|
The Effects of Preferred Radio
Format on Listeners' Attention, Retention and Loyalty
Thomas W. Smee, Masters Student in Media Studies
Jessica Matthews, Masters Student in Telecommunications
Amanda Rotondo, Masters Student in Media Studies
Craig Stark, Doctoral Candidate in Mass Communications
The Pennsylvania State University
College of Communications
First Author Contact Information:
Thomas W. Smee
833 W. College Ave.
State College, PA 16801
Home Phone: 814-867-4775
Campus Phone: 814-865-4211
Email: [log in to unmask]
The Effects of Preferred Radio Format
Abstract
Radio has become a constant presence in the everyday lives of most
Americans. It has adopted throughout the twentieth century and into the
twenty-first in order to keep up with advances in technology like
television and the Internet. Still, little is known about the attention and
cognition factors related to the medium. The little research that exists
relies on self reported attention, leaving unanswered the question of what
aspect of radio the respondents are paying attention to. In this study,
recall measures of attention were added to the traditional self report
measure in order to find out the relationship between station format
preference and attention paid to radio. Also studied was the relationship
between station format preference and station loyalty, and the question of
whether where one listens affects the attention given to the radio. The
results leaned toward more attention being given to talk radio, but the
results did not prove significant. Station loyalty was significantly higher
for talk radio, and no significant findings resulted in testing listening
location and attention. What the study did show, however, is that self
report and recall attention scores do not measure the same concept. This
has theoretical implications for attention scholars and practical
implications for radio advertisers and the industry.
The Effects of Preferred Radio Format on
Listeners' Attention, Retention and Loyalty
Most people have greater contact with radio throughout their day than any
other medium (Thalhimer, 2000). Radio is still an attractive medium for
advertisers and is perhaps increasingly attractive due to the fragmentation
of the television audience, but "rising levels of advertising competition
have made it increasingly difficult to attract and hold consumers
attention" (Pieters, Warlop & Wedel, 2002). The formats that attract the
most attention from listeners would also be very appealing to advertisers.
The problem then is measuring the attention given to specific stations and
formats. Despite the long history and popularity of radio, relatively
little academic research exists on radio audience's attention and loyalty.
In this study the researchers attempted to understand characteristics of
radio listeners. Specifically, the research questions were as follows:
1. For college students, what is the relationship between station format
preference and attention given to the radio?
2. For college students, what is the relationship between station format
preference and station loyalty?
3. For college students, controlling for format preference, what is the
relationship between listening location and attention given to radio?
From these areas of interest, the researchers developed two hypotheses and
a research question.
Literature Review
Research on radio's audience is usually limited to ratings, which simply
measure the presence or absence of the listener, the time in which they
listen, and their demographics. In the past few decades, though,
researchers have realized that the effects of media use differ among those
paying high and low attention to that medium (e.g., Chaffee & Schleuder,
1986; Drew & Weaver, 1990). Chaffee and Schleuder (1986) explained that
adding questions designed to measure attention to surveys "clarifies the
behavior that is of interest in assessment of media effects" (p. 104).
According to McLeod and Becker (1981), the uses and gratifications approach
assumes that the audience is active.
The elimination of humans as passive observers led to the importance of
measuring attention in media use studies. Annie Lang's (2000) limited
capacity theory states that attention is under the dual control of the
viewer/listener and the characteristics of the message. Thus, the subject
can pay a certain amount of attention, and the message demands a certain
level of attention. Because different radio formats contain different
message characteristics, particularly news/talk formats and music formats,
different formats may demand different levels of attention.
Talk radio has been shown to have the power to influence and reinforce
listeners' political opinions (Andreasen, 1982; Lee & Cappella, 2001;
Barker, 1998). In fact, Lee and Cappella (2001) found that the connection
between radio listenership and political attitude formation is so strong
that it can actually be measured in the reverse. That is, political
knowledge can act as an indicator of how much one listens to certain kinds
of radio.
Many studies have linked exposure to talk radio and increased political
knowledge (Bennett, 2002). In Stamm, Johnson, and Martin's (1997)
political knowledge survey they measured attention by using a scale with
terms that ranked the level of attention given. The terms from lowest to
highest were nonexposure, exposure, exposure and attention, and exposure,
attention, and cognition. If the exposure to talk radio increased these
participants' knowledge, it can be inferred that cognition, the highest
form of attention, has occurred (Stamm, Johnson & Martin, 1997).
A survey conducted by The Radio and Television News Directors Foundation
(RTNDF) in 2000, measured audience attention specifically to radio
news. They found that one-half of news followers who listen to the radio
reported that they pay close attention to radio news. However, this survey
relied only on a self report measure of attention and was measuring all
news on the radio, including news breaks on various music formats and not
specifically the news/talk radio format. This leads to the study's first
hypothesis.
H1: Respondents with favorite stations that have news/talk content will
receive higher attention scores.
Motivation also plays a key role in attention. Increased motivation has
been shown to increase attention (Andreasen, 1982). Lee and Cappella
(2001) have shown that talk radio listeners pay close attention, often to
the point of cognition. It is presumable that talk radio listeners are
highly motivated listeners, and that they very much enjoy listening to talk
radio, and would therefore want to listen to it often.
RTNDF (2000) found that 47% of news followers who listen to the radio
report having a station they listen to particularly for
news. Additionally, 25% of those news followers who listened to a
particular station for news reported choosing the station specifically for
its format (RTNDF, 2000).
Hofstetter and Gianos (1997) found in their study of radio use by adults in
San Diego, California that the number of participants who ever listened to
talk radio was only slightly higher than the number of participants who
listen to talk radio regularly. Hence, those who are listening to talk
radio are more likely to be loyal to, at least, the format. One goal of
this study is to determine not only format loyalty, but station loyalty.
H2: Those reporting favorite stations with substantial news and/or talk
content will report a higher percentage of time spent listening to those
stations than respondents reporting stations with other formats as their
favorite stations.
People inherently have a limited amount of attention bandwidth and
processing capacity (Lang, 2000). In the case of driving while listening
to the radio, Jancke, Musial, Vogt, & Kalveram (1994) found that people who
have the radio on are less likely to drive within the boundaries of the
road than are people who do not have the radio on (Jancke, Musial, Vogt, &
Kalveram, 1994). Because these people are allotting some of their
attention bandwidth to the radio, they are not concentrating fully on the
task of driving their car.
Additionally, while listening to the radio and driving, there are fewer
potential extraneous stimuli than when one is listening to the radio at
work or in the home. Extraneous stimuli tap into the listeners' limited
attention capacity, allowing the listener less of an attention allotment
for the radio. In-car radio listeners are a captive audience that can
presumably dedicate more attention bandwidth to the radio. This study
sought to determine if people tend to pay more attention to the radio in
the car than in the home or workplace, but there was not enough research in
this area to develop a hypothesis. Hence, the original research question
slightly modified to fit the sample and thus was investigated.
RQ: For Penn State students, controlling for format preference, what is the
relationship between listening location and attention given to content?
Methods
Participants
A list of 1,200 email addresses was randomly generated by the Penn State
University Registrars office. The addresses were randomly selected from
the pool of students who were registered at the university for the fall
2002 semester. The list email addresses were divided into four groups of
300 addresses each, with each researcher sending out their respective 300
emails. Emails were sent over an eighteen hour period during a weekend in
mid-November (see Appendix A). Another email, reminding the potential
respondents of the survey was sent the following Thursday (see Appendix B).
Of the 1,200 emails that were sent, 29 were returned as undeliverable. One
hundred and seven completed surveys were submitted to the off-site email
account, giving us a response rate of 9.14%. Two of the completed surveys
were deemed unusable. For the purposes of this study, the population
studied is made of Penn State University-University Park students who
completed the online survey (N=105).
Survey
In developing the survey, several online pre-tests were
conducted. Researchers constructed samples for the pre-test by asking
various contacts in their personal email address books to participate. The
group received a total of 36 pre-test responses over a two week
period. Modifications to the survey based on feedback from the pre-tests
were made during that time.
Once pre-testing had been completed, a final version of the survey was
hosted on the university's server (see Appendix C). Attention, attitude and
usage of media were measured in the online survey by asking a total of 19
questions relating to media recall and use. Several questions were used to
acquire selected demographic information.
The survey contained a mixture of open and closed-ended questions. Only one
question contained a magnitude scale which measured respondents'
satisfaction level of local area radio stations. Respondents could only
complete the survey once because of the specialized software program that
was used to create the survey. Once a respondent completed the survey, the
results were sent electronically to a separate, anonymous email account
that was hosted off-site from the university. Results were kept
confidential as the email account was password protected from the general
public. Results were then coded and transferred to a software program
where a database was created that allowed the researchers to process the
data and examine results.
After permission from the university's Social Science and Biomedical
Institutional Review Board was obtained (IRB# 00B1034), prospective
respondents were sent an email notifying them that they had been randomly
selected to participate in the survey. The email contained a hyperlink
which would allow the respondent to access and complete the survey. The
email also stated that participation in the survey acknowledged the
respondent's consent for the researchers to use the results of the survey
as they saw fit.
Attention Measures
Recall questions are commonly used to operationalize attention in survey
research. Shapiro and Krishnan (2001) showed participants advertisements
and then asked them to recall certain things about those ads. Stamm,
Johnson, and Martin (1997) included a quiz about political issues in their
survey in order to measure knowledge and attention. One advantage of using
recall is its objectivity (Wells, 2000). One cannot prove recall of a
message if he or she has not come in contact with that message.
A researcher can use self report measures of attention in both experiments
and surveys, as well. These measures of attention can carry with them
response bias and inaccurate assessments of one's own level of attention,
but a self report can still be useful.
For this study, the researchers have decided to use both recall questions
and self-report questions to operationalize attention. Drew and Weaver
(1990) asked in a telephone survey how much attention people gave to a
particular news story while reading the paper, seeing it on television
news, or hearing it on radio news. They gave the respondents the choices of
close attention, some attention, and little attention. The researchers
believe "some attention" to be a poor choice, not mutually exclusive from
"little attention." In order to correct this, the questionnaire used in
this study put in its place a response of "moderate attention." The
researchers also added a response of "no attention" in order to create a
ratio scale and make coding match up with the recall measure of attention.
Coding
The questions regarding the respondents' favorite stations were used to
determine the format of those stations in order to compare those formats
with the percentage of time they devoted to those stations. The stations
with substantial news or talk content were included in the news/talk format
category. Stations that played mainly classic rock, alternative, or new
rock were coded as rock formats. Hip hop, rap, top 40, pop, and stations
playing things like, "the greatest hits of the 80's, 90's, and today," were
coded as top 40/pop formats. Most other stations had easily distinguishable
formats like country and oldies stations.
The respondents' accuracy (recall) on their favorite local radio
stations' call letters, frequency, and slogans were given a score of 0 to
9, and then divided by the number of stations they reported. This number
(the recall score of attention) was then compared to the respondents'
favorite formats. The self report score of attention was from 0, if no
attention was reported, to 3 if close attention was reported. The favorite
formats of the respondents were coded as 0 (neither news/talk or sports was
a favored format), 1 (news/talk or sports was favored), or 2 (news/talk and
sports were favored.
Design
Results based on the hypotheses and the research question were analyzed
using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests and an independent
samples t-test. Ancillary and peripheral studies from the research were
analyzed using ANOVA analysis and chi-square.
Results
The sample was generally representative of the university that was
studied. It included 11.53% minorities, and the population has 11.2%
minorities (University Budget Office, 2002). The average age was 22.32
years, while the median and mode were 21. The only non-representative
statistic was the lack of male respondents. Out of 105 respondents, 34.95%
were males and 65.05% were females. Currently, men constitute 53.5% of the
population while females represent the other 46.5% (University Budget
Office, 2002). Of the 103 entering an answer to the question concerning the
respondents' majors, 72 different responses were garnered. This made it
virtually useless to use major for a control in any of the analyses.
Out of 98 respondents, 15.31% chose a news/talk station as their favorite
(see Table 1). When choosing up to three of their favorite formats, 22.12%
(N= 104) chose at least one with news/talk content. This gave the
researchers enough of a news/talk audience to confidently analyze their data.
Table 1: Formats of Favorite Stations
Format of Favorite
Station
Favorite
(N= 98)
2nd Favorite
(N= 84)
3rd Favorite
(N= 54)
Big Band
0
0
1
Country
7
4
3
News/Talk
15
7
5
Oldies
1
1
1
Old Time Radio
0
1
0
Rock
42
42
26
Top 40/Pop
33
29
18
The first hypothesis predicted that those who choose stations with
news/talk content will pay more attention to radio. The two measures of
attention were measured by self reporting and a recall exercise. The self
report responses were coded on a 0 to 3 scale, and resulted in a mean score
of 1.62 (SD= .93, N= 105). The recall exercise also used a code from 0 to
3, and resulted in a mean of score 1.81 (SD= .66, N= 81). Because the
scores were not significantly correlated, r = .10, p = .38, N = 81, the
group tested both measures of attention with the formats of the
respondents' favorite stations (see the discussion section for further
elaboration on the difference between the two measures).
Using a one way ANOVA test, the researchers compared the format of the
respondents' favorite radio stations and their self report attention score.
Only stations with news/talk, rock, and top 40/pop formats were included
due to the low number of stations with other formats. The data regarding
the prediction that higher self reported attention is paid to news/talk
formats leans toward supporting H1, but it is not significant, F(2, 87)=
1.19, p< .40 (see Table 2).
Table 2: Format of Favorite Station vs. Self Report Attention Score
Format of Favorite Station
Mean Self Report Attention Score
News/Talk
2.00
Rock
1.60
Top 40/Pop
1.73
N = 90
F(2, 87)= 1.19, p< .40
A one way ANOVA test was also run between those top three formats and the
respondents' recall attention scores. Rock, not news/talk was proven to
garner the most station information recall, and was significantly higher
than the recall scores of top 40/pop listeners, F(2, 72)= 5.56, p< .01 (see
Table 3). But, when an independent samples t-test was run between the
recall scores of just news/talk and top 40/pop listeners, news/talk recall
scores (M = 1.93, SD = .13) were also shown to be significantly higher than
top 40/pop scores (M=1.47, SD=.09), t(36)= 3.00, p< .01.
Table 3: Format of Favorite Station vs. Recall Attention Score
Format of Favorite Station
Recall Attention Score
News/Talk
1.93 AB
Rock
1.99 A
Top 40/Pop
1.47 B
N = 75
F(2, 72)= 5.56, p< .01
Note: Cell means that do not share a letter in their superscripts differ at
p< .01 according to Tukey-Kramer HSD test.
The second hypothesis projected listeners with news/talk stations listed as
their favorites would devote a higher percentage of time to those stations
than any other format. A one way ANOVA test supports this hypothesis, F(2,
73)= 5.96, p<.01 (see Table 4). Those choosing news/talk formatted
stations allocated 83.57% of their time spent listening to those news/talk
stations. Rock listeners gave 53.71%, and top 40/pop listeners dedicated
48.50% to their favorite stations.
Table 4: Mean Percentage of Time Spent Listening to Favorite Radio Format
Format of Favorite Station
Mean % of Time Spent Listening to Favorite Format
News/Talk
83.57% A
Rock
53.71% B
Top 40/Pop
48.50% B
N = 76
F(2, 73)= 5.96, p<.01
Note: Cell means that do not share a letter in their superscripts differ at
p< .01 according to Tukey-Kramer HSD test.
To test the research question, an ANOVA test was run between the location
(car, home, or work) the respondent listened to the radio most and the self
reported attention that was given to the radio while controlling for the
listeners' favorite formats. When no significance was found, F(4, 73)=
1.15, p< .40, a one way ANOVA test was run between the location a person
listened to the radio and the amount of attention they gave using self
report and recall scores. Using the self report scores, no significance was
found,
F(1,77)= 1.05, p< .40, but, on average, those who listened to the radio
mostly at home claimed they paid more attention to radio (see Table 5).
Using the recall scores, those who listened at home scored better than
those listening in the car (see Table 5), but there was still no
significance, F(1, 61)= .16, p< .70. Due to a lack of those listening most
at work, those respondents were not included in these analyses.
After finding out a slight movement toward home listeners paying more
attention, the researchers decided to investigate where news/talk listeners
used radios. Using a Chi Square test, news/talk listeners statistically
showed that the majority of them listened to
their radios at home, but it was not statistically significant, x2 (2, 72)
= 2.31, p< .40 (see Table 5).
Table 5: Percentage of Car and Home Listeners by Respondents' Favorite Format
Favorite Format
% that listened
most in the car
% that listened
most at home
News/Talk
45.45%
54.55%
Rock
66.67%
33.33%
Top 40/Pop
71.43%
28.57%
N= 72
x2= 2.31, df = 2
p< .40 (not significant)
While peripheral analyses were being conducted one interestingly strong
relationship was discovered. The researchers found, with significance, as
satisfaction goes down, the self report attention score fell as well, F(1,
103)= 8.81, p< .01. This
analysis of variance showed that these two variables interact strongly,
most likely because less attention is reported when the content is deemed
unsatisfactory by a listener.
Gender Difference Analyses
Several statistical analyses were carried out in order to investigate the
possibility of gender differences for the attention and loyalty measures.
No gender differences were found when analyzing either attention measure,
but there were gender differences in format preference, ?2 (2, N = 88) =
10.55, p < .01 (see Table 6). Men listened most to rock stations, while
women preferred top 40/pop. Men also listened more to news/talk than females.
Table 6: Percentage Within Gender of Time Spent Listening to Favorite Station
Favorite Station Format
Gender
News/Talk
Rock
Top 40/Pop
Female
11.86%
39.98%
49.15%
Male
24.14%
62.07%
13.79%
?2 (2, N = 88) = 10.55, p < .01
When station loyalty was examined, a gender effect very close to
significance was present, t (80) = 1.98, p = .05. Men (M = 67.52%, SE =
6.69) were giving a higher percentage of time spent listening to their
favorite stations than women (M = 51.32%, SE = 4.73). The effect of gender
is lost, however, when controlling for the format of the favorite station,
F (1, 73) = 2.45, p < .15. This was because, as mentioned earlier, a higher
percentage of men listened to news/talk stations, and news/talk stations
demanded the most station loyalty (see statistics on station loyalty in
Table 5). What this communicates is that format is a mediating or
intervening variable between the variables of gender and station loyalty
(see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Gender and Station Loyalty Relationship
Discussion
From this study, it is fair to draw several conclusions. First, though
rock listeners show the highest level of attention based on station
information recall, this may be because of the manner in which this
information is presented. Because the boisterous and frequent manner in
which rock stations proclaim their station information is more striking
than the calm and taciturn way in which news/talk stations tend to present
their information, rock listeners are more likely to remember this
information.
It has been shown that news/talk listeners are more loyal to their
news/talk stations than are rock or top 40/pop listeners. Because of this
it can be assumed that news/talk listeners listen more to the same station,
and that they feel more dedicated to their news/talk station.
People who listen to the radio at home seem to pay more attention than do
people who listen at work or in the car, but this data is not statistically
significant. One reason the researchers feel this may be happening is that
over half of the at-home listeners are news/talk radio listeners. This is
an interesting facet of the results and something that should be considered
if a phase-2 study is conducted.
The researchers discovered that the recall and self report measures were
not at getting at the same concept. Future researchers employing attention
measures can benefit from this knowledge and these two measures can be
employed independently and considered two separate measures because they do
not correlate statistically.
After evaluating this, researchers concluded that when respondents were
asked to report their attention given to the radio, they reported on their
attention to radio content as opposed to station information. That is, they
pay attention to songs and programs as opposed to station
identification. This suggests that survey research using only self-report
measures are applicable only to programming content and not advertising or
station identification, even though self report-based research is
traditionally applied to advertising as well.
In discovering that listeners' self reported level of attention paid to the
radio does not include attention paid to advertising, researchers have
allowed companies to reconsider their approach to advertising on the radio.
If future research continues to support the idea that listeners discount
advertising as content, it may nullify previous research by organizations
such as the RTNDF (2000) showing that listeners give high levels of
attention to radio, including advertising. Further studies would have to be
formed to better understand how listeners differentiate between
advertising-based and format-based content.
Most implications of this research are primarily practical. Persons
involved with advertising on news/talk stations may wish to consider their
current practices of purchasing air time on these stations, since the
research can safely say that the audience remains consistent in terms of
loyalty. This could benefit advertisers who may wish to mount a lengthy
advertising campaign, or who may wish to develop a stronger branding
methodology. Greater loyalty can also mean lower turnover of audience
members, which implies that more of the same people are listening to the
same news/talk station over a longer period of time.
Conversely, rock and top 40/pop advertisers may want to be aware that their
ads may not be heard repeatedly on their respective stations. Rock and top
40/pop stations traditionally have a higher turnover rate of listeners
which could affect listener loyalty to a station or a product. Fewer
people tuned in to a station for less time could harm advertising
revenue. Radio advertisers should be aware of this concept and strive to
adapt their advertising methods accordingly.
News/talk stations should feel confident that their listeners are a loyal
population. If however, news/talk stations wish to have their listeners
remember station information, they may have to take a more aggressive
approach in presenting it.
Limitations
Two kinds of limitations existed within this study: sample-based
limitations and method-based limitations. While none of these limitations
are severe enough to discredit the findings of the study, they should be
noted and addressed in potential future research. Were the researchers to
conduct a phase-2 of this study, the following limitations would be taken
into consideration in study redesign.
In State College, Pennsylvania, where the study was conducted, only two
news/talk radio stations exist. In contrast, five rock stations broadcast
to the area. Because of this it is possible that news/talk listeners'
loyalty does not reflect a particular tendency among these listeners, but
rather exists only out of necessity. If a news/talk listener divides
his/her time evenly among all (both) the news/talk stations, their loyalty
rate is 50%, whereas if a Rock listener does the same, his/her loyalty rate
is only 20%.
The population surveyed was also less then ideal. All news talk radio and
National Public Radio use is positively correlated with age, income, and
education (RTNDF, 2000). The demographic studied only represents above
average education but is actually somewhat young and possibly has a lower
income than most news/talk listeners. College students also have lower
employment levels than the general population
and are therefore less likely to listen during the drive time segment from
6:00AM to 10:00AM when people listen to news the most (RTNDF, 2000).
In addition, most of the replies to the survey came from upperclassmen and
graduate students. This is most likely because of a "pity effect" in that
older students are more likely to understand the difficulty of graduate
school and they are therefore more likely to want to help a group of
graduate students by participating in the study. Self-selection bias
becomes an issue when considering this demographic element of the
responding sample.
One methodological problem with the study was that the time spent listening
to radio category was operationalized ordinaly in categories such as 0-2.
This should have been a ratio level measurement, in which participants
could simply report the number of
hours spent listening to the radio in the last week. Because of this it is
not discernable if participants listened to the radio at all in the 0-2
category.
Because of a CGI script error, the researchers were not able to retrieve,
in order, respondents' favorite radio formats. This led to the necessity of
coding respondents' favorite formats based on their reported favorite radio
stations. Intuitively, this is a
rational way to derive this information, though it does remain a limitation
of the study.
Research did not control for the number of times per hour each radio
station states their station identification information, nor for the manner
in which they reported it. For instance, rock and top 40/pop stations tend
to have catchy, loud, energetic ways of presenting their slogans and
information. NPR and other news/talk stations usually take a more
conservative, subtle approach to presenting this information. Because of
this, it is more likely that rock and top 40/pop listeners will recall this
information because of the manner in which they received it. Perhaps the
correlation between recall and format would have supported H1 had this been
taken into consideration.
Radio audiences are notoriously difficult to measure. Radio is available
virtually everywhere and at anytime and can be used alone or with any
number of people using just one receiver. The amount of attention people
pay to radio is equally difficult to measure, with audiences doing
everything from passively listening while working or planning to intently
listen to a favorite program. Robinson (2000) intuitively claims that most
radio listening today is done while doing other things such as driving,
working, eating, or surfing the net.
Attention is a difficult concept to measure. In this study, two measures,
recall and self-report, were used. Some research on attention has shown,
however, that these methods can be problematic (Andreasen, 1984). The
measure of recall may have measured attention OR attention and cognition;
two different concepts according to Stamm, Johnson, and Martin (1997). In
addition, self-report measures are historically problematic. These insights
into measuring attention make the measures employed
questionable. Given that there is currently no standard, ideal way to
measure attention, these methods should stand as acceptable.
The greatest limitation of this study is that is utilized a survey method.
Ideally, an experiment, in which participants would be exposed to different
formats under uniform conditions, would have yielded more confident results
for H1. However, due to time and budget constraints this was not possible.
In order to lessen the effects of social desirability on the self-report
attention data, a scale broader than the 0-3 could have been used. It is
possible that the narrowness of the scale, combined with social
desirability driving respondents to say they pay more attention than they
actually do, led to a skewed set of self report data. A broader scale may
have allowed for social desirability to be spread out over a larger area,
minimizing the social desirability effects upon self report attention.
Future Research
Researchers who wish to consider this topic in the future may want to
consider several things in order to help them find more accurate and useful
results:
1. Researchers should control for the average number of times per hour each
radio station broadcasts its call letters, frequency and
slogan. Documenting these numbers could help researchers do a better job
of connecting and validating their data concerning attention recall rates.
2. A broader scale should be used to measure self reported attention. The
self report attention score used a 0 to 3 scale. This squishes the effects
that things like social desirability have on the way people respond to a
question.
3. Simply relying on a radio station broadcasting its call letters,
frequency and/or slogan may not be enough for complete analysis of
recall. With radio stations marketing themselves in more creative and
innovative ways, future researchers may have to develop more thorough
methods of observing and coding station promotion. This could involve
consideration of advertising methods such as television ads, billboards,
newspaper advertising, Internet advertising and others.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. Shyam Sundar Sethuraman (The
Pennsylvania State University, College of Communications) for advising and
mentoring them throughout the creation and revising of this paper.
References
Andreasen, M. (1982). Attention theories tested by listener response to
call-in and
structured interview radio formats. Madison, WI: University of Madison,
Wisconsin.
Barker, D.C. (1998). Rush to action: Political talk radio and health care
(un)reform. Political Communication, 15, 83-97.
Barker, D., & Knight, K. (2000). Political talk radio and public opinion.
Public Opinion
Quarterly, 64, 149-170.
Bennett, S.E. (2002). Americans' exposure to political talk radio and their
knowledge of
public affairs. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46, 72-87.
Chaffee, S.H., & Schleuder, J. (1986). Measurement and effects of attention
to media
news. Human Communication Research, 13, 76-107.
Drew, D., & Weaver, D. (1990). Media attention, media exposure, and media
effects.
Journalism Quarterly, 67, 740-748.
Gunter, B. (1987). Poor reception: Misunderstanding and forgetting
broadcast news.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hofstetter, R.C., & Gianos, C.L. (1997). Political talk radio: Actions
speak louder than
words. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 41, 501-515.
Jancke, L., Musial, F., Vogt, J., & Kalveram, K.T. (1994). Monitoring radio
programs
and time of day affected simulated car-driving performance. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 79, 484-486.
Katz, E. (1959). Mass communication research and the study of popular
culture: An editorial note on a possible future for this journal. Studies
in Public Communications, 2, 1-6.
Lang, A. (1994). What can the heart tell us about thinking? In A. Lang
(Ed.), Measuring psychological responses to media messages (pp. 99-112).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing.
Journal of Communication, 50, 46-70.
Lang, A., Newhagen, J. & Reeves, B. (1996). Negative video as structure:
Emotion,
attention, capacity, and memory. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic
Media, 40, 460-477.
Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, M. M. (1997). Motivated attention:
Affect,
activation and action. In P J. Lang, R. F. Simons, & M. T. Balaban (Eds.),
Attention and orienting: Sensory and motivational processes (pp. 97-136).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lee, G. & Cappella, J.N. (2001). The effects of political talk radio on
political attitude
formation: Exposure versus knowledge. Political Communication, 18, 369-394.
McLeod, J.M., & Becker, L.B. (1981). The uses and gratifications approach.
In D.D. Nimmo & K.R. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of political communication
(pp. 67-99). Beverly Hill, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Pieters, R., Warlop, L., & Wedel, M. (2002). Breaking through the clutter:
Benefits of
advertisement originality and familiarity for brand attention and memory.
Management Science, 48, 765-781.
Potter, R.F. (2000). The effects of voice changes on orienting and
immediate cognitive overload in radio listeners. Media Psychology, 2, 147-177.
Radio and Television News Directors Foundation (2000). The American radio
news audience survey. Retrieved December 2, 2002, from
http://www.rtnda.org/radio/patterns/
Robinson, L. (2000). Radio research in transition. International Journal of
Market
Research, 42, 381-394.
Shapiro, S., & Krishnan, H.S. (2001). Memory-based measures for assessing
advertising effects: A comparison of explicit and implicit memory effects.
Journal of Advertising, 30, 1-13.
Stamm, K., Johnson, M., & Martin, B. (1997). Differences among newspapers,
television, and radio in their contribution to knowledge of the contract
with America. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 687-702.
Thalhimer, M. (2000). How does radio stack up against the rest? Communicator.
Retrieved December 4, 2002, from http://www.rtndf.org/research/radusag.shtml
Thorson, E. (1994). Using eyes on screen as a measure of attention to
television. In A.
Lang (Ed.), Measuring psychological responses to media messages (pp.
65-84). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
University Budget Office (2002). Penn State Fact Book. Retrieved December
5, 2002, from http://www.budget.psu.edu/factbook
Wells, W.D. (2000). Recognition, recall, and rating scales. Journal of
Advertising
Research, 40, 14-20.
Appendix A
Original Email
• 8 mile or Symphony #8?
• The Mamas & The Papas or Papa Roach?
• Michael Jackson or Alan Jackson?
• Iraq or the Steelers?
• Joplin or Chopin?
A group of graduate students from the College of Communications is
interested in your media use. This short, 5 to 10 minute survey asks you
how you use radio, television and other forms of media.
You have been randomly selected via your Penn State email account to
participate in this on-line survey. The survey can be accessed by clicking
on the web link below:
http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/c/a/cas460/mediasurvey506.htm
Your responses are completely anonymous. All answers will be kept strictly
confidential. Complete instructions for taking the survey are located at
the top of the web page when you click the above link.
Thank you very much for your time in helping us with this survey!
Sincerely,
Comm 506 Research at Penn State
[log in to unmask]
By clicking on the link above, you are agreeing to participate in this
survey and allow the researchers to use your information in their
project. All responses will be kept confidential. Any questions regarding
this survey and/or its results should be addressed to the email address
listed above.
Appendix B
Reminder Email
Dear Fellow Penn State Students,
We recently emailed to notify you that you have been randomly selected to
participate in a short survey on media use. Your participation in this
study will be extremely helpful to a group of Graduate Students in the
College of Communications.
If you have taken the survey already, we sincerely thank you for your
participation. If you have not, please take 5-10 minutes, click on the link
below, and complete the survey.
http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/c/a/cas460/mediasurvey506.htm
We hope you are all having good luck with your end-of-the-semester projects
and tests. Thank you so much for your time and efforts.
Sincerely,
COMM 506 Graduate Students
Appendix C
MEDIA SURVEY
Instructions
Please answer the following questions as they relate to you. Please be sure
to answer every question on the survey. Use your Tab button or your mouse
to move between fields. Click the "Submit Your Responses" button when you
are finished.
Top of Form
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
YOUR MEDIA PREFERENCES
1.
Please list the call letters, frequency, city of origin and slogan of your
favorite radio stations.
(Rank up to three)
(Example: WZYX, 90.5, Huntsville, "Hot 90.5")
• Call letters, frequency, city of origin and slogan of your favorite radio
station
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
• Call letters, frequency, city of origin and slogan of your second
favorite radio station
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
• Call letters, frequency, city of origin and slogan of your third favorite
radio station
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
2.
Please tell us the percentage of time you spent over the last week
listening to each radio station you listed in Question #1. (Percentage must
add up to 100%)
(Example: WZYX 50%)
• Favorite radio station
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
%
• Second favorite radio station
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
%
• Third favorite radio station
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
%
3.
Please list the call letters, frequency, and slogan of your favorite State
College radio stations. (Rank up to three)
PLEASE NOTE: If your response to this question is the same as your response
to Question #1, please leave this question blank. If your response is
different than your response in Question #1, then please answer this
question. Leave this question blank ONLY if your response is the same as
your response in Question #1.
• Call letters, frequency and slogan of your favorite State College radio
station
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
• Call letters, frequency and slogan of your second favorite State College
radio station
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
• Call letters, frequency and slogan of your third favorite State College
radio station
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
4.
On average, how much attention do you pay when listening to the favorite
State College radio station you entered in Question #3?
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Close attention
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Moderate attention
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Little attention
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
No attention
5.
Please tell us what percentage of your overall radio listening is done on
the Internet.
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
%
6.
From the following list, please select your favorite radio formats.
(Select up to three)
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Classical
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Classic Rock
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Country
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Folk
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Hip Hop/Rap/R&B
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Jazz/Blues
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
News/Talk
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Oldies
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Rock
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Soft Rock
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Sports
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Techno/Progressive Rock
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Top 40/Pop
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
World Music
7.
Please tell us the percentage of time you spent over the last week
listening to each radio format that you selected in Question #6.
(Percentage must add up to 100%)
• Percentage of time spent listening to your favorite format over the last
week.
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
%
• Percentage of time spent listening to your second favorite format over
the last week.
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
%
• Percentage of time spent listening to your third favorite format over the
last week.
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
%
8.
Over the last week, on average how many hours per day did you listen to the
radio?
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
0-2 hours
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
3-6 hours
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
7-10 hours
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Over 10 hours
9.
In terms of percentage, please tell us the amount of time you spend
listening to the
radio... (Percentage must add up
to 100%)
• At home
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
%
• At work
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
%
• In the car
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
%
10.
Do you have Internet access at your place of residence?
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Yes
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
No
11.
Please list your favorite television stations, beginning with your most
favorite. (Rank up to three)
(Example: CNN, WTAJ, Weather Channel, etc.)
• Favorite television station
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
• Second favorite television station
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
• Third favorite television station
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
12.
Do you own a CD player at your place of residence?
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Yes
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
No
13.
Please indicate your satisfaction level with the overall quality of radio
in the State College area.
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
1 - Very dissatisfied
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
2 - Mostly dissatisfied
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
3 - Somewhat dissatisfied
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
4 - Somewhat satisfied
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
5 - Mostly satisfied
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
6 - Very satisfied
14.
Are you a subscriber to a satellite radio service such as XM or Sirius?
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Yes
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
No
ABOUT YOU
15.
What is your age?
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
16.
What is your sex?
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Male
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Female
17.
What is your major?
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
18.
What is your year in school?
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Freshman
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Sophomore
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Junior
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Senior
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Graduate student
19.
Which of the following best describes your racial or ethnic background?
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Asian
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Black/African American
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
White/Caucasian
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Hispanic
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Native American
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Other
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Choose not to answer
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
The First Amendment Implications of Internet-only Radio
The First Amendment Implications
of Internet-Only Radio on Campus
Radio stations have been operating as part of college and university
campuses for nearly 90 years, and for the past three-quarters of a century
there's been little doubt that over-the-air broadcasters are regulated by
the Federal Communications Commission (Brant, 1981). In the past few years,
however, would-be broadcasters at a number of schools have found a way to
get their messages out without having to deal with federal licensing and
FCC content regulations.
At a number of schools, Internet-only radio, which does not use
over-the-air signals, has enabled "stations" to distribute programming
through computer connections without seeking FCC permission. Babson College
Radio at Babson College of Massachusetts claims on its web site that it was
the first college Internet-only radio station (History, 2003). Although
there are no reliable sources for determining how many public college and
university campuses have Internet-only radio, the anecdotal evidence is
plentiful that the trend is growing. The University of Texas at Arlington
alumni publication reports that the campus Internet-only radio station, UTA
Radio, is available 24 hours a day, seven day a week ("No wattage
required," 2002). The Growl is available on the Internet only from
Southwest Missouri State University. California State University-Long Beach
provides K Beach only to Internet listeners. Blazeradio is run on the
Internet by students at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
The FCC regulates over-the-air broadcasting through the rationale of
spectrum scarcity; because radio and television stations use the public
airwaves in sending out their programming, and because of the limited
spectrum for distributing those signals, Congress and the courts have given
the FCC the authority to regulate content to ensure that the public is
being served by those broadcasters. At the same time, the courts for the
past 30 years have prohibited content regulation of print media on public
college campuses because they are protected by the First Amendment. In
addition, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Reno v. ACLU (1997) that the
Internet cannot be held to the same content standards as broadcasting. The
Communications Decency Act had attempted to prohibit indecent (but not
obscene) content on the Internet, as the FCC has done in broadcasting (FCC
v. Pacifica, 1978). In its decision, the Court wrote, "As a matter of
constitutional tradition, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we
presume that governmental regulation of the content of speech (on the
Internet) is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than
to encourage it. The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a
democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of
censorship" (p. 886).
If over-the-air broadcasting can be regulated but print cannot, and if the
Internet deserves protection from government regulation. then the existence
of these Internet-only radio stations distributed through a university's
computer system presents an interesting legal question: can a public
college or university administration regulate the content of
student-produced content that is made available over the Internet using
university resources? Because privately financed colleges and universities
are not subject to all of the strictures of the First Amendment, this paper
will focus solely on publicly funded campuses.
Literature Review
Hundreds of over-the-air broadcasters on public college and university
campuses also have Internet versions, but when those Internet outlets
simply simulcast the on-air signal, the FCC still has jurisdiction over the
on-air station. Several researchers have looked into the web presence of
over-the-air commercial and educational radio stations, although no
published studies have examined Internet-only radio.
Redmond, in a 1996 study of nearly 1,500 radio and television station Web
sites, found that only a small percentage of stations were providing
significant news or public information and that most found the Internet to
be primarily a promotional tool (Redmond, 1997). McClung (2001) examined
the Web sites of 26 over-the-air college radio stations and also consumer
use of web sites of those and other over-the-air college radio stations,
focusing on why people listen to the Web sites instead of the stations.
Lind and Medoff (1999) surveyed 419 radio industry professionals
responsible for maintaining Web sites and reported that no more than 40
percent of commercial over-the-air radio stations also had a Web presence.
While researchers have yet to explore Internet-only radio on public
college campuses, radio on campus has been around for more than 90 years.
Higher education and broadcasting have been intertwined since the earliest
days of experimental broadcasting. Cornell University in New York State and
St. Joseph's College in Philadelphia were among the first to experiment
with radio in the 1910s and 1920s, and the University of Wisconsin was
granted a license in 1915 for radio station 9XM, the forerunner of WHA and
believed to be the first educational radio station in the United States.
Other educational radio stations soon followed, including those operated by
the University of Illinois, the University of Iowa, Ohio State University,
Purdue University and Tulane University (Brant, 1981).
Radio stations flourished on the nation's college and university campuses,
with 202 AM stations licensed from 1920 to 1936. By 1937, though, just 38
were still broadcasting because of the high cost of operating a radio
station. The number stayed low through the ensuing decades, with just 25
licensed educational AM stations in 1972 (Brant, 1981).
The Radio Act of 1927 and the Federal Communications Act of 1934 made no
special provisions for education-affiliated stations, making them subject
to the same regulations as their commercial counterparts. (FCC v. League of
Women Voters, 1984) In 1939, the FCC decided to allocate a portion of the
spectrum to educational stations, recognizing that they operate in a
different manner than do their commercial counterparts.
FM radio stations began to emerge as the primary source of
educational-sponsored broadcasting, especially after the Federal
Communications Commission set aside the lower part of the FM band for
noncommercial educational stations; that designation of part of the
spectrum helped to increase the number of educational FM stations from
seven in 1941 to more than 800 some 40 years later (Brant, 1981).
A long history of court decisions over the past 30 years have made it clear
that publicly funded colleges and universities cannot censor the student
press. As the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals stated succinctly in Joyner
v. Whiting (1973), "Censorship of constitutionally protected expression
cannot be imposed by suspending the editors, suppressing circulation,
requiring imprimatur of controversial articles, excising repugnant
material, withdrawing financial support, or asserting any other form of
censorial oversight based on the institution's power of the purse" (p.
460). That philosophy has been unpheld repeatedly since then. In contrast
to those well-established protections afforded campus print journalists,
however, the courts have said that administrative restrictions on
broadcasters do not represent an unconstitutional infringement on First
Amendment rights.
It has been well established that students at privately operated campuses
do not have to be afforded all the First Amendment rights that are afforded
their public school counterparts. An attempt to circumvent that exemption
for private schools failed in a 1971 lawsuit in U.S. District Court in New
York in Post v. Payton. In that case, the former director at WCWP-FM at
Long Island University, some members of the radio station's student staff,
and listeners challenged the university's decision to suspend operation of
the station because of the airing of obscenities. The plaintiffs argued
that because the school had obtained an FCC license for the FM station, the
privately financed school was in effect converted into an agent of
government action and as such the station was subject to First and
Fourteenth Amendment protections. The district judge ruled against the
claim, stating that mere federal licensing of a radio station is not enough
to convert an otherwise private institution into a government agency. In
his decision, U.S. District Judge John Bartels wrote, "It is only
government action which can violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments"
(p. 803). Therefore, administrative regulation of content at private
schools is not unconstitutional.
Sixteen years later, the U.S. District Court in Florida had the
opportunity to assert that broadcasters at publicly funded campuses enjoy
First Amendment protections. But in Schneider v. Indian River Community
College Foundation, the district judge ruled that staff members at a campus
radio station have no First Amendment right against governmental restraint
of their on-the-air expression.
In Schneider, the station manager and program director for WQCS, operated
by the Indian River Community College in Fort Pierce, Florida, challenged
their firing. Their lawsuit claimed, primarily, that they were dismissed
for ignoring the college president's instructions that they not air news
stories on local political elections that concerned candidates associated
with the college and stories on a controversial land development project
operated by a financial contributor to the school. Although the rulings in
this case and in an appeals court consideration of the same case directly
involved employees and not students working at campus broadcast outlets, it
is clear the same standards would apply to both, because the ruling focused
on the station and not the status of the employees.
District Judge Norman Roettger issued a summary judgment in Indian River
finding that the college administration, as the holder of the FCC license,
had the only First Amendment right to determine what material would be
broadcast. His decision cited CBS v. Democratic National Committee, in
which the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the ultimate control and
responsibility for what is broadcast belonged to the licensee. The Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the bulk of Roettger's ruling in 1989,
although it noted the First Amendment implications while stating that the
Supreme Court had never addressed "the question of the range of a public
licensee's right to exercise editorial discretion over its broadcast
programming."[1] The appeals court agreed with the District Court's finding
that the licensee, and not workers at the station, had First Amendment
rights in the arena of broadcasting:
While the appellants may not be deprived of their own First Amendment
rights, there is nothing in the Constitution which gives them the right to
use the appellees' equipment and license for their own expression. The
appellants, as employees of the station, cannot require the (college)
Trustees, as licensee, to air any particular view over the station. The
Trustees have the broadcast license and thus sole programming discretion.
(p. 1541)
Both Indian River decisions relied in large part on Muir v. Alabama
Education Television Commission, a 1982 appeals court ruling in a challenge
of Alabama's state-run public television station not to air a controversial
documentary. In that case, viewers sought an injunction to force the
state-run television stations to broadcast "Death of a Princess," a 1980
documentary detailing the execution of a Saudi Arabian princess and her
commoner lover because of their adultery.
The appeals court addressed two lower court decisions: a District Court in
Alabama had upheld the state authority not to air the program, while a
District Court in Texas had granted an injunction forcing the University of
Houston's station, KUHT-TV, to air the program.
The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals combined the two cases and heard
them en banc. Eleven judges joined in an opinion stating in effect that
state-owned television stations are subject to a different First Amendment
interpretation than are other state-owned media: "We are not convinced that
editorial decisions of public television stations owned and operated by the
state must, or should, be viewed in the same manner and subjected to the
same restrictions as state regulatory activity affecting speech in other
areas" (p. 1043).
Campus Computer Systems and the First Amendment
If the courts have been clear in stating that over-the-air campus
broadcasting is regulated by the FCC and that administrators, not the
broadcast station staff, are ultimately responsible for content, what about
Internet-only radio? What is the authority of campus administrators in
regulating or controlling content when there is no over-the-air signal? The
answer depends on whether university computer systems used by Internet-only
radio stations are considered to be public forums, limited public forums,
or nonpublic forums.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a number of cases, has made a clear distinction
among the three types of forums. In Perry Education Association v. Perry
Local Educators' Association (1983), the Court made a clear distinction
between public forums, "which by long tradition or by government fiat have
been devoted to assembly and debate" (p. 45), limited public forums, and
nonpublic forums. In a public forum, the government cannot prohibit all
communication, the Court said. The government must show that any content
restriction is necessary to serve a compelling state interest, narrowly
drawn to achieve that purpose, be content-neutral, and be narrowly tailored
to serve a significant government interest, what is know as "time, place
and manner restrictions (p. 45). Public property that is not by a public
forum is governed by different standards, the Court said, writing that the
government can restrict access to such a limited public by reserving the
forum for its intended purposes, "as long as the regulation on speech is
reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public
officials oppose the speaker's view" (p. 46). A nonpublic forum is "public
property which is not by tradition or designation a forum for public
communication" (p. 47).
In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court further delineated the differences among
the various forms of forums, stating in Rosenberger v. University of
Virginia that viewpoint discrimination by the government is not permitted,
in either public forums or limited forums. At the same time, the court
said, "The necessities of confining a forum to the limited and legitimate
purposes for which it was created may justify the State in reserving it for
certain groups or for the discussion of certain topics" (p. 829). In such a
situation, the Court said, "We have observed a distinction between on the
one hand, content discrimination, which may be permissible if it preserves
the purposes of that limited forum, and, on the other hand, viewpoint
discrimination, which is presumed impermissible when directed against
speech otherwise within the forum's limitations" (p. 829-830).
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma addressed
the question of public forums specifically in the context of campus
computer use in Loving v. Boring (1997). In that case, a University of
Oklahoma professor, Bill Loving, challenged University President David
Boren's decision to restrict access to certain newsgroups via the campus
computer system because, Boren said, they were obscene. Before the U.S.
District Court judge could rule on the issue, the university created a
second campuswide computer system, available only to those 18 and older and
for use strictly for academic and research purposes. The judge ruled that
the second computer system made Loving's lawsuit moot. Further, the judge
wrote:
The OU computer and Internet services do not constitute a public forum.
There was no evidence at trial that the facilities have ever been open to
the general public or used for public communication. The state, no less
than a private owner of property, has the right to preserve the property
under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated. (p. 956)
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals also addressed the issue of whether a
campus computer system is a public forum in Pichelmann v. Madsen
(2002). In that case, a student and part-time employee at the University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee sued, alleging that university officials violated
her First Amendment rights by ordering her to remove the quotation "'The
truth shall set you free, but first it will piss you off!' Gloria Steinem"
from her e-mail "signature" on work-related messages. The 7th Circuit
rejected her appeal, in part because it found that even if the campus
computer system was a limited public forum, the restriction on her
work-related e-mail was viewpoint neutral and therefore permissible: "We
doubt that the university created such a forum here, however, because the
e-mail system was not indiscriminately open for use by the general public"
(p. 327).
A university computer system also is not a public forum in terms of access
to information by university employees, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled in Urofsky v. Gilmore (2002). In that case, six professors from
public colleges and universities challenged that state's law forbidding
state employees from accessing sexually explicit materials on state owned
or leased computers. The 4th Circuit, sitting en banc, ruled against the
professors, in part because they had no First Amendment right to use their
state-owned computers to access information contrary to their employers'
wishes.
Conclusion
If campus computer systems are not traditional public forums that have
been opened to general public, then what type of content restriction can a
public university place on an Internet-only radio station distributed
through that computer system? As the Supreme Court said in Rosenberger v.
University of Virginia, the government may not exercise viewpoint
discrimination in a limited public forum. However, the Court wrote, "The
necessities of confining a forum to the limited and legitimate purposes for
which it was created may justify the State in reserving it for certain
groups or for the discussion of certain topics" (p. 827).
In a 1994 District Court decision from the Western District of Washington,
however, public radio station KCMU at the University of Washington was
found to have violated the First Amendment when it forbid employees from
criticizing the University or University administrators (Aldirch v. Knab).
The judge ruled that the University, as licensee of the station, could
control content but that its rules barring criticism was not viewpoint
neutral and therefore were unconstitutional: "The uncontested evidence
shows that the KCMU policy is content-based suppression of speech critical
of any aspect of KCMU or the University of Washington. Suppression of
particular news stories because of their content constitutes the type of
pure viewpoint discrimination prohibited by the First Amendment" (p. 1494).
Several lower court decisions have made it clear that a public university's
computer system is not a traditional public forum, and the university is
within its power to regulate access to and use by students and faculty.
Those rules must be viewpoint neutral to pass constitutional muster, but
according to the court cases detailed here the rules can be based on
content. As lower courts said in Rosenberger v. University of Virginia
(1995), Loving v. Boring (1997), and Pichelmann v. Madsen (2002), content
regulation is permitted of communication activities that are not a
traditional public forum as long as that regulation is content-neutral. An
Internet-only radio station at a public campus may be able to use the
university's computer system to distribute its programming, but that use of
the computer system also makes the station subject to content regulation by
university administrators. Internet-only radio may free campus broadcasters
from FCC regulation faced by their over-the-air counterparts, but it does
not free them from all university supervision.
Although the courts have been consistent in granting broad First Amendment
freedoms to student print media at public colleges and universities, the
cases cited here cast doubt on whether the on-line version of print
publications would have the same freedom. As Senat noted in 1996, it would
appear that on-line versions of print publications would have the same
First Amendment protections. That question, however, has not yet been
addressed by the courts, and based on the cases cited in this paper it
appears the on-line publications might be subject to viewpoint-neutral
content regulation.
One way Internet-only radio stations on campus could avoid content
regulation would be to find an off-campus server to distribute their
signal. While that would remove the station from the university's computer
system and eliminates the ability of administrators to regulate content, it
also would add a financial burden to the station; Internet access is not
free, and paying for access to an off-campus server would require a source
of income. The Internet has provided technology that enables broadcasters
to communicate without using the public airwaves, but it also makes them
subject to a new form of administrative content regulation.
References
Aldrich v. Knab, (1994). 858 F. Supp. 1480 (W.D. Washington).
Brant, Billy G. (1981). The College Radio Handbook (Blue Ridge Summit, Pa.:
Tab Books Inc.
CBS v. Democratic National Committee. (1973). 412 U.S. 94.
FCC v. Pacifica. (1978). 438n U.S. 736.
FCC v. League of Women Voters of California. (1984) 468 U.S. 364, 366.
History. (2003) http://radio.babson.edu/history.asp. Accessed Jan. 16. 2003
Joyner v. Whiting. (1973). 477 F.2d. 456 (4th Circuit).
Lind, Rebecca Ann, and Medoff, Norman J. (1999). Radio stations and the
World Wide Web. Journal of Radio Studies 6(2), 203-221.
Loving v. Boren. (1997). 956 F. Supp. 953 (W.D. Oklahoma).
McClung, Steven. (2001). College radio Web sites, Journalism and Mass
Communication Educator, 56 (1), 62-83.
Muir v. Alabama Educational Television Commission. (1982) 688 F. 2d 1033
(5th Circuit).
No wattage required. (2002) UTA Magazine 24(2), 8.
Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators' Association. (1983).
460 U.S. 37.
Pichelmann v. Madsen. (2002). 31 Fed. Appx. 322 (7th Circuit )
Post v. Payton. (1971). 323 F.Supp. 799 (E.D. N.Y.).
Redmond, James W. (1997). Broadcasting World Wide Web sites: public
service or self service? Paper presented to Radio and Television Journalism
Division of Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
at annual conference in Chicago, Ill.
Reno v. ACLU. (1997). 521 U.S. 844.
Rosenberger v. University of Virginia. (1995) 515 U.S. 819.
Schneider v. Indian River Community College Foundation. (1987). 684 F.Supp.
283 (S.D. Fla,).
Schneider v. Indian River Community College Foundation. (1989). 875 F. 2d
1537 (11th Circuit)
Senat, J. (1996). On-line student publications: do student editors at
public universities shed their first amendment rights in cyberspace? Paper
presented to Law Division of Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication annual conference, Anaheim, California.
Urofsky v. Gilmore. (2002). 216 F.3d 401 (4th Circuit).
[1] The decision affirmed the District Court's finding that the firings
did not violate First Amendment rights, but it reversed and remanded a
portion of the decision dismissing a complaint that the workers were fired
in retaliation for speaking to reporters about the dispute.
|
