Changes in News Use on the Front Pages of the American Daily Newspaper,
1986-1993
by
Lamar W. Bridges and Janet A. Bridges
Lamar W. Bridges Janet A. Bridges
Professor of Journalism Associate Professor of Communication
East Texas State University University of Southwestern Louisiana
Commerce TX 75429 Lafayette LA 70504-3650
903-886-5236 318-482-6142
Submitted to the Newspaper Division, Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass
Communication, Annual Meeting, Washington DC, August 1995
This project was funded by a grant from the School of Graduate Studies and
Research at
East Texas State University and by support from the University of
Southwestern Louisiana.
An abstract
Changes in News Use on the Front Pages of the American Daily Newspaper,
1986-1993
by
Lamar W. Bridges and Janet A. Bridges
Lamar W. Bridges Janet A. Bridges
Professor of Journalism Associate Professor of Communication
East Texas State University University of Southwestern Louisiana
Commerce TX 75429 Lafayette LA 70504-3650
903-886-5236 318-482-6142
Use in 1993 of seven news attributes on the front pages of 96 daily newspapers
reflects
the same patterns that were identified in 1986. Newspaper profiles
differed from 1986:
proximity is no longer part of the interpreter-news profile;
prominence doesn't appear in
any of the major news profiles; and oddity has its own profile.
Nationally, newspaper front pages seem to be competing with electronic breaking
news
rather than reflecting the industry rhetoric of emphasis on local
needs.
Submitted to the Newspaper Division, Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass
Communication, Annual Meeting, Washington DC, August 1995
This project was funded by a grant from the School of Graduate Studies and
Research at
East Texas State University and by support from the University of
Southwestern Louisiana.
Front-Page Changes 1986-93 Page
Changes in News Use on the Front Pages of the American Daily Newspaper,
1986-1993
Technological advances, the economy, and changes in population demographics
during the
mid-to-late 1980s and early 1990s have forced the U.S.
newspaper industry to re-examine
both its purpose and its product in order to compete in today's
marketplace.[1]
Weekday readership and household penetration have been stagnant or declining,[2]
the number
of daily newspapers has declined (these numbers included some
major metros),[3] and research
shows that baby boomers, especially women, are not developing a
newspaper-reading habit.[4]
Younger Americans are not reading newspapers; an ASNE (American
Society of Newspaper
Editors) study reported in 1991 identified potential readers and "at
risk" readers who are
not being served by the traditional newspaper, and both groups are the readers
of the
future, those under 35.[5]
Declining readership and declining economic returns can be attributed to several
factors.
For example, the electronic media provide spot news more
effectively than newspapers,
requiring the dailies to re-evaluate their mission, their definitions
of news, and their
delivery systems.[6] Economic problems have reduced available
advertising dollars,[7] forcing
newspapers to reassess their attractiveness to advertisers who find
the newspaper an
appropriate vehicle. Because advertisers are concerned about
readership, these same
assessments are being used to make the news pages more attractive and
more relevant to
readers.[8]
On the positive side, advances in electronic publishing and printing technology
have
provided newspapers with the capability to respond to these
problems with both faster and
more efficient access to information as well as with more
interesting and potenti
ally-rewarding presentations.[9] Technological advances have made
readership surveys more
feasible and therefore have given U.S. newspapers easier access to
the perceptions, likes,
and dislikes of their readers. Entry into database marketing has accelerated
at
newspapers and, in addition, provides a new source of revenue for U.S.
newspapers in the
1990s.
Data from the 1994 Newspaper Association of America (NAA) report show that more
than 150
newspapers provide free interactive voice services, and more
than 500 U.S. newspapers
offer 900-number or other pay telephone services for accessing various
databases. A few
newspapers ("more than 25") offer FAX delivery of specialized
information (e.g., stock
reports), and several offer videotext data. More than 140 dailies
have on-line access to
the full text of their newspapers.[10]
In a major technological step, many larger U.S. daily newspapers are moving
steadily
toward fully-automated pagination systems. A joint study by the
ANPA (now NAA) and The
Bakersfield Californian in 1991 reported that more than 60 percent
of the respondents
were already conducting some pagination or electronic composition,
and that half indicated
a move to full automation within five years.[11] However, this trend is not
necessarily
followed in data-gathering. Brooks and Yang found in 1992 that
computer-assisted
reporting is being conducted almost exclusively by large newspapers.[12]
And, at least some major daily newspapers have been altering their coverage to
become more
reader-oriented. For example, Gannett, as part of its "News 2000" program, is
encouraging its daily newspapers to become more community-oriented in
their coverage.[13]
[Stempel's study of news sources suggests that more attention to local
news and localizing
of news should be productive in retaining readers.][14]
The inference is that newspaper content should be reflecting the effects of both
attention
to local reader concerns and technological advances and should be different
from content
before these changes abecame widespread. This study
replicates a 1986 analysis of content
on 101 U. S. daily newspaper front pages with a 1993 sample of the same dailies
that are
still publishing. Comparisons of news values are made.[15]
PRIOR STUDIES
Several studies have documented effects of technology and/or economic forces on
newspaper
content.
Looking at changes in newspaper front-page makeup, Utt and Pasternack found
evidence that
more daily newspapers are using color regularly and more
graphics and learned that 70
percent of the editors they surveyed believed that appearance
influenced reader choices of
newspapers (from 47 percent five years earlier). Kenney and Lacy found that the
space on
newspaper front pages devoted to color and to graphics increased and
the number of
graphics increased when competition among newspapers was stronger.[16]
In 1979, when electronic editing equipment was beginning to enter the field, a
case study
found that the amount of local content did not change before
and after equipment was
placed in use, and neither did the amount of local insertions into wire
copy, even though
current editorial policy required zoned local information in one
section. No differences
were found in overall column inches for either local or wire news.
"Copy desk chiefs" on
large circulation dailies in 1986 said they found "local copy more
readable" after using
the electronic editing equipment, but they weren't sure the number
of errors differed.[17]
Comparing staff on one metropolitan daily before and after training on an
electronic
in-house library system, Ward, Hansen and McLeod found that the
number of users dropped
about 16 percent, but the reasons for using the library were the
same: background
research and story ideas, fact checking, and checking to avoid duplicate
coverage.
Jacobson and Ullman queried newspaper librarians and editors/reporters
who used national
electronic databases. They learned that only 29 percent of their
respondents used the
databases, but the perception is that the searches are being used to
locate specific
information more than background information, even though databases
were used more for
investigative and in-depth pieces than for spot news. There was no
perception that
national databases resulted in more homogeneous news or loss of local
angles in stories.[18]
At least one study has documented changes in newspaper coverage in general since
1986, but
this study relied on self-report data. Wilson and Igawa asked "top newspaper
editors"
which areas they had increased or decreased coverage during the
past "five years." The
authors found that business and local news had increased in 3/4 of
the dailies;
entertainment, education, health, and high school sports coverage increased
in more than
60 percent. Small decreases (11-13 percent) were reported in both
international and
national news and in government news of all types.[19]
Most changes have been assessed by asking appropriate personnel or by assuming
prior
states. Those who perform content analysis are either limited to
case or regional samples
or do not address content per se. The study reported here compares
content of a national
sample of daily newspapers to content of the same dailies seven
years earlier. Use of news
attributes was identified.[20]
In 1986, timeliness was the most frequently found attribute, and prominence was
second.
Proximity was third, appearing in exactly half of the
front-page space; conflict,
magnitude, impact and oddity followed in that order.
The data indicated that in 1986 three distinct news profiles were present in the
daily
newspapers in this country: a hard-news profile; an
interpreter-news profile; and a
prominence-news profile. The hard-news profile emphasized timeliness,
conflict and
magnitude (magnitude means size, such as large crowds, amounts of money,
etc.) in its news
stories, but was not associated with local coverage; the interpreter-news
profile used
impact (on the audience), proximity (the local news) and magnitude
as its news values;
the prominence profile was identified by its use of stories with
known names and places.[21]
The study reported here has three purposes: (1) to describe the content of the
front
pages of the 1993 daily newspapers; (2) to determine whether the
content on the front
pages represents a distinctive pattern of news use among the 1993
dailies; and (3) to
identify changes in the front-page content from 1986 to 1993.
METHOD
We resubscribed in March 1993 to the 96 daily newspapers in the original sample
that were
still publishing. The original sample in 1986 was a random
subset of 101 newspapers whose
managing editors had returned an earlier questionnaire. The
managing editors were a
random sample of dailies stratified by circulation. Subscriptions for
both time periods
were for the month of March. These original 101 daily newspapers
accurately represented
the daily newspapers of all sizes in this country.[22]
The time difference between the subscriptions was dictated by available funding
for
newspaper subscriptions and coding, but developments in the
newspaper industry suggested
the timing of the application for funds. The original 1986 study
was conducted before
electronic equipment and offset printing as an option for newspapers
had become readily
available and/or desirable. The refinement in equipment changes over
the time period would
by themselves suggest an investigation. Timing and effects of the recession
also support
the time frame.
The economy in 1986 was certainly not "booming." But the recession had not
really hit the
industry as a whole in 1986 [Udell said newspapers from 1976
to 1988 grew at a rate that
"exceeded the economy"],[23] and even those newspapers that were
affected had not had time to
make changes to respond to declining readership and advertising.
Editor & Publisher called
1990 the "second year of recession" for newspapers, and 1991 was apparently the
worst
year economically for the industry.[24] Any content changes
implemented to respond to these
problems and/or opportunities would probably not be reflected before
1993.
March was selected as the "news month" for both years, because elections and
post-election
hype would have ended; major holidays generally don't fall in this month; and,
barring
an unforseen national event, March is an "ordinary" news
month.
A composite week was selected for both years. The composite week was Monday
through
Friday unless Saturday was the fifth publication day. Five
issues of each daily were
analyzed. Each Monday, each Tuesday, etc. for each daily was selected
randomly from all
the Mondays, all the Tuesdays, etc., for that daily in the same
31-day period. This
31-day restriction helped to control the pool of available news,
especially at the
national and international levels.[25] One difference in 1993 was a
restriction on the number
of days from the same week, which was limited to two. Three
breaking stories (Branch
Davidian, the Trade Center bombing, and the East Coast blizzard) and
the Boznia-Hergovinia
activities during March 1993 raised concern that too many issues from one week
could be
biased by newspapers that followed one major story. Therefore, to
try to get as "typical"
March representation as possible, if a random day was the third for
that week, a second
random day was selected.
In 1993 we followed the same procedures as in 1986: to define the front-page
content, we
translated each story on the front page of each issue of the
composite week into a measure
that represented a proportion of the available overall space on the page. An
average of
54 stories per newspaper was examined, the same number as in 1986.
Each of the stories on the 480 front pages of the March 1993 dailies was
measured, and
each story was assigned a 1/0 code to indicate presence or
absence of each of the seven
news attributes: proximity, timeliness, prominence, impact,
conflict, magnitude, and
oddity.[26] Because a story could have multiple news values, the
coding was not mutually
exclusive. Each story could have from zero to seven attributes. The
proportion of the
front page devoted to each news value was computed and a news profile
for each daily new
spaper was determined. Factor analysis was used to identify the
news profiles of the
entire set of newspapers.
Using the definitions below, two coders independently coded each issue. Because
coding
had to be consistent not only between the coders but with the
1986 data set, both training
and the coding were monitored very carefully.
Because of the judgmental nature of coding for this project, all papers were
double-coded.
After training, coders worked independently and then met about every five days
with the
primary researchers to reconcile coding differences. As
national stories were repeated
from newspaper to newspaper, standard codes were determined. When the
coding was
completed, the primary researchers checked all national stories for
consistency with the
codes. General definitions for each attribute are:[27]
Proximity: proximity concerns "people, events or institutions in the immediate
coverage
area."
Timeliness: timeliness concerns recent or immediate-future happenings -- the
breaking,
hard news as opposed to "soft" or indefinite-future news.
Prominence: prominence, or known principal, is an attribute when the principal
actor,
issue or institution in the story is already "well known
because of past publicity or
position in the community" or society.
Impact: impact includes "any physical or non-physical event which has an
impact on a
large number of readers now or in the near future. "Impact" is
used with effect or
consequence in mind. The impact can be damaging or enhancing."
Magnitude: magnitude includes "any physical or non-physical event in which a
large number
of persons attended, or which involves large amounts of gains, losses,
expenditures or
accomplishments. Magnitude is significant from a quantitative
point of view . . ." Ma
gnitude can also be significant for the smallness of the quantity.
Conflict: conflict describes "any open clash between persons, groups, animals
or things
or involving a clash with any of these four against nature.
The conflict must be obvious
with distinct 'movement against' by one or both opposing forces."
Oddity: oddity is "an action or event that is rarer than just the unusual . . .
or
opposite from what we have learned to expect, and, thus, predict
in our culture and in our
time."
For each attribute the proportional amount for each story with a "1" code was
summed and
the score for that attribute was the total proportional
amount.[28]
RESULTS
Space on the Front Pages: As Table 1 indicates, except for proximity (the local
story)
stories with impact on the audience, the actual proportion of
space allotted to each
attribute has dropped a little, even though the overall use of the
attributes was very
similar to 1986.
Although the percentage was not as high as in 1986, for 1993, timeliness, on 59
percent of
the front page space, was still the news attribute most frequently found on the
front
page. Prominence was still second, on 58 percent of the front
page space. Proximity was
still third, on 53 percent of the front page space.[29]
As they were in 1983, conflict and magnitude were very close; conflict was on 32
percent
of the front page space and magnitude on 31 percent. Stories
with impact on the audience
made up 29 percent of the front page space, still nearly the least
used attribute, and
oddity was present in less than 1 percent of the front page space.
News Use Patterns: The underlying profiles identified by the attributes were
somewhat
different in 1993, even though the two major overall profiles
were very similar. Factor
analysis of the news attributes was used to try to determine whether
any underlying
profiles exist among the dailies in 1993.
Both orthogonal varimax rotation and oblique rotation kept three factors with
very similar
loadings. In order to compare to 1986, when an oblique rotation more clearly
defined the
factors, the oblique rotation will be reported here.
Correlations among the factors were
minimal: .03, -.05, -.14.
The components differed, but two of the three news factors can be identified by
the same
overriding label as two of the factors in 1986. There was a
hard-news profile and an
interpreter-news profile. The third factor was an oddity news profile;
in 1986 the third
factor was a prominence-news profile (see Table 2).
Factor #1, Hard-News: The first and strongest factor was very similar to the
hard-news
profile identified in 1986. The 1993 hard-news profile included
loadings over .40 for
timeliness, conflict and magnitude and a strong negative loading for
proximity,
replicating exactly the components of the 1986 profile. This factor
accounted for 33
percent of the variance in the attributes.
The rationale for naming this factor "hard news" is the combination of
timeliness and
conflict. These attributes identify spot news. They also
identify the accident stories,
crime stories, and weather catastrophes (as already mentioned, in
1993 a major blizzard
shut down the east coast). Magnitude was fairly high for this news
profile (as it was in
1986), but also loaded equally as high on the second,
interpreter-news, profile. Magnitude
logically could be included with timeliness and conflict for number of
casualties, large
damage amounts, and sports scores, for example.
The large, negative loading of proximity suggests that this profile is not
concerned with
the location of news, just the freshness. Breaking stories
would be more important than
local stories.
Factor #2, Interpreter-News: The second factor identified a news-use pattern
that combines
impact and magnitude with loadings over .40 and differs from the 1986
interpreter profile
in that proximity is no longer an attribute. This factor accounts for 17
percent of the
variance among the attributes.
The interpreter profile for 1993 suggests explanatory-type attention to dollar
issues.
Impact meant impact on the audience. Major budget decisions
were being pursued at the
national level, as well as levels closer to home, during March;
however, the lack of
proximity or local news on this factor suggests little attention to
issues that originate
in the local environment.
Factor #3, Oddity-News: The third factor, an "oddity" news profile is defined by
only one
attribute, oddity, that loaded over .40. This factor accounts
for 15 percent of the
variance among the variables. The only attribute that comes even close
to loading on this
factor is timeliness, an indication that breaking news that is
extremely unusual may be
part of this news profile. The high communality for oddity, .93,
indicates that this one
profile can stand alone.
A second major difference from 1986 is the prominence attribute. In 1986
prominence had a
profile of its own; in 1993 prominence loads on none of the
three factors.
Communalities indicate that the three factors account for only 16 percent of the
variation
in prominence use in these dailies. Other communalities range from .57 to .93.
The three
factors account for 65 percent of the variation in the
attributes.
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
Although actual proportion of space differs, the news-use patterns of the
attributes in
1993 reflect the same patterns that were identified in 1986.
Timeliness, prominence and
proximity appear most often, although proximity (local stories)
still appears in little
more than half of the front page space. Conflict and magnitude
appear next most
frequently, a little more than impact. The use of oddity stories is rare.
The same approach to news seems to be followed in 1993 as in 1986. The United
States daily
is conducting business as usual. No one is arguing that freshness shouldn't be
a
criterion for news, but as the industry seems to agonize over those
who aren't interested
in news (or business) as usual, these data suggest that there seems
to be a myopia about
changing its product. Unless the industry expects the public to
change, change will have
to come from the newspapers themselves.
There is no doubt that some high-profile newspapers are making changes, but this
national
sample indicates that these changes are not being adopted
industry-wide.
Because of industry rhetoric about attention to audience needs, we had expected
to find
more emphasis on proximity or local news and on news that has
relevance (or impact) to the
reader. The few percentage point increases were not substantive. As noted
earlier, this
is a preliminary report and about 10 stories are still being
investigated for location. We
suspect these are primarily proximate because they include elementary school
events and
unidentified spring-time pictures of children in parks. But these
stories are isolated and
take up little space. Therefore we may see a few more proximate stories, but
the
proportion or average should not increase much.
Top editors may report that they are increasing business and local news, but if
business
activities have impact, these reports aren't reflected in the
newspaper front pages.
Harder to explain are the changes: three major changes in the news profiles from
1986 to
1993. Proximity is no longer part of the interpreter-news
profile, prominence doesn't
appear in any of the three major news profiles, and oddity appears as
its own news
profile.
The loss of proximity in the interpreter-news profile suggests newspapers in
1993 are
giving less rather than more attention to local civic happenings
that have impact on the
lives of the readers. Certainly the attention to national
information with impact is
important, but readers need information if they are to be involved in
their local affairs.
Perhaps the removal of proximity is related to the independence of prominence
among the
attributes. We considered local governments and local institutions
to be prominent in
their communities. The lack of proximity in the interpreter-news
profile suggests that
local affairs aren't being covered very well, at least not on the
front page, and people
aren't learning about the activities of their local governing
bodies.
The loss of the prominence profile in general is more difficult to explain.
Several
medical breakthroughs were reported in March 1993, and because the
diseases were well
known (i.e., cancer, cholesterol-related heart disease, etc.), the
disease news was coded
as prominent. However, most of these medical announcements had
impact and many were
associated with an event that was coded for timeliness. Beyond the
medical news,
prominence as an attribute is associated with People Magazine -type
content. In
preliminary analyses, prominence did not correlate with any of the other six
attributes,
suggesting that there is no consistent linear relationship with the
other news attributes.
In other words, most stories with prominence in 1993 involved the well known,
regardless
of the newsworthiness of their activities.
The solitary oddity-news profile, compared with the very low use of oddity
stories,
suggests that stories about idiosyncracies stand alone and are run
because they are fun to
read.
Theoretically magnitude, which is important in two news-use profiles, is still
not an
independent attribute, and prominence now seems to stand alone.
We had noted after the 1986 study that the emphasis on timeliness and its
association with
spot news should have been expected. Textbooks emphasize "freshness," and when
the
managing editors of the 1986 newspapers were asked about potential
functions of media,
they were in highest agreement that news media should get information
to the public
quickly. The newspaper industry knows it cannot compete with electronic
media on breaking
news. Unless the industry repositions itself, it is going to continue to lose
readers who
now can find breaking information in its newest state on the electronic news
outlets and
who may be even more interested in the newness of information
provided by the emerging
interactive technology.
Many newspapers have local news on their inside pages, and the larger dailies
have local
sections. But the front page is the window a reader has to the
tone and the "spirit" of a
particular newspaper, and these front pages are not showing an
interest in the local
environment. The newspaper industry could serve its readers by
explaining the news,
especially in government and civic affairs, to help create an informed
citizenry.
Sometimes these types of news stories do not have timely pegs. Covering
stories that
require depth and interpretation takes time and money, but these
stories are important.
They also require good writing skills to make the information
understandable and
interesting--these are skills where the newspaper industry should have an
advantage.
Table 1: Proportion of news values on front page space, 1986 and 1993
_______________________________________________________
News Value 1993 1986
(n=96) (n=101)
Timeliness 59% 63%
Prominence 58% 61%
Proximity 53% 50%
Conflict 32% 38%
Magnitude 31% 35%
Impact 29% 26%
Oddity 2% < 1%
_______________________________________________________
Table 2: Factor Loadings by News Attribute; Oblique Rotation (n = 96)
________________________________________________________
I II III
News Attribute Hard News Interpreter Oddity Communalities
Eigenvalue 2.28 1.21 1.04
Proximity -.82 .15 .08 .69
Timeliness .77 -.05 .30 .57
Conflict .76 -.02 .01 .68
Impact -.16 .92 .11 .84
Magnitude .54 .53 -.16 .65
Oddity -.03 -.09 -.97 .93
Prominence .38 .08 -.05 .16
_________________________________________________________ NOTES
[1] .See Lacy's "Commentar
y" for a summary of problems and developments. (Stephen Lacy,
"Commentary
: Ideas for Prospering in a Changing Market," Newspaper Research Journal 13
(Summer 1992), 85-94.)
[2] . See F. Dennis Hale, "The Response Of Newspaper Circulation
In The 1980s To Economic
And Other Community Demographics," paper present
ed to the Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communication,
Kansas City, Kansas, August 14, 1992. NAA '94 Facts
about Newspapers (DC
:NAA, 1994) shows that circulation figures for daily newspapers
fluctuated
from 62.2 million to 62.8 million during the 80s, but dropped to 59.8 million
in 1993. Most of the loss was in evening papers, still the dominant group
(p. 3).
[
3] . For example, in Milwaukee, the Journal and Sentinal now publish as one
newspaper.
The Dallas Times Herald (December, 1991) and the Little Rock,
Arkansas, Gaze
tte
(October, 1991) folded, as did dailies in several other major America
n cities. NAA data
for 1993 show that the number of daily newspapers has
declined from 1,676 in 1985 to 1,556
in 1993 (p. 2).
[4] .NAA figures indicate that th
e proportion of American adults reading weekday
newspapers has steadily de
clined from 64 percent in 1985 to 61.7 percent in 1993, even
though the ac
tual number of readers has increased. While the number of male readers
in
creased from 53.7 thousand in 1985 to 57.1 thousand in 1993, the number of women
readers
moved from 55.1 to 57.6 thousand (p. 7). Figures for 1993 were slightly lower
than 1992.
An age breakdown of readers shows the percentage of readers steadily declining
with age
of the potential reader (p. 8).
Newsweek (May 27 1991, p. 39-41) repor
ted that readers between the ages of 30 and 44
dropped from 75 percent in
1972 to 45 percent in 1989.
[5] .George Garneau, "Reaching 'at risk' and 'potential' read
ers: New study identifies
two groups critical to the future of newspapers
; shows how content, format changes can win
them over," Editor & Publisher (May 4 1991),
p. 14 and 110. Cobb-Walgren's findings
suggest that the children of nonre
aders will probably be nonreaders (Cathy J.
Cobb-Walgren, "Why Teenagers D
o Not 'Read All About It,'" Journalism Quarterly 67 (Summer
1990), 340-347
.
[6] . John Morton, "Growth of electronic media has made newspapers better,"
Newspaper
Research Journal, 14:2 (Spring, 1993), 18-22.
[7] . The July 1993 Guild R
eporter said the improved economy is slowly being reflected in
the newspaper industry, b
ut national advertisers are not returning to the medium. ("Big
profits ret
urn to U.S. newspapers," July 14 1993, pp. 4-5.)
[8] . Robert H. Giles, "Change shapes tr
ends in newspaper management," Newspaper Research
Journal, 14:2 (Spring, 1993), 32-39.
[9] . Jules A. Tewlow, "Electronic innovations liberate newsgatherers,"
Newspaper Research
Journal, 14:2 (Spring, 1993), 23-31. Also see Pamela M. Terrell, "Art:
Newspapers'
historically gray pages have come alive with an explosion of color and
graphic
s, many of
them computer-assisted," presstime, February 1989, pp. 20-27.
[10] . NAA, '94 Facts, p. 26. A report on the 1992 study is in Penny Pagano,
"Newspapers
and the Baby Bells face off on new-age electronics," The Guild
Reporter, A
pril 3, 1992,
pp. 4-5.
[11] . Rosalind C. Truitt, "Pagination answers sh
ed light," presstime, July, 1991, pp.
56-57. The study surveyed newspaper
s with circulations of 25,000 and greater. The
response rate was 32 perce
nt.
[12] .Brian S. Brooks and Tai-en Yang, "Patterns of Computer Use in Newspaper
Newsroo
ms:
A National Study of U.S. Dailies," Paper presented to the Newspaper
Di
vision, Association
for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Ka
nsas City 1993. The authors suggest
that costs of compatible search system
s exclude the smaller dailies.
[13] . "Reader involvement is the key to successful electi
on coverage." Editorially
Speaking (January 1993), p. 1. The entire issue
is devoted to the 1992 presidential
campaign. Newsweek (May 27 1991, p.
41) cites examples of individual newspapers that have
changed their presentation to attr
act younger readers. Knight Ridder's 25/43 project in
Boca Raton Florida
was an attempt to attract readers in this age group (between 25 and
43).
[14] .Guido H. Stempel III, "Where People Really Get Most of Their News,"
Newspaper
Research Journal 12 (1991), 2-9.
[15] .Janet A. Bridges, "News Use on the Front
Pages of the American Daily," Journalism
Quarterly 66 (Summer 1989), 332-
337.
[16] . Sandra H. Utt and Steve Pasternack, "How They Look: An Updated Study of
Ameri
can
Newspaper Front Pages," Journalism Quarterly 66 (1989), 621-627, and
K
eith Kenney and
Stephen Lacy, "Economic Forces Behind Newspapers' Increasi
ng Use of Color and Graphics,"
Newspaper Research Journal 8 (Spring 1987),
33-41.
[17] .Bruce Garrison, "Electronic Editing Systems and Their Impact on News Decis
ion
Making," Newspaper Research Journal (January 1982), 43-53, and William
R. Lindley, "From
Hot Type to Video Screens: Editors Evaluate New Technol
ogy," Journalism Quarterly 65
(1988), 485-9.
[18] .Jean Ward, Kathleen A.
Hansen and Douglas M. McLeod, "Effects of the Electronic
Library on News
Reporting Protocols," Journalism Quarterly 65 (Winter 1988), 845-52, and
T
homas L. Jacobson and John Ullman, "Commercial Databases and Reporting: Opinions
of
Newspaper Journalists and Librarians," Newspaper Research Journal 10
(Winter 198
9), 15-25.
[19] . Jean Gaddy Wilson and Iris Igawa, "Strategy No. 11: 'Expand News Cover
age,'"
presstime, November, 1991, pp. 45-46.
[20] .In 1986, only one othe
r study had determined news preferences with an actual
analysis of a natio
nal set of daily newspapers; other studies relied on hypothetical
situatio
ns. (See Bridges, page 333.)
[21] .Bridges, Ibid.
[22] . The 101 dailies were from 37 st
ates and included two dual-state newspapers (which
theoretically increased
the number of states represented to 39). Publication times were
evening,
67 percent; morning, 30 percent; and all-day, 3 percent.
[23] .Jon G. Udell, "Recent and
Future Economic Status of U.S. Newspapers," Journalism
Quarterly 67 (Summe
r 1990), 331-339.
[24] .Mark Fitzgerald, "1990-in-Review: A year of retrenchment: Newspap
er industry
wonders about its future as a second straight year of economic
downturn comes to a close,"
Editor & Publisher, January 5 1991, pp. 9-11, 79-80, & 82-8
3. See Barbara K. Petersen's
reference to Garneau's 1992 Editor & Publishe
r analysis (Barbara K. Petersen, "The
Managerial Benefits of Understanding
Organizational Culture," in Stephen Lacy, Ardyth B.
Sohn, and Robert H. G
iles eds., Readings in Media Management, Columbia SC: AEJMC, 1992, p.
125.
[25] . The c
omposite week in 1986 was from the four weeks between Feb. 17 through March
14.
[26] .News attributes are only one accepted categorization of newspaper content.
See
Lacy and Simon, pp. 32-35, and Bridges, pp. 58-67, for a discussion o
f other methods.
Stephen Lacy and Todd F. Simon, "Newspaper Demand," in T
he Economics and Regulation of
United States Newspapers (Norwood NJ: Ablex
Publishing, 1993), pp. 23-53; and Janet A.
Bridges, "An Exploratory Inves
tigation of the Relationship between the Daily-Newspaper
Gatekeeper's Perc
eptions of the Function of the News Media and the Gatekeeper's Handling
of
News," Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1987.
Reisner's co
nversational analysis of editors' news conferences found that editors used
the term "conflict" and referred to "known names" [prominence as a news value]
and to
local impact. Berkowitz and Beach examined conflict and proximity as
part of
their study
of news sources. (Ann E. Reisner, "The Newspaper Conference:
How Daily Newspaper Editors
Construct The Front Page," Journalism Quarterl
y 69 (Winter 1992), 971-86; and Dan
Berkowitz and Douglas W. Beach, "News
Sources and News Context: The Effect of Routine
News, Conflict and Proximi
ty," Journalism Quarterly 70 (Spring 1993), 4-12.
[27] .Original definitions of the attri
butes relied heavily on definitions printed by
Atwood and by Buckalew and
on discussions in reporting textbooks (notably Michael Ryan and
James W. Tankard Jr., Ba
sic News Reporting (Palo Alto: Mayfield Publishing Co., 1977);
The Missour
i Group: Brian S. Brooks, George Kennedy, Daryl R. Moen and Don Ranly, News
Reporting and Writing (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1985); and Ralph S.
Izard, Hugh M.
Culbertson and Donald A. Lambert, Fundamentals of News Reporting,
2nd ed.
(Dubuque:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., 1973). Full working definitions a
re available from the
authors. Quoted material in the general definitions
are credited as follows: proximity and
prominence, Ryan and Tankard, p. 105-6; impact, m
agnitude, conflict and oddity, Atwood,
p. 299.
[28] .Procedures for codin
g the original 1986 attributes had been refined through
pretesting. These
same procedures were followed with the 1993 dailies. Detailed
description
of the procedures for selecting the composite week may be obtained from the
authors.
[29] .The amount of space allotted to proximity may increase slightly. This a
preliminary report, and about 10 stories are still unidentified as to loca
tion. Because
several identify elementary schools and children playing in
parks, we suspect these are
local stories. However, until this can be veri
fied we cannot be certain.
|
