Submitted to: The Convention of AEJMC
Word Count: 6326 (text)
Division: Mass Communication and Society
Authors: Robert O. Wyatt, Julie L. Andsager and John V. Bodle
All authors are from Middle Tennessee State Univeresity
Comparing Public and Press Support for Free
Expression:
Breaking the Media Monolith Myth
Abstract
Critics are quick to chastise "the media" for holding what they assume are
liberal views toward the expressive rights guaranteed by the First
Amendment. But are the media monolithic in their viewing of free
expression? This study offers quantitative evidence that differences do
exist and provides a mapping of the extent to which journalists and
market
communicators depart from the public view.
A snapshot of relative support for free expression and media rights
emerges. When the responses to 26 representative free expression/free
press
questions are compared, it becomes possible to chart how each medium
relates to the others and to the public position.
Surveys were sent to a randomly-selected sample of members of the American
Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE), Radio and Television News Directors
Association (RTNDA), Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ),
Public
Relations Society of America (PRSA) and to a targeted list of "decision
makers" in advertising agencies. The findings from these surveys were
compared with an earlier random sample of the American public.
As hypothesized, results indicated that advertising and public relations
practitioners hold views on free expression that are more closely
aligned
with the public than are those working or managing print and broadcast
newsrooms. This study is the first to offer such quantitative evidence
for
this long-held perception.
Specific areas of agreement and divergence of support among these groups
is determined when responses to each of 26 questions are considered.
Comparing Public and Press Support for Free
Expression:
Breaking the Media Monolith Myth
Abstract
Critics are quick to chastise "the media" for holding what they assume are
liberal views toward the expressive rights guaranteed by the First
Amendment. But are the media monolithic in their viewing of free
expression? This study offers quantitative evidence that differences do
exist and provides a mapping of the extent to which journalists and
market
communicators depart from the public view. A snapshot of relative
support
for free expression and media rights emerges.
Comparing Public and Press Support for Free
Expression:
Breaking the Media Monolith Myth
Submitted to the
Mass Communication and Society Division
of the
Association for Education in Journalism
and Mass Communication
1995 Annual Convention
Washington D.C.
Word Count: 6326 (text)
Authors: Robert O. Wyatt, Julie L. Andsager and John V. Bodle
All authors are from Middle Tennessee State University
Send correspondence in care of the authors to:
Dept. of Journalism, Middle Tennessee State University, P.O. Box 64,
Murfreesboro, TN
37132 (615) 898-5871
Comparing Public and Press Support for Free Expression:
Breaking the Media Monolith Myth
Overview
Many individuals and groups have claimed that the media in America care
more about ratings and selling newspapers than they do about
maintaining or
developing the social and ethical fabric of our nation. These critics say
that journalists and broadcast programmers hold liberal views toward
the
expressive rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Fueled primarily
by
anecdotal perceptions and surveys funded by organizations using
suspect
methodology, these individuals have thrown a great net over all
mainstream
national print and broadcast companies and have indicted them as equal
co-conspirators in an attempt to tear the moral fiber or re-weave the
ethical tapestry of America.
Media organizations have offered little substantive evidence to the
contrary. While generally denying the allegations, both editorially and
through their non-response, little quantitative evidence has been
presented
in defense of these charges, nor has there been an attempt to scale the
extent to which their critics may be right.
In short, no one has provided a comprehensive quantitative assessment as
to whether a "liberal" (from the public perspective) expressive rights
commitment or bias exists among those working in the media. Wyatt and
others have determined the public's views on free expression.[1] But
unless
"the media" is monolithic in its perspective, individual media
entities
also must be queried and compared. As noted by Andsager and Miller,
following their comparison of one media entity to Wyatt's findings on the
American public, "While it is often taken for granted that journalists
hold
liberal views toward the expressive rights guaranteed in the First
Amendment, it seems likely that these attitudes are not universal among
media practitioners."[2]
Through national surveys of the public (provided by Wyatt) and five media
groups
--newspaper editors, radio and television news directors, a mixed sample of
journalists and marketing communicators, public relations practitioners
and a targeted list of "decision makers" in advertising agencies--
this
study provides the quantitative evidence necessary to compare the
public's
level of support for media free expression with that held by each of
the
aforementioned media groups. Twenty-six ethic-based free speech
questions
are considered, creating a snapshot of relative support for free
expression
and media rights in America.
Review of Literature
Both the popular press and academic literature indicate an interest and
concern about the words and images portrayed by print and broadcast
journalists and entertainment programmers. No less than President Bill
Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno, along with various members of
Congress, have told the broadcast industry to more effectively deal with
violence on television. If the industry does not, these government
officials have threatened to legislate television violence standards that
might not please the industry.[3] Similar concerns have been expressed
by the
public over pictures deemed by some as inappropriate or pornographic,
and
over the printing of unpopular opinions, such as the views espoused by
the
Ku Klux Klan, those who deny the Holocaust and those who would prevent
high
school students from gaining a free reign of expression.[4] Advertisers, too,
have been targeted by public groups who seek to deny them the opportunity
to advertise legal (though regulated) products and services, such as
cigarettes, alcohol and gambling. Will Joe Camel, alleged tempter of
youth,
survive the public call for his demise?[5]
One possible inference from this public criticism of the media and
resulting threat of legislation is that those charged with gatekeeping the
release of visual, audio and print material for mass consumption care
more
about satisfying the base desires of audience segments than in meeting
the
needs and desires of society as a whole. The public perception, as
evidenced by the aforementioned examples and also by academic studies on
media dissatisfaction[6], is that media gatekeepers may be more
concerned with
their own free expression and the pursuit of higher circulation or ratings
(and thereby higher profits) than they are with promoting and building
social cohesion. Proponents of free expression counter that they are
simply
expressing their First Amendment rights as they attempt to more fully
inform the public and expand debate on issues of interest or
controversy.
Public support for free expression was considered by Wyatt in a 1990
survey. His random sample of Americans considered 26 representative free
expression/free press questions.[7] Wyatt's survey questions and
findings are
reported later in this study. Using these same questions, Andsager and
Miller surveyed newspaper editors and compared their responses with
those
found by Wyatt. They found that newspaper editors are significantly
more
supportive than the public of both media and personal free speech
rights.[8]
No other published study has directly compared the public's support
for
free expression with a media entity.
Public criticism is often leveled at a monolithic enemy simply labeled as
"the media." But should all media groups share equally in this public
attack? Andsager and Miller have determined the free expression values
held
by newspaper editors,[9] but no previous study has compared two or more media
entities to determine their relative willingness to stray from the
public's level of tolerance or acceptance of free expression. This study
provides a quantitative mapping of the extent to which decision makers
in
print, broadcast, public relations and advertising are willing to
depart
from the public view.
Free Expression and Journalists
Discipline-specific consideration of free expression does exist. Hartung
surveyed editors and publishers on their attitudes toward press
responsibility, as defined by the Hutchins Commission, and were unanimous
in support of the notion that newspapers should inform the public on
the
need to protect the freedom of the press. Seventy percent of the
national
leaders surveyed agreed this was an important media function.[10] A
1971 survey
of more than 1,300 print and broadcast journalists found that the most
supported press functions were the need to investigate claims and
statements made by the government (76.3 %) and the analysis of complex
problems (61.3 %). The authors concluded that the journalist's perceived
importance of investigative reporting contributed to this finding.
Wulfemeyer found that one-third of news directors believed there was too
much emphasis on sex, crime and violence in electronic journalism. He
also
determined that about half of the news directors felt electronic
journalists should edit or clean up profane language used by sources.
One-third of the news directors said that in reports of dangerous or
illegal stunts the names of "daredevils" should not be aired. The author
also found that 41% of electronic news directors had adopted a formal
code
of ethics and that 94% said they should follow such codes. Wulfemeyer
concluded that attitudes and concerns about ethics "appear to be
reasonably
universal and consistent among journalists."[11]
Wulfemeyer compared his findings with an earlier survey produced by Izard
for the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ). He concluded that
the
ethical concerns of news directors were similar to those of newspaper
managing editors, but he did not attempt to quantify his statement. In
that SPJ study, Izard determined that ethical questions over "freebies"
had
generally been settled, but the managing editors participating in his
study were unable to reach a consensus on ethical questions regarding
news
judgments and news gathering techniques. While some survey questions
in
Izard's study considered similarities between broadcast and print on
issues
of ethics, free expression rights were not a major consideration.[12] Bow and
Silver also considered the attitudes of news directors and managing
editors on specific issues other than the tolerance of free expression.
Their mixed findings (with significant similarities and differences)
led
them to question whether differences between the two media were
chiefly a
matter of form rather than content.[13]
Other researchers have explored how broadcasters viewed the Fairness
Doctrine and ethics codes, and the extent to which these have constrained
free expression. Buss and Malaney reported that 77.7% of broadcasters
responding to a national survey in 1978 indicated they believed there was
too much government control, with 12.2% reporting that dissenting
views
were repressed by the regulations.[14] Another study found that 60% of
broadcasters said they could serve the public better if the Fairness
Doctrine was abandoned.[15] Meeske and Handberg found that a majority of
Florida television news directors were willing to broadcast material
dealing with items of local controversial public importance, although 82%
of the respondents said they felt the doctrine gave them little
discretion.[16]
In 1993, an appeals court ruled that the Fairness Doctrine was never
codified in 1959 and thus could be properly repealed by the FCC. The
appellate court judge concluded that developments since the 1969 case of
Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v FCC made it likely that the Red Lion case
would
be reconsidered.[17] Pending a review by the Supreme Court and/or successful
attempts at congressional codification, the bulk of the Fairness
Doctrine
continues to lie fallow, though under the threat of increasing federal
scrutiny.
Even newspaper managers sought an end to the Fairness Doctrine. Pratte and
Whiting found in 1986 that 90% of the newspapers they surveyed favored
deregulation.[18] They also reported that 62% of editorials considering
the
regulations asserted that broadcasters and print should enjoy identical
First Amendment privileges.[19] The writers of the 50 editorials
considered by
the researchers floated five reasons why the Fairness Doctrine should
be
overturned: the growing number of channels, First Amendment rights,
the
counterproductive effect of the doctrine, the potential threat to press
freedom and the ability of the free market to correct injustices.
Other researchers considered free expression issues as they relate to news
selection. Trayes found that managing editors had considerable freedom
over what appeared in their newspapers.[20] Stone wrote that broadcast
news
directors were central in determining what their audiences saw and
heard
about their community, but he found that the great majority of news
directors did not stay in one place long enough to get to know
communities,[21]
raising coorientational[22] questions about the strength of media/audience
congruency and agreement on free expression issues.
While some news directors may have low coorientation with their respective
audience, they seem to understand each other. Hudson found that news
directors reached general agreement as to which of six progressively
graphic story versions to use.[23] He concluded: "Further research into
gatekeepers' values and orientations should be coupled with comparative
research on audience perceptions of news values and content in order to
assess whether gatekeepers' ideas about what is acceptable for air are
con
sonant with those of their viewers." Lipschultz and Hilt found that
broadcast general managers and news directors looked to themselves and
their audiences--not government--to best judge whether a program was too
violent.[24] But the two researchers did not attempt to determine
congruency
and agreement between the media groups and their audiences.
Free Expression and Marketing Communicators
Journalism, public relations and advertising share a common need for First
Amendment protection--journalists as reporters and commentators, public
relations practitioners as advocates and mediators, and advertisers as
providers of commercial speech. Also, all three professions address the
public through the mass media and have a common interest in limiting
the
power of government to dictate what can be said, published or
broadcast.
From the beginning, journalists and public relations practitioners have
shared many interests and values, but they have also found themselves
at
odds over conflicting goals and methods. In addition to their
different
functions, the numerous entities encompassed by the term "mass media"
clearly have disparate goals, which cause antipathy among certain of
them.
A well-documented example is the distaste journalists have reported
for
public relations practitioners.[25] On one hand, surveys show that
journalists
hold the credibility of PR practitioners in low esteem[26] and have a
generally negative image of the profession.[27] On the other hand,
journalists
and public relations practitioners agree substantially about news
values
and the function of journalism, even though practitioners' perceptions
of
editors are more accurate than editors' perceptions of practitioners,
a
comparative survey has shown.[28] While the print versus broadcast
competition
dates to the origin of radio, on a broader scale McNamara (a founder
of the
Liberty Fund and former reporter) has pitted traditional media against
new, nontraditional media such as cable television and
telecommunications
in a battle of competitive and regulatory issues.[29]
Because public relations practitioners often find themselves serving as
ombudsmen as they mediate between their organizations and various
publics,[30]
they also find themselves positioned between journalists attempting to
cover stories and the sources or a public resisting or outraged at that
coverage. This present study will determine whether their role as
intermediary will also position them between the public and the press on
issues of free expression. Practitioners who focus on publics outside
their
own organizations may subtly establish perceptual links as they span the
boundaries between these various groups. Grunig and Hunt recognized
public
relations professionals that function at the edge of organizations as
"boundary" personnel--those creating liaisons between organizations and
external groups and individuals.[31] In this role, they often have as
much
contact outside the organization as they do inside.
Within the overall structure of these media entities, it is important to
study the attitudes of individual professionals. They are the ones who
face
choices on media content and practices on a daily basis. As Shoemaker and
Reese observed in their extensive review of research on the influences
on
media content,[32] media worker's attitudes affect the content they
produce--from publisher to reporter to entertainment producer. More
specifically, a journalist's perception of his or her role is critical in
the way news is shaped. The extent to which journalists consider
themselves
watchdogs, adversaries, or disseminators of truth may be somewhat
reflected in their support for media rights.
Free Expression and the Public
A 1972 comparison of college students' attitudes toward press freedom
revealed only slight differences between media and non-media majors.
Curiously, non-media majors held more absolute attitudes toward freedom of
the press, while media majors perceived this freedom as conditional.
Media
majors, however, tended to regard press freedom as slightly more
workable,
more protective and more adaptable than the non-media majors.[33]
Whether
one's field of study leads to differing levels of support for free
expression is a question that falls outside the scope of this study. But,
as demonstrated by Andsager and Miller in their study limited to
newspaper
editors, [34] differences do exist between those working in mass
communication
and those who do not.
More than three-fourths (77%) of the respondents in a survey conducted
during World War II wanted to curtail the rights of people to make
speeches
against certain races in the United States.[35] Before 1950, 49% was the
highest portion of respondents who would support the expressive rights
of
those they considered extremists.[36] Between 1950 and 1960, the
number
decreased to 29%, and it fell to 21% after 1960. These progressively lower
levels of support stand in marked contrast to the 97% of respondents
who
said in 1940 that they believed in freedom of speech.[37] Later
research has
attempted to explain this disparity by differentiating abstract
principles
from concrete situations.
The notion that political environment is related to support for freedom of
expression is backed by research that was not designed to measure
attitudes toward timely topics. One survey designed to measure the
relationship between political tolerance and support for civil liberties
found that people differentiate sharply between different types of
speech,
with speech critical of the American system of government receiving
most
support and speech designed to incite an audience to violence
receiving the
least support.[38] In another 1982 study, the respondents expressed the
greatest support for an individual right of freedom of expression--a
person
peacefully picketing the construction of a nuclear power plant (73% in
support)--in a set of eight questions on various rights.[39]
Asked about their support for media rights specifically, Americans seem to
vacillate. In 1943, for example, 63% of respondents said newspapers
should be allowed to criticize the government.[40] A 1982 study that
focused
primarily on fairness laws found several seeming contradictions on the
part
of its respondents; the researchers wrote that:
People have not worked through the complexities...the shifts
observed above involve respondents' attempts to reconcile two
important social goals--freedom of the press and a fair, objective
presentation of the news.[41]
More recent surveys indicate that the American public apparently is
willing to further retract its support for expressive rights. A 1990
nationwide survey found that a surprisingly high number of respondents
believe freedom of expression should not cover the media (28% opposed
coverage for newspapers, 31% for network television). Moreover, 58% said
the government should have the power to censor. More than half (59%)
said
that the government should keep sex off television.[42] Ironically,
qualitative interviews in the Immerwahr and Doble study found that words
like "dictatorship" were used to describe similar regulations.[43]
Fifty-one
percent of the respondents to a recent survey said they would support
press
rights in hypothetical situations.[44] Wyatt's 1990 survey of the public--the
results of which are used later in this study when comparing levels of
support between media entities and the public-- determined that the
public
seems to perceive a difference between media rights and personal
rights,
such that it is significantly more willing to support personal
rights.[45]
Research on public attitudes toward expressive rights suggests that a
number of variables predict support for rights. Years of education has
frequently been a significant variable in such studies. Intuitively, one
might predict that people with more education would support First
Amendment
rights more than their less-educated counterparts. Bobo and Licari suggest
that "education changes cognitive style in ways that increase the
likelihood of recognizing the importance of extending civil liberties to
those we dislike."[46] Education was by far the most influential
variable that
predicted support for democratic principles in a number of studies
that
included questions about free speech.[47] Other studies support the
positive
relationship between education and support for free expression, with
support increasing most dramatically among college graduates.[48]
Hypotheses
Two hypotheses were tested to determine the extent to which decision
makers in print, broadcast, public relations and advertising depart from
the public's level of tolerance or acceptance of free expression, as
it is
identified and defined by the First Amendment. Such a scaling by media
entity provides the first known identification of support by medium for
free expression relative to the public position. The resulting
quantitative
mapping also allows for a determination as to whether the media in America
collectively are more or less supportive than the public--an indication
(from a public perspective) of a "liberal" or "conservative" bias or
emphasis held by the media.
Based on the findings of Andsager and Miller, who determined that
newspaper editors were more supportive of free expression than the American
public,[49] the authors of this study hypothesized that all media entities
considered would be more supportive than the public (H1).
Based on the "boundary spanning" determinations of Grunig and Hunt[50] and the
ombudsman role of market communicators (to mediate between organizations
and their publics or target audiences) considered by McNamera,[51] it
was
hypothesized that public relations and advertising practitioners would
indicate levels of support for free expression closer to those held by
the
public, thus placing print and broadcast journalists furthest from the
public perspective. (H2).
Methodology
Four national surveys were conducted, each measuring the level of support
for free expression among its respective sample. The groups considered
were: broadcast news directors, working journalists, public relations
practitioners and a targeted list of "decision makers" in advertising
agencies. Added to the comparison were the findings of Andsager and
Miller,
who used the same survey questions in their study of newspaper editors.[52]
These findings on media support for free expression were compared to
those
found by Wyatt, who also used the same questions in his survey of the
American public.[53]
Due to the broad scope of the research--with nearly 6,000 media
practitioners responding to one of the four surveys--all mailings and
tabulations could not be conducted concurrently. Limited research staff
and funding necessitated consecutive distribution, with the first
survey
sent to practitioners in 1990 and the last in 1994.
The authors of this study replicated the methodology of Andsager and
Miller along with those procedures followed by Wyatt to ensure a "tight
weave" in this comprehensive tapestry of support for free expression by
media entities and the American public. All surveys in this study were
mailed,[54] with a second mailing only to those who did not respond to
the
initial contact. Response rate (reported under "Profile of Respondents")
determined whether a second mailing was sent. A reminder card was sent
to
non-respondents after the second mailing. Identical questions were
used on
all six surveys of the media and the public. These questions supplied
both
the data for the findings as well as demographic information on the
respondents. Respondents were asked to identify their sex, age, education
level and political orientation. Four age categories were provided
(18-34;
35-49; 50-64; 65+), as were three education level categories (high
school
graduate or less; some college or trade school; college graduate to
post-graduate). Race was coded as black, white or other. Income was
re-coded into five categories (under $15,000, $15,001-$25,000,
$25,001-$40,000, $40,001-$50,000 and above $50,000) from the original
11
categories. Respondents reported their political orientation as
belonging
to one of five categories (far left; liberal; middle-of-the-road;
conservative; far right). An SPSS program was utilized for data analysis.
Profile of the Respondents
A random sample was taken from the mailing list of the Public Relations
Society of America (PRSA) and mailed during the spring and summer of
1990
using the aforementioned procedures. The 811 usable responses (54%
return)
identified the group as dramatically more affluent and educated as
well as
older than Wyatt found when he surveyed the general public.[55] The
sample
displayed a median educational level of "some graduate or professional
school," a median age of 40-49 and a median household income of
$50,001-$75,000. Ninety-eight percent were white, 2% were black and
Hispanics comprised 3% of the sample. Fifty-one percent were female.
Practitioners had held their current job a median of 7 years and had
practiced public relations a median of 14 years.
The job description of an advertising practitioner can vary widely--from
buying time and space to layout and design to managing such work. This
survey was limited to a random sample of "decision makers," and was
defined
as such by and purchased from a prominent national mailing list service.[56]
The 564 responses equaled a 34% response rate, the lowest among the
five
surveys. While it is not uncommon for practitioners to be less
responsive
to a mailed inquiry--especially when the targeted respondent is the
decision maker--replication of this portion of this study is suggested. The
median income of the respondents was $75,001, median age 40-49, 67.7%
were male, and 96.4% were white. The survey was first mailed in late
1994,
with a follow-up in early 1995 to the non-respondents.
Members of the Radio and Television News Directors Association (RTNDA)
were randomly sampled from the organization's mailing lists. Two waves
of
questionnaires were sent one month apart during the spring of 1992,
with a
reminder postcard following the first solicitation. Usable responses
totaled 512, equaling 47% of the valid names. Nearly all members of RTNDA
received a survey. Among RTNDA members, the median education level was
college graduate (47%), median age was 36-39 (26%) and median income was
$50,001-$75,000 (23%). Racially, whites comprised 95% of the sample
and 1%
was black. Three percent was of either Hispanic origin or heritage of
any
race, and 17% were female. The median period of employment was four
years.
Those identifying themselves as political independents comprised 52%
while
24% indicated they were Democrats and 24% said they were Republicans.
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) were randomly
selected from that organization's mailing lists. They were surveyed
over
the spring and summer of 1990, producing 630 usable responses (43%).
From
these respondents, only working journalists were considered in this
study;
those indicating primary responsibilities in advertising, public
relations
and other non-news gathering roles were put aside. The sample of
working
journalists totaled to 420.
Since Andsager and Miller used identical questions in their survey of
members of the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE),[57] their
findings
on support for free expression are included in the media comparison formed
here. ASNE members were sent a single mailing of the questionnaire in
winter 1991, with a follow-up thank you/reminder postcard one week
later.
This procedure produced 538 usable responses, 53% of the valid mailing
addresses. The ASNE sample was a bit older and more affluent. Median
education level was college graduate (44% , median age was 50-64 (34%) and
median income was $75,001 and above (73%). Ninety-seven percent were
white
and 2% black. Hispanics made up 2% of the sample, and 9% were female.
Median length of employment in the current job was seven years.
Sixty-two
percent identified themselves as political independents, 24% as
Democrats
and 14% as Republicans.
The Survey Instrument
Sets of identical questions concerning media rights, other free-expression
rights, expression-related behaviors and demographics were administered to
all four populations. In particular, respondents were asked whether they
thought a common list of 26 media-related rights should be protected
all
the time, under certain circumstances or not at all. These questions
were
scored on a three-point scale ("not protected at all," "protected
sometimes," with the highest score going to "protected all the time"). Issu
es ranged from false and misleading advertising, to reporting
classified
information without government approval, to editorializing during
campaigns, to showing music videos that deal with sexual themes or promote
drug use, to selling magazines or books featuring nude pictures. The
exact
wording for each of the 26 questions is found on Table 1.
Results
Practitioners and journalists responded to 26 questions probing levels of
support for free expression. Each of the five media groups considered
was
compared with the others and to the general public. Means for each are
found in Table 2.
The Media and the Public
As hypothesized (H1), all five media groups combined into one were
significantly more supportive of expressive rights than the American public
(t=-34.77, d.f.=2716.64, p<.001). Of the 26 areas considered, all five
media groups expressed greater support for free expression than the
public
in 23. The greatest level of media/audience disagreement was over the
publishing of nude pictures (X2=1001.45, d.f.=2, p<.001). Among the
other
areas where the media reported a significantly stronger level of
support
(in descending order): campaign editorializing (X2=1243.21, d.f.=2, p
<.001), reporting the errors of public figures that occurred over 20 years
past (X2=738.59, d.f.=2, p<.001), recordings promoting sex (X2=702.62,
d.f.
=2, p<.001), reporting on national security issues without government
approval (X2=750.14, d.f.=2, p<.001), sexy videos (X2=551.58, d.f.=2, p
<.001) and printing or broadcasting violent photographs (X2=609.1,
d.f.=2,
p<.001). Statistical significance indicates that the difference
between the
two groups probably did not occur by chance.
Of the 130 mean scores reported by the five media groups in response to
the 26 questions, only six times did any medium hold support at a
level
below that indicated by the public--and those six instances were only
within three areas: identification of rape victims and opposition to
false
or illegal advertising. The public's grand mean (an average of their
mean
scores) was 1.78 on the three-point scale, while the five media groups
had
a combined grand mean of 2.24. As noted earlier, this difference in
persp
ective between the media and its audience was significant at the .001
level.
Support by Medium
The media groups considered were all consistently stronger in their
support for expressive rights than the public. But their support was by no
means monolithic. Two of the five media groups remained consistently
closer
to the public position, two others were consistently further and one was
generally found between these two groups.
As hypothesized (H2), public relations and advertising practitioners held
beliefs that were closer to those held by the public. As detailed in
Table
2, the PRSA sample of public relations personnel, when responding to
the 26
questions considered, held a grand mean of 2.06, compared to 1.78 for the
public. The sample of advertising decision makers held a 2.1 grand
mean.
Both public relations and advertising practitioners, while closer to
the
public position than the other three media groups, were nonetheless
significantly different from the public in their perspectives on free
expression (as determined by a one-way ANOVA, F=374.24, df=5/3705,
following the Scheffe post hoc procedure, comparing all six groups at the
.01 level).
At the high end of the support scale, newspaper editors from the ASNE
sample had a grand mean of 2.48, which was nearly three-fourths of a
point
(.70, on a three-point scale) more supportive of free expression than
the
public. This difference with the public position was significant, as
determined by the Scheffe post hoc procedure at the .01 level. Broadcast
news directors from the RTNDA sample were also strongly at odds with
the
public position, posting a grand mean of 2.29--a half-point (.51)
separating broadcast journalists from the American public. This difference
was also significant at the .01 level using the Scheffe test. The SPJ
sample of working journalists held a grand mean of 2.26, placing this
group
between the news managers and marketing communicators and also
significantly different from the public at the .01 level.
As graphically illustrated in Table 3 (and detailed above), each medium
generally "settled in" to a support position above the public and
rarely
strayed far from it. Of all media groups considered, ASNE respondents
were
the most supportive of media rights on 24 of the 26 questions issues
consi
dered. Broadcasters also were consistently strong in their support for
free
expression, holding the second highest mean scores in 12 of the 26 areas
considered and the highest mean score twice.
The medium closest to the public perspective--and least supportive of
media rights
--was always either advertising or public relations. The PRSA sample was
the closest to the public in 15 of the 26 areas considered, while the
advertising sample was 11 times. The SPJ sample of working journalists
found itself consistently between the news managers (ASNE and RTNDA) and
the marketing communicators (PRSA and the advertising sample), never
having
the highest or lowest mean score in the 26 areas considered. The SPJ
sample showed stronger support than marketing communicators in 21 of the
26 areas considered and showed less support than the news managers in
13.
While newspaper editors and radio and television news directors were
consistently higher than the marketing communicators, significant
differences were also found between the two groups of news managers at the
.01 level. The ASNE sample was significantly higher than RTNDA in 24
of the
26 issues considered; the RTNDA sample was significantly higher on the
remaining two: reporting errors of public figures 20 years after their
occurrence and allowing high school students to report controversial
issues
in their student newspaper.
Inversely, the marketing communicators were always less supportive of
expressive rights than the news managers and always significantly closer
to
the public position. But the public relations and advertising
practitioners were not significantly different from each other. These
marketing communicators were within a quarter point of agreement (on the
three-point scale) 23 times and just one-tenth of a point separated
their
positions 11 times. The strongest area of disagreement (.59 on the
three-point scale) was on whether teens should be allowed to watch R-rated
movies, with public relations respondents more willing.
Discussion
Given the reliance journalists and marketing communicators place on the
First Amendment in this country, it should not be surprising that they
would be more likely than the general public to support the rights
guaranteed within that amendment. And given the "boundary spanning"
practices of public relations and advertising practitioners--where knowing
the needs, wants and beliefs of an audience are paramount to success
in
their role as persuaders and reflectors of public sentiment--it should
not
come as a surprise that these practitioners are closer than
journalists to
the public position on expressive rights. But the documentation of
these
roles--through a quantitative mapping of the differences between
them--allows for a richer understanding of the relationship between the
media and the American public.
Clearly, those filling the pages of publications and the
airways--generally referred to by the public simply as "the
media"--are not
monolithic in their viewing of societal concerns, either constitutionally
or ethically. Distinctions exist.
While television journalists are often accused of exceeding public
tolerance for free expression, RTNDA members were more often in line with
the public perspective than ASNE members. For instance, television
journalists were significantly less supportive than newspaper editors (and
thus closer to the public position) in allowing ads for harmful
products,
ads for guns, reporting stories about national security without
governmental approval and in identifying juveniles or rape victims.
Curiously, when asked about the projecting of election winners before the
polls closed, news directors showed just slightly more support for
this
than they did for running sexually explicit material over the airways.
In
fact, newspaper editors were significantly more supportive of
televised
election projections.
Marketing communicators, however, were in statistical agreement on what
they considered to be appropriate levels of free expression. While it
is
has been popular at universities to consider advertising and public
relations separate departments or sequences, this high congruency adds a
measure of support for those seeking to combine the two into one
academic
discipline. Still, in the only area of marked disagreement, the PRSA
respondents were more willing to allow teenagers to watch R-rated movies
than they were willing to allow non-malicious errors or reporting on
issues
about national security, while support from the advertising respondents
was about equal for the three issues. Additional research is needed to
determine whether substantial differences exist.
The SPJ sample, comprised of journalists, indicated a level of support
that was predictably closer to the ASNE and RTNDA position than to that
held by the marketing communicators.
Conclusions
Given the relatively recent technological advances that allow for
specialized rather than mass messages, some contend that the notion of
"mass communication" is obsolete. Our findings suggest that the term
"mass
media" is a misnomer: While those in the public who are not familiar
with
the structure and function of the various media entities may perceive
that
the media have the same agenda and similar goals, our data indicate
otherwise.
Newspaper editors were significantly more supportive of the right to speak
freely than any other media group considered--placing them most at odds
with the American people. Broadcast news directors, while
significantly
less supportive then news editors, also were far from agreement with
the
public. Working journalists were the closest of the three news-based
groups
to the public position. Public relations and advertising practitioners,
who are paid to know and influence the public, were statistical even
in
their position as the two mediums closest to the public's level of
support
for free expression among those media entities considered.
It appears from these data that a coorientational[58] relationship exists
between media groups and the American public. As noted by Stewart and
Nayman,[59] when an inherent relationship or "close bond" exists, two
parties
tend to develop or hold similar views. While advertisers and public
relations practitioners are trained to influence public perception, on
issues of free expression the tables may have been turned: It may be
that
the market communicators have been influenced by the public. News
managers
may be further from the public perspective on expressive rights
because, as
noted by Atkin, Burgoon and Burgoon,[60] many hold a "patronizing and
unflattering view" of an audience that is often distant and anonymous.
This study makes it clear that a gap--if not a chasm--exists between how
the media and society view free expression. Since strong support for
expressive rights is generally an embrace of the freedoms guaranteed by
the
First Amendment, those most enthusiastic could be called constitutional
conservatives. The public, however, often considers such expressive
permissiveness as liberal when it changes the status quo and challenges
societal mores in a way that conflicts with the existing level of
public
support. By the latter definition, this study finds that the media as
a
whole are more liberal than the public, with journalists least willing
to
reflect public levels of support for free expression. By the former
definition, the media is more willing than the public to defend the rights
guaranteed and defined by the First Amendment, with journalists
leading the
way while marketing communicators, spanning the boundaries, lean toward
the perspectives of their audience.
Table 1
Survey Questions on Media Rights
The law protects the media such as television, newspapers, radio and magazines
under
certain circumstances but not under others. Do you feel the media should be
protected
all
the time, protected under certain circumstances or not protected at all when...
y Newspapers take sides in editorials during an election campaign.
y Protecting the publication or sale of a book, even if there are objections to
the
content.
y Keeping books in a school or public library, even if there are objections to
the
content.
y Refusing to run advertising for certain products.
y Journalists report about the mistakes a public figure made more than 20 years
ago.
y Selling magazines or books that feature nude pictures.
y Newspapers or television stations run graphic photographs of violent events.
y High school students report controversial issues in their student newspapers
without
approval of school authorities.
y Advertising products that are legal but harmful to the public, such as tobacco
or
liquor.
y Advertising guns for sale.
y Journalists report classified material that the government wishes to keep
secret.
y Journalists report factually inaccurate information that they believe to be
true.
y Television shows music videos that deal with sexual themes.
y Reporting about the sexual habits of public figures.
y Television broadcasts pictures of nude or partially clothed persons.
y Journalists report the name of a juvenile charged with a crime.
y Movie theaters allow teenagers to see R-rated movies.
y Distributing recordings that portray sexual themes, drugs or religious cults.
y Journalists report stories about national security without government
approval.
y Television stations project the winners of an election while the people are
still
voting.
y Journalists report the name or identity of a rape victim.
y Television shows music videos that seem to promote drug use.
y Advertising pornographic or obscene material.
y Television broadcasts pictures of graphic sexual acts.
y Advertising products by making false or misleading claims.
y Advertising products that are illegal.
Questions listed from overall high to low level of support (See Table 3)
Table 2
Means from Public and by Medium
Question SPJ PRSA ASNE RTNDA Ad Execs Media Avg. Public Difference
Campaign 2.82 2.74 2.98 2.85 2.67 2.81 2.08 .73
Object/sales 2.58 2.51 2.92 2.84 2.78 2.73 .2.21 .52
Object/librar 2.51 2.46 2.89 2.74 2.73 2.67 2.16 .51
Refuse ad 2.63 2.54 2.76 2.59 2.4 2.58 2.16 .42
Report old 2.59 2.43 2.66 2.8 2.6 2.62 1.93 .69
Pubs/nudes 2.6 2.46 2.75 2.59 2.56 2.59 1.82 .77
Violent Phot 2.57 2.33 2.81 2.64 2.38 2.55 2.0 .55
Student pub 2.57 2.32 2.47 2.62 2.29 2.45 2.06 .39
Ads/harmful 2.43 2.27 2.76 2.35 2.4 2.44 1.9 .54
Ads/guns 2.41 2.14 2.75 2.38 2.24 2.38 1.99 .39
Report/Natl 2.58 2.24 2.73 2.45 2.04 2.41 1.74 .67
Non-malicio 2.44 2.14 2.65 2.35 2.0 2.32 1.89 .43
Sexy videos 2.33 2.06 2.4 2.39 2.24 2.28 1.72 .56
Report politi 2.34 2.1 2.45 2.3 2.07 2.25 1.78 .47
Nudes on TV 2.26 2.05 2.39 2.28 2.2 2.24 1.71 .53
Ident. juveni 2.15 1.96 2.48 2.21 2.01 2.16 1.88 .28
Teen/r-rated 2.36 2.44 2.27 2.07 1.85 2.20 1.68 .52
Record/sex 2.23 1.96 2.5 2.34 2.08 2.22 1.54 .68
Report classif 2.14 1.80 2.27 2.16 1.76 2.03 1.70 .33
TV project 1.96 1.68 2.54 2.05 1.80 2.01 1.65 .36
Ident. rape 1.87 1.65 2.47 2.14 1.64 1.95 1.67 .28
Video/drugs 1.92 1.61 2.17 2.10 1.76 1.91 1.41 .50
Adv. obscen 1.94 1.69 2.18 1.82 1.82 1.89 1.48 .41
TV/expli sex 1.78 1.63 2.00 1.88 1.84 1.83 1.46 .37
False adverti 1.37 1.24 1.59 1.31 1.21 1.34 1.25 .09
Illegal adver 1.40 1.17 1.52 1.36 1.14 1.32 1.32 .00
Grand Mean 2.26 2.06 2.48 2.29 2.10 2.24 1.78 .46
1 = "Not protected at all."
2 = "Protected sometimes."
3 = "Protected all the time."
Notes
[1] Robert O. Wyatt, Free Expression and the American Public: A Survey
Commemorating th
e
200th Anniversary of the First Amendment (Murfreesboro, Tenn.:
Middle Te
nnessee State
University), 1991.
[2] Julie L. Andsager and M. Mark Mille
r, "Comparing Journalists' and the Public's
Willingness to Support Express
ive Rights," Newspaper Research Journal, 15(March 1994):
102-114.
[3] Ki
m McAvoy, "Clinton to Weigh In On TV Violence," Broadcasting and Cable, 6
(December
1993
): 18.
[4] See "Model Policy on Student Publications Code," Iowa State Department of
Edu
cation,
Des Moines. Among the items in the policy, it will not allow stude
nts to "cause the
material and substantial disruption of the school's orde
rly operation," according to an
ERIC abstract.
[5] Kartik Pashupati, "Th
e Camel Controversy: Same Beast, Different Viewpoints. A
Position Paper,"
a paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Association for Education
i
n Journalism and Mass Communication, Kansas City, MO., August 11-14, 1993. Also
see Le
muel B. Schofield, "First Amendment Implications of Banning Alcoholic
Beverage
s Ads on
Radio and TV," Journalism Quarterly, 62 (Autumn 1985): 533-39.
[
6] There are many cites available. For instance, broadcast research includes
the
following: R. Bower, Television and the Public (New York: Hold, Rinehart
and Wins
ton,
1973); and Bower, The Changing Audience in America (New York: Columbi
a University Press,
1985); and G.A. Steiner, The People Look at Television
(New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1963)The Gallup Organization, Inc., The Gallu
p Study of Television Viewing Habits: 1991
(April 1991):20-21. These surve
ys reflect public perception. At least one content analysis
study indicates networks are
responding to public criticism by reducing the number and
nature of sexua
l behaviors presented on television. See Dennis T. Lowry and Jon A.
Shidle
r, "Prime Time TV Portrayals of Sex, 'Safe Sex' and AIDS: A Longitudinal
Analysis,"
Journalism Quarterly (Autumn 1993) 70: 628-637.
[7] Wyatt, "Free Expression a
nd the American Public," 1991.
[8] Andsager and Miller, "Comparing Journalists' and the
Public's," 102-114.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Barbara W. Hartung, "Attitudes Toward the Applicabi
lity of the Hutchins Report on
Press Responsibility," Journalism Quarterly
, 58 (Autumn 1981) 58:428-433.
[11] K. Tim Wulfemeyer, "Defining Ethics in Electronic Jo
urnalism: Perceptions of News
Directors," Journalism Quarterly 67 (Winter
1990): 984 - 991.
[12] Ralph Izard, "Gains on the Ethical Front," 1983 Journalism Ethic
s Report, (for the
Society of Professional Journalists, Washington, 1982)
pp. 3-4; also from telephone
interview with Izard, January 3, 1994.
[13]
James Bow and Ben Silver, "Attitudes of News Directors and Managing Editors,"
Journalism Quarterly (Autumn 1983) 60: 533-535. Bow and Silver found that
news direc
tors
and managing editors generally disagreed on the Supreme Court's view
of the media, but
they generally agreed on the assignment of investigative
reporters and the frequency of
such investigation, and the use of lawyers
. Bow and Silver concluded with a citation of
comments by Arnold H. Ismach
and Everette E. Dennis ("A Profile of Newspaper and
Television Reporters
in an Urban Setting," Journalism Quarterly (Winter 1978) 55:
739-743), who
also called for more research on the differences between broadcast and
pr
int.
[14] Terry F. Buss and Gary D. Malaney, "How Broadcasters Feel About the
Fairness
Doctrine," Journalism Quarterly 55 (Winter 1978): 793-797.
[15] United S
tates Congress, Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
Fairn
ess Doctrine, Hearings before Subcommittee on Communications, 90th Congress,
1968.
[16]
M.D. Meeske and Roger Handberg Jr., " News Directors' Attitudes Toward the
Fairness
Doctrine," Journalism Quarterly (Spring 1976) 53: 126-129; as cited by
Meeske an
d
Handberg, "Attitudes of ETV Managers Toward the Fairness Doctrine," Jour
nalism Quarterly
54 (Spring 1977): 146-149.
[17] Kim McAvoy, "Court Uph
olds Fairness Doctrine Repeal," Broadcasting & Cable, 13
(December 1993):
7; Also see Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v Federal Communications
Commission
, 395 U.S. 367, 89 S. Ct. 1794, 23 L. Ed.2d 371 (1969).
[18] Alf Pratte and Gordon Whitin
g, "What Newspaper Editorials Have to Say About
Deregulation of Broadcasti
ng," Journalism Quarterly 63 ( Autumn 1986): 497-502. Half of
their sample
consisted of Gannett newspapers; common editorial offices were deleted.
[19] Pratte and
Whiting, op. cit. Their source for this collection of editorials was the
Freedom of Expression Foundation, an organization that the authors said favored
deregulation. Additionally, the authors did not indicate how many of these
50 editor
ials
appeared in a given newspaper, nor the total number of newspapers
rep
resented.
[20] Edward J. Trayes, "Managing Editors and Their Newsrooms: A Survey of 208
APME
Members," Journalism Quarterly 55 (Winter 1978): 744-749, 789.
[21]
Vernon A. Stone, "Changing Profiles of News Directors of Radio and TV
Stations,
1972-1986," Journalism Quarterly (Winter 1987) 745-749.
[22] Steven H. Chaffee a
nd Jack McLeod, "Sensitization in Panel Design: A Corrientational
Experiment," Journalis
m Quarterly 45 (Winter): 661-669. Coorientation is a measure of
shared me
ssage understanding and acceptance. If two parties hold the same fundamental
understanding of a given issue or event, their conclusions will show high
congruency an
d
accuracy. Without it, the opposite occurs.
[23] Timothy J. Hudson, "C
onsonance in Depiction of Violent Material in Television News,"
Journal of Broadcasting
& Electric Media 36 Fall 1992) : 411-425. The most common choice
for broad
cast was story version number four, which showed the shooting and a
short-
duration shot of the body falling to the ground. Hudson reports that the
television
news gatekeepers participating in his study were apparently willing to
broadcast
footage
of a graphic, fatal, violent act (modeled after the footage of th
e suicide of Pennsylvania
State Treasurer R. Bud Dwyer suicide), but flinched at showing
the bloody aftermath.
[24] Jeremy H. Lipschultz and Michael L. Hilt, "First Amendment
vs. Business
Orientations of Broadcast General Managers and News Directors
," Journalism Educator
(Autumn 193) 70: 518-527; also see Cecilie Gaziano
and Kristen McGrath, "Newspaper
Credibility and Relationships of Newspaper
Journalists to Communities," Journalism
Quarterly 64 (Summer/Autumn 1987
): 317-328.
[25] See Lillian Lodge Kopenhaver, David L. Martinson and Michael Ryan, "Ho
w Public
Relations Practitioners and Editors in Florida View Each Other,"
Journalism Quarterly 61
(Winter 1984): 860-65, 884.
[26] Craig Aronoff,
"Credibility of Public Relations for Journalists," Public Relations
Revie
w 1 (1975): 45-56.
[27] Kopenhaver, Martinson and Ryan, ""How Public Relations Practitio
ners," 860-65, 884.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Donald McNamara, "At the Front: Clash of Cultures,
" Media Studies Journal 6 (Spring
1992): 29-46.
[30] See, for example, E
. W. Brody and Dan L. Lattimore, Public Relations Writing (New
York: Praeg
er, 1990), pp.7-8.
[31] James E. Grunig and Todd Hunt, Managing Public Relations (New Yo
rk: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 1984), pp. 9, 143.
[32] Pamela J. Shoema
ker and Stephen D. Reese, Mediating the Message: Theories of
Influences on
Mass Media Content, (White Plains, NY: Longman, 1991), 220.
[33] Eugene F. Shaw, "The P
ress and Its Freedom: A Pilot Study of an American
Stereotype," Journalism
Quarterly, 49 (Autumn 1981): 428-433.
[34] Andsager and Miller, "Comparing Journalists'
and the Public's," 102-114.
[35] Hadley Cantril, Public Opinion 1935-1946 (Princeton Un
iversity Press, 1951).
[36] Hazel Erskine, "The Polls: Freedom of Speech," Public Opinion
Quarterly, (34 (Winter
1970): 483-496.
[37] Erskine, "The Polls: Freedo
m," 483-496.
[38] James L. Gibson and Richard D. Bingham, "On the Conceptualization and
Measurement of
Political Tolerance," The American Political Science Review, 76 (1982): 6
03-620.
[39] John Immerwahr and John Doble, "Public Attitudes Toward Freedom of the
Pres
s,"
Public Opinion Quarterly, 46 (1982): 177-194.
[40] Cantril, Public
Opinion , 1951
[41] Immerwahr and Doble, "Public Attitudes Toward Freedom," 177-194.
[4
2] Thomas Jefferson Center for Protection of Free Expression, Public Attitudes
Toward
Censorship and Free Expression (Charlottesville, VA: National
Research Corp.,
1990).
[43] Immerwahr and Doble, "Public Attitudes Toward Freedom," 177-194.
[44] Paul
Voakes, "Unpopular, Maybe--But Not Illegitimate: The Relationship Between
Public Evaluation of the News Media and Public Support for Press Freedom,"
paper presente
d
to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication annual
conventio
n,
Montreal, August 1992.
[45] Wyatt, "Free Expression and the American
Public," 1991.
[46] Lawrence Bobo and F.C. Licari, "Education and Political Tolerance: T
esting the
Effects of Cognitive Sophistication and Target Group Affect," P
ublic Opinion Quarterly, 53
(1989): 285-308, 291.
[47] See Robert W. Jackman, "Politic
al Elites, Mass Publics and Support for Democratic
Principles," Journal of
Politics, 34 (1972): 753-773; and James W. Prothro and Charles M.
Grigg,
"Fundamental Principles of Democracy: Bases of Agreement and Disagreement,"
Journal
of P
olitics, 22 (1960): 276-294; and W. Cody Wilson, "Belief in Freedom of Speech
and
Press," Journal of Social Issues, 31 (Autumn 1975): 69-76.
[48] Jack M. McLeod,
Catherine A. Steele, Hsu-Hsien Chi and Kuang-Yu Huang,
"Understanding Poli
tical Tolerance: Alternative Models of Public Support," a paper
presented
to the Association for Journalism and Mass Communication annual convention,
Boston, August 1991; and Karen von Elten and Tony Rimmer, Television and
Newspaper
Reliance and Tolerance for Civil Liberties," Mass Communication Review,
19 (Sp
ring/Fall
1992): 27-35; and Sheldon S. Zalkind, Edward A. Gaugler and Rona
ld M. Schwartz, "Civil
Liberties Attitudes and Personality Measures: Some
Exploratory Research," Journal of
Social Issues, 31 (Autumn 1975): 77-91.
[49] Andsager and Miller, "Comparing Journalists' and the Public's," 102-114.
[50] Gru
nig and Hunt, Managing Public Relations, pp. 9, 143.
[51] McNamara, "At the Front: Clash
," 29-46.
[52] Andsager and Miller, "Comparing Journalists' and the Public's," 102-114.
[53] Wyatt, "Free Expression and the American Public," 1991.
[54] The Wyatt survey was
by telephone, with a 19% non-response rate. The text
corresponding to thi
s endnote refers to the four surveys produced for this study. The
fifth su
rvey of media groups, produced by Andsager and Miller, was the initial media
survey; their procedures were adopted for this study.
[55] For the survey of the gen
eral public, 1,508 adults from all 50 of the United States
were contacted
by telephone. Respondents were selected by random-digit dialing, then the
"next birthday" method was employed within households. Interviews were conducted
April
2-23, 1990, by a professional survey research firm. There was a
non-response
rate of 19%.
The sample closely approximated the general U.S. population e
stimated by CACI Marketing
Systems. The median educational level was "some
trade school," the median age was 36-39
and the median household income w
as $25,001-$30,000. Eighty-four percent were white and
10% black. Hispanic
s of any race made up 7% of the sample. Fifty-one percent were female.
For
a fuller description of the sample of the general public, see Robert O. Wyatt,
op.cit.
[
56] The mailing list was purchased from Cahners Direct Mail Services, New York
City,
after consulting with advertising researchers at several universities
(Indiana
University
and University of Florida were two of those contacted).
[57]
Andsager and Miller, "Comparing Journalists' and the Public's," 102-114.
[58] Coorient
ation is a measure of message understanding. If two parties hold the same
fundamental understanding of a given issue or event, their conclusions will show
high
congruency and accuracy. Without it, the opposite occurs. See Steven
H. Chaffe
e and Jack
M. McLeod, Sensitization in Panel Design: A Coorientational Exp
eriment, Journalism
Quarterly, 45(Winter):661-669.
[59] Carolyn Stewart
and Oguz B. Nayman, "Under the Dome: Relationships Between
Legislators and
Reporters," Journalism Quarterly, 54(Autumn): 443-453
[60] Charles K. Adkin, Judee K. B
urgoon and Michael Burgoon, How Journalists Perceive the
Reading Audience, Newspaper Res
earch Journal, Winter, 1983, 4 (2): 51-63.
|
