|
This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.
If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line,
send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Jan 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================
The Influence of Individual and Routine Level Gatekeeping Forces on
the Professional Role Conceptions of Print and Online Newspaper Journalists
William P. Cassidy, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Communication
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
800 W. Main St.
Whitewater, WI 53190
[log in to unmask]
A paper submitted to the Communication Theory and Methodology
Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
The Influence of Individual and Routine Level Gatekeeping Forces on
the Professional Role Conceptions of Print and Online Newspaper Journalists
Abstract
Utilizing a framework combining gatekeeping theory with
Shoemaker and Reese's (1996) hierarchical model of news influences,
this study examined the influence of individual and routine
gatekeeping forces on the professional role conceptions of print and
online newspaper journalists. Data from a national survey of
journalists (N=655) representing 271 daily newspapers found that
routine level forces exerted more influence that individual level
forces, thus supporting Shoemaker and Reese's (1996) model.
Gatekeeping theory has been called "one of the most easily
accessible theories"[1] and is certainly one of the most enduring in
mass communication research.[2] Shoemaker writes that the basic idea
of gatekeeping—that there is some selectivity in how and how many
news items are presented—has always been apparent.[3] Initial
inquiries into gatekeeping theory looked at the decisions of a lone
gatekeeper.[4] However, subsequent analyses of that research contend
the work of those individual gatekeepers was influenced by other
levels of gatekeeping forces, such as the professional routines of
journalists and the influence of the news organization.[5]
More recent efforts[6] have integrated gatekeeping theory with
Shoemaker and Reese's hierarchical model of news influences, which
allows the study of gatekeeping on five levels of
analysis—individual, routine, organizational characteristics,
extramedia and ideological.[7] Gatekeeping theory has also been put
forth as an effective conceptual approach to studying online
journalists.[8] This project seeks to extend this area of research
through an examination of the influence of gatekeeping forces at the
individual and routine levels on the professional role conceptions of
print and online daily newspaper journalists. Data for this effort
come from a nationwide survey.
Literature Review
Theoretical Framework
Gatekeeping theory, as proposed by psychologist Kurt Lewin,
posits that there are forces which may either constrain or facilitate
the passage of news items through the gatekeeping process.[9] David
Manning White was the first to specifically apply gatekeeping theory
in a journalism context by studying the decisions made by a newspaper
wire editor in selecting which stories should be published.[10] White
concluded that overall, the editor's decisions were "highly
subjective…[and] based on the "gatekeeper's own set of experiences,
attitudes and expectations" as to what constitutes the news.[11]
Snider duplicated White's study and found the results to be much the
same.[12] Another gatekeeping study by Bleske, in which the subject
was a woman wire service editor, also found strong similarities.[13]
In a reanalysis of White's seminal gatekeeping study, Hirsch
said the types and proportions of stories selected by the wire editor
were "virtually identical" to the types and proportions of stories
sent to him by the wire services.[14] A later experimental study
found that the number of news stories sent by wire services in
various categories acts as a gatekeeping force by suggesting to
newspapers the proper mix of news.[15] Gieber said wire editors and
reporters were often passive in their role as gatekeepers due to the
bureaucratic structure of news organizations.[16]
These studies demonstrate that gatekeeping is a process based
on forces operating on more than just the individual level of
analysis.[17] Therefore, this study uses gatekeeping theory with
Shoemaker and Reese's hierarchical model of news influences.[18] As
noted earlier, this permits the analysis of the gatekeeping process
on five levels. This research specifically examines gatekeeping
forces at the individual and routine levels.
Individual and Routine Forces
The individual level focuses on factors intrinsic to the
individual journalist—such as personal and professional background,
attitudes, values and beliefs—to assess whether these
characteristics influence the gatekeeping selection process.[19] The
individual level is important given that many feel that the personal
and political characteristics of journalists influence media
content[20] and studies have found that journalists differ from the
general population in terms of demographics.[21]
Routines are the "patterned, repeated practices and forms media
workers use to do their jobs."[22] Fishman calls routines the
"crucial factor which determines how newsworkers construe the world
of activities they confront."[23] Tuchman says news itself is the
outcome of routines and that news stories are not naturally defined
as such, but instead are occurrences that journalists have learned to
view and judge in certain ways in order to define them as predictable
events that can be handled through routines.[24]
Hirsch said the reasons offered by the wire editor in White's
study for rejecting stories were primarily based on professional
norms—commonly held views in the news industry about whether a story
is newsworthy. He concluded that these norms, which could also be
termed routine forces, were a better explanation for the decisions
made, rather than White's original conclusion that the wire editor
was highly subjective[25]. Routines establish a framework and
boundaries for the behavior of journalists.[26] For example, research
has consistently found that official sources are the ones used most
frequently in news reports.[27] This is because the power structure
of society is perceived by journalists to be the legitimate site for
gathering news.[28] Similarly, journalists also routinely use
journalists from media organizations other than their own, as well as
other publications, as points of reference.[29] This pack mentality
provides journalists with what Sigal (1973) calls a "modicum of
certitude" and helps them perform their jobs in an uncertain
environment.[30] Gans found that editors often read prestige
publications such as the New York Times for story ideas and that
reporters stood a better chance of having their ideas accepted by the
editors if a story on that subject had already appeared in such a
publication.[31]
A fairly recent study by Shoemaker, Eicholz, Kim and Wrigley is
the first to explicitly combine gatekeeping theory with Shoemaker and
Reese's hierarchical model of news influences.[32] The study
investigated the importance of individual and routine level forces in
determining how prominently major Congressional bills were covered by
U.S. newspapers between 1996 and 1998 by comparing the individual
characteristics of newspaper staff writers with editors' assessments
of the newsworthiness of the bills. None of the individual level
characteristics of the staff writers were significantly related to
coverage. However, the editors' assessments of newsworthiness were
significantly correlated with the number of words and articles
written about that bill.
Building on the work of Shoemaker et al., this study
investigates the influence of individual and routine level forces on
the professional role conceptions of daily newspaper journalists.
Through the theoretical framework employed here, the professional
role conceptions of journalists can be seen as their ideas about
which potential news items are worthy of transmission to the
audience.[33] In other words, journalists' professional role
conceptions are their "core belief systems."[34] Shoemaker and Reese
believe that journalists' professional role conceptions, while
technically an individual level force, exert more influence on media
content than other forces at that level, such as personal attitudes,
values and beliefs and are also influenced by forces at the other
levels of the hierarchical model of news influences. [35]
Professional Role Conceptions
Johnstone, Slawski and Bowman were the first to investigate
journalist's beliefs regarding their roles in newsgathering. [36]
They found that some journalists were proponents of a neutral role,
seeing themselves as an "impartial link dispensing information to the
public." [37] These journalists felt their jobs were best
accomplished by adhering to the norms of objectivity and reporting
accurate, factual and verifiable information. Other journalists,
however, saw themselves as participants, believing it was their
responsibility to play a more active role analyzing the information
provided by sources to find the "real" story. Neutral journalists
viewed their primary functions as getting information to the public
as quickly as possible, staying from stories where information cannot
be verified, concentrating that is of interest to the widest possible
audience and providing entertainment and relaxation. Participants saw
their primary functions as investigating claims and statements made
by the government, providing analysis and interpretation of complex
problems, discussing national policy and developing the intellectual
and cultural interests of the public. Overall, however, their results
suggest that the majority of journalists endorsed elements of both
perspectives. For example, only 8.5% were predominantly participant
in their outlook and 9.7% were predominantly neutral. What the
researchers termed "balanced views" were held by 35.4% of
journalists, 25.1% were moderately neutral and 21.4% were moderately
participant.
Weaver and Wilhoit repeated many of the same questions posed by
Johnstone et al.[38] Their analysis came up with three categories of
professional role conceptions for journalists: (1) interpretive; (2)
disseminator, and; (3) adversarial. Nearly 80% of journalists scored
high in the interpretive role, while nearly half also did so in the
disseminator role. Only 17% of respondents scored high in the
adversarial role. An even smaller percentage (2%) scored high in only
one category, while most journalists tended to view their roles as a
combination of interpreter and disseminator.
A decade later Weaver and Wilhoit came to similar
conclusions.[39] Respondents were asked 13 questions about their
conceptions of "things the media try to do today." Using factor
analysis, the responses were aggregated into four attitudinal
clusters: (1) interpretive/investigative; (2) disseminator, (3)
adversarial, and; (4) populist mobilizer.
The interpretive/investigative role conception was the leading
category with nearly 63% of journalists rating it as very important.
This role conception is a combination of three dimensions:
investigating government claims, analyzing and interpreting complex
problems, and discussing public policy in a timely manner.
The disseminator role conception was very important to 51% of
respondents. This function was a blending of two dimensions: getting
information to the public quickly and avoiding stories with
unverifiable facts. The adversarial role conception was rated very
important by 18%. This role conception consisted of being constantly
skeptical of both government and business interests.
The populist mobilizer role conception, rated as very important
by 6% of respondents, meshed together four dimensions: developing
cultural interests of the public, providing entertainment, setting
the political agenda and allowing ordinary people to express their views.
The overall findings of the study concluded that most
journalists saw themselves as a combination of two, and sometimes
three of the role conceptions. For example, 33% of respondents scored
high in both the interpretive/investigative and disseminator role conceptions.
All the inquiries into the professional role conceptions of
journalists discussed to this point were conducted before the
development of the World Wide Web. Therefore, online journalists were
not included. However, several studies of the roles and professional
practices of online journalists have appeared in recent years.
Studies of Online Journalists
Arant and Anderson surveyed the online editors of 203 daily
newspapers in an effort to measure their views regarding ethical
values and to see if those values differed because of the online
environment at online daily newspapers.[40]
Nearly all (98%) respondents agreed that journalism ethics and
standards should be the same for both print and online publishing.
However, almost half (47%) said that the high speed at which a story
can be posted online has cut down the time spent on verifying the
facts of a story before it is published. Thirty percent reported that
the online sites of daily newspapers are not as likely to follow the
general ethical standards as are the print versions of daily newspapers.
A pair of studies conducted by Singer offer some evidence that
online journalists see their gatekeeping roles as changing, rather
than disappearing with the advent of the Internet.[41] In a case
study of online personnel at three newspapers, she found that online
journalists see themselves as credible interpreters of the quality of
the large volume of information available to online readers.[42]
Through content analysis, Singer discovered that the online editions
of six Colorado newspapers were much more likely to run local stories
and leave out nonlocal stories, thereby giving readers a much
narrower view of the world.[43]
She argues that by doing so, online journalists are giving up a
crucial gatekeeping function. "in a world as tightly interconnected
and interdependent as ours has become, " she says, "we are poorly
served by a myopic view of the place in which we live."[44]
Brill surveyed the professional role conceptions of 66
journalists working for 12 online newspaper sites.[45] Using
questions from the studies of Weaver and Wilhoit, she compared her
results to those of newspaper journalists in the 1996 study.[46]
Brill found close alignment in how both groups viewed elements of the
disseminator role conception. Half of each group said it was very
important to avoid reporting unverified facts, while 70% of the print
journalists and 62% of online journalists agreed that getting
information to the public quickly was very important.
Online newspaper journalists were less likely to view elements
of both the interpretive/investigative and adversarial role
conceptions as very important. For example, only 24% of online
newspaper journalists saw interpreting complex problems as very
important, while only 35% of online journalists agreed. This result
contrast with Singer, who as noted above, says online journalists
view the interpretive role as their crucial to their job.[47] Being
an adversary of government officials was deemed very important by 13%
of online journalists, while 26% of print journalists felt this way.
Regarding the populist mobilizer role conception, the two
groups were closely aligned in three of the four elements. As an
example, 59% of online newspaper journalists and 52% of print
newspaper journalists said it was very important to let ordinary
citizens express their views. However, online journalists were more
likely (29%) to say it was very important to entertain the audience
than print journalists (16%).
A recent study comparing the professional role conceptions of
print and online newspaper journalists found that both groups
perceived the interpretive/investigative and disseminator role
conceptions as more important than the adversarial and populist
mobilizer role conceptions.[48] Print newspaper journalists, however,
rated the interpretive/investigative role conception as significantly
more important than online newspaper journalists. Getting information
to the public quickly—a dimension of the disseminator role
conception—was perceived as significantly more important to online
newspaper journalists. There were no significant differences between
the two groups in their ratings of the adversarial and populist
mobilizer role conceptions.
Research Questions
The literature suggests the following research questions:
RQ1: How influential are individual and routine gatekeeping
forces on the professional role conceptions of print and online
newspaper journalists?
RQ2: Do routine gatekeeping forces exert more influence than
individual gatekeeping forces on the professional role conceptions of
print and online newspaper journalists?
Methodology
Sample
The sample for this study was drawn from the population of
journalists working for English-language mainstream general daily
newspapers in the United States. Following Weaver and Wilhoit's
criteria, a journalist was defined as one who has "responsibility for
the preparation or transmission of news stories or other
information—all full-time reporters, writers, correspondents,
columnists, photojournalists, news people and editors."[49] Despite
the fact that Weaver and Wilhoit's study took place before the advent
of the Internet, this definition nonetheless applies to online
newspaper journalists.[50] Deuze notes that online journalists must
make decisions on which media formats are the best to use to tell a
particular story, allow for options of interactivity and must
consider issues of hypertextuality, such as the connecting of a story
to other stories and archives. These duties certainly seem in line
with "responsibility for the preparation or transmission of news stories."
The sample was drawn from the 1,191 daily newspapers listed as
of February 2003 in Newslink, a major database listing of online
newspapers, [51] and was designed to provide a systematic probability
sample of newspapers proportionate to the size of daily
circulation.[52] Print circulation figures were used, because as
Singer notes, it is likely that familiarity with the print edition of
a newspaper is what leads readers to seek it out online.[53]While
there is currently no published directory of online newspaper staff
members, Singer found that most daily newspapers provide staff lists
with e-mail contact information on their Web sites.[54] The author
visited the Web sites of each newspaper to see if such a list was
available. In cases where no list was available, the researcher
contacted the newspapers to see if one could be provided. If a
newspaper failed to provide a staff list, stories on the newspaper's
Web site were randomly examined to see if contact for the reporter
was available.[55]
Data Collection Procedures
Data for this project were gathered via a Web-based survey.
These types of surveys have been shown to be an effective method of
gathering information from people (such as journalists) who have
e-mail addresses and access to the World Wide Web.[56] The author
contracted with Survey Professionals, Inc., a company based in Provo,
Utah, to host the survey on the World Wide Web and warehouse the data
from the survey until it was completed.
A total of 3,330 invitations (2,050 print newspaper journalists
and 1,280 online newspaper journalists) to participate in the survey
were sent via e-mail from July 15, 2003 to August 25, 2003.[57] Of
these 3,330 invitations, 325 invitations to the print newspaper
journalist sample and 119 to the online newspaper journalist
samplewere undeliverable for a total of 444 (13.3%). Additionally, 51
individuals (37 print and 14 online) who received the invitation
declined to participate.
Within three days after sending the survey invitations, an
e-mail message containing the URL of the survey was e-mailed to the
sample. In total, 2,835 messages (1,688 to the print sample and 1,147
to the online sample) directing recipients to the survey URL were
sent between July 17, 2003 and August 27, 2003. Two reminder messages
also containing the survey URL were sent one and two weeks
respectively after the initial mailing.
A total of 656 responses were received, for a 23.1% response
rate. Only one response was incomplete to the print where it could
not be used for analysis and was eliminated from the study, resulting
in a final sample size of 655 (456 print newspaper journalists and
199 online newspaper journalists. Responses were obtained from 271
newspapers in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The
distribution of the sample is similar demographically to results of a
2002 census of daily newspaper employees conducted for the American
Society of Newspaper Editors.[58] For example, 61% of respondents in
this study were male, compared to 63% in the ASNE study. Minorities
in both studies made up 12% of the sample. The distribution also
corresponds favorably to earlier studies of journalists in terms of
regional representation and newspaper circulation size.[59]
Dependent Variable
The dependent variable for this study is a summative index of
the 13 questions previously asked by Weaver and Wilhoit designed to
assess the professional role conceptions of journalists.[60] Given
that the main goal of this project was to assess the overall
influence of individual and routine gatekeeping forces, the decision
was made not to separately analyze influences on each role
conception. Another reason is that research has shown journalists are
often a combination of two or three different role conceptions.[61]
Respondents were asked how important they think "a number of things
the media do or try to do today" are.[62] The level of importance
respondents assigned to each statement was measured using a 7-point
Likert-type scale (1=not really important, 7=extremely important).
Cronbach's alpha for the role conception index was .74.Table 1
displays the means for the dimensions of the index.
Predictor Variables
To determine the influence of individual forces, respondents
were asked questions regarding gender, age, education, racial/ethnic
makeup, political ideology, whether they voted for a 2000
presidential candidate and number of years as a full-time journalist.
These questions were asked by Shoemaker et al. in their examination
of gatekeeping forces.[63]
Respondents were asked to assess how influential seven routine
forces (peers on staff, supervisors, journalistic training, news
sources, priorities of prestige publications, local competing news
media and wire service budgets) are on their opinions regarding their
conception of what is newsworthy.[64] These questions were also
adapted from Weaver and Wilhoit.[65] As noted earlier, when utilizing
a gatekeeping framework, the professional roles of journalists can be
seen as their ideas of what is newsworthy (i.e., what stories/items
should be permitted through the "gates").[66] The level of influence
respondents assigned each routine force was measured using a 7-point
Likert-type scale (1=influential, 7=very influential).
Hierarchical regression analyses were run on both the print
newspaper and online newspaper groups to answer the research questions.[67]
Results
RQ1 concerns the level of influence influential individual and
routine level gatekeeping forces have on the professional role
conceptions of print and online newspaper journalists. The
hierarchical regression model in Table 2 shows that the blocks of
individual level forces and routine forces both produced significant
increments in R-square for print newspaper journalists. However, the
routine block was more influential (p <.001) than the individual
level block (p=.013). In fact, the incremental increase in R-square
for the routine block accounted for two-thirds of the explained
variance in the regression model, which accounted for slightly more
than 16% of the overall variance (p < .001).
Among individual predictor variables, the routine level forces
of peers on staff (beta=.200, p=.002) and journalistic training
(beta=.173,p=.002) exerted the most influence on print newspaper
journalist professional role conceptions.. Voting for a candidate in
the 2000 presidential election (an individual level force) was also a
significant predictor (beta=.130, p=.012) (Table 2).
For the online group, Table 3 shows that the hierarchical
regression model explained nearly 28% of the variance (p=.007). The
routine level block of gatekeeping forces exerted a significant
influence on professional role conceptions (p < .001), while, the
block of individual level forces did not produce a significant
increment in R-square (p=.100).
Interestingly, although the impact of the routine level block
was significant, none of the individual predictor variables at this
level were significant. At the individual level, years of
journalistic experience was the only significant predictor for online
newspaper journalists (beta=.306, p=.026) (Table 3).
RQ2 asks whether routine level forces exert more influence than
individual level forces on the professional role conceptions of print
and online newspaper journalists. The hierarchical regression models
in Table 2 and Table 3 demonstrate that routine level forces
exhibited more of an influence than individual level forces on the
professional role conceptions of both groups.
Discussion
This study assessed the influence of individual and routine
gatekeeping forces on the professional role conceptions of print and
online newspaper journalists. As one of the first to utilize a
framework combining gatekeeping theory with Shoemaker and Reese's
hierarchical model of news influences,[68] this study has added to
the understanding of this new approach to using a theory once
dismissed by some as primitive and simplistic.[69]
Routine level gatekeeping forces in this study were found to
exert more influence than individual gatekeeping forces on the
professional role conceptions of print and online newspaper
journalists. This finding is comparable to that of Shoemaker et al.
who discovered that the routine level force of editors' assessments
of newsworthiness significantly impacted the amount of newspaper
coverage on Congressional bills,[70] and offers further support for
Shoemaker and Reese's hierarchical model of news influences, which
suggests that routine forces have more influence than individual
level forces.[71]
Shoemaker et al., the authors of the only published study
utilizing the theoretical framework employed here, called for further
research in this area to include more events and gatekeeping forces
at different levels.[72] While this study also looked at individual
and routine level forces, it took a different approach in assessing
influences at those levels. Shoemaker et al. looked at coverage of a
series of discrete events: Congresstional bills from 1996-1998,
whereas the goal of this study was to find out the overall influence
of the gatekeeping forces. It did not ask journalists to assess the
newsworthiness of specific stories. Shoemaker and colleagues, in
part, based their prediction regarding routine forces on what they
term the "news media's…unwritten canon" that the routine force of
editing effectively rids the personal biases of reporters from their
stories."[73] This study attempted to gauge the influence of various
individual and routine level gatekeeping forces on what journalists
bring to the table before they write their stories and before the
stories are put through the editing process and thus offers an added
dimension of knowledge to a theory that Shoemaker et al. contend is
"one of the more complex processes in mass communication."[74]
This study examined both print and online newspaper journalists
and the results can also be seen as support for Singer's contention
that gatekeeping theory is a worthy framework for inquiry into online
journalism.[75] The similarities of the results for each group
suggest print and online journalists are not a breed apart. Of
course, it should be noted this was not the primary intent of this
study. In addition, the fact that all the journalists here were
associated with daily newspapers—a traditional media outlet—could be
a reason for the similarities. The large body of research on the
sociology of news work suggests that journalists discover and
internalize the norms and values of the profession, as well as those
of the organization for which they are working. Perhaps the results
would be different in studies of journalists working for other
mediums and their online counterparts.
Limitations and Conclusion
Although this study has generated some useful findings, it is
not without limitations. While response rates for all types of
surveys have declined in recent years,[76] the high level of
nonresponse is certainly a limitation of this study. There exists a
possibility that nonrespondents would differ from respondents in
their assessments of the questions asked in this study.
Another limitation is the lack of responses from online
newspaper journalists. Only 199 online newspaper journalists
responded to the survey, which limits the generalizability of the
results to the online newspaper journalist population. Following the
example of Arant and Meyer, this study was designed to provide a
systematic probability sample of daily newspapers proportionate to
circulation size. [77] Thus, the larger the circulation, the more
survey invitations sent to that paper. However, some newspapers have
small online journalistic staffs in relation to print circulation,
and as a result, were unable to fulfill the number of survey
recipients accorded them in the sampling design. This limited the
number of online newspaper journalists receiving the survey.
However, despite the above limitations, this study adds to our
knowledge of the gatekeeping process, and as noted above, offers
further insight into the applicability of Shoemaker and Reese's
hierarchical model of news influences.[78] Hopefully, more studies
will employ this theoretical framework, and as Shoemaker and
colleagues suggest, utilize other levels of analysis.
Endnotes
[1] Jane B. Singer, "Online Journalists: Foundations for Research
Into Their Changing Roles," Journal of Computer Mediated
Communication 4, no. 1 (1998),
http://www.acusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue1/singer.html
(25 March 2005)
[2] Pamela J. Shoemaker, Martin Eichholz, Eunyi Kim, and Brenda
Wrigley, "Individual and Routine Forces in Gatekeeping," Journalism &
Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, no. 2 (2001): 233-246.
[3] Pamela J. Shoemaker, Gatekeeping (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1991)
Pamela J. Shoemaker, "Media Gatekeeping," in An Integrated Approach
to Communication Theory and Research, ed. Michael B. Salwen and Don
W. Stacks (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996), 79-91.
[4] For example David Manning White, "The 'Gate Keeper': A Case
Study in the Selection of News," Journalism Quarterly 27, no. 3
(1950); Paul B. Snider, "Mr. Gates Revisited: A 1966 Version of the
1949 Case Study," Journalism Quarterly 44, no. 3 (1967): 419-427.
[5] James Ettema and D. Charles Whitney, "Professional Mass
Communicators," in Handbook of Communication Science, ed. Charles H.
Berger and Steven H. Chaffee (Newbury Park CA: Sage, 1987),
747-780.Paul M. Hirsch, "Occupational, Organizational and
Institutional Models in Mass Media Research," in Strategies for
Communication Research, ed. Paul M. Hirsch, Peter M. Miller and F.
Gerald Kline (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage,1977), 13-42.: Stephen Reese
and Jane Ballinger, "The Roots of a Sociology of News: Remembering
Mr. Gates and Social Control in the Newsroom," Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly, 78, no. 4 (2001): 641-658.
[6] Shoemaker, Gatekeeping, Shoemaker, Eichholz, Kim and Wrigley,
"Individual and Routine Forces in Gatekeeping."
[7] Pamela A. Shoemaker and Stephen Reese, Mediating the Message:
Theories of Influence on Media Content 2nd ed. (White Plains, NY:
Longman, 1996)
[8] Singer, "Online Journalists."
[9] Shoemaker, "Media Gatekeeping."
[10] White, "The 'Gate Keeper.'"
[11] White, "The 'Gate Keeper,'" 386.
[12] Snider, "Mr. Gates Revisited."
[13] Glen L. Bleske, "Ms. Gates Takes Over: An Updated Version of a
1949 Study," Newspaper Research Journal 12, no. 1 (1991): 88-97.
[14] Hirsch, "Occupational, Organizational and Institutional Models
in Mass Media Research," 22.
[15] D. Charles Whitney and Lee Becker, "Keeping the 'Gates' for
Gatekeepers: The Effects of Wire News," Journalism Quarterly 59, no.
1 (1982): 60-65.
[16] Walter Gieber, "Across the Desk: A Study of 16 Telegraph
Editors," Journalism Quarterly 33, no. 3 (1956): 423-432; Walter
Gieber, "Two Communicators of the News: A Study of the Roles of
Sources and Reporters," Social Forces 79, no. 1 (1960): 76-83.
[17] Shoemaker, "Media Gatekeeping."
[18] Shoemaker and Reese, Mediating the Message.
[19] Shoemaker and Reese, Mediating the Message.
[20] Stephanie Craft and Wayne Wanta, "Women in the Newsroom:
Influences of Female Editors and Reporters on the News Agenda,
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 81, no. 1 (2004):124-138;
S. Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda S. Lichter, The Media
Elite (Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, 1986) David H. Weaver and G.
Cleveland Wilhoit, The American Journalist in the 1990s: U.S. News
People at the End of an Era (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996).
[21] Lichter and Lichter, The Media Elite;David H. Weaver, Randal
Beam. Bonnie Brownlee, Paul S. Voakes and G. Cleveland Wilhoit, The
Face and Mind of the American Journalist, 10 April 2003,
http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=28235 (25 March
2005); Weaver and Wilhoit, The American Journalist in the 1990s.
[22] Shoemaker and Reese, Mediating the Message, 105.
[23] Mark Fishman, Manufacturing the News (Austin, TX: University of
Texas Press), 14.
[24] Gaye Tuchman, Making News: A Study in the Construction of
Reality (New York: The Free Press, 1978).
[25] Hirsch, "Occupational, Organizational and Institutional Models
in Mass Media Research."
[26] Warren Breed, "Social Control in the Newsroom: A Functional
Analysis," Social Forces, 33, no. 4 (1955): 326-335; Shoemaker and
Reese, Mediating the Message; John Soloski, "News Reporting and
Professionalism: Some Constraints on the Reporting of theNews,"
Media, Culture and Society, 11, no. 4 (1989): 207-228.
[27] W. Lance Bennett, "Toward a Theory of Press-State Relations in
the United States," Journal of Communication 40, no. 2 (1990):
103-125; Herbert Gans, Deciding What's News (New York: Pantheon
Books, 1979) Daniel C. Hallin, Robert Karl Manoff, and Judy K.
Weddle, "Sourcing Patterns of National Security Reporters,"
Journalism Quarterly 70, no. 4 (1993): 753-766.Leon V. Sigal,
Reporters and Officials (Lexington MA: D.C. Heath,1973).
[28] Tuchman, Making News.
[29] Timothy Crouse, The Boys on the Bus (New York: Random House,
1972); Sharon Dunwoody, "Science Writers at Work," in Social Meanings
of News: A Text Reader, ed. Daniel Berkowitz (Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage, 1997, 155-167; Gans Deciding What's News; Vincent Kiernan,
"Embargoes and Science News," Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly 80, no. 4 (2003): 903-920; Carsten Reineman, "Routine
Reliance Revisited: Exploring Media Importance for German Political
Journalists," Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 81, no. 4
(2004): 857-876.
[30] Sigal, Reporters and Officials.
[31] Gans Deciding What's News.
[32] Shoemaker, Eichholz, Kim and Wrigley, "Individual and Routine
Forces in Gatekeeping," ; Shoemaker and Reese, Mediating the Message.
[33] Shoemaker and Reese, Mediating the Message.
[34] Weaver and Wilhoit, The American Journalist in the 1990s, 137.
[35] Shoemaker and Reese, Mediating the Message.
[36] John W.S. Johnstone, Edward J. Slawski, and William W. Bowman,
The News People: A Sociological Portrait of American Journalists and
Their Work (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1976).
[37] Johstone, Slawski, and Bowman, The News People, 114
.
[38] David H. Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit, The American
Journalist: A Portrait of U.S. News People and Their Work
(Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1986).
[39] Weaver and Wilhoit, The American Journalist in the 1990s.
[40] David M. Arant and Janna Q. Anderson, "Newspaper Online Editors
Support Traditional Ethics," Newspaper Research Journal 22, no. 4
(2001): 57-69.
[41] Jane B. Singer, "Still Guarding the Gate? The Newspaper
Journalist's Role in an Online World," Convergence: The Journal of
Research Into New Media Technologies 1 (1998): 72-89; Jane B. Singer,
"The Metro Wide Web: Changes in Newspapers' Gatekeeping Role Online,"
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, no. 1 (2001): 65-80.
[42] Singer "Still Guarding the Gate?"
[43] Singer, "The Metro Wide Web."
[44] Singer, "The Metro Wide Web," 78.
[45] Ann M. Brill, "Online Journalists Embrace New Marketing
Function," Newspaper Research Journal 22, no. 2 (2001): 28-40.
[46] Weaver and Wilhoit, The American Journalist in the 1990s.
[47] Singer, "Still Guarding the Gate?"
[48] Author, paper presented to AEJMC, 2004
[49] Weaver and Wilhoit, The American Journalist in the 1990s, 248.
[50] Weaver and Wilhoit, The American Journalist in the 1990s.
[51] Brian L. Massey and Mark R. Levy, "Interactivity, Online
Journalism and English-language Web Newspapers in Asia," Journalism &
Mass Communication Quarterly 76, no. 1 (1999): 138-151.
[52] Arant and Meyer (Mark D. Arant and Philip Meyer, "Changing
Values in the Newsroom: A Survey of Daily Newspaper Staff Members,"
Nieman Reports, 51, no. 3 (1996):55-62) argue that conducting a
purely random sample of newspapers over-represents the readers of
smaller newspapers and excludes many who read larger newspapers. In
order to best represent readers with the sampling design, this study,
employing Arant and Meyer's methods, took the September 2, 2002
weekday circulation figures from the Audit Bureau of Circulation of
the 1,191 dailies listed in Newslink and hypothetically "stacked" all
the issues on top of each other for a total weekday circulation of
52,870,276. A random starting point was chosen, and then after
consulting studies to determine the print newspaper and online
newspaper population (see American Society of Newspaper Editors,
Newsroom Employment Drops Sharply; Diversity Increases; see Arant and
Anderson, "Newspaper Online Editors), a newspaper from the "stack"
was pulled at every 25,790th copy for the print journalist sample and
every 30,211th newspaper to yield the online sample.
[53] Jane B. Singer, "Campaign Contributions: Online Newspaper
Coverage of Election 2000," Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly, 80, no. 1 (2003): 39-56.
[54] Jane B. Singer, "Click to Contact: Online Newspaper
Accountability," Media Ethics, 12, no. 2 (2001): 21-23.
[55] In all cases where this was necessary, the contact information
for ther eporter was provided. Arant and Meyer (Arant and Meyer,
"Changing Values in the Newsroom,") utilized this method in selecting
a portion of newspaper journalists sampled in their study. In the
hopes of obtaining responses from online staff members of these
papers, a generic e-mail was sent to the organization asking for the
message to be forwarded to the newspaper's online staff. This
procedure did not result in an oversampling of reporters. A 2002
census of daily newspaper workers (ASNE, Newsroom Employment Drops
Sharply, Diversity Increases) found 42.4% of respondents were
reporters, compared to 43.6% for this study.
[56] Don A. Dilman, Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design
Method 2nd ed (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1999).
[57] When drawing the online sample it became apparent that there
was significant variation in the number of online staff members at
daily newspapers. Further compounding this problem is that earlier
research made no distinction between online staffers whose jobs were
journalistic in nature and those in other types of positions. As a
result, some newspapers, because they had small online journalistic
staffs in relation to print circulation, were unable to fulfill the
number of survey recipients accorded them in the sampling design of
this study. In addition, there were some cases where a number of
newspapers shared a single Web site manned by a small staff. Examples
of this included newspapers in the Los Angeles, Chicago. Philadelphia
and San Francisco metropolitan areas. As a result the number in the
online sample was only 1,280.
[58] American Society of Newspaper Editors (2002, April 8), Newsroom
Employment Drops Sharply, Diversity Increases
http://www.asne.org/index/cfm?id=3432 (30 July 2004).
[59] Weaver and Wilhoit, The American Journalist in the 1990s; Paul
S. Voakes, "The Newspaper Journalists of the '90s," American Society
of Newspaper Editors, 31 October 1997
http://www.asne.org/kiosk/reports/journalists90s/coverpage.html (12
January 2004)
[60] Weaver and Wilhoit, The American Journalist in the 1990s.
[61] Weaver and Wilhoit, The American Journalist in the 1990s.
[62] Weaver and Wilhoit, The American Journalist in the 1990s, 263.
[63] Shoemaker. Eichholz, Kim and Wrigley, "Individual and Routine
Forces in Gatekeeping."
[64] Obviously, these are not the only routine forces. However, they
are the ones most often mentioned in the literature. In addition,
Cronbach's alpha for these forces, when combined into a "routine
force index, was acceptable (alpha=.72)
[65] Weaver and Wilhoit, The American Journalist in the 1990s.
[66] Shoemaker and Reese, Mediating the Message.
[67] Several of the individual forces were nominal and ordinal
variables and were recoded into dummy variables. Gender was recoded
as Female (1=female, 0=male). Education was recoded as Bachelor's
degree and higher (1=Bachelor's degree and higher; 0=less than a
Bachelor's degree). Race/Ethnicity was recoded as White (1=white,
0=minority). Political View was recoded as Liberal (1=liberal or very
liberal, 0=moderate or conservative). Additionally, since the online
sample contained a higher percentage of respondents younger than 35,
age was recoded as (1=younger than 35, 0=35 and older)
[68] Shoemaker and Reese, Mediating the Message.
[69] Daniel Berkowitz, "Organizing News: News as a Workplace
Product," in Social Meanings of News: A Text Reader,ed. Daniel
Berkowitz (Thousand Oaks CA: Sage, 1997), 105-106.
[70] Shoemaker, Eichholz, Kim and Wrigley, "Individual and Routine
Forces in Gatekeeping."
[71] Shoemaker and Reese, Mediating the Message.
[72] Shoemaker, Eichholz, Kim and Wrigley, "Individual and Routine
Forces in Gatekeeping."
[73] Shoemaker, Eichholz, Kim and Wrigley, "Individual and Routine
Forces in Gatekeeping," 237.
[74] Shoemaker, Eichholz, Kim and Wrigley, "Individual and Routine
Forces in Gatekeeping," 242.
[75] Singer, "Online Journalists."
[76] Kim Bartel Sheehan, "E-mail Survey Response Rates: A Review,"
Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 6, no. 2 (2001)
http://www.acusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue2/sheehan.html (25 March 2005).
[77] Arant and Meyer, "Changing Values in the Newsroom."
[78] Shoemaker and Reese, Mediating the Message.
Table 1
Means of Dimensions of Professional Role Conception Index
Print Online
Dimension Mean SD Mean SD
Investigate Official
Claims 6.32 1.00 5.95 1.06
Analyze Complex Problems 6.29 1.01 5.92 1.10
Discuss National Policy 5.70 1.32 5.32 1.30
Get Information to the
Public Quickly 6.03 .97 6.46 .70
Avoiding Stories with
Unverifiable Facts 5.65 1.51 5.86 1.31
Be an Adversary of
Public Officials 4.73 1.65 4.41 1.63
Be an Adversary of
Business 4.53 1.63 4.29 1.61
Allow Public to Express
Views 5.59 1.33 5.72 1.51
Develop Cultural Interests 4.82 1.42 5.01 1.36
Entertain 4.69 1.35 5.02 1.08
Set Political Agenda 3.23 1.61 3.09 1.53
Appeal to Widest
Possible Audience 4.89 1.26 4.62 1.34
Influence Public Opinion 3.67 1.62 3.31 1.70
Note. 1=not really important, 7=extremely important. Cronbach's
Alpha=.74. Print (n=456) Online (n=199).
Table 2
Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Individual and Routine Level
Gatekeeping Force Influence on Professional Role Conceptions, Print
Sample (Betas, n=456)
Predictor
Variables Block 1 Block 2
Individual Level Forces
Gender (Female) .079 .062
Education .106 .072
Age -.020 -.052
Minority .006 .003
Political Ideology (Liberal) .062 .048
Voted in 2000 Election .142** .130*
Years of Journalism Experience .106 .102
Routine Level Forces
Peers on Staff .200**
Supervisors -.018
Journalistic Training .173**
Sources .033
Prestige Press .101
Local Competitors -.046
Wire Service Budgets .062
R-Square for Block .054* .108***
Cumulative R-Square .054* .162***
Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
Table 3
Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Individual and Routine Level
Gatekeeping Force Influence on Professional Role Conceptions, Online
Sample (Betas, n=199)
Predictor
Variables Block 1 Block 2
Individual Level Forces
Gender (Female) .119 .030
Education .042 -.003
Age -.097 -.137
Minority .083 .005
Political Ideology (Liberal) .190 .152
Voted in 2000 Election -.166 -.179
Years of Journalism Experience .169 .306*
Routine Level Forces
Peers on Staff .255
Supervisors -.054
Journalistic Training -.087
Sources .156
Prestige Press .093
Local Competitors .074
Wire Service Budgets .173
R-Square for Block .116 .162*
Cumulative R-Square .116 .278**
Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01
|
