|
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 "").
(Feb 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================
Cable Battleground:
Analysis of Coverage for the 2004 Presidential Election
On CNN and Fox News
Jacqueline Bates
Syracuse University
Jacqueline Bates
902-23 Ivy Ridge Rd
Syracuse, NY 13210
USA
[log in to unmask]
AV: PowerPoint (if possible)
ABSTRACT
A content analysis was designed to explore cable shows' stories on
policy and campaign issues during the 2004 presidential election.
Both CNN and Fox News were compared for airtime of policy and
campaign issues as well as airtime devoted to the candidates. Through
this research project, it was found that CNN and Fox News are highly
similar in their coverage of policy issues and candidates, but they
differ in the coverage of campaign issues.
Before a presidential election, voters need accurate and valuable
campaign coverage in order to make informed decisions. Currently,
people access political information from a multitude of sources
including radio, newspapers, magazines, television, and the internet.
However, not all sources receive the same attention from the public.
For the past three presidential elections, individuals have obtained
most of their campaign news from television (Graber, 2002); in fact,
70% of voters' information originated from television in the 2000
election (Graber, 2002, p. 246). Since Americans acquire the majority
of their election information from television, a study of the
accuracy and quality of mediated political content is important.
Furthermore, politics now entertain Americans (Gabler, 1998). The
American public does not want to be bored with the intricacies and
bureaucratic red tape of politics. Instead, the public desires simple
but dramatic stories that entertain them; consequently, news shows
"feature exciting, human aspects of the election, even when the
issues are trivial" (Graber, 2002, p. 251). Coverage of this nature
often disregards policy issues, which may leave viewers uninformed.
For example, "the majority of the answers people give when asked what
they have learned about candidates and issues or why they would vote
or refrain from voting for a certain candidate concern personality
traits" (Graber, 2002, p. 261). Thus, the task of appealing to
audiences often overrides the coverage of important issues in
politics by television networks.
In acknowledging that voters rely mainly on television coverage for
their political information and also seek entertainment value at the
same time, is it still possible to receive accurate worthwhile
political coverage? This question presents a problem in current
political campaigns. Thus, the purpose of this study is to examine
television networks for the content and quality of election coverage
on news shows. This research project will further the understanding
of mediated election coverage so voters can not only make informed
political choices but also informed media choices.
THEORY
The following sections discuss the main theories and topics related
to this study. First, agenda-setting and framing receive attention,
followed by previous research on types of coverage and allocation of
airtime. Finally, CNN and Fox News are compared and contrasted for
their experiences, reporters, and audiences.
Agenda-Setting and Framing
Beginning with their 1972 study, McCombs and Shaw sought to
understand the media's role in public opinion. They discovered that
media often serve an agenda-setting function in political campaigns
influencing the prevalence of certain political issues in the public
(McCombs & Shaw, 1972). The issues the media choose to highlight
correspond to the emphasis the public places on those same issues
(McCombs & Shaw, 1972; see also Kiousis & McCombs, 2004;
Lopez-Escobar, Llamas, McCombs, & Lennon, 1998; McCombs, Llamas,
Lopez-Escobar, & Rey, 1997; McCombs, Lopez-Escobar, & Llamas, 2000).
Essentially, by featuring certain issues in election coverage,
agenda-setting theory purposes that the media decide the most
important aspects of the campaign, not the politicians or citizens. A
media emphasis on healthcare, for instance, correlates to an increase
on the public's emphasis on healthcare. Similarly, as media
de-emphasize healthcare, a correlation may show that citizens may
assign less importance to this issue. Agenda-setting in the mass
media, thus, may function to tell people what to think about in
political campaigns. Typically, this idea is known as the first level
of agenda-setting.
A second level of agenda-setting focuses on telling people how to
think about an issue. This level draws upon and complements other
concepts and theories such as framing (McCombs et al., 1997). Robert
Entman (1993) has defined framing:
To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make
them more salient in communicating texts, in such a way as to promote
a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral
evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described. (p. 52)
Framing highlights some feature of a given topic by increasing the
feature's salience, making it more "noticeable, meaningful, or
memorable for the audience" (Entman, 1993, p. 53; see also McCombs et
al., 1997). For example, framing may increase the visibility of polls
over policy issues in political campaign coverage. Stressing the
polls may make them more memorable for the public.
Essentially, agenda-setting and framing usually exist in political
news contexts. Two domains in which agenda-setting and framing
dominate are the frequency of certain topics in coverage and the
allocation of airtime, which arise during political news coverage.
Topics of Coverage
As already mentioned, candidates promote their campaigns through the
mass media. Politicians try to inundate the public with their
messages. Yet, previous studies (Lichter, 2001; McCombs & Shaw, 1972)
suggest that journalists discuss the campaign itself rather than the
issues. Three aspects of the campaign receive more coverage than
political issues: (1) polls, which include horserace coverage, (2)
campaign events, and (3) campaign analysis (McCombs & Shaw, 1972).
Out of these three aspects, polls usually receive the most attention.
Lichter (2001) found that horse race coverage constituted 71% of
political story content while policy issues only constituted 40%,
with some overlap (p. 24).
Furthermore, scholars have added another aspect to the coverage of
campaigns: the candidates' characters/personalities since the McCombs
and Shaw (1972) study (Woodward, 1997; see also Paletz & Entman,
1981). Character is discussed not only by journalists, but also by
opposing candidates. Also tied with character is the coverage of
human-interest stories about politicians, which include "fluff"
pieces about childhood stories and hobbies of politicians. Thus,
campaign issues along with character emphasis and human-interest
stories receive the majority of coverage.
This type of coverage may undermine the efforts of politicians to
further their platforms because their issues do not receive the
majority of coverage; nevertheless, it is not hard to understand why
the press emphasizes the campaign over the real issues. As Paletz and
Entman (1981) suggest, "often boringly detailed, the candidates'
policy pronouncements are rarely dramatically newsworthy" (p. 51).
Unfortunately, this type of coverage usually undermines at least one
of the candidates (Paletz & Entman, 1981). Therefore, the media may
forgo the policy issues in order to provide more entertaining campaign news.
Allocation of Airtime
Not only does news coverage of the election focus on campaign
issues, but the media also give precedence to journalists and
political analysts as sources on news shows instead of politicians.
Campaign issues tend to override political issues (McCombs & Shaw,
1972). Given that coverage of elections centers on campaign analysis
as previously stated, it stands to reason that journalists and
analysts will receive more airtime than politicians since candidates
rarely publicly scrutinize their own campaigns (McCombs & Shaw,
1972). Indeed, competition between journalists and candidates for
coverage or frames is not uncommon (Entman, 1993). Each group vies
for the frames, but journalists usually win, subjecting politicians
to shrinking sound bites. In fact, the political sound bite is only
eight seconds long (Graber, 2002, p. 252). This relatively short
period of time does not seem adequate for explaining detailed
platforms and policy issues. Yet, this statistic is not surprising
since journalists spoke 74% of the time in the 2000 election with
candidates only speaking 12% of the time on network shows (Lichter,
2001, p. 24). In the end, candidates usually receive little, if any,
speaking time, especially when compared to journalists or analysts.
CNN versus Fox News
Various cable networks often compete for viewers during elections.
However, not all television networks have the same influence over
voters, and the question arises of which television stations to
examine. In the 2000 election, television played such a significant
role in dispensing political news that it was sorted into three
categories, which were cable, network, and local (Graber, 2002).
Voters received 36% of the political television coverage from cable,
22% from network broadcasting, and 21% from local reporting (Graber,
2002, p. 246). Marks (2000) found that cable networks are usurping
the role of the traditional big three networks (i.e., NBC, ABC, and
CBS). In fact, the new big three in election coverage are CNN, Fox
News, and MSNBC because they devote more time to the election and
receive the majority of viewers (Marks, 2000). Nevertheless, CNN and
Fox News continually compete for the largest audience and are the
most polarized in their content (Leo, 2004). Thus, these two stations
will be examined in this research due to their prevalence in American homes.
Nevertheless, these stations do not give equal importance to the
quality and content of their election coverage, and there are reasons
to suspect that CNN will provide better coverage than its competitor:
it is likely that CNN's content will revolve around more policy
issues, and its shows will give more airtime to candidates because it
is a more established news station that caters to a more educated population.
First, CNN has established itself as a reliable news source.
It has operated for almost 25 years, whereas Fox News has only aired
for eight years (Marks, 2000). Its longevity on air demonstrates its
value in covering the news accurately and objectively. Indeed, CNN
maintains the trust and credibility of its viewers because it has the
ability to cover stories better than its competitors (Foege, 2004).
Therefore, it is expected that CNN will provide more in-depth
election coverage.
Second, not only is CNN more established as a station,
but its reporters also tend to have more experience. CNN employs more
than 4,000 reporters who have a wide array of experiences in
different fields from the 1985 hijacking of a TWA jetliner to the
1984-2000 presidential elections (Graber, 2002). Overall, they are
experienced and well versed. Conversely, other stations, like Fox
News, could encounter damage because of their reporting style, which
is driven by on-air journalists, referred to as "talking heads,"
rather than producers (Larson & Consoll, 2001). The experience of the
CNN reporters, in effect, increases the likelihood of higher quality
election coverage especially in contrast to the surface level
reporting at Fox News.
Third, the nature of CNN's audience influences its election
coverage. CNN caters to a more "upscale" demographic population.
According to a Nielsen poll, CNN attracts light television viewers,
who have a high level of education and affluence (Foege, 2004). CNN
maintains its educated viewers because it covers stories better than
its competition (Foege, 2004). Also, CNN receives big advertising
dollars due to its upper class audience (Absher, 2004). In a logical
cyclic process, CNN supplies the best campaign coverage so that
viewers tune in and subsequently see the big ads and buy the
advertisers' products. Therefore, CNN will likely cover the more
important aspects of the election than will other stations due to its
audience's expectations ultimately driving profits. CNN should thus
provide a more in-depth coverage of the 2004 election than Fox News.
Hypotheses
H1: Networks vary in the number of policy issues and campaign issues
they cover.
a: CNN features more policy issues than Fox News.
b: Fox News features more campaign issues than CNN.
Network (i.e., CNN or Fox News) is the independent variable, and it
is defined as television broadcasting stations that produce programs
for public viewing. News shows are categorically divided into News
from CNN and Fox News Live. Issue is the dependent variable in this
hypothesis. Issue refers to the subject matter of the daily news.
Issue will be divided into two main categories: policy issues and
campaign issues. First, policy issues are governmental plans that
will influence America. Policy issues are further subdivided into
thirteen categories: abortion, economy, education, environment,
foreign affairs, gay marriage, gun policy, healthcare, immigration,
situation in Iraq, taxes, terrorism, and other. These policy issues
correspond to important voting issues in the American public (Gallup
Poll News Service, 2004).
Second, campaign issues entail all that McCombs and Shaw (1972)
originally reported such as polls, campaign events, and campaign
analysis, and more recent additions such as character debates and
human-interest stories. Coverage of polls refers to the head-to-head
competition between Bush and Kerry in the election. Campaign events
focus on speeches, conventions, debates, or parties, which revolve
around the election. Campaign analysis refers to the examination of
the politicians and their stances in the news media. Character
emphasis refers to the personalities, values, and morals of a
candidate, and finally human-interest coverage features stories for
entertainment value, which have no real impact on the political
system (e.g., childhood stories, hobbies, and humorous anecdotes
about the candidates).
As support for this hypothesis McCombs and Shaw (1972) contend,
network stations usually give more precedence to campaign issues
rather than policy issues. Campaign issues usually receive more
attention from the press in order to satisfy their audiences, who
have no patience for the boring details of policy issues (Paletz &
Entman, 1981). To find both stations covering more campaign issues
than policy issues would not be uncommon. However, CNN will likely
feature more policy issues due to its experience, reporters, and audience.
H2: CNN allots more speaking time for the candidates (i.e., George
W. Bush and John Kerry) when compared to Fox News.
This hypothesis examines the speaking time devoted to the
presidential candidates on the news. Network is again the independent
variable whereas speaking time is the dependent variable. Speaking
time refers to the duration that candidates articulate words, which
express thoughts, feelings, or perceptions.
As already mentioned, candidates rarely obtain more than eight
seconds to speak on any issue (Lichter, 2001); thus, journalists and
analysts receive more time to talk. Yet again, CNN will probably
allow the candidates to speak more than Fox News due to its
experience, reporters, and audience.
METHOD
The two networks, CNN and Fox News, are compared through a content
analysis on their noon news shows (i.e., News from CNN and Fox News
Live). These two shows were selected because of their comparable
newscasts, time slots, and national coverage. Both shows cover
national news on a daily basis, and both shows air at noon Monday
through Friday. All other times and shows do not easily correspond.
These one-hour shows were coded for one month preceding the 2004
presidential election, October 4, 2004 through October 29, 2004. The
unit of analysis is the day; twenty days were studied for both shows.
The recording unit is the individual story in each show.
Measurement of variables
The first hypothesis compares the content of the two networks news
shows. Network is defined as a television broadcasting station that
produces programs for public viewing. The networks are categorically
divided into two stations (i.e., CNN and Fox News).
Issue is measured by coding the number of times the two specific
issues and their subdivisions arise in a given news hour.
Specifically, each aspect of the two issues is coded. That is, the
total number of policy issue stories is coded as are the number of
abortion, economy, education, environment, foreign affairs, gay
marriage, gun policy, healthcare, immigration, situation in Iraq,
taxes, terrorism, and other policy stories. Likewise, the total
number of campaign issue stories is coded as are the number of
stories about campaign analysis, campaign events, character stories,
human-interest stories, and polls.
The second hypothesis examines the speaking time devoted to
candidates on the news. Speaking time is measured as the number of
seconds each candidate talks per news show. Candidates speaking time
is broken down into the subcategories of the two dominant nominees:
George W. Bush and John Kerry.
All variables had an intercoder reliability of acceptable rates.
Scott's Pi was 0.80-1.00 for all variables.
RESULTS
In analyzing the results for the coverage of the 2004 presidential
election, certain policy issues and campaign issues were more salient
in the news than others. Also, President Bush was allotted more
airtime than John Kerry.
Table 1 shows the average of each policy issue on the two shows.
Three policy issues that arose most often were the Iraq war (M = 1.43
stories), terrorism (M = 0.70 stories), and foreign affairs (M = 0.28
stories). The total mean of policy issues per show was 3.18 stories.[1]
Certain campaign issues were also more prominent than others. Table
1 also displays the average of each campaign issue on the two shows.
Campaign analysis stories were the most prominent (M = 3.58 stories),
followed by campaign event stories (M = 0.85 stories).
Table 2 highlights the means for the candidates speaking times.
Interestingly, President Bush was given more speaking time by both
shows (M = 55.18 seconds) whereas Kerry was given less speaking time
(M = 30.45 seconds). Overall, candidates spoke an average of 85.60
seconds per show.
Table 3 simply shows the breakdown for the two shows: News from CNN
and Fox News Live. Both of these shows were analyzed for their
coverage of policy and campaign issues as well as the speaking time
of candidates. Each news show accounted for half of the sample;
essentially, each show was examined for an equal amount of time
(i.e., 50% each).
The first hypothesis proposes a difference in the issues that CNN and Fox
News cover. Hypothesis 1a poses that CNN will cover more policy
issues. Through the use of an independent t-test, this hypothesis is
not supported. Table 4 shows that there is no significant difference
between the number of total policy issues covered by CNN and Fox
News. Although no real difference existed between the means of the
total policy issues covered by CNN and Fox News, CNN did
statistically cover one policy issue more than Fox News: foreign
affairs Yet overall, hypothesis 1a is not supported.
Hypothesis 1b proposes that Fox News will cover more campaign issues
than CNN. Through the use of an independent t-test, this hypothesis
is supported. Table 5 displays a significant difference between the
total number of campaign issues covered by Fox News when compared to
CNN. As suggested, Fox News covers more campaign issues than CNN. The
main difference in campaign issues is due to campaign analysis
stories. Fox News averages 4.35 stories per show while CNN only
averages 2.80 stories per show. To reiterate, Fox News covers more
total campaign issues than CNN supporting hypothesis 1b, especially
when examining campaign analysis stories.
Essentially, the first hypothesis is partially supported. Hypothesis
1a does not receive support although foreign affairs are covered more
by CNN. Hypothesis 1b does receive support, with campaign analysis
stories having the largest statistical difference.
The second hypothesis proposes that CNN will offer more speaking time
to the candidates than will Fox News. Although by comparing means CNN
does offer more airtime to the candidates than Fox News, there is no
statistically significant difference. An independent t-test, shown in
Table 6 shows that both candidates received similar airtime on both
shows; therefore, the second hypothesis is not supported.
DISCUSSION
Initially, this study set out to analyze the issues cable news shows cover
during a presidential election, specifically the 2004 presidential
election. Previous literature (McCombs & Shaw, 1972; Paletz & Entman,
1981; Woodward, 1997) suggests that news stations are moving away
from actual substantive policy issues and towards more horserace and
human-interest story coverage. Studies (Graber, 2002; Lichter, 2001)
also indicate that news shows reduce political candidates to
shrinking sound bites, while allowing journalists and analysts to
speak for almost the entirety of shows. The combination of these two
findings produce less substantive news shows, which focus more on
entertaining analysis of the elections and not on the real voting
issues (Paletz & Entman, 1981).
McCombs et al. (1997, 2000) have conducted studies to this degree.
However, few studies have compared and contrasted specific television
stations for this type of coverage. As a result, this study was
conducted to understand if less substantive coverage was a unique
aspect of certain shows or if this growing idea was apparent across
stations. Since cable news channels, specifically CNN and Fox News,
are the major stations audiences use for political news, their
coverage was compared. The hypotheses posed that CNN would provide
more substantive coverage due to its experience, reporters, and audience.
Nevertheless, there was no major difference between CNN and Fox News
for their coverage of policy issues and airtime allotted to
candidates. The major difference was that Fox News devoted more
stories to campaign issues than did CNN.
As previously suggested, both CNN and Fox News gave much more
airtime to campaign issues than policy issues. Both shows featured
more campaign analysis stories than any policy issue. This fact is
somewhat disheartening because it means that the public receives more
horserace coverage than that of actual voting issues. Instead of
hearing about the candidates' platforms such as healthcare,
education, and taxes, the American public received bountiful
information on what Bush and Kerry could do better to win over voters.
Similarly, past studies (Graber, 2002; Lichter, 2001) indicate that
candidates receive little speaking time on news shows. Again, this
finding held true for both CNN and Fox News, who both allowed the
candidates to speak only a few seconds per show, if at all.
Although this study did not show a real difference between CNN and
Fox News for their coverage during the 2004 presidential election,
with the exception of campaign issues, it did reinforce previous
studies. This study demonstrates that news shows are continuing to
supply viewers with more campaign issues and analysis and fewer
actual facts and opinions from the candidates about important voting
issues. Interestingly, this study diverged from previous literature
(McCombs & Shaw, 1972) in one respect. This study suggests that
campaign analysis stories are the main campaign issue covered by
networks; however, poll stories were the dominant campaign issue in
previous literature (McCombs & Shaw, 1972).
As with any research, this study has limitations; however,
limitations also open the door for future research. First, the sample
was limited to only two cable shows. Differences may exist within
other cable news shows such as MSNBC. There could be more differences
between cable news shows and network news shows such as the three
major broadcast networks news shows, or even differences between U.S.
news shows and international news shows such as BBC. In the future,
studies can compare several cable shows or several network shows
simultaneously as well as compare cable shows to network shows. Also,
studies can compare domestic to international coverage of elections.
Second, although no real difference was found in the number of
stories each network did on policy issues, differences in coverage
could still exist. For example, CNN may have covered the same number
of policy issue stories as Fox News, but CNN could have covered the
policy issues more in-depth or may have just spent more time on them.
Conversely, Fox News may have only mentioned the policy issue for a
minute and moved on to another story. Thus, future studies can
explore not only the number of stories produced by news shows but
also the coverage of those stories.
Third, along the same lines, both shows gave essentially the same
amount of speaking time to the candidates on the whole; however, that
does not mean each candidate was portrayed in the same manner. In the
future, studies can examine the valence of coverage of the candidates
speaking time as well as the valence of policy and campaign issue stories.
Overall, the study's findings are comparable to other studies of
this nature. Although no real difference, with the exception of
campaign issues, exists between CNN and Fox News, the study
reinforces the idea that news shows focus on campaign issues rather
than policy issues. This study also reaffirms that news shows give
little time to the candidates' voices. Hopefully, the scope of future
research will continue to produce information about this topic to the
public. As a result, American citizens may watch news shows with an
objective and critical eye and know that they are obtaining only a
specific type of news at the expense of other stories and voices.
References
Absher, F. (2004). Fox hunt. St. Louis Journalism Review, 34, 6.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm.
Journal of Communication, 43, 51-58.
Campbell, R., Martin, C. R., & Fabos, B. (2004). Media and culture: An
introduction to mass communication. Boston: Bedford and St. Martin's.
Foege, A. (2004, May 3). Cable '04: Hearts and minds. Adweek. Retrieved
September 14, 2004, from http://www.adweek.com
Gabler, N. (1998). Life: The movie. New York: Vintage Books.
Graber, D.A. (2002). Mass media and American politics (6th ed.). Washington,
DC: Congressional Quarterly.
Gallup Poll News Service. (2004). Importance and candidate performance.
Retrieved October 18, 2004 from http://www.gallup.com
Kiousis, S., & McCombs, M. E. (2004). Agenda-setting effects and attitude
strength: Political figures during the 1996 presidential election.
Communication Research, 31, 36-57.
Larson, M., & Consoll, J. (2001, September 24). Mobilizing for warnetworks
dispatch crews to Middle East in effort to penetrate Afghanistantv
news. Mediaweek. Retrieved September 17, 2004, from http://www.mediaweek.com
Leo, J. (2004, June 7). Liberal media? I'm shocked. U. S. News and World
Report, 136, 12.
Lichter, S. R. (2001). A plague on both parties: Substance and fairness in TV
election news. Press/Politics, 6, 8-30.
Lopez-Escobar, E., Llamas, J. P., McCombs, M. E., & Lennon F. R. (1998). Two
levels of agenda-setting among advertising and news in the 1995
Spanish elections. Political Communication, 15, 225-238.
Marks, P. (2000, April 7). Networks cede political coverage to cable. The New
York Times, p. A18.
McCombs, M. E., 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, 703-717.
McCombs, M. E., Lopez-Escobar, E., & Llamas, J. P. (2000). Setting the agenda
of attributes in the 1996 Spanish general election. Journal of
Communication, 50, 77-92.
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass
media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.
Paletz, D. L., & Entman, R. M. (1981). Media, power, politics. New York: Free
Press.
Woodward, G. C. (1997). Perspectives on American political media. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
2
Cable Battleground
Table 1
Means and standard deviations for policy issues and campaign issues
Number of Stories on Policy
Mean
SD
N
Issues and Campaign Issues:
Abortion*
0.03
0.16
40
Economy*
0.15
0.43
40
Environment*
0.03
0.16
40
Foreign Affairs*
0.28
0.72
40
Healthcare*
0.18
0.45
40
Immigration*
0.00
0.22
40
Iraq War*
1.43
1.03
40
Taxes*
0.15
0.66
40
Terrorism*
0.70
0.88
40
Other Policy Stories*
0.20
0.52
40
Total Policy Issues*
3.18
2.37
40
Campaign Analysis Stories*
3.58
1.87
40
Campaign Event Stories*
0.85
1.17
40
Character Stories*
0.13
0.46
40
Candidate Human-Interest
0.20
0.52
40
Stories*
Poll Stories*
0.33
0.83
40
Total Campaign Issues*
5.08
3.03
40
*Responses were coded by the number of times each issue was the focus
of a news story.
Table 2
Means and standard deviations for speaking times
Speaking Time
Mean
SD
N
Speaking Time for George W.
55.18
126.64
40
Bush*
Speaking Time for John
Kerry*
30.45
56.58
40
Speaking Time for
85.60
138.31
40
Candidates*
*Responses were coded by the number of seconds each group of people
spoke per show.
Table 3
Percentages for network news shows
Variables
%
Network news shows
News from CNN
50.00
Fox News Live
50.00
100.00%
(N = 40)
Table 4
Independent t tests for policy issues by network shows
Network news shows
News from CNN
Fox News Live
mean
mean
(& SD)
(& SD)
(N = 20)
(N = 20)
t value
df
Significance
Abortion*
0.05
0.00
1.00
38
ns
(0.22)
(0.00)
Economy*
0.10
0.20
-0.74
38
ns
(0.31)
(0.52)
Environment*
0.00
0.05
-1.00
19
ns
(0.00)
(0.22)
Foreign Affairs*
0.50
0.05
2.07
21
p < .05
(0.94)
(0.22)
Healthcare*
0.15
0.20
-0.35
38
ns
(0.37)
(0.52)
Immigration*
0.10
0.00
1.45
19
ns
(0.31)
(0.00)
Iraq War*
1.55
1.30
0.76
38
ns
(1.05)
(1.03)
Taxes*
0.15
0.15
0.00
38
ns
(0.67)
(0.67)
Terrorism*
0.60
0.80
-0.71
38
ns
(0.75)
(1.01)
Other Policy Stories*
0.20
0.20
0.00
38
ns
(0.52)
(0.52)
Total Policy Stories*
3.40
2.95
0.59
38
ns
(1.93)
(2.78)
*Responses were coded by the number of times each issue was the focus
of a news story.
Table 5
Independent t tests for campaign issues by network shows
Network news shows
News from CNN
Fox News Live
mean
Mean
(& SD)
(& SD)
(N = 20)
(N = 20)
t value
df
Significance
Campaign
2.80
4.35
-2.86
31
p < .05
Analysis*
(1.24)
(2.08)
Campaign
0.60
1.10
-1.37
38
ns
Events*
(0.88)
(1.37)
Character
0.20
0.05
1.02
24
ns
Stories*
(0.62)
(0.22)
Human-Interest
0.20
0.20
0.00
38
ns
Stories*
(0.62)
(0.41)
Poll Stories*
0.20
0.45
-0.95
28
ns
(0.52)
(1.05)
Total Campaign
4.00
6.15
-2.37
38
p < .05
Stories*
(2.77)
(2.96)
*Responses were coded by the number of times each issue was the focus
of a news story.
Table 6
Independent t tests for speaking time by network shows
Network news shows
News from CNN
Fox News Live
mean
mean
(& SD)
(& SD)
(N = 20)
(N = 20)
t value
df
Significance
Time George W.
64.15
46.20
0.44
38
ns
Bush speaks*
(163.12)
(78.38)
Time John Kerry
38.90
22.00
0.94
38
ns
speaks*
(76.12)
(25.00)
Time Candidates
103.05
68.20
0.79
38
ns
speak*
(174.66)
(90.10)
*Responses were coded by the number of seconds each group of people
spoke per show.
[1] Education, gay marriage, and gun policy were taken out of the
result tables for policy issues because these issues occurred in no
stories coded.
|
