Communication Review 22 (1974): 229-246.
Rice, M.L. et al. "Words From Sesame Street: Learning Vocabulary While
Viewing," Developmental Psychology 26 (1990): 217-223.
Samuels, B. The First Year of Sesame Street: a Summary of Audience Surveys.
Report for the Children's Television Workshop, 1970.
Steinberg, Shirley and Joe Kincheloe. Kinderculture: The Corporate
Construction of Childhood. CO: Westview Press, 1997.
Vazquez, Osvaldo F. An Ideological Analysis of 'Sesame Street': An Original
Study. Thesis for the University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1991.
Wilder, G.T., G.A. Bogatz and S. Ball. The Sesame Street Generation: The
Year After.
Report for the Children's Television Workshop, 1971
Appendix B
Figure 1: Complete Coding Sheet
American magazine framing of "Sesame Street" / Stephanie Hay / Spring 2002
All articles from the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature relating to
"Sesame Street" 1968-1994
Magazine Title___________________________________________________ 01-02/
Article Title______________________________________________________ 03-05/
Date
06-11/
(Year/Month/Day: ex. 68 / 05 / 22 = May 22, 1968)
Page on which story
begins 12-15/
Length (in paragraphs) 16-18/
Number of sources 19-21/
Criticism 1
Gender of source of criticism 1= male 2= female 3=
indistinguishable 22/
Source occupation of criticism 23/
1= educator / teacher 6= parent
2= academic expert 7= Children's Television Workshop staff member
3= academic administrator 8= author of article
4= governmental employee 9= child
5= activist 10= other / not mentioned____________________
Critical
comment 24/
1= too fast-paced 6= increases knowledge gap
2= racist 7= too diverse
3= oppressive to women 8= too commercial
4= makes kids hyperactive 9= doesn't teach
5= makes kids lazy 10= other_________________________________
Criticism 2
Gender of source of criticism 1= male 2= female 3=
indistinguishable 25/
Source occupation of criticism 26/
1= educator / teacher 6= parent
2= academic expert 7= Children's Television Workshop staff member
3= academic administrator 8= author of article
4= governmental employee 9= child
5= activist 10= other / not mentioned____________________
Critical comment 27/
1= too fast-paced 6= increases knowledge gap
2= racist 7= too diverse
3= oppressive to women 8= too commercial
4= makes kids hyperactive 9= doesn't teach
5= makes kids lazy 10= other_________________________________
Criticism 3
Gender of source of criticism 1= male 2= female 3=
indistinguishable 28/
Source occupation of
criticism 29/
1= educator / teacher 6= parent
2= academic expert 7= Children's Television Workshop staff member
3= academic administrator 8= author of article
4= governmental employee 9= child
5= activist 10= other / not mentioned____________________
Critical
comment 30/
1= too fast-paced 6= increases knowledge gap
2= racist 7= too diverse
3= oppressive to women 8= too commercial
4= makes kids hyperactive 9= doesn't teach
5= makes kids lazy 10= other__________________________________
Praise 1
Gender of source of praise 1= male 2= female 3=
indistinguishable 31/
Source occupation of praise 32/
1= educator / teacher 6= parent
2= academic expert 7= Children's Television Workshop staff member
3= academic administrator 8= author of article
4= governmental employee 9= child
5= activist 10= other / not mentioned____________________
Praising comment 33/
1= exception to children's TV 4= decreases the knowledge gap
2= offers viewers diversity 5= better prepares kids for school
3= teaches children 6= other / not mentioned_____________________
Praise 2
Gender of source of praise 1= male 2= female 3=
indistinguishable 34/
Source occupation of
praise 35/
1= educator / teacher 6= parent
2= academic expert 7= Children's Television Workshop staff member
3= academic administrator 8= author of article
4= governmental employee 9= child
5= activist 10= other / not mentioned____________________
Praising comment 36/
1= exception to children's TV 4= decreases the knowledge gap
2= offers viewers diversity 5= better prepares kids for school
3= teaches children 6= other / not mentioned_____________________
Praise 3
Gender of source of praise 1= male 2= female 3=
indistinguishable 37/
Source occupation of
praise 38/
1= educator / teacher 6= parent
2= academic expert 7= Children's Television Workshop staff member
3= academic administrator 8= author of article
4= governmental employee 9= child
5= activist 10= other / not mentioned______________________
Praising comment 39/
1= exception to children's TV 4= decreases the knowledge gap
2= offers viewers diversity 5= better prepares kids for school
3= teaches children 6= other / not mentioned_______________________
Number of stations carrying "Sesame Street" 40-42/
as mentioned in the article (if no mention, leave
blank)
Number of
photos 43-44/
Gender of article's author 1= male 2= female 3=
indistinguishable 45/
Magazines' Frames of "Sesame Street" and the Surrounding Debate,
1968-1994: A Content Analysis
9
Figure 7: Magazines' Frames of "Sesame Street" by Criticism
Figure 8: Magazines' Frames of "Sesame Street" by Praise
Figure 9: Magazines' Frames of the Debate Surrounding "Sesame Street" by
Source Occupation and Comment
Magazines' Frames of "Sesame Street" and the Surrounding Debate,
1968-1994: A Content Analysis
9
References
"A Playground for the Brain." Time, 21 September 1981, 62.
"A Toddle Down 'Sesame Street," Ebony, January 1970, 38.
B. B. S., "'Sesame Street' Opens," Saturday Review, 15 November 1969, 91
Clark, Naeemah. "Expanding Efforts: The Evolution of Action for Children's
Television, 1974-1979." Presented to American Journalism Historians
Association Meeting, Nashville, Tennessee, 6-10 October 2002.
Drake, Laura E. and William A. Donahue. "Communicative Framing Theory in
Conflict Resolution." Communication Research 23 (1996): 297-322.
Entman, Robert M. "Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm."
Journal of Communication 43, (1993): 51-58.
Entman, Robert M. Democracy Without Citizens: Media & the Decay of
American Politics. NY: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Finch, Christopher. Jim Henson: The Art, the Magic, the Imagination. NY:
Random House, 1993.
Fiske, S.T. Social Cognition. NY: McGraw-Hill, 1991.
Fraser, P. "How Do Teachers and Students Talk About Television?" In
Watching Media Learning, edited by David Buckingham. PA: Falmer Press, 1990.
Gamson, W. Talking Politics. NY: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Goffman, Erving. The Goffman Reader, eds. Charles Lemert and Ann Branaman.
MA: Blackwell, 2000.
Harris, Judith, Jeffery Pryor and Sharon Adams. The Challenge of Intercoder
Agreement in Qualitative Inquiry. Available from
http://emissary.ots.utexas.edu/emissary/publications/intercoder-agreement.pdf
Healy, Jane. "10 Reasons 'Sesame Street' is Bad News for Reading."
Education Digest, February 1991,.63.
Helitzer, Melvin and Carl Heyel. The Youth Market; Its Dimensions,
Influence and Opportunities for You.
NY: Media Books, 1970.
Howard, Sue. Wired-Up: Young People and the Electronic Media: UCL Press, 1998.
"Is 'Sesame' Authoritarian?" Newsweek, 20 September 1971, 68.
Kosicki, Gerald M. and Zhongdang Pan. "Framing Analysis: An Approach to
Media Effects." Paper presented at the annual meeting of International
Communication Association, Chicago, 1996.
Kratochival, Daniel W. "'Sesame Street:' Developed by Children's Workshop."
Report for the American Institute for Research in the Behavioral Sciences.
December 1971, 9.
Lesser, Gerald. Children and Television: Lessons from Sesame Street. NY:
Random House, 1974.
Melody, William. Children's Television: The Economics of Exploitation. CT:
Yale University Press, 1973.
Morrisett, Lloyd. Telephone interview with researcher. 2 March 2002..
Morrisett, Lloyd. written communication with researcher. 2 June 2002.
Polsky, Richard M. Getting to 'Sesame Street,' the Origins of the
Children's Television Workshop. NY: Praeger Publishers, 1974.
Riffe, Daniel, Stephen Lacy and Frederick Fico. Analyzing Media Messages:
Using Quantitative Content Analysis in Research. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1989.
Rose, Ada. "Correspondence." New Republic, 27 June 1970, 32.
Sesame Street Research Bibliography. NY: Children's Television Workshop, 1989.
Severin, Werner J. and James W. Tankard, Jr. Communication Theories:
Origins, Methods and Uses in the Mass Media. 5th ed. NY: Longman, 2001.
Shoemaker, Pamela and Stephen D. Reese. Mediating the Message: Theories of
Influences on Mass Media Content. NY: Longman, 1991.
Smith, Harry. "Biography Close-up: 'Sesame Street.'" A & E, 2001.
Stempel III, G.H. "Content Analysis." In Research Methods in Mass
Communication, eds. G.H. Stempel and B.H. Westley. NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1981.
Tichenor, P., G. Donohue and C. Olien. "Mass Media Flow and Differential
Growth in Knowledge." Public Opinion Quarterly 34 (1970): 159-160.
"TV's Switched-on School," Newsweek, 1 June 1970, 71.
Wylie, Evan McLeod. "'Sesame Street' Opens the Door." Reader's Digest, May
1970, 112.
Wylie, Evan McLeod. "At Last: A TV Show Good for Children." PTA Magazine,
May 1970, 36
Zoch, Lynn M. and Judy VanSlyke Turk, "Women Making News: Gender as a
Variable in Source Selection and Use." Journalism and Mass Communication
Quarterly 75 (1998): 762-775.
Abstract
This research explores using content analysis how magazines framed "Sesame
Street," a non-commercial television program aimed at teaching
disadvantaged children their "A-B-C's" and "1-2-3's," and the debate
surrounding its merits as an educational tool. This study analyzes popular
consumer magazine articles for salient praises and criticisms of "Sesame
Street," and explores what trends existed in magazines' framing of the
debate surrounding the program. Conclusions from this study are that
magazines from 1968-1994 overwhelmingly framed "Sesame Street" favorably,
and tended to pin traditional educators as critics of the show against
Children's Television Workshop staff members as sources of praise.
[1] William Melody, Children's Television: The Economics of Exploitation,
(CT: Yale University Press, 1973), 48.
[2] Melvin Helitzer and Carl Heyel, The Youth Market; Its Dimensions,
Influence and Opportunities for You,
(New York: Media Books, 1970), 12.
[3] Naeemah Clark, "Expanding Efforts: The Evolution of Action for
Children's Television, 1974-1979,"
Presented to American Journalism Historians Association Meeting, Nashville,
Tennessee, 6-10 October 2002, 3.
[4] Evan McLeod Wylie, "'Sesame Street' Opens the Door," Reader's Digest,
May 1970, 112. And Lloyd Morrisett, written communication, 2 June
2002. Morrisett noted that 20,000 members enlisted as members of ACT
during its peak to fight poor quality children's programming.
[5] "TV's Switched-on School," Newsweek, 1 June 1970, 71. ACT challenged
commercial networks with three demands: offer at least fourteen hours of
children's television each week, cut sponsorships and commercials, and
delete performers' product mentions.
[6] Daniel W. Kratochival, "'Sesame Street:' Developed by Children's
Workshop," Report for the American Institute for Research in the Behavioral
Sciences, December 1971, 9.
[7] Ibid., 39.
[8] Ibid., 9.
[9] Richard M. Polsky, Getting to 'Sesame Street,' the Origins of the
Children's Television Workshop (NY: Praeger Publishers, 1974), 2.
[10] Ibid., 10-11.
[11] Polsky, Getting to 'Sesame Street,' the Origins of the Children's
Television Workshop, 39.
[12] Ibid., 41-42.
[13] Ibid., 3.
[14] Harry Smith, "Biography Close-up: 'Sesame Street.'" A & E, 2001.
[15] Lloyd Morrisett, telephone interview with researcher, 2 March 2002..
[16] Wylie, "'Sesame Street' Opens the Door," 115.
[17] "A Toddle Down 'Sesame Street,'" Ebony, January 1970, 36-39. Robinson
felt black kids would benefit if black characters encouraged them to identify.
[18] Morrisett, telephone interview, 2 March 2002.
[19] Christopher Finch, Jim Henson: The Art, the Magic, the Imagination
(NY: Random House, 1993), 71.
[20] Erving Goffman, The Goffman Reader, eds. Charles Lemert and Ann
Branaman (MA: Blackwell, 2000), 22.
[21] Robert M. Entman, Democracy Without Citizens: Media & the Decay of
American Politics (NY: Oxford University Press, 1989), 89.
[22] Robert M. Entman, "Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured
Paradigm," Journal of Communication 43, (1993): 51-58.
[23] Entman, "Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm," 53,
and W. Gamson, Talking Politics, (NY: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 101.
[24] Entman, "Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm," 53,
and S.T. Fiske, Social Cognition, (NY: McGraw-Hill, 1991), 147.
[25] Gamson, Talking Politics, 90.
[26] Lynn M. Zoch and Judy VanSlyke Turk, "Women Making News: Gender as a
Variable in Source Selection and Use," Journalism and Mass Communication
Quarterly 75 (1998): 762-775.
[27] Gerald M. Kosicki and Zhongdang Pan, "Framing Analysis: An Approach
to Media Effects," (Paper presented at the annual meeting of International
Communication Association), Chicago, 1996.
[28] Pamela Shoemaker and Stephen D. Reese, Mediating the Message:
Theories of Influences on Mass Media Content (NY: Longman, 1991), 191.
[29] Sue Howard, Wired-Up: Young People and the Electronic Media, (CA:
UCLA Press, 1998), 59.
[30] P. Fraser, "How Do Teachers and Students Talk About Television?" In
Watching Media Learning, ed. David Buckingham, (PA: Falmer Press, 1990),89.
[31] Laura E. Drake and William A. Donahue, "Communicative Framing Theory
in Conflict Resolution," Communication Research 23 (1996): 297-322.
[32] Sesame Street Research Bibliography, (NY: Children's Television
Workshop, 1989).
[33] Werner J. Severin and James W. Tankard, Jr., Communication Theories:
Origins, Methods and Uses in the Mass Media. 5th ed. (NY: Longman, 2001), 245.
[34] P. Tichenor, G. Donohue and C. Olien, "Mass Media Flow and
Differential Growth in Knowledge," Public Opinion Quarterly 34 (1970): 159-160.
[35] Jane Healy, "10 Reasons 'Sesame Street' is Bad News for Reading,"
Education Digest, February 1991,.63.
[36] Gerald Lesser, Children and Television: Lessons from Sesame Street,
(NY: Random House, 1974), 46.
[37] G.H. Stempel III, "Content Analysis," in Research Methods in Mass
Communication, eds. G.H. Stempel and B.H. Westley, (NJ: Prentice-Hall,
1981), 119.
[38] Daniel Riffe, Stephen Lacy and Frederick Fico, Analyzing Media
Messages: Using Quantitative Content Analysis in Research (NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum, 1989), 3.
[39] Judith Harris, Jeffery Pryor and Sharon Adams, The Challenge of
Intercoder Agreement in Qualitative Inquiry, at
http://emissary.ots.utexas.edu/emissary/publications/intercoder-agreement.pdf
[40] Ada Rose, "Correspondence," New Republic, 27 June 1970, 32.
[41] Healy, "10 Reasons 'Sesame Street' is Bad News for Reading," 63.
[42] B. B. S., "'Sesame Street' Opens," Saturday Review, 15 November 1969, 91.
[43] Evan McLeod Wylie, "At Last: A TV Show Good for Children," PTA
Magazine, May 1970, 36.
[44] "Is 'Sesame' Authoritarian?" Newsweek, 20 September 1971, 68.
[45] "A Toddle Down 'Sesame Street,'" 38.
[46] Shoemaker and Reese, Mediating the Message, 191.
[47] "A Playground for the Brain," Time, 21 September 1981, 62.
[48] "A Toddle Down 'Sesame Street,' Ebony, January 1970, 37.
|
