File VOAKESP DVRSTY
Placed on [log in to unmask]
by
[log in to unmask]
4 July 1993
Diversity in the News:
A Conceptual and Methodological Framework
by
Paul Voakes
Jack Kapfer
David Kurpius
David Shano-yeon Chern
5050 Vilas Communication Hall
University of Wisconsin-Madison
821 University Avenue
Madison, WI 53706
Tel: (608) 262-3690
Submitted to
The Student Competition
of the Communication Theory and Methodology Division
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication
April 1, 1993
Diversity in the News:
A Conceptual and Methodological Framework
(Student Paper)
ABSTRACT
Among the many interpretations of news diversity, the
authors contend that the most fundamental and most important
is content diversity -- a dimension with theoretical roots
"marketplace of ideas" implied in the First Amendment. Using
newspaper coverage of Wisconsin's debate over raising the
drinking age to 21 as a case study, and a content-analysis
method based on manifest "idea elements." The paper explores
quantitatively the difference between content diversity and
source diversity, two constructs that others have assumed to
be highly correlated. The findings indicate that the
difference is substantial. Of 144 articles coded, 83 showed
strong differences in their measures of content diversity vs.
source diversity. While source diversity may sometimes
accompany content diversity, it is fallacious to assume that
source diversity begets content diversity.
INTRODUCTION
As America achieves new levels of multicultural diversity
with each passing year, an increasing number of institutions
are confronting this concept, either obliquely or directly.
As with most social changes, the mass media in many ways have
sought to reflect the increasing diversity, but it is unclear
whether they have succeeded to any appreciable degree. The
media may be locked, by virtue of their political economy,
into a production system that cannot accommodate diversity.
Media scholars have debated this possibility vigorously over
the last two decades. But the quest of this research project
is more basic: What is news diversity? How do we know it
when we see it? Can we measure it in a way that reflects the
true diversity of the news?
Diversity itself is not a new concept in the context of
the mass media. Students of freedom of expression have
generally agreed that diversity is one of the central values
implied in Americans' continued faith and practice of the
First Amendment (Emerson, 1981). Its most common moniker is
the marketplace of ideas, and its logic, as derived from the
liberal-democracy theories of John Stuart Mill and James
Madison, is that a multiplicity of voices is necessary for
effective democratic self-governance. Hence, the ongoing
interest in diversity in the media: Are many different ideas
being given voice in the current media system? If not, are
at least enough diverse ideas being expressed to sustain our
system of self-governance? Or is the system being undermined
by an illusion of media diversity? Does a media system that
no longer reflects the diversity of its audience become
irrelevant to the system of government?
As important as these questions are, the research in media
diversity has suffered from a lack of agreement as to its
basic conceptual definition. This is the problem this paper
attempts to address: While authors have uncovered certain
aspects of diversity, each effort has involved a different
definition of what diversity is. We shall attempt in this
paper to develop a framework of analysis that best captures
the meaning of diversity that is implied as a central value
of the First Amendment.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND EXPLICATION
Media scholars have read much more into the meaning of
diversity than Webster's "a condition of having differences"
(Websters Third International Dictionary, 1967). Just what
those differences are in the context of media content depends
on the particular study one consults. By some analyses the
diversity is structural: differences in the size of news
stories, the types of news stories (feature articles,
statistical summaries, etc.), or format styles (live vs.
taped, e.g.), or geographic range of the subject matter
presented. This method captures diversity at a superficial
level, but it is entirely likely that a medium with
tremendously diverse formats can present the news from the
same, narrow frame of reference.
Others have defined the term as a framing process, by
which the dominant political or economic agenda of a society
is either advanced or challenged by the media's degree of
ideological diversity (Herman, 1985). The critical approach
is useful in pointing out the strength of the dominant
political culture, but it seems to reject even the
possibility of diversity in the current American political
system. We need to test the possibility that diversity can
be significant (and readily identified) even when it is
manifest in qualities other than ideological.
Some commentators have cut short the diversity debate by
assuming that while no single news medium can be expected to
deliver any degree of diversity, the media in the aggregate
deliver an array that is at least as diverse as the
composition of society. This is comforting to those who view
diversity as a necessary quality of a good media system, but
it is unlikely that news consumers in the United States go
beyond their daily news-audience routines to attain any sort
of diversity. Therefore, this study considers the degree of
diversity that is delivered in a single news medium.
Several others have approached diversity as a goal of
government policy and thus choose to examine how the function
of diversity is played out in the media economy (Entman &
Wildman, 1992) or how audiences perceive diversity in the
media (McQuail & Van Cuilenberg, 1983). While these are
important implications, neither approach gets to the core of
the matter at hand, defining news diversity in a way that can
be measured.
Sigal (1973) offers an innovative way of conceptualizing
diversity by looking at the differences in the channels
through which the news has been gathered. The differences no
doubt have a great impact on diversity (or the lack of it) in
news gathering, but it also presents two research problems.
A story with a wide variety of viewpoints, for example, may
have been gathered through similar channels; this system of
measurement lacks content validity. Also, readers and
listeners are not necessarily affected by newsgathering
channels. Whatever diversity is measured should be measured
in a way that audiences can somehow perceive; otherwise the
exercise is futile.
Jacklin (1978) proposes a media diversity that is
representative of the community, which captures the
democratic connection between news diversity and governmental
success. Unfortunately, Jacklin has offered no way to
operationalize the representativeness. It may simply mean
what Tichenor, Donohue, and Olien (1973) described as the
rivals in the power structure of a given community.
By far the most common definition of diversity, however,
has involved diversity of sources. Because of its
popularity, it will serve as a benchmark measurement of
diversity, against which our proposed conceptualization will
be compared.
Source diversity is a dispersion of the representation of
affiliations and status of communicators within a news
product. The idea behind this conceptual definition is that
the more even the dispersion of the representation among
source affiliations, status, race, gender and proximity in a
given story type, the greater the diversity. Status would be
judged in terms of high or low position within the sources'
institutional affiliation (e.g., police chief vs. policeman;
group leader vs. group member; business owner vs. worker), as
well as between affiliations themselves. If there is a
dispersion of status of sources in a particular category,
that category would be considered diverse for that article
inside a particular newspaper's or television station's
coverage.
Past research shows a tendency to focus more on source
diversity than any other type of diversity. This may be
simply because sources appear easier to identify and
quantify. Still, researchers have taken different approaches
in deciding what source diversity actually is and how it
affects the news article. Martin (1985) examines source
diversity as a function of proximity. The contention is that
when a media organization is close to an event
geographically, it is likely that a greater number of sources
will be quoted in the article. Also, when a media
organization is a greater distance from an event, more
official or high-level sources will be quoted. Martin also
show that the closer the reporter's proximity to an event,
the more likely it is that the reporter will use a wider
variety of sources.
Berkowitz (1987) approaches source diversity from an
organizational point of view, focusing on television. The
results from this study suggest officials and executives
dominate the agenda-building process in both network and
local television news. Berkowitz also noted that television
news content might not be completely comparable to newspapers
because of the differences in these media's practices:
Newspaper reporters tend to work with stricter attribution
policies than television journalists.
Soloski (1989) and Brown et al. (1987) each look at source
diversity in terms of Sigal's 1973 content analysis of
diversity, which was based on the front pages of prestige
newspapers over the course of 20 years. Each study viewed
diversity according to the institutional affiliations of
sources, and all three found more than half of the sources
cited were affiliated with some branch of government.
Kaniss (1991) approaches source diversity from a slightly
different angle. She believes that because reporters are
more likely to accept information from sources they find
trustworthy, journalists tend to become overreliant on
official sources for their information. This is due largely
to reporters' perceptions of accessibility and authority in
government sources. Geiber and Johnson (1961) found similar
patterns in their early study of reporter-source interactions
in a small California city. They found journalists more
sympathetic to the desires of their sources than to the needs
of their audiences. City officials were the most prominent
sources of information, to the point where the researchers
believed it hampered the reporters' ability to cover the news
-- an implicitly inadequate level of source diversity.
A few studies have been encouraging in the pursuit of a
measure of source diversity. Hansen (1991) found that
enterprise stories contain more diverse sources and less
reliance on governmental sources. However, she could not
determine if this type of behavior was rewarded by the
profession. She also warns that the lack of reliance on
government sources does not necessarily mean there is a broad
range of source diversity in the story. And unfortunately,
enterprise stories are not the norm in daily journalism. The
studies mentioned above show the news organizations rely
heavily on routine channels for news (53 percent in Soloski,
39 percent in Brown et al.). Enterprise reporting accounted
for 41 percent of the stories in Brown's study but only 28
percent in Soloski's. The common interpretation of these
findings is that journalists have surrendered much of their
autonomy to the government sources they quote, thus
supporting the status quo of the government and the power
elite. For example, in Soloski's study 14 percent of the
sources were "unaffiliated" compared to only 4 percent in
Brown et al. This supports Soloski's contention that news
"reifies" the socio-political structure, therefore
legitimating that structure.
With these findings in mind, one goal in the present
project is to develop a code for finding and categorizing
source diversity within an article in particular medium. The
code must be specific enough to identify what distinguishes a
narrow range of sources from broader source diversity. The
important dimensions of the concept appear to be an
individual's status in an organization, the geographic
proximity of the source to the news organization, and the
diversity among the sources' institutional affiliations.
In this project, source institutions are divided into four
mutually exclusive categories: Government, Private sector,
Affiliated and Unaffiliated. Each category is also broken
down according to the source's status within those larger
categories. The executive is the highest level, followed by
middle management, public relations/aide, and finally worker.
A document is also regarded as a source, but it is given only
an organizational affiliation and not a "status." The
purpose of this level of detail is to specify diversity
within the institutional channels from which reporters gather
news.
The indicator for source proximity is the origin of the
article. If the story appears with a local byline or
signature (as in a letter to the editor or editorial), then
we can assume that the writer and the issue or event (hence
the sources) are in close proximity. If the source of the
article is a wire service or other regional or national news
or opinion service, then we can assume a greater distance
between the sources and the site of publication. According
to Martin, the local-produced copy should exhibit greater
source diversity, and according to Hansen, the enterprise
story, often produced locally rather than gleaned from wire
services, should also exhibit greater diversity. Because
smaller news organizations employ smaller staffs and tend to
rely more heavily on wire services, it stands to reason also
that small newspapers will exhibit smaller source diversity.
This is implied also in Berkowitz's finding that wire service
stories use a higher degree of government and official
sources than local copy uses. (Please see Source Diversity
Code Guide, Appendix A).
Attaching importance to source diversity is fairly
obvious, but possibly simplistic. It is often hypothesized
that the more source diversity found in a news story, the
more content diversity there will be. This is a common
belief in newsrooms across the country. Is this, however,
the best way to measure success in obtaining a true diversity
of opinions, views or frames in a news story?
Ultimately the source as content conceptualization falls
short of what diversity means to the broader society. It is
entirely possible that a story can contain quotes and
information attributed to a tremendous variety of source
types, from unaffiliated nobodies and corporate executives to
publicists and protesters. But if all of the attributions
revert to the same frame or point of view on the issue, or
only on two narrowly-defined, barely-different points of
view, then we must question whether diversity is truly in
evidence in that story. Similarly, if the story quotes only
one or two source types, but presents three or more
substantively different points of view on the issue, then the
true diversity of that article will not be captured by
counting source types.
We are proposing instead to capture diversity by measuring
content diversity. By this we mean a dispersion of
representation of ideas, perspectives, attributions,
opinions, or frames within a news product, and within the
context of one particular issue. It occurs independently of
whatever structural diversity or source diversity exists in a
news medium. Just as diversity in the broader sense can take
on several different dimensions, so too can content
diversity. It can be analyzed according to frames, by which
we mean the central organizing ideas for news content that
suggest what the issue is and supply the context for the news
(Tankard, Hendrickson, Silberman, Bliss, & Ghanem, 1991).
There is a widely held assertion that because frames are so
central to the core meaning of messages, there can be no
analysis of content without an analysis of frames. Because
the frames represent the latent organizing principles by
which meaning is constructed (Gitlin, 1980), they are usually
extremely difficult to identify, especially among several
coders attempting to identify them in any sort of
quantitative way.
Content diversity can also be conceptualized in terms of
even broader frames, which capture the embedded values of a
medium. By this view, of which Hermans analysis (1985) is an
example, news diversity is unlikely in virtually every piece
of mainstream-news communication.
Griswold (1991) studied content diversity as it related to
the specialization of a news medium's reporters, but most of
his conceptualization concerned the diversity of topics
covered in the medium. Again, this may or may not capture
diversity of content: If topics about a wide variety of
subjects all reflect the same general frame, has diversity
been shown?
The dimensions we used in this analysis are the frames and
sub-frames (more specific framing categories within each
frame), but the dimensions' principal indicator, our unit of
analysis, is the idea element (Gamson & Modigliani, 1987).
This indicator presents a hybrid of the textual-message
analysis of the broader, cultural studies and the manifest-
word-counting of traditional content analysis. The idea
element is the complete unit of thought that becomes manifest
in the text of a news story. Because this closely parallels
the definition of a clause, the clause was used as the unit
of observation in this study. The idea element is not
identified according to a dictionary of phrases, as in
traditional content analysis; rather, it can be located by a
close reading of the manifest content in each relevant
passage of the text (examples will follow in the methodology
section).
There may be many different idea elements in a single
article, and many different idea elements in a single frame.
It is the idea element here that quantifies diversity with
greater internal validity than any of the measures discussed
above. Tankard et al. (1991), for example, studied stories
on abortion to develop a method called "the list of frames",
in which a protocol of possible frames is developed, and each
story is sorted into one of the frames on the list. However,
to use the frame itself as the unit of analysis seems to
overlook the diversity of elements within a given frame. It
also overlooks the possibility that there is more than one
frame in a story, and of course several idea elements within
the same story.
Griswold (1991) advanced the methodology in this area by
noting which stories contained a difference of viewpoints
about a given topic, and then counting the percentage of a
medium's stories that contained divergent viewpoints. What
he failed to capture, however, was what those viewpoints
actually were, and what frames they may have represented.
This study concentrates on idea elements -- views of the
issue at a manifest level of analysis -- rather than sources
and structures. This approach stems from the importance of
ideas in the underlying notion of the value of news diversity
to society: If the marketplace of ideas is being examined by
diversity studies, then it makes sense to measure ideas,
rather than source types, datelines or graphics. From this
notion of the validity of this measure, then, come the
principal hypotheses for this study:
H1: In the same group of articles covering the same issue,
the measure of content diversity will be
statistically different from the measure of the source
diversity in those articles.
H2: The larger the circulation of the newspaper, the
greater will be the source and content diversity in
its articles.
METHODOLOGY
The issue agreed upon as the subject of our study is the
debate over raising the legal drinking age in the State of
Wisconsin to 21. This issue lends itself nicely for several
reasons. First, the issue has a distinct life span. The
question was raised, legislation was introduced, a debate was
conducted both inside and outside the halls of government,
the legislation was passed, and the issue was put aside.
Because of this life span, we will be able to examine source
and content diversity during time periods at the beginning,
middle, end, or all three. This affords us the option of
performing a census or sample content analysis.
A second reason for choosing this issue is because of the
scope of its effect. Many different types of people were
being affected by the change in the law, from business people
and legislators to students and their parents. The immense
size of this affected group suggests we might see a wide
spectrum of diverse sources and content. This would seem to
assure us of finding some level of the diversity we hope to
measure.
Finally, this issue is appropriate because it produced
consequences for all areas of the state. From this we assume
that media coverage would be replete throughout the state of
Wisconsin. This allows us the opportunity to analyze
diversity by different media organizations in various size
markets.
While it would be interesting to compare coverage of the
issue by different media, logistically, newspapers were the
best option simply because of their ready availability. Six
newspapers were chosen, mainly according to circulation and
geographic dispersion. For circulation, levels of small
(less than 10,000 circulation), medium and large (more than
50,000 circulation) were determined with two papers per
level. Geographically, our goal was to select, as much as
possible, a group of news organizations that were widely
dispersed but not significantly near state borders, since
within the drinking age issue, "border-hopping" was a major
concern.
Once the time frame was established -- March through June
of 1986, the peak of the public debate on the issue -- all
articles within that frame dealing with raising the drinking
age in Wisconsin were collected. From this group, a sample
of 144 articles was selected through systematic random
sampling to produce a range of between 22 and 26 from each
newspaper.
It should be noted that news articles were not the only
items collected. Statements of opinion such as editorials
and letters to the editor were also included. The argument
here is that although articles are the primary method news
organizations used to disseminate information and ideas,
letters and editorials may also contain these elements.
Since our objective is to determine which news organizations
tend to present the broadest range of ideas, non-news stories
which include idea elements must be incorporated.
Source Diversity
We collected data on source diversity by the following
method. A source was determined to be some person, group, or
entity (e.g., document, study) identified by attribution or
reference though which non-observable information was
gathered. Two examples might be the following: "The
legislature will end its session on Tuesday" or "Legislators
say they hope to end the session on Tuesday." In the first,
the author may have utilized a source to obtain this
information, or he/she may have a general knowledge of the
workings of the legislature. No source would be counted.
However in the second example, the author has specifically
named a source for the information presented.
In the case of pieces considered non-news stories (i.e.,
columns, letters or editorials), the authors themselves were
regarded as sources and counted as one source for the entire
work. However, if there was reference to another within the
piece, the additional source was counted.
To quantify these distinctions, the number of lines each
source was given per article was calculated. This allowed us
to determine not only which sources were utilized, but the
amount of space they were allotted. Sources and their line
counts were then categorized according to type in our Source
Diversity Code Guide (See Appendix A).
Content Diversity
Collecting and coding data on content diversity was much
more difficult. As stated, our indicator of content
diversity was the idea element and the sub-frame it belonged
to: specifically statements or sentences that suggest idea
elements. Because both understanding and identifying idea
elements can be tricky, we designed a protocol of statements
suggesting idea elements that might be found. The purpose
here was to try to allow for the inclusion of as many idea
elements as possible while still maintaining a high degree of
intercoder reliability.
The determination of these categories and statements was
done in two ways. The first was simple brainstorming,
literally compiling any and all possible idea elements
related to the issue that could appear in newspapers. The
second way was to conduct a pre-test of a sample of articles.
This was by far the most fruitful because it illuminated
potential idea elements previously unaccounted for.
It is important to point out that the identification of an
idea element or sub-frame is not contingent upon its
connection to a source. The goal was to be able to
distinguish source diversity from content diversity as easily
as possible. Therefore, if an idea element existed only
through the articulation of the story's writer and had not
been associated with any type of source (it may in essence be
something generally regarded as common knowledge), it was
considered an idea element.
These were then classified as either reflecting positively
or negatively on the issue of raising the drinking age. Ten
frames, containing a varying number of sub-frames and idea
elements included in each, were constructed (See Content
Diversity Code Guide, Appendix B).
For example:
Frame: PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES
Sub-Frame: Carnage (Pro)
Idea Element:
It will reduce highway crashes and deaths in the relevant
age groups.
Frame: BUSINESS CONSEQUENCES (OUTCOMES/REVENUES)
Sub-Frame: Tavern Revenues (Con)
Idea Element:
A drop in tavern sales will be expected.
Articles on the issue were then surveyed for quotations and
sentences which match the approximate content of the
statements in the protocol.
Probably our greatest concern was the problem of
interpretation. One coder may interpret a sentence one way
while another coder may argue for a different meaning. To
achieve as high an intercoder reliability as possible,
several pre-tests were conducted and a number of rules were
established. Among them were a conclusion that analysis of
the legislative process would not be included. Also,
analysis of the actions of particular interest groups would
be excluded. However, statements reflecting opinions about
particular groups would be counted. Sentences which
presented facts or historical background were also excluded.
As with source diversity, idea elements were quantified by
calculating the lines of text they occupied. This number was
then entered according to the corresponding Code Guide idea
element and sub-frame. Again, this allowed us to not only
count the number of idea elements but distinguish the amount
of space they were allotted.
To compute coefficients for both content and source
diversity, a formula was adapted from Griswold (1991). The
diversity of each particular news medium, either for each
article or for all articles, was measured in this way:
where C = the total number of lines devoted to each
sub-frame;
where T = the total number of lines in the content
under study;
where n = the number of sub-frames.
For source diversity, the same formula was used, but C
represented the number of lines attributed to each particular
source-type; T again represented the total lines in the
content under study; and n represented number of
predetermined source-types.
Thus, the closer D moves to zero, the more concentrated
are the ideas and sources presented in the article, hence the
less diverse the article. Conversely, the closer D moves to
1, the more evenly distributed among all categories the
source or idea elements were, and consequently the more
diverse the article.
Once content and source diversity were determined for the
newspapers selected, we had the opportunity to ascertain the
extent to which the two concepts are different. It seems to
be assumed by many who do research on the larger concept of
diversity that source and concept diversity are closely
associated. Accumulating and analyzing separate data on
these two concepts allowed us to actually measure the degree
to which they may or may not be related. We were then able
to pose our main question: Does the existence of source
diversity necessarily lead to or indicate the existence of
content diversity and vice versa?
RESULTS
This research project shows, on a case study level, that
there are differences between source diversity and content
diversity. The Mann-Whitney test was used to determine
significance of the difference between content and source
diversity for each newspaper. For all six newspapers the
differences were statistically significant at the .05 level
(See Table 1).
Since four coders were used to collect and code the data,
the Krippendorff variation of Scott's pi was used to
determine intercoder reliability (Krippendorff, 1980). The
coders in this project attained a .949 reliability level for
agreement on frames.
After significance and coder reliability were calculated,
the articles' diversity scores were all standardized
statistically and then ranked separately for content and for
source diversity. Since there is no standard against which
we can judge diversity for either source or content, the
articles for all papers were divided into three equal groups
for each type of diversity based on the rankings. The groups
were labeled as low, medium and high diversity. If source
diversity and content diversity of a given article fell into
different groups, they were considered to be "substantially"
different.
According to the research data, there appears to be a
considerable difference between content diversity and source
diversity, confirming our first hypothesis. Considering all
articles coded, 58 percent showed "substantial" differences
between content and source diversity. When the newspapers
are broken down by size, large papers show a 52.1 percent
difference between source and content diversity. For medium
newspapers, the difference is 60.4 percent, which is slightly
higher divergence between source and content diversity than
for large papers. Small papers widen the gap a little more
than medium or large papers with 61.7 percent difference
between content and source diversity (See Table 2).
These figures imply that the smaller the newspaper is in
circulation and geographic coverage area, the more likely
there is to be a greater difference between source and
content diversity. It also shows that there is a substantial
difference between content and source diversity within
newspaper size categories. The differences shown here give
reason to doubt the commonly held belief that good source
diversity results in good content diversity. These data
indicate that in more than half of the articles coded, source
diversity and content diversity were different.
When we look at the type of diversity that was dominant in
each paper size, it shows about an even split between high
source/low content diversity and low source/high content
diversity (48.3 percent higher source, 51.7 percent higher
content diversity) in small or medium papers (See Table 3).
For large papers the split is closer to 60 percent/40 percent
favoring higher content diversity. This suggests that the
larger the paper, the more likely the paper is to have higher
content diversity than source diversity. This also appears
to say that while larger papers, they tend to quote more of
the same types of sources, with the same status levels,
provide a wider variety of ideas than smaller papers.
While the first hypothesis dealt with a comparison between
content and source diversity, our second hypothesis looked at
diversity across size categories. The prediction is that the
larger the news organization, the greater the content and
source diversities. However, as the total mean scores in
Table 3 point out, this was not the case. In fact, smaller
newspapers have higher overall diversity scores than larger
newspapers. This is particularly pronounced in source
diversity, where there is a considerable difference between
the large newspaper mean score (.264) and the mean score of
the small papers (.331).
These scores indicate something may be affecting diversity
in smaller news organizations, particularly source diversity.
A potential explanation might be found in the origins of the
articles that appear in the newspapers. Figure 1 shows that
large news organizations rely less on articles generated by
wire services (18.8 percent), and that medium and small news
organizations print wire pieces much more frequently (66.7
percent and 85.4 percent, respectively). This suggests the
possibility that the preponderance of wire articles published
by small and medium news organizations might be affecting the
content and source diversity scores of these groups.
To examine this, articles were identified as "local" or
"non-local." Local was defined as articles, columns,
editorials or letters generated by the local news
organization's staff, readers or individuals affiliated with
it (columns by area legislators, "specials" to the paper).
Non-local was defined as articles, columns, editorials or
letters generated by news organizations, readers or
individuals identified as outside the local news organization
(AP, UPI, other newspapers, syndicated columnists). Mean
content and source diversity scores for articles were
calculated according to article type (i.e., local vs. non-
local) and organization size. These scores support the idea
that the non-local variable is influencing diversity,
particularly in the articles published by the small and
medium news organizations.
While the content scores seem relatively comparable, in
the small news organization category both the local and non-
local scores are as high or higher than those generated by
larger organizations. However, the assertion that the
presence of non-local articles contributes to the level of
the overall newspaper size score only really applies to the
medium category since it is the only one with a higher non-
local diversity score. Thus, we cannot say that non-local
articles are the most important contributors to the high
total scores of the medium and small news groups.
This is not the case with source diversity. Non-local
articles seem to be contributing to the total scores across
all three categories. Even more notable is the difference
between the local (.094) and non-local (.372) scores within
the small category. The large non-local score affects the
small organization diversity mean (.331) to such an extent
that not only is the score comparable to the others, it is
higher (See Table 4). Clearly, these numbers indicate non-
local articles are having an impact on source diversity.
Two conclusions can be drawn from this. First, content
diversity among the various sizes of newspapers we studied is
comparable. This was an unexpected finding, the reason for
which is unclear. Neither size nor origin of published
articles seems to have a particular impact.
Second, as with content diversity, source diversity is
surprisingly comparable among the categories. However, we
have determined that the use of non-local articles is a
contributing factor to this situation, and that this
contribution is most profound in the small newspaper
category.
People generally think of larger editorial staffs as
having the time to talk to more sources for each story. This
may still be the case, but if so, the sources the reporters
are choosing for their articles at larger papers are similar
in type and status. In comparison, smaller papers with
smaller staffs appear to be quoting a wider range of sources
for their articles. This may be explained by smaller papers'
greater geographic distance from the central areas of major
sources of power in the state. This may force reporters on
smaller staffs to include more local sources. One would
expect these sources to tend toward unaffiliated and private-
sector categories and also lower-status positions within
those categories. The larger papers, which are closer to the
seat of state government, are more likely to use those in
power as a basis for their reporting.
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
The many variations and contingencies in the data splashed
cold water on the second hypotheses: Smaller papers did not
suffer in their presentation of diversity, either source or
content diversity, when compared with the diversity of larger
papers. This might suggest the somewhat disturbing
implication that small news organizations maintain diversity
when they replace salaried staff with wire-service reports.
However, the important difference in performance between
local reporting and wire-service reporting seemed to be in
source diversity and not content diversity. The difference
may be a function of differences in newsgathering routines
between staff bureau reporters and wire-service reporters,
with the former more focused on sources in the Capitol, the
latter more accustomed to contacting a wider variety of
sources. But the thesis of this paper is that ultimately it
is content diversity, not source diversity, that matters, and
in regard to content diversity neither local nor wire copy
showed significant advantage.
And there is a difference between source diversity and
content diversity: the central findings bear this out. In 58
percent of the articles coded, there was a substantial
difference in the relative rankings of the articles' source
diversity and content diversity. Put another way, the
results of this study indicate the common assumption that
source diversity begets content diversity is fallacious.
They sometimes accompany each other, but the discriminant
validity of this modest research project does suggest that
they are two distinct constructs. We examined whether source
diversity or content diversity was consistently stronger than
the other, but no pattern emerged. They are simply
different, and vary independently of each other.
The finding presents some important implications. For
example, critics who urge a broader diversity in the news
media may be assuming that a diversity of genders and ethnic
or economic groups, either in sources or in news personnel,
will be followed by a diversity in content. Again, there is
no guarantee of that result. This is not to say that
employment diversity or source diversity are unimportant or
superficial. They represent important social and economic
goals, and their realization in the news media has undeniable
symbolic value.
Ultimately, however, it is the content of the news that an
audience receives -- not the personnel and processes by which
the news was gathered. The content is what activates,
motivates, interests and involves its mass audience. It is
our contention, therefore, that the overriding dimension of
this elusive concept should be content diversity. Sustaining
a "marketplace of ideas" in twenty-first-century America will
be a daunting task for both media practitioners and media
policymakers. It is our unabashedly normative belief that it
is a goal worth upholding, especially in view of the media
industry's economic proclivity for monolithic structures.
But as we assess the media's performance in meeting the goal
of diversity, it will benefit everyone concerned to
distinguish source diversity from content diversity -- and to
pay special attention to the latter.
REFERENCES
Berkowitz, D. (1987). TV news sources and news channels: A
study in agenda-building. Journalism Quarterly, 64,508-
513.
Brown, J. D., Bybee, C. R., Wearden, S. T., & Straughan, D.
M. (1987). Invisible power: Newspaper news sources and the
limits of diversity. Journalism Quarterly, 64,45-54.
Emerson, T. I. (1981). The affirmative side of the First
Amendment. Georgia Law Review, 15,795-846.
Entman, R. M., & Wildman, S. (1992). Reconciling economic and
non-economic perspectives on media policy: Transcending
the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Communication, 42,5-
18.
Frederick, E., & McCauley, M. (1992). Two new methodological
approaches to content analysis. Paper presented to the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication, Montreal, August, 1992.
Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1987). The changing culture
of affirmative action. In R. G. Braungart & M. Braungart
(Eds.), Research in political sociology (pp.137-177).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Gieber, W., & Johnson, W. (1961). The city hall beat: A study
of reporter and source roles. Journalism Quarterly,
38,284-297.
Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in
the making & unmaking of the new left. Berkerly, CA:
University of California Press.
Griswold, W. F. Jr. (1991). Community structure, reporter
specialization and content diversity among 90 Midwest
daily newspapers. Paper presented to the Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston,
Mass., August 7, 1997.
Hansen, K. A. (1991). Source diversity and newspaper
enterprise journalism. Journalism Quarterly, 68(3),474-
482.
Herman, E. S. (1985). Diversity of news: Marginalizing the
opposition. Journal of Communication, 26,135-146.
Jacklin, P. (1978). Representative diversity. In Diversity in
Broadcasting. special issue, Journal of Communication,
28,85-88.
Kaniss, P. (1991). Making local news. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to
its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Martin, S. R. (1988). Proximity of event as factor in
selection of news sources. Journalism Quarterly, 65,986-
989,1043.
McQuail, D., & Cuilenberg, J. (1983). Diversity as a media
policy goal: A strategy for evaluative research and a
Netherlands case study. Gazette, 31,145-162.
Sigal, L. V. (1973). Reporters and officials: The
organization and politics of newsmaking. Lexington, Mass.:
D. C. Heath & Co.
Soloski, J. (1989). Sources and channels of local news.
Journalism Quarterly, 66,864-870.
Tankard, J. W. Jr., Hendrickson, L., Bliss, K., & Ghanem, S.
(1991). Media frames: Approaches to conceptualization and
measurement. Paper presented to the Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston,
Mass., August, 1991.
Tichenor, P. J., Donohue, G. A., & Olien, C. N. (1973). Mass
communication research: Evolution of a structural model.
Journalism Quarterly, 50,419-425.
TABLE 4
Diversity by Newspaper Size and Article Origin
Large Medium Small Overal
Local Non-
Local Total Local Non-
Local Total Local Non-
Local Total Total
Content .590 .535 .581 .554 .571 .566 .677 .590 .60
Source .231 .406 .264 .130 .351 .301 .094 .372 .33
Notes: Entries are means of source and content diversity
scores for articles within
each size group.
Content Diversity Code Guide
Youth Drinking/Underage -- 000
000 - High School/Youth Drinking (pros)
001 It is time to get barley pop out of our (high)
schools
a. can't deny there is a drinking problem in
HSs.
b. underage drinking isn't mostly in high
schools.
c. other
002 Younger students who are in close contact with
student friends who are of drinking age do make
the situation intolerable
a. When some high schoolers can drink legally,
many underage high schoolers will drink
illegally.
b. 18 yr old youths/HS seniors' access to
alcohol does/doesn't contribute to a
youths/HS students underage drinking
problem.
c. other
003 Teen/youth drinking is a problem.
009 other
010 - High School/Youth Drinking (cons)
011 It isn't time to get barley pop out of our (high)
schools
a. teen drinking isn't a problem.
b. can deny there is a drinking problem in
HSs.
c. underage drinking is mostly in high
schools.
d. other
012 Younger students who are in close contact with
student friends who are of drinking age don't
make the situation intolerable
a. just because some high schoolers can drink
legally, doesn't mean a lot of underage
high schoolers will drink illegally.
b. 18 yr old youths/HS seniors' access to
alcohol doesn't contribute to a
youths/HS students underage drinking
problem.
c. other
013 Teen/youth drinking isn't a problem.
019 other
020 - Requirements (pros)
021 Youth should have to
a. get diplomas before legal to drink.
b. pass a test.
c. get a license.
d. other
029 other
030 - Requirements (cons)
031 Youth shouldn't have to
a. get diplomas before legal to drink.
b. pass a test.
c. get a license.
d. other
039 other
040 - Behaviors/Effects (pros)
041 Youthful drinkers won't guzzle drinks more
because of fear of being caught.
042 Won't be more drinking at unchaperoned parties.
043 More kids won't take chances with their parents'
houses.
044 More youths won't find other places to
drink.
a. at home.
b. isolated places.
c. cars/parking lots.
d. other
045 21 bill
a. will cut down/stop youthful/underage
drinking - they won't necessarily keep
drinking.
b. will stem flow of alcohol to (HS) students.
c. other
046 Teen drinking won't become more reckless and
dangerous.
047 More teens won't turn to drugs.
049 other
050 - Behaviors/Effects (cons)
051 Youthful drinkers will guzzle drinks more
because of fear of being caught.
052 Will be more drinking at unchaperoned parties.
053 More kids will take chances with their parents'
houses.
054 More youths will find other places to drink.
a. at home.
b. isolated places.
c. cars/parking lots.
d. other
055 21 bill
a. won't cut down/stop youthful/underage
drinking - if they are going to drink, they
will.
b. won't stem flow of alcohol to (HS) students.
c. other
056 Teen drinking will become more reckless and
dangerous.
057 More teens will turn to drugs.
059 other
060 - Control/Discipline (pros)
061 Will help parents get children home after
football games/events.
062 Teen drinking does cause discipline problems in
the classroom.
a. 21 bill will cut down on classroom
discipline problems.
063 21 bill will cut down on general discipline
problems with teens.
069 other
070 - Control/Discipline (cons)
071 Won't help parents get children home after
football games/events.
072 Teen drinking doesn't cause discipline problems
in the classroom.
a. 21 bill won't cut down on classroom
discipline problems.
073 21 bill won't cut down on general discipline
problems with teens.
079 other
080 - General(neutral)
080 neutral
081 - General/Other (pros)
081 other pros
089 other
091 - General/Other (cons)
091 other cons
099 other
Law Enforcement/Legal -- 100
100 - Enforcement (pros)
101 It can be enforced.
102 18 years olds can socialize in bars and not be an
enforcement problem.
103 States and tavern owners will enforce the law.
109 Other general pro 21 enforcement opinions.
110 - Enforcement (cons)
111 It will be hard to enforce.
a. on-premises provisions were/not enforceable.
112 Allowing 18 year olds to socialize and eat in
bars isn't enforceable.
113 States and tavern owners will not enforce the
law.
119 Other general against 21 enforcement opinions.
120 - Historical (pros)
121 Total prohibition did work and so will this.
129 Other general pro 21 historical opinions.
130 - Historical (cons)
131 total prohibition proved unworkable and so will
this.
139 Other general against 21 historical opinions.
180 - neutral
181 - other (pros)
191 - other (cons)
Public Safety Issues -- 200
200 - Carnage (pros)
201 Carnage and Mayhem on our highways is a state
tragedy.
202 It will reduce highway crashed and deaths in the
relevant age group.
203 Increased number of teens in alcohol related
accidents.
204 Safety effort surely would suffer if any failure
to fall in line with the national drinking age
because of lost funds.
205 Will reduce alcoholic related deaths.
206 Will reduce drunk-drinking.
209 Other general pro 21 carnage opinions.
210 - Carnage (cons)
211 It will not reduce highway crashes.
212 Recinding the legal drinking privileges of 18, 19
and 20 year old adults is not an appropriate or
effective mechanism for reducing alcohol related
traffic deaths.
213 Raising the drinking age will make highways more
dangerous, not safer (more will drink in cars,
in parking lots, more drinking and driving
around).
214 Safety effort surely would not suffer if any
failure to fall in line with the national
drinking age because of lost funds.
215 Will not reduce alcoholic related deaths.
216 Will not reduce drunk-drinking.
219 Other general against 21 carnage opinions.
220 - Historical (pros)
221 Lowering the drinking age in the 1970's did
increase the number of alcohol related highway
accidents.
229 Other general pro 21 historical public safety
opinions.
230 - Historical (cons)
231 Lowering the drinking age in the 1970's did not
increase the number of alcohol related highway
accidents.
239 Other general against 21 historical public safety
opinions.
280 - neutral
281 - other (pros)
291 - other (cons)
Political -- 300
300 - Political Maneuvering (pros)
301 The drinking age is foremost in the minds of the
public and lawmakers, and should be addressed
first.
302 People do not believe that raising the drinking
age to 19 by itself will have much impact.
303 Other steps to curb drunk driving were political
failures.
304 Passing a 21 yr old drinking age is/isn't
politically possible.
309 Other general opinions Pro 21.
310 - Political Maneuvering (cons)
311 Consider Lesser Bill to avoid major changes in
law
a. Won't touch issue again in legislative
session.
b. Preclude other measures from consideration.
312 Clean bill needed
a. efforts to broaden the bill will lead to its
defeat/clean bill.
b. if you load a bill up with too much bull it
gives people that many more excuses not to
vote for it.
c. the issue will be around until we find a way
to pass it.
d. its only a token effort.
e. bill deserved enactment on its merits.
f. there are various other promising steps
against drunk driving lawmakers have failed
to take.
319 Other general opinions against 21.
320 - Election Issue (pros)
321 Re-election issue because of support of 21
drinking age.
322 Poor voting record for adults under 21, means
young vote won't impact election.
323 Policy makers face political risk by opposing 21
bill.
324 One politician is personally opposed to it but
will vote the will of his constituents.
329 Other general pro 21 election opinions.
330 - Election Issue (cons)
331 Re-election issue because of not supporting 21
drinking age.
332 Adults under 21 will vote in greater numbers
because of 21 issue.
333 Policy makers will not face political risk by
opposing 21 bill.
334 One politician is personally opposed to it, and
will not vote the will of his constituents.
339 Other general against 21 election opinions.
340 - Political Leadership "Bandwagon" (pros)
341 Unified Leadership (pro 21)
a. The majority of citizens want 21.
b. The majority of citizens don't know what to
do.
c. Neanderthal approach to problem.
342 Jumping on the 21 bandwagon (pro 21)
a. Majority of the Assembly seems eager to pass
a bill raising the drinking age.
b. The "21" drive is popular, not many
politicians want to oppose it.
343 "21" drive became a symbol of disgust with
drunken driving.
344 Generation gap between house and senate is
irrelevant.
349 Other general political leadership pro 21
opinions.
350 - Political Leadership "Bandwagon" (cons)
351 No Leadership
a. The majority can't agree on the other
provisions beyond raising the age.
b. There's a floating majority out there that
doesn't know what to do.
352 Jumping on the anti 21 bandwagon.
353 Generation gap between house and senate
a. Assembly members are younger, may resent
being old enough to die for country, but
too young to drink.
359 Other general political leadership against 21
opinions.
360 - Opinions about special interest groups (pros)
361 Tavern League
a. Tavern league is the "whipping boy" of
society, it is always blamed.
b. Interfering for own self interests.
c. Issue unfairly pitting tavern owners against
the lives of young drivers.
362 MADD
a. MADD wants to keep drunk drivers off the
roads.
363 Other special interests
364 Other general pro 21 special interest opinions.
370 - Opinions about special interest groups (cons)
371 Tavern League
a. Tavern owners care about the safety of young
customers of drivers.
372 MADD
a. Increasing pressure on political process.
b. Self interest to increase political
strength.
373 Other special interests
379 Other general against 21 special interest
opinions.
380 - Other Political Opinions (neutral)
381 - Other Political Opinions (pro 21)
391 - Other Political Opinions (against 21)
Social Policy -- 400
400 - pros
401 21 year old bill did acquire importance greater
than its real potential for saving lives.
402 Raising drinking age from 18 will resolve other
alcohol related problems.
403 Raising drinking age is first step toward
controlling drug abuse.
404 Children are more important than money.
405 Let's raise the age to 25.
406 We haven't done enough strides in attacking the
problems.
409 other
410 - cons
411 21 year old bill did not acquire importance
greater than its real potential for saving
lives.
412 Raising drinking age from 18 will not resolve
other alcohol related problems.
413 Raising drinking age is not the first step toward
controlling drug abuse.
414 Children are not more important than money.
415 So why not raise the age to 25?
416 We have already made enough strides in attacking
the problems.
419 other
480 - neutral
1. Our reluctance about raising the legal
drinking age to 21 stem more from the
idea's flaws as social policy.
2. Wisconsin needs to deal with the underlying
social attitudes that lead to alcohol
abuse.
3. other
OUTSIDE INFLUENCE -- 500
500 - General opinions about outside influence (pros)
501 It's a good idea to get in line with neighboring
states.
502 Wisonsin should not stand out among the 50
states.
503 It's a good idea to get in line with
Congress/federal statutes/federal policy.
504 A uniform national drinking age is a good idea.
509 Any other general idea re outside influence, pro-
21.
510 - General opinions about outside influence (cons)
511 Wisconsin shouldn't be told what to do by
neighboring states.
512 Wisconsin shouldn't be pressured by any national
trend.
513 Wisconsin shouldn't be told what to do by
Congress or the federal gov't.
514 A national uniform drinking law wouldn't change
anything/make anyone safer.
519 Any other general idea re outside influence,
anti-21.
520 - Financial aspects of outside influence (pros)
521 Wisconsin can be rewarded or penalized in
relation to extra highway funds.
522 Federal financial aid is a legitimate way to
alter policy, improve quality of American life.
529 Any other financial-related idea about outside
influence, pro-21.
530 - Financial aspects of outside influence (cons)
531 Wisconsin should not succumb to bribes or threats
related to highway funds.
532 Federal financial aid only leads to local
hypocrisy; states just do it for the money
without believing in the policy.
539 Any other financial-related idea about outside
influence, anti-21.
540 - Inevitable trends (pros)
541 A uniform national drinking is inevitable, so why
fight it?
542 Bordering states are changing to 21, so Wisconsin
should follow the trend.
549 Any other trend-related idea about outside
influence, pro-21.
550 - Inevitable trends (cons)
551 Whatever national trends emerge should not impact
Wisconsin.
552 Whatever state trends emerge should not impact
Wisconsin.
559 Any other trend-related idea about outside
influence, anti-21.
580 - Outside Influence (neutral)
1. Any opinion about outside influence that is
neither pro-21 nor anti-21.
581 - Any other outside influence sub-frame that is (pros)
591 - Any other outside influence sub-frame that is (cons)
BORDER-HOPPING -- 600
600 - General opinions about borderhopping (pros)
601 Border-hopping is a problem.
602 Underage drinkers in bordering states should not
be drinking and buying alcohol in Wisconsin.
603 Raising the age to 21 would stop border-hopping.
609 Other pro-21 ideas, general border-hopping.
610 - General opinions about borderhopping (cons)
611 Border-hopping is not a problem.
612 Underage drinkers have a right to come to
Wisconsin from other states, to drink or buy
alcohol.
613 Raising the age to 21 will not stop border-
hopping.
619 Other anti-21 ideas, general border-hopping.
620 - Safety aspects of border-hopping (pros)
621 Border-hopping causes deaths and injuries to kids
driving long distances when they're drunk.
622 Border communities must put up with other
problems (vandalism, loitering, littering)
caused by border-hopping.
629 Other safety-related border-hopping ideas, pro-
21.
630 - Safety aspects of border-hopping (cons)
631 Border-hopping does not cause any more drunk-
driving deaths or injuries than drunk drivers
cause anyway.
632 Border communities don't have any more vandalism,
littering or loitering than any other
communities.
639 Other safety-related border-hopping ideas, anti-
21.
640 - Political aspects of border-hopping (pros)
641 Raising the age to 21 makes more sense than a
border-hopping law.
642 Raising the age to 21 is more politically
palatable than trying to pass a border-hopping
law.
643 Raising the age to 21 was the only way to stop
border-hopping.
649 Other political-related border-hopping ideas,
pro-21.
650 - Political aspects of border-hopping (cons)
651 A border-hopping law makes more sense than
raising the age to 21.
652 A border-hopping law is more politically
palatable than raising the age to 21.
653 Raising the age to 21 was NOT the only way to
stop border-hopping.
659 Other political-related border-hopping ideas,
anti-21.
680 - Border-hopping (neutral)
1. Border-crossing is an important aspect and
should be addressed separately by the
legislature.
2. Any other opinion on border-hopping that is
neither pro-21 or anti-21.
681 - Any other idea element on border-hopping that is
(pros).
691 - Any other idea element on border-hopping that is
(cons).
Business Consequences (Outcomes)/Revenues -- 700
700 - Tavern Revenues (pros)
701 A drop in tavern sales will not happen.
702 A drop in liquor sales will not happen.
703 Sales at liquor stores will increase.
704 19-, 20-year-olds is not a big part of tavern
business.
709 other
710 - Tavern Revenues (cons)
711 A drop in tavern sales will be expected.
712 A drop in liquor sales will be expected.
713 Sales at liquor stores is not expected to
increase.
714 19-, 20-year-olds is a big part of tavern
business.
719 other
720 - Alcohol Tax (pros)
721 The beverage tax should not be imposed to make up
federal fund.
729 other
730 - Alcohol Tax (cons)
731 The beverage tax should be imposed to make up
federal fund.
739 other
740 - Jobs Loss (pros)
741 Law may not mean a loss of jobs
-for some young adults.
-for taverns.
749 other
750 - Jobs Loss (cons)
751 Law may mean a loss of jobs
-for some young adults.
-for taverns.
759 other
760 - Business Changes (pros)
761 Bars (clubs) will not raise/pose the cover
charges.
762 People are not skittish about paying a cover
charge.
763 Industry needs not to cut back somewhere.
764 Bars (taverns) will not close.
765 Beer bar is no solution.
769 other
770 - Business Changes (cons)
771 Bars (clubs) will raise/pose the cover charges.
772 People are very skittish about paying a cover
charge.
773 Industry will have to cut back somewhere.
774 Bars (taverns) will close.
775 Beer bar is a solution.
779 other
780 - Business Changes (neutral)
1. Many bars will/will not offer different
kinds of entertainment, geared more to all-
aged crowds.
2. Sales will not change.
3. Beer bar could be created.
4. other
781 - Any other business consequences sub-frame that is
(pros)
791 - Any other business consequences sub-frame that is
(cons)
Young Adult - 800
800 - Behaviors/Effects on Young Adults (pros)
801 It won't force adults to drink illegally for two
more years.
802 How 21 drink bill will effect the problem
a. subtantially reduce drinking among 18 to 21
yr olds.
b. will stop young adult drinking.
c. will cut flow of alcohol to underage
students.
d. other
803 More young adults won't find other places to
drink
a. at home.
b. dorms.
c. cars/parking lots.
d. isolated and unsafe places.
e. join frats/sororities.
f. other
804 18-20 yr olds aren't better behaved than our
regular customers.
805 Weren't happy with the way they acted, not very
mature.
806 18 yr old members of class of 84 shouldn't be
allowed to blend alcohol and their commencement
celebrations.
807 Young adult drinking won't become more reckless
and dangerous.
808 Young adults will not turn to drugs.
809 other
810 - Behaviors/Effects on Young Adults (cons)
811 It will force adults to drink illegally for two
more years.
812 How passing 21 drink bill won't effect young
adults
a. subtantially reduce drinking among 18 to 21
yr olds.
b. stop young adult drinking/if young adults
are going to drink, they will.
c. will cut flow of alcohol to underage
students.
d. other
813 More young adults will find other places to
drink
a. at home.
b. dorms.
c. cars/parking lots.
d. isolated and unsafe places.
e. join frats/sororities.
f. other
814 18-20 yr olds are better behaved than our
regular customers.
815 Were happy with the way they acted, not very
mature.
816 18 yr old members of class of 84 shouldn't/won't
be deprived of their "right" to blend alcohol
and their commencement celebrations.
817 Young adult drinking will become more reckless
and dangerous.
818 Young adults will turn to drugs.
819 other
820 - Requirements/Rules (pros)
821 Shouldn't allow 18 yr olds to drink on
a. HS graduation.
b. Labor Day.
c. join military.
d. register for draft.
e. other
822 Shouldn't be three year trial period on provision
to allow 18-20 yr olds in taverns but not to
drink.
823 Young adult should have to
a. get diplomas before legal to drink.
b. pass a test.
c. get a license.
d. other
829 other
830 - Requirements/Rules (cons)
831 Should allow 18 yr olds to drink on
a. HS graduation.
b. Labor Day.
c. join military.
d. register for draft.
e. other
832 Should be three year trial period on provision
to allow 18-20 yr olds in taverns but not to
drink.
833 Young adult should have to
a. get diplomas before legal to drink.
b. pass a test.
c. get a license.
d. other
839 other
840 - Social (pros)
841 Freshmen don't need/want opportunity to
intermingle with older students at campus social
functions.
842 Don't need to/shouldn't allow 18-20 yr olds to go
into bars to eat, drink or socialize.
843 Young adults don't need/want to/shouldn't have to
party with those their own age.
844 21 yr bill won't impair/change social lives of
young adults/students by
a. making it harder to meet people.
b. creating less social drinking/interaction.
c. making freshmen "social leapers".
d. other
849 other
850 - Social (cons)
851 Freshmen do need/want opportunity to
intermingle with older students at campus social
functions.
852 Should allow 18-20 yr olds to go to eat and
socialize but not to drink.
853 Young adults do want/need/should to party with
those their own age.
854 21 yr bill will impair/change social lives of
young adults/students by
a. making it harder to meet people.
b. creating less social drinking/interaction.
c. making freshmen "social leapers".
d. other
859 other
860 - Adulthood/Citizenship (pros)
861 21 yr old drink bill won't effect Y/A
citizenship by
a. create second class citizenship for 18-20 yr
olds.
b. discriminate against 18-20 yr olds.
c. discriminate against 18-20 yr old students.
d. create two categories of legal adults.
e. other
862 18-20 yr olds aren't adult enough/shouldn't be
trusted to
a. vote.
b. serve on juries.
c. serve in military.
d. be legally responsible for contracts.
e. other
863 Young people aren't unfairly victimized.
869 other
870 - Adulthood/Citizenship (cons)
871 21 yr old drink bill will effect Y/A
citizenship by
a. create second class citizenship for 18-20 yr
olds.
b. discriminate against 18-20 yr olds.
c. discriminate against 18-20 yr old students.
d. create two categories of legal adults.
e. other
872 18-20 yr olds are adult enough/trusted to
a. vote.
b. serve on juries.
c. serve in military.
d. be legally responsible for contracts.
e. other
873 Young people are unfairly victimized.
879 other
880 - General (neutral)
881 - General/Other (pros)
1. Young adults should not be able to drink.
2. Young adult drinking is a problem.
3. other
891 - General/Other (cons)
1. Young adults should be able to drink.
2. Young adult drinking is not a problem.
3. other
Other Outcomes -- 900
900 - On-campus Activities (pros)
901 On-campus lounge might not be forced close.
902 Student organizations might not be prohibited
from serving alcoholic beverages at
organizational events, both on and off campus.
903 The university's insurance coverage might not be
affected by the changes.
909 other
910 - On-campus Activities (cons)
911 On-campus lounge might be forced close.
912 Student organizations also might be prohibited
from serving alcoholic beverages at
organizational events, both on and off campus.
913 The university's insurance coverage might be
affected by the changes.
919 other
920 - On-campus Activities (neutral)
921 Law will change university's legal obligations.
929 other
930 - Social Lives (pros)
931 You don't have to drink to have fun.
939 other
940 - Social Lives (cons)
941 You have to drink to have fun.
949 other
950 - General Others (pros)
951 Raising drinking age to 21 is a good idea.
960 - General Others (cons)
961 Raising drinking age to 21 is not a good idea.
980 - Other Other Outcomes (neutral)
981 - Other Other Outcomes (pros)
1. More noise in neighborhoods and more litter
on the streets will not happen.
2. A boom in fake identification cards will not
happen.
3. other
991 - Other Other Outcomes (cons)
1. More noise in neighborhoods and more litter
on the streets are expected.
2. A boom in fake identification cards is
expected.
3. other
|
