Agenda Setting and International News:
Media Influence on Public Perceptions of Foreign Nations
By Wayne Wanta
School of Journalism
University of Missouri
Columbia, MO 65211-1200
[log in to unmask]
Louisiana State University
19111 Collins Ave. #801
Sunny Isles Beach, FL 33160
[log in to unmask]
School of Journalism
University of Missouri
Columbia, MO 65211-1200
[log in to unmask]
** Paper submitted to the Mass Communication & Society Division for
consideration of presentation at the Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communication annual convention, Kansas City, August 2003.
** Wanta is a professor and Lee a graduate student at the School of
Journalism, University of Missouri. Golan is an assistant professor at the
Manship School of Mass Communication at Louisiana State University.
Agenda Setting and International News:
Media Influence on Public Perceptions of Foreign Nations
A national poll and a content analysis of network newscasts examined if
coverage of foreign nations had an agenda setting influence. The more media
coverage a nation received, the more respondents were to think the nation
was vitally important to U.S. interests, supporting the first level of
agenda setting. The more negative coverage a nation received, the more
respondents were to think negatively about the nation, supporting the
second level of agenda setting. Positive coverage of a nation had no
influence on public perceptions.
Agenda Setting and International News:
Media Influence on Public Perceptions of Foreign Nations
Research examining the agenda-setting function of the news media has
undergone a dramatic reconceptualization in recent years. No longer is
research based on the notion noted by Cohen (1963) that "the press may not
be successful in telling us what to think but is stunningly successful in
telling us what to think about." Indeed, researchers now argue that, under
certain circumstances, the news media do tell people what to think by
providing the public with an agenda of attributes – a list of
characteristics of important newsmakers. Individuals mentally link these
mediated attributes to the newsmakers to a similar degree in which the
attributes are mentioned in the media.
Early studies in this "second level of agenda setting" have met with some
success. McCombs, Escobar-Lopez and Llamas (1997), for example, found that
both substantive attributes – factual information – and affective
attributes – positive vs. negative information – that the public linked to
candidates in Spanish elections were correlated with media coverage of
The present study attempts to examine agenda setting in a new
context. First, our study will test both the first and second levels
simultaneously. Second, the focus of the study will be foreign nations and
not individuals in the news, as previous studies have used (McCombs et al,
1996; Golan and Wanta, 2001). Data come from a survey conducted by the
Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization
that has conducted surveys every four years since 1974. The media agendas
come from a content analysis of network newscasts.
The analysis here, then, will first test whether coverage of foreign
nations in the news influence how important these nations are viewed by
individuals – a test of the first level of agenda setting. Next, the
analysis will test whether positive or negative coverage of foreign nations
influence individuals' evaluations of countries – a second level agenda
The second level of agenda setting offers new challenges and opportunities
for mass communication researchers. It implies a deeper, more thorough
processing of information in media content. While the first level examines
the transmission of issue salience cues from media coverage of issues to
public concern with issues, the second level investigates the transmission
of attributes of actors in the news from media coverage of these attributes
to the public's recall of the same attributes – a much more subtle
level. By examining both levels through international news coverage, we
hope to find insights into how public opinion is constructed in the
increasingly important area of foreign affairs.
Television news programs serve as an important source of information for
most Americans about events that occur around the world. Limited by time
and space, news editors often have to select less than a handful of
international stories, while leaving dozens of news stories off the
air. Following the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, the world
entered an era of global economics that would make international events
more salient then ever before. In this new era of globalization, knowledge
about events from around the world became a necessity.
In addition to presenting new opportunities, globalization has also created
new threats. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, revealed a web
of terror that spun across many different nations of the world. The
emergence of the Al-Quida terror organization in such countries as Sudan,
Afghanistan, the Philippines and Yemen demonstrated to policy makers, the
mass media and the public the need for a more global perspective in
coverage of international news.
U.S. television news media, however, continue to focus their coverage of
international news events on a limited number of nations and regions (Golan
and Wanta, 2003; Wu, 1998). This lack of balance in coverage provides
strong support for the new world information order perspective (Masmoudi,
1979) and is likely to impact Americans' view of the saliency of
international events Wanta and Hu (1993).
Since the early days of television news, communication researchers have
investigated the role of international news in network television news
programs. The emphasis on television is of particular importance due to
its role as the key source of news in the United States (Larson, 1982).
Foreign News on the Network Agenda
Research consistently indicates that international news stories account for
a significant percentage of broadcast news content. Larson and Hardy's
(1977) content analysis of news content from three network news programs
revealed that international news accounted for 35 to 39 percent of news
content. Larson's (1982) content analysis of more than 1,000 television
news stories from 1972 to 1981 revealed that about 40 percent of the
content dealt with international news. Whitney, Fritzler, Jones,
Mazzarella and Rakow (1989) found that nearly 34 percent of all network
television news content (between 1982-1984) was composed of international
news. Recently, Riffe and Budianto (2001) identified a decrease in the
proportion between international and domestic news. Despite the
differences in findings, most studies point to the importance of
international news in network television news content.
However, Chang (1998) notes that not all countries in the world are create
equal to be news. While most powerful core nations consistently receive
coverage from U.S. news media, small peripheral nations remain largely
uncovered. Research on international news coverage by U.S. network
television news programs reveals a lack of balance in the coverage of the
world's different geographic regions (Wu, 1998).
A content analysis by Larson (1982) reveals that between 1972 and 1981,
coverage of Western Europe accounted for 23.8% of international news
references. The Middle East came in second at 22.7%, while Asia came in
third with 21.8%. Latin America and Africa trailed far behind with 8.6%
and 5.6%. His study also indicated that some nations received much more
coverage than other nations. Stories about the USSR, Israel, Britain and
South Vietnam dominated international news coverage on U.S. network
A ten-year analysis of foreign news coverage on network television news
(Weaver, Porter and Evans, 1984) indicated that the ABC, CBS and NBC
networks covered the world in an unbalance manner. Their results show that
between 1972 and 1981, the three networks focused 32.4 percent of their
coverage on the Middle East, 21.1 percent on Western Europe, 10.8 percent
on Eastern Europe, 9.5 percent on Asia, 6.7 percent on Africa and only 6.2
percent on Latin America.
In a more recent study, Golan and Wanta (2003) examined how 138 elections
held between January 1, 1998, and May 1, 2000, were covered by U.S. network
television newscasts (ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN). They found that of the 138
elections, only eight received coverage on all four newscasts, ten received
coverage on more than one newscast, 18 received coverage on one newscast
and 102 received no news coverage. The study indicated that the majority
of elections that received substantial coverage from U.S. television
networks occurred either in Europe, Asia or the Middle East. Only one
election that took place in Latin America was covered by more than one
network and none of the elections in Africa were covered by more than one
Understanding the nature of international news coverage by the news media
is of great importance when considering its possible implications. As
suggested by previous studies, the nature of international news coverage
has a direct influence on U.S. public opinion. For example, a study by
Salwen and Matera (1992) found correlations between foreign news coverage
and public opinion that suggested that international news coverage does
indeed have an agenda setting effect. Wanta and Hu (1993) examined the
agenda setting impact of international news and found strong agenda setting
impact of international news stories on American public opinion, especially
on conflict related stories and concrete presentations. McNelly and
Izcaray (1986) found that news exposure significantly related to positive
feelings towards countries and to perceptions of those countries as
successful. Semetko, Brzinski, Weaver and Willnat (1992) found that
attention to foreign affairs news was better predictor of positive
perceptions of nations than simple exposure to newspapers.
The implications of international news coverage by the news media are
further highlighted when considering the possible impact of coverage on
U.S. foreign policy. Bennett (1990) notes that the nature of international
news coverage by news media is often consistent with the foreign policy of
the nation. The potential agenda setting effect of television programming
on audiences was recognized by Theodore White (1973, p. 27): "No major act
of the American congress, no foreign adventure, no act of diplomacy, no
great social reform, can succeed in the United States unless the press
prepares the public mind." Cohen (1963) identified three major roles of
the press in the field of foreign policy. These included: role of observer
of foreign policy news, role of participant in the foreign policy process
(along with policy makers), and the role of catalyst of foreign news. This
final role might perhaps be the most central to the press and its agenda
setting influence over the public agenda.
First and second level agenda setting
Agenda-setting has been the focus of hundreds of systematic studies, the
vast majority of which have found support for the idea that the public
learns the relative importance of issues from the amount of coverage given
to the issues in the news media. Recent studies, however, have looked at
the influence of media coverage at a more detailed level (see McCombs,
Llamas, Escobar-Lopez & Rey, 1997; Golan and Wanta, 2001). These
"second-level" agenda-setting studies, which merge traditional
agenda-setting with framing research, have had some success in
demonstrating a process of media influence that suggests that the
attributes linked to newsmakers influence the attributes members of the
public link to the newsmakers. Thus, the "agenda of attributes" covered in
the media sets the "agenda of attributes" for the public.
The dependent variable in first level agenda setting is issue
salience. As Ghanem (1997) notes, issue salience involves objects, or
issues. Media coverage of an object increases the importance of that
object among members of the public. Thus, the public learns the relative
importance of issues based on the amount of coverage that those issues
Since the seminal work by McCombs and Shaw (1972), hundreds of studies
have examined this media effect on the public. The vast majority have
found support for the notion that media coverage influences the perceived
importance of issues. In other words, media coverage of objects influences
the perceived importance of those objects.
The second level, however, implies a more subtle form of media
effect. The focus has shifted from coverage of objects to coverage of
attributes of those objects. While coverage of the object continues to
influence the perceived importance of that object – as first level agenda
setting argues – second level agenda setting argues that the attributes
linked to the object in the news media are mentally linked to the object by
the public. Thus, while first level agenda setting suggests media coverage
influences what we think about, second level agenda setting suggests media
coverage influences how we think.
Early studies have found some support for the second level of agenda
setting. McCombs, Llamas, Escobar-Lopez and Rey (1997), for example, found
support for a second level of agenda setting during the 1996 Spanish
general election on two attribute dimensions – substantive and affective
descriptions. Substantive attributes dealt with information about
qualities of the candidates: experience with foreign affairs, for
example. Affective attributes dealt with positive, neutral or negative
comments about candidates: good leader, for instance.
Golan and Wanta (2001) conducted a similar study during the 2000
Republican presidential primary in New Hampshire. Results show that John
McCain was covered much more positively than George W. Bush. The findings
also show that respondents linked four of six cognitive attributes – akin
to the substantive attributes of the McCombs et al (1997) study – to
candidates in direct proportion to media coverage. The results show less
support for media influence on the affective (positive) attributes
individuals linked to candidates.
Several other recent studies have found support for the second level of
agenda setting. Tedesco (2001), for example, content analyzed 1,479
candidate press releases and 756 network news stories using key words in
context frames during the 2000 presidential primaries. Candidates and media
issue agendas were positively correlated, especially for the Republican
candidates. Tedesco further examined the direction of influence by
examining autocorrelations, which suggested the relationship between
candidates and media is reciprocal. However, the process frames were
significantly correlated only for Republican candidate John McCain and the
networks, which Tedesco explains may demonstrate that McCain and the media
had a "love-affair" during the 2000 presidential primary.
Kiousis, Bantimaroudis and Ban (1999) examined the second level of agenda
setting through two experiments that manipulated media portrayals of
candidate personality and qualification traits. They found subjects'
impressions of candidate personality traits mirrored media portrayals of
those traits. However, media portrayals of personality traits did not
affect a candidate's overall salience. Results also indicate that candidate
qualifications influenced affective perceptions of politicians.
Rhee (1997) examined how news frames in campaign coverage affect
individuals' interpretation of campaigns. Results suggest that both
strategy-framed and issue-framed print news stories are effective in
Shah, Domke and Wackman (1996) examined the relationships among media
frames, individual interpretations of issues and voter decision-making.
They found media frames and issue interpretations substantially influence
the type of decision-making strategy that voters use.
Previous studies, however, have limited their analyses to newsmakers as
the object in media coverage. Our present study focuses on nations as the
objects under investigation. Here, the effects of positive and negative
news stories – dealing with affective attributes – on public perceptions of
foreign nations will be examined. Thus, the present study will examine
agenda setting at both the first level – whether the amount of media
coverage devoted to foreign nations is correlated with public perceptions
regarding the importance of the nations to U.S. interests – and the second
level whether positive or negative coverage of foreign nations is
correlated with public perceptions regarding individuals' feelings toward
the nations. Thus, the hypotheses for the study are:
First level: The more overall media coverage a nation receives, the more
individuals will think it is of vital importance to U.S. interests.
This is a modification of the original hypothesis first proposed by
McCombs and Shaw (1972). Instead of coverage of issues leading to issue
salience among members of the public, or study proposes the coverage of
nations will lead to the nation becoming more salient among the public. As
Ghanem (1997) argues, coverage of an object will lead to more concern with
an object. Here, coverage of a nation will lead to more concern with the
Second level: The more negative media coverage a nation receives, the more
individuals will think negatively about that nation. The more positive
media coverage a nation receives, the more individuals will think
positively about the nation.
These hypotheses address the affective attribute agenda noted by Ghanem
(1997). If a nation receives negative coverage, the negative attributes
mentioned in the news reports will cause individuals to mentally link these
negative attributes to the nation. Thus, when asked how they feel about
this nation, respondents will recall the negative news coverage and respond
that they think negatively about the nation. The reverse should be true
about positive coverage.
The analysis of the present study compared responses to a public opinion
survey and media coverage in the period leading up to the survey
period. Both looked at countries as "objects" and whether media coverage
of the individual countries set the agenda for public perceptions of those
The public agenda came from data collected during a survey in 1998 by the
Chicago Council for Foreign Relations. The Council is a nonprofit,
nonpartisan organization that has conducted similar surveys every four
years since 1974. The 1998 survey is the most recent data available. The
surveys examine the extent that the American public supports an active role
for the United States overseas and addresses which nations that the public
believes are most important to the United States and which nations are
threats to the U.S. The Council commissioned the Gallup organization to
conduct the polls. The survey was conducted between October 15 and
November 10, 1998, and included 1,507 completed surveys.
Two series of questions were used for the present study. For the first
level of agenda setting, respondents were read a list of 26 countries and
asked if the United States had a vital interest in each. The percentage of
the respondents answering "yes" determined the score each country received
on the public agenda. For example, 87 percent of the respondents believed
the United States had a vital interest in Japan – the largest total in the
survey – while 27 percent believed the United States had a vital interest
in the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia – the lowest in
the survey. Thus, the foreign nation agenda for the public ranged from 87
for Japan to 27 for the Baltic countries.
For the second level of agenda setting, a series of questions dealing with
a "feeling thermometer" for countries were used in the
analysis. Respondents were asked to rate 21 countries on a scale ranging
from 0 to 100. A warm feeling toward a country ranged from 50 to 100,
while a cold feeling toward a country ranged from 0 to 50. In other words,
the more positive an individual felt toward a country, the higher the
"temperature" that country would receive. Thus, the responses to these
questionnaire items showed the public's affective attribute agenda. Scores
ranged from 72 for Canada to 25 for Iraq.
Four network newscasts were content analyzed for the period of January 1
to October 15, 1998. Previous time-lags employed in agenda setting
research have ranged from one week (Wanta and Hu, 1992) to nine months
(Atwood, Sohn and Sohn, 1978). Watt, Mazza and Snyder (1993) found that
issue salience memory can decay as slowly as 300 days. Previous research,
however, has mainly focused on issues rather than countries. Given the
nature of international news coverage, we wanted to ensure that countries
in our analysis would have ample opportunities to appear in the media
agenda. Thus, we extended the content analysis period to include media
coverage from the beginning of the year to the starting date of the
survey. With the extended time period, the number of news stories per
nation ranged from 342 for Russia to two for Haiti.
All coverage of foreign nations on ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN was included in
the analysis. Stories were downloaded from the Vanderbilt University
television News Archive.
The unit of analysis was the individual news story. Stories were coded
first for the nation or nations involved in the story. Stories from the
United States involving domestic issues were not coded. The frequency for
individual nations mentioned in news stories determined the score they
received for the content analysis.
Each country was also coded for valence – whether the country was covered
in a positive, neutral or negative manner. If an international newscast
reported that a foreign country is involved with activities that threaten
the interest of United States (e.g., terrorism) or values that United
States want to protect (e.g., human rights or democracy), the story was
coded as negative. If a foreign country was involved with activities that
are consistent with U.S. interests or values that the U.S. wants to
promote, it was coded as positive. Neutral stories or mixed stories were
coded as neutral.
About ten percent of the news stories were double coded to determine
intercoder reliability. Coder reliability is .92.
Table 1 lists the number of stories aired on the four network newscasts
and the percentage of respondents saying "yes" to whether each individual
country is of vital interest to the United States. As the table shows, the
correlation for the two measures is statistically significant. In other
words, the more media coverage a nation received, the more vital to U.S.
interests that the respondents felt the country was. Thus, the results
support the first level of agenda setting.
While the overall correlation was significant, some notable differences in
the two agendas are apparent. Saudi Arabia tied with Russia as the second
highest on the public agenda, but received the fourth lowest number of
media stories. Kuwait received only 30 media stories, yet ranked ahead of
the United Kingdom as a vital nation. Respondents apparently equated
"vital interest to the U.S." with oil. India received 173 stories and
Indonesia 140 stories, ranking them in the upper half of the media
agenda. Both, however, were ranked near the bottom of the public agenda.
Table 2 shows the media attribute coverage and public "nation thermometer"
results. Here, the Pearson correlations for positive and neutral coverage
of nations did not correlation with how the public felt about individual
nations. Negative coverage of nations, however, did correlate negatively
with public views of nations. In other words, the more negative coverage
that nations received, the more likely respondents were to rate the nation
low on the thermometer scale. Negative affective attributes, then, led to
negative views of the nation by respondents, supporting the second level of
As with the results of the first level, the public's ratings of nations
and media coverage had a number of large differences. Mexico, for
instance, received a relatively high number of negative stories (22) yet
was a relatively "warm" nation with a mean of 57 on the respondents'
thermometer. Cuba, on the other hand, received only six negative stories,
yet was a "cool" 38 on the respondents' thermometer.
The present study attempted to examine the first and second levels of
agenda setting through an analysis involving international news coverage
and public perceptions about foreign nations. The analysis found support
for both levels of agenda setting.
The results show a clear relationship between media coverage of nations and
how individuals viewed the relative importance of those nations to the
United States. Here, the more coverage a nation received, the more likely
respondents were to think that the nation was of vital importance to the
U.S. Thus, the news media set the public's agenda, influencing the
salience of foreign nations.
Although the media and public agendas were highly correlated (r = .568, p =
.002), coverage patterns for certain nations did not appear to match public
perceptions. Notably, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait received relatively little
media coverage, but both were relatively high on the public's vital
interest agenda. Kuwait, of course, was at the center of the 1991 Gulf War
with Iraq. Since U.S. armed forces fought to regain Kuwait's independence,
respondents may have felt that this nation was still vitally important to
the U.S. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is a leader among the oil-rich
OPEC nations. One reason for the high public ranking of Saudi Arabia – and
Kuwait – could be that since oil is vitally important to the U.S., members
of the public may view these nations as vitally important as well. The
news media, therefore, did not have to show the importance of the
oil-providing nations to the public for the public to understand their
Indonesia and India, meanwhile, ranked very low on the public agenda but in
the upper half of the media agenda. Both of the countries faced serious
political conflicts during the time frame of the content analysis. In
India, violence marked the election of Prime Minister Atal Bihan Vajpayee
and the vote by the Congress Party to make Sonia Gandhi its president. In
Indonesia, demonstrations against the government of President Suharto
turned violent. Suharto eventually stepped down. The main stories from
these countries, therefore, dealt with political changes in the countries,
which showed very few links to the United States. While political changes
are important events for the news media, perhaps the lack of a significant
tie to the United States limited the countries' appeal to the U.S. public.
Most of the other nations, however, followed clear trends. Japan and
Russia, the top two countries on the public agenda, were among the nations
receiving the highest amount of media coverage. The Baltic countries
(Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), Poland and Haiti were at the bottom of the
public agenda. They were also at the bottom of the media agenda.
The second level of agenda setting also showed a clear trend. The more
negative coverage a nation received, the more likely the nation was viewed
negatively by the public. In other words, the negative affective
attributes linked to a country in the media led to negative views of the
country held by the public. Individuals rated nations as cold on the
country "thermometer" based on the amount of negative coverage the nations
The reason for the significant correlation can be clearly seen in Table
2. Here, only one of the six "warmest" nations on the thermometer (Mexico)
received any negative coverage. Iraq, the coldest nation on the public
agenda at 25, received the most negative media coverage, 329 stories.
As with the tests of the first level, not all nations correlated
perfectly. Mexico did receive 22 negative stories, yet was the fourth
warmest nation at 57. Turkey received just one negative story, but was
relatively cool at 45.
Mexico, as a neighboring country, could have been viewed warmly because of
the geographical proximity. It also could have been viewed warmly because
of the relatively high number of Mexican immigrants in the U.S.
Geographical location also may have been at the heart of why Turkey was
viewed as a cold nation. Because of its proximity to Iraq and Iran, the
two nations at the bottom of the nation thermometer, Turkey may have been
linked mentally to these other cold nations.
It also should be noted that while the negative affective attributes
showed a clear agenda setting influence on respondents, the positive and
neutral affective attributes did not. The finding on the neutral
attributes is logical. More neutral stories should not have influenced how
positive or negative the public views a nation. Neutral coverage would
imply neutral reactions from the public. Moreover, the vast majority of
stories aired on the four networks were neutral stories, which demonstrates
the balanced style of reporting that has been the goal of American journalism.
The lack of an influence of positive affective attributes, however, is
more puzzling. Since the more negative news stories a nation received, the
more negative it would be view by the public, it is logical to assume that
the opposite relationship would be found with positive attributes: The more
positive news stories a nation received, the more positive it would be view
by the public. This was not the case.
This lack of a significant correlation can be attributed to the fact that
several "warm" countries received no positive coverage. Among these
countries are Italy, Mexico, Brazil and Germany. Of these four countries,
only Mexico received any negative coverage. Thus, many of the nations
viewed most positively by the public actually received nothing but neutral
coverage in the media. This may have given individuals the impression that
while these nations are not overly positive in their relations with the
U.S., neither are they negative threats to the U.S.
In addition, Iraq and Pakistan, two countries low on the public agenda,
received some positive coverage. This may have been an attempt by the news
media to show some balance on these countries, since both had received
extensive negative coverage.
It also should be noted that the analysis here involved only two agendas:
the media agenda as determined by coverage on four networks newscasts and
the public agenda as determined by responses to a national poll. The
analysis did not include any potential influence on the media agenda by
outside sources, such as U.S. public officials. The U.S. President, for
example, could have been the source of the media agenda, influencing
coverage through his policy statements. In his role as the nation's number
one newsmaker, the President is an important source for foreign affairs
stories and could raise or lower nations on the media agenda by publicly
announcing his policy priorities. This would appear to be a fruitful area
for future research.
Overall, then, the results here show that media coverage of countries may
have a powerful influence over how those nations are perceived by the
public. The news media exert a great deal of agenda setting influence on
the public both at the first and second level. In other words, the news
media can show the public both what to think about (first level) and what
to think (second level) when it comes to foreign nations.
Table 1. First level agenda setting results comparing media coverage of
nations and public views on the U.S. vital interests in nations.
Country Media stories Public view as
vital U.S. interest
Japan 208 87
Russia 342 77
Saudi Arabia 36 77
China 282 74
Canada 134 69
Israel 195 69
Kuwait 30 68
Mexico 95 66
United Kingdom 296 66
Germany 106 60
Iran 99 61
South Korea 64 54
South Africa 85 52
Bosnia 64 51
Taiwan 27 51
Cuba 152 50
France 132 47
Egypt 26 46
Afghanistan 92 45
India 173 37
Brazil 49 33
Indonesia 140 33
Turkey 25 33
Haiti 2 31
Poland 12 31
Baltic countries 18 27
Pearson's correlation: r = .568, p = .002
Table 2. Second level agenda setting results comparing media coverage of
nations and public feelings toward countries.
Country Media stories Public view:
Pos. Neut. Neg. Nation
Canada 4 130 0 72
United Kingdom 40 256 0 69
Italy 0 146 0 62
Mexico 0 73 22 57
Brazil 0 49 0 56
Germany 0 106 0 56
France 1 128 3 55
Israel 5 185 5 55
South Africa 4 76 5 54
Poland 0 12 0 50
South Korea 4 53 6 50
Russia 1 336 5 49
China 0 245 37 47
India 3 85 85 46
Saudi Arabia 1 22 13 46
Turkey 2 22 1 45
Pakistan 7 41 83 42
Cuba 8 138 6 38
North Korea 0 36 25 36
Iran 0 71 28 28
Iraq 4 169 329 25
Positive coverage/public view: r = .328, p = .146
Neutral coverage/public view: r = .210, p = .360
Negative coverage/public view: r = -.578, p = .006
Atwood, L.E., Sohn, A.B, & Sohn, H. (1978). "Daily Newspaper Contributions
to Communication Discussion," Journalism Quarterly, 55, 570-576.
Bennett, L. (1990). "Toward a Theory of Press-State Relations in the U.S."
Journal of Communications, Vol. 40 (Spring), pp. 103-125.
Chang, T.K. (1998). "All Countries Not Created Equal To Be News: World
System and International Communication," Communication Research, 25, 528-566).
Chang, T. and Lee, J. (1992). Factors affecting gatekeepers' selection of
foreign news: A national survey of newspaper editors. Journalism Quarterly,
Chang, T.K., Shoemaker, P., and Brendlinger, N. (1987). Determinants of
International News Coverage in the U.S. Media, Communication Research, 14,
Cohen B. (1963). The Press and Foreign Policy, Princeton: Princeton
Flournoy, Don M. and Robert K. Stewart (1997) CNN Making News in the Global
Market, University of Luton Press
Friedman, T. (2000) The Lexus and the Olive Tree, New York: Anchor Books.
Ghanem, S. (1997). Filling in the tapestry: The second level of
agenda-setting. In M. McCombs, D.L. Shaw, & D. Weaver (eds.), Communication
and Democracy, (pp. 3-14). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Golan, G., and Wanta, W. (2003) International Elections on the U.S. Network
News: An Examination of Factors Affecting Newsworthiness. Gazette,Vol. 65(1).
Holsti, O. (1969). Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Kiousis, S., Bantimaroudis, P., & Ban, H. (1999). Candidate image
attributes: Experiments on the substantive dimension of second level agenda
setting. Communication Research 26(4), 414-428
Larson, J.F. (1982). "International Affairs Coverage on U.S. Evening News
Networks News" in Television Coverage of International Affairs. Norwood,
Larson, J.F., and Hardy, A. (1977) "International Affairs Coverage on
Network Television news: A Study of News Flow" Gazette (Volume 23).
Masmoudi, M. (1979). The New World Information Order, Journal of
29 (Spring), 172-179.
McCombs, M.E., & Shaw, D.L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass
media. Public Opinion Quarterly 36, 176-187.
McCombs, M.; Llamas, J.P.; Lopez-Escobar, E.; & Rey, F. (1997). Candidate
Images in Spanish Elections: Second-Level Agenda-Setting Effects.
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 703-716.
McNelly, J. T. and Izcaray, F. (1986) "International News Exposure and
Images of Nations", Journalism Quarterly 63(3): 546-553.
Rhee, J.W. (1997). Strategy and Issue Frames in Election Campaign
Coverage: A Social Cognitive Account of Framing. Journal of Communication,
Riffe, D. Budianto, A. "The Shrinking World of Network News," International
Communication Bulletin, Vol. 36 (2001) number 1-2, pages:12-35.
Salwen, M. B., & Matera, F. (1992). Public salience of foreign nations.
Journalism Quarterly, 69, 623-632
Semetko, H.A., Brzinski, J., Weaver, D. & Willnat, L. (1992) TV News and
U.S. Public Opinion About Foreign Countries: The Impact of Exposure and
Attention. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 4 (1), 18-36.
Shah, D., Domke, D., & Wackman, D.B. (1996). "To thine own self be true":
Values, framing, and voter decision making strategies. Communication
Research, 23(5), pp. 509-560
Shoemaker, P., Chang, T.K., and Brendlinger, N. (1986). Deviance as a
predictor of newsworthiness: Coverage of International Events in the U.S.
Media, in M.L.
McLaughlin (ed.), Communication Yearbook, Vol. 10, pp. 348-365. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Shoemaker, P., Danielian, H. L. & Brendlinger, N. (1991) Deviant acts,
risky business and U.S. interests: The newsworthiness of world events.
Journalism Quarterly 68:781-795
Wanta, W. & Hu, Y.W. (1993). The agenda-setting effects of international
news coverage: an examination of differing news frames. International
Journal of Public Opinion Research, 5 (3), 250-264
Watt, J.H., Mazza, M., & Snyder. L.B. (1993). Agenda-setting effects of
television news coverage and the memory decay curve. Communication
Research, 20, 408-435.
Weaver, J. B., III, Porter, C. J., & Evans, M. E. (1984). Patterns of
foreign news coverage on U.S. network TV: A 10-year analysis. Journalism
Quarterly, 61, 356-363
Whitney, D. C., Fritzler, M., Jones, S., Mazzarella, S., & Rakow, L.
(1989). Geographic and source biases in network television news, 1982-1984.
Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 33, 159-174.
White, Theodore. (1973). The Making of the President 1972. New York: Bantam.
Wu. H. D (1998). "Investigating the determinants of international news
flow: A meta-analysis." Gazette: The International Journal for
Communication Studies, 60(6): 493-512.