|
MEDIA USAGE BY STATE LEGISLATORS:
CONSPICUOUS REJECTERS OR UNABASHED LAGGARDS?
Charles M. Mayo
Assistant Professor
Manship School of Mass Communication
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803-7202
tel.-- 504-388-3488
fax -- 504-388-2125
David D. Perlmutter
Assistant Professor
Manship School of Mass Communication
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803-7202
tel.-- 504-388-2053
fax -- 504-388-2125
e-mail -- [log in to unmask]
[Submitted to the Mass Communication & Society, AEJMC, 1996
Conference]
MEDIA USAGE BY STATE LEGISLATORS:
CONSPICUOUS REJECTERS OR UNABASHED LAGGARDS?
abstract
This case study investigates how various information sources are used
by state legislators to meet certain information needs. Five information
sources and nine information needs are investigated. Members of the Lousiana
State House of Representatives and Senate composed the sample. Three research
questions were posed: 1) What roles do information sources used by legislators
play in helping them make voting decisions and how important are they for
particular information needs; 2) what is the role of information technology in
helping legislators gather information about issues; and 3) do characteristics
such as age, tenure and education influence the frequency that these sources are
used? Results indicate a preference for interpersonal communication channels,
specifically statehouse insiders. New media--computer on-line service such as
Internet--are not an important tool adopted by this group. Age, tenure and
education have little influence on how information sources are utilized.
[Submitted to the Mass Communication & Society, AEJMC, 1996
Conference]
Media Usage by State
Legislators.....................................................................
........................
MEDIA USAGE BY STATE LEGISLATORS:
CONSPICUOUS REJECTERS OR UNABASHED LAGGARDS?
Media Usage by State
Legislators.....................................................................
........................
The state legislator was young, an alum of the Mass Communication
Program, and had a reputation as a reformer out to change the set-in-stone ways
of his older colleagues in the legislature. He had agreed to speak before a
senior level class that day on politics and the media. Noticing the computer
behind the desk in the professor's office, he commented wistfully, "You know,
I'm going to have to learn how to operate one of those things one day."
The information revolution has greatly expanded the amount of
information available to elected officials, provided they know how to obtain it,
or have it obtained for them. The generation of Americans raised on television
and first exposed to computers is now reaching positions of power. Therefore,
it is important to gauge how this type of information is being utilized by the
power elite. Media professionals--public relations practitioners, news
reporters, database content providers and library professionals--need to know
what channels of information are preferred by elected officials. The public has
a right to know and understand by what means and with what content their elected
officials draw information to make decisions. Journalists should know the
sources, including themselves, of political decision-making so that they may
cover not just the outcomes, but the origins of and steps toward
decision-making. This will help shed light on journalistic responsibility in
policy decisions. And most obviously, political leaders will be made aware of
the problems and prospects of their own and their colleagues' approaches to
information gathering and decision-making. Finally, elected officials are,
afterall, the overlords of communication policy. The attitudes toward and
experiential familiarity with old and new media constitute important information
for understanding how that policy is made. This is especially true in light of
the great challenge that new media pose to public policy.[1]
This a case study in the use of media channels by political leaders.
It investigates the use of information sources in voting decisions among
Louisiana legislators by posing three research questions:
1. What role do the various sources available to legislators play in
helping them make
voting decisions in their respective chambers? Does the importance
of these information
sources vary with different information needs?
2. How does new information technology fit into the information
sources state legislators
utilize in making voting decisions?
3. Do characteristics such as age, tenure, and occupation influence
the use of these
information sources?
The survey is part of a three-part research project. This first
stage attempts to identify patterns of media usage among state legislators.
Future steps include personal interviews with legislators and their staff and a
follow-up study some time in the future. It is hoped, once the instrument has
been refined, that the same procedure will be applied to national political
leaders.
The theoretical basis for the research draws from several areas of
research and exploration involving changes in the use of media by social groups.
Philosophers of science have distinguished between two types of scientific
revolutions. The first, a conceptual revolution,
Media Usage by State
Legislators.....................................................................
........................
occurs when a new paradigm for explaining the world arises, such as
Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and researchers attempt to find data to confirm
or deny it.[2] The second type is a "tool- driven" revolution, such as Crick
and Watson's discovery of the structure of DNA or Galileo's construction of the
telescope, where a finding or invention prompts researchers to explore
theoretical explanations for it.[3] The concept-driven revolutions get more
attention, but the tool- driven revolutions are more numerous.[4] Both types of
revolutions, however, have one characteristic in common: the use of the new
tool or adoption of the new idea undergoes a process of "diffusion," that is
what Everett Rogers calls "the process by which an innovation is communicated
through certain channels over time among members of a social system."[5] The
receptivity of a social system to the new idea or new tool seems to be a key
interpolator of the success or failure of diffusion.
Media Usage by State
Legislators.....................................................................
........................
Indeed, in many cases an social system rejects an idea or tool that
in another setting is embraced and seized upon. It is, then, questionable that
"communication itself can generate development regardless of socio-economic and
political condition."[6] Even the most sensible innovations diffuse at what
Rogers sardonically labels a "surprisingly slow rate."[7]
Understanding why human social systems are often so conservative
arises when we take into account research in social cognition and neurobiology.
The human mind, a weight of evidence suggests, typically selectively attends,
recalls or reintegrates new information into existing categories or patterns of
thought.[8] It is argued, for example, that much of the way we deal with life
in the world mimics the response patterns of our prehistoric ancestors: we live
in the electronic age, but we still think like the ice age.[9]
Social structures, however, obviously do change more rapidly than
ways of thinking. For some years, many researchers and social commentators have
claimed we are becoming a post-industrial "information society".[10] At the
same time, not all members of a social or social system enter new paradigms at
the same rate, if at all. Rogers identifies several roles individuals may play
in the diffusion process.[11] These range from the early adopter who is one of
the first to make use of the innovation and to mentally adapt to its
consequences. At the other end of the spectrum are die-hard rejecters, who are
not persuaded to adopt an innovation.[12] In between are laggards or
late-adopters of various colors, who adopt later, or lag behind the adoption
curve. But diffusion is not purely an idiosyncratic personal choice: it is
social change.[13] In any organization the "use of information is embedded in
social norms that make it highly symbolic".[14] The characteristics of the
social groups and the social system are critical in the success or failure of
the innovation. The failure to adopt is often indicative of "its compatibility
[or non-compatibility] with the values, beliefs, and past experiences of the
social system".[15]
Key players in the diffusion process are the opinion leaders. One of
the major refinements of the models of how communication operates within society
were the ideas of opinion leadership and the two-step flow originated by
Lazersfeld and Katz and others.[16] In almost all major issues domains, the
"mass public" is often distinguished from the "attentive public" and "opinion
leaders".[17] In every community, there are certain individuals, who either
through legally held rank of power or purely through respect and prestige highly
influence the opinions of that community.[18] The opinion leader "can induce
compliance through what he says; he can exert his influence in a flexible
fashion and also provide gratifications that go with compliance."[19]
Opinion leaders, in terms of media usage, may not be the same group
as elite political leaders. In the middle ages, the nobility were often as
illiterate as the lowest peasant.[20] More recently, it was noted that
President Clinton was the first occupant of the White House to use a computer.
It is of great interest, therefore, for communications researchers to examine
how, in what ways, with what effects and why political leaders react to the
presence of media technology, especially new media, such as computers, the
Internet (including the World Wide Web and e-mail) which are bringing sweeping
changes to so many aspects of other organizations in society. Do these people
lead public opinion but reject it for themselves?
Such a question is important in light of the growing symbiosis
between politics and new media. The information revolution, and notably one of
its many offsprings, teledemocracy, is in high gear in most parts of the United
States. Homepages, chatrooms, electronic town meetings and other forms of
direct linkage between the electorate and those elected are sprouting up a
various levels of government, whether it be rural constituents accessing
listings of local government services, or the White House inviting comments from
citizens via e-mail. And with over 20 million Americans using on-line services
and more joining each day, the traditional channels of communication between
citizens and the political elite, channels that news media claimed as their
primary domain, [21] are giving way to less traditional forms that provide
unfiltered access to policy-makers.
Traditional communication research theories and questions need not be
discarded. Much has been said about the roll of the media in the relationship
between those governed and those governing. News media are very dependent on
the government for basic information and expert sources.[22] This dependency at
times leads to manipulation on the part of government officials.[23]
Agenda-setting research suggest that the news media do not radically change
public attitudes, but they do influence the agenda of public attention and that
elite opinion-makers, most in government, set the press's agenda.[24]
At the same time, the relationship between government and media is
hardly uniform and wholly linear and top down. Political leaders, like other
citizens, watch television and read newspapers, and they are aware that their
constituents do as well. For this reason, they may react to news as much as
make it. Many leaders, even central figures like presidents, can depend on news
media to provide information especially about rapidly occurring news events.[25]
The flip side of this relationship suggest that the power elite depend on the
news media to serve as information diffusers and as aids in political
socialization. Many journalists, for example, claim to be active participants
in policy-making.[26] It is a case where perception influences reality, which
in turn reinforces perception[27], or as Winston Churchill commented on the
press in World War I, "The politicians lied to the newspapers, who printed the
lies, and the politicians seeing the words in ink began to assume they were true
after all."
The issue is, thus, a large one and the information needs and uses of
politicians can be analyzed in many ways. State legislators, in turn, compose a
narrow, but very targetable social system and thus constitute a good, albeit
limited population for this case study. They are a small, ellite, powerful
group who literally have the will and ability to shape the lives of ther
citizens. Moreover, previous research has shown that state legislators use many
sources of information as they make decisions on complex issues that come before
them for a vote.[28] The news media, interestingly, is viewed as a fairly
unimportant source due to its nonpurposive nature.[29] Previous studies have
suggested that legislators tend to prefer highly specialized information such as
that provided by lobbyists and expert colleagues.[30] News media do play a role
in providing lawmakers information concerning what leaders are involved in what
issues and what they are thinking,[31] in gauging public opinion about issues
that are coming to a vote,[32] and in monitoring the effectiveness of
communication to their constituents.[33] And newspapers are the mass media
source used most often by legislators regardless of length of time served in the
legislative body.[34] Statehouse colleagues, however, consistently rank first
or second as sources of information.[35] Thus, the press might perform a
substantial linking function in the political arena, but not a unique or primary
role. In conclusion, it seems we have much to learn about how political
leaders, such as state legislators, use information.
In this "information age," where media play an important role not
only in providing information to citizens and political leaders alike, but also
in selecting and framing that mediated reality, it is important to examine which
sources of information political leaders draw upon as the basis of their
decisions. Diffusion research suggests that new uses of media or the
introduction of new media may be accepted or rejected largely in relation to the
nature of the social system into which it is introduced. This study examines
and compares the places various forms of established mass media (newspapers and
television news), interpersonal forms of communication (colleagues and interest
group representatives), and new media (computers and the Internet), exist in the
lives of state legislators. Our goal is to gauge the patterns of usage by
media, their intensity, and their relation to information-dependent tasks
performed by the political leaders.
Method
Questionnaires were mailed to the home addresses of all 138
legislators in the Louisiana State Senate and House of Representatives. Surveys
were mailed October 1, 1995. Eighty-four (61 percent) were returned. According
to Babbie such a return constitutes an "adequate" to "good" sample.[36] The
questionnaire addressed nine information needs:
1. To help find out what the most important issues are that face our
state.
2. To help educate myself about the issues.
3. To help find out what the public thinks about these issues.
4. To help find out how strongly the public feels about these
issues.
5. To help determine what political leaders are involved with the
issues.
6. To help determine how to vote on an issue.
7. To help gather information for debates with other legislators
about these issues.
8. To help determine the likely outcome of the legislative vote on
these issues.
9. To help reinforce a decision I have already made about an issue.
Five sources of information were explored:
1. colleagues in the legislature
2. newspapers
3. television news
4. computer on-line services
5. interest group representatives
Respondents indicated whether the information sources met their
information need on a three-interval scale: never, sometimes, or often.
Findings
Colleagues, interest group representatives, and newspapers rated
first, second, or third as sources of information for all nine information needs
as determined by high mean scores (see Table 1). Overall, colleagues were the
most valued source of information in eight of the nine information needs.
Colleagues and interest group representatives were valued equally by legislators
as a source of information to use in debates with other legislators. Interest
group representatives were the second most-valued sources as determined by high
mean scores. The mean scores for interest group representatives were second
highest below colleagues in four information needs: educating legislators about
the issues, helping legislators determine how to vote on an issue, helping
legislators determine the likely outcome of a legislative vote, and reinforcing
a decision a legislator has already made about an issue. The mean scores for
newspapers were second highest below colleagues in four other information
needs: helping legislators find out what the most important issues
are facing the state, helping legislators determine what the public thinks about
the issues, helping legislators determine how strongly the public feels about
the issues, and helping them determine what political leaders are involved in
the issues. The mean scores for television news and computer on-line services
rated fourth and fifth respectively on all nine issues.
Difference scores were computed for each respondent for each pairing
and a mean difference score computed for that pairing. Then t-tests were
conducted on each possible paired
Table 1
Mean Scores by Information Need and Information Source
Esteemed Interest
Colleagues Newspapers TV News Computers Groups
Most important issues 2.58 2.26 2.12 1.14 2.13
1 2 4 5 3
Educate myself 2.69 2.37 2.11 1.26 2.46
1 3 4 5 2
What public thinks 2.39 2.26 2.05 1.14 2.17
1 2 4 5 3
How public feels 2.39 2.20 2.07 1.15 2.13
1 2 4 5 3
What leaders involved 2.37 2.17 2.04 1.09 2.08
1 2 4 5 3
How to vote 2.12 1.65 1.54 1.09 2.01
1 3 4 5 2
Information for debate 2.28 2.05 1.86 1.23 2.28
1.5 3 4 5 1.5
Outcome of vote 2.44 1.69 1.65 1.09 2.03
1 3 4 5 2
Reinforce decision 2.11 1.75 1.62 1.09 1.95
1 3 4 5 2
N = 84
Means are based on a three-point scale: never, sometimes and often.
Top number is mean and bottom number is the ranking within that
information need.
comparison in each information need category for each of the five
sources of information to establish significant differences among these means
(see Table 2). This analysis revealed which information sources are viewed
similarly by legislators for various information needs. No significant
differences existed among newspapers, television news and interest group
representatives in five of the nine information needs: helping legislators find
out what the most important issues are, educating legislators about the issues,
telling legislators what the public thinks about the issues, telling legislators
how strongly the public feels about the issues, and telling legislators what
political leaders are involved in the issues. In other words, legislators
responding in this survey viewed newspapers, television news and interest group
representatives as about equal in value in meeting their information needs in
these five categories. Viewed
another way, only colleagues and computer on-line services were
regarded as significantly different (p < .05) from other sources. Colleagues
are perceived as highly valued sources and computer on-line services as
little-valued sources. It is interesting to note no significant differences
existed in how legislators view their colleagues and interest group
representatives for two information needs: helping them determine how to vote
and helping them gather information for debates with other legislators.
Respondents were also asked about their use of computers in their
daily life. Nine statements concerning various computer tasks were also
provided:
1. Computers as a source of entertainment.
2. Reliance of the expertise of others for computer needs.
3. Performing word processing work on computers.
4. Using spread sheet programs on a computer to maintain their
office budget.
5. Communicating with colleagues via e-mail.
Table 2
T-test Comparisons Across Information Sources
What Educate Thinks Feels Leader Vote Debate Outcome
Reinforce**
Colleagues with:
Newspapers * * * * *
* * * *
TV News * * * *
* * * * *
Computers * * * *
* * * * *
Interest Group * * * * *
NS NS * *
Newspapers with:
TV News * * * NS NS
* * NS *
Computers * * * *
* * * * *
Interest Groups NS NS NS NS NS
* * * *
TV News with
Computers * * * * *
* * * *
Interest Groups NS NS NS NS NS
* * * *
Computers with:
Interest Groups * * * * *
* * * *
* = t test scores p <.05
NS = no significant difference
**What = To help find out what the most important issues are that face
our state.
Educate = To help educate myself about the issues.
Thinks = To help find out what the public thinks about these issues.
Feels = To help fin out how strongly the public feels about these
issues.
Leader = To help deermine what political leaders are involved with
these issues.
Vote = To help determine how to vote on an issue.
Debate = To help gather information for debates with other
legislators about these issues.
Outcome = To help determine the likely outcome of the legislative
vote on these issues.
Reinforce = To help reinforce a decision I have already made about
an issue.
How to read this table: "There is no significant difference between
the use of esteemed colleagues and interest group representatives when
legislators are needing information concerning how to vote on an issue and when
gathering information to use in debates with other legislators." "There is a
significant difference between the way legislators use colleagues and computer
on-line services in finding out what the most important issues are that face the
state."
6. Communicating with friends and other via e-mail.
7. Communicating with constituents via e-mail.
8. Accessing the Internet and World Wide Web and other on-line
services via computer at least once a week.
9. Enjoying a computer in all aspects of their life.
Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) said they never use computers as a
source of
Table 3
Computer Use by Percentage of Respondents per Item
Never Sometimes Often
1. Use computer as source of entertainment 64.3% 28.6% 7.1%
2. Rely on the expertise of others to handle
computer work in my office 8.3% 25.0% 66.7%
3. Use word processing program on my
personal computer 50.0% 20.2% 29.8%
4. Maintain my office budget using a spreadsheet
program on my personal computer 70.2% 17.9% 11.9%
5. Communicate with colleagues via e-mail 84.5% 13.1%
2.4%
6. Communicate with friends and others via e-mail 83.3%
15.5% 1.2%
7. Communicate with constituents via e-mail 89.3% 10.7%
0.0%
8. Access the Internet and World Wide Web and
other on-line services at least once a week 88.1% 10.7%
1.2%
9. Enjoy using a computer in all aspects of my life 45.2%
44.0% 10.7%
N = 84
entertainment, but half said they sometimes or often use computers for
word processing (see Table 3). About 70 percent said they never use a spread
sheet program on a computer to maintain their office budget. Concerning e-mail,
84 percent never use e-mail to communicate
with their colleagues and a similar proportion never use it to
communicate with friends andothers, and 89 percent never use e-mail to
communicate with their constituents. Eighty-eight percent never use the
Internet or other on-line services. Not surprisingly, two-thirds said they rely
on the expertise of others to handle the computer work in their office. Nearly
half (45 percent) reported they never enjoy using a computer.
To investigate how the use of the information sources explored in
this study may be influenced by characteristics such as age, tenure, and
education of legislators, age, tenure, and education information was collapsed
into categories and analysis of variance was conducted. In regards to the use
of colleagues, age and tenure significantly influence only one information need
(See Table 4). Age differences are significant in how legislators use their
colleagues to educate themselves about the issues (F-value 4.87, p < .05).
Younger legislators tend to rely more heavily on their colleagues than older
legislators in helping educate themselves about the issues. Legislators with
longer tenure tend to rely more on their colleagues for information concerning
how the public thinks about issues than do legislators with shorter tenure
(F-value = 5.47, p < .05). Age and tenure also significantly influence how
newspapers are used: younger legislators rely on newspapers for information to
use in debates (F value = 4.22, p. < .05) and legislators with shorter tenures
in their respective chambers tend to use newspapers mores than their more
experienced counterparts in determining how to vote on an issue (F value 4.39, p
< .05). The use
Table 4
Age, Tenure and Education Influences on Use of Information Sources
Age Tenure Education
Colleagues
Most important issues NS NS NS
Educate myself 4.85* NS NS
What public thinks NS 5.47* NS
How public feels NS NS NS
What leaders involved NS NS NS
How to vote NS NS NS
Information for debate NS NS NS
Outcome of vote NS NS NS
Reinforce decision NS NS NS
Newspapers
Most important issues NS NS NS
Educate myself NS NS NS
What public thinks NS NS NS
How public feels NS NS NS
What leaders involved NS NS NS
How to vote NS 4.39* NS
Information for debate 4.22* NS NS
Outcome of vote NS NS NS
Reinforce decision NS NS NS
Television News
Most important issues NS NS NS
Educate myself NS NS NS
What public thinks NS NS NS
How public feels NS NS NS
What leaders involved NS NS NS
How to vote NS NS NS
Information for debate NS NS NS
Outcome of vote NS NS NS
Reinforce decision NS NS NS
Table 4 continued...
Age, Tenure and Education Influences on Use of Information Sources
Computers
Most important issues NS NS NS
Educate myself NS NS NS
What public thinks NS NS NS
How public feels 10.55** 4.52* NS
What leaders involved NS NS NS
How to vote NS NS NS
Information for debate NS NS NS
Outcome of vote NS NS NS
Reinforce decision NS NS NS
Interest Group Representatives
Most important issues NS NS NS
Educate myself NS NS 4.06*
What public thinks NS NS NS
How public feels NS NS NS
What leaders involved NS NS NS
How to vote NS NS NS
Information for debate 4.26* NS NS
Outcome of vote NS NS NS
Reinforce decision NS NS NS
* p < .05
**p < .002
of television news as an information source is not significantly
influenced by any of these characteristics. Concerning interest groups, age
differences are significant in how legislators use them to gather information
for debate with other legislators (F value = 4.26, p < .05). Education
differences are also significant in how legislators rely on information from
interest group representatives to educate themselves on the issues (F value =
4.06, p. < .05). Use of computer on-line services is influenced by age (F
value = 10.55, p. < .002) and tenure as younger and less experienced legislators
strive to determine how the public feels about the issues. Education does not
significantly influence how computer on-line services are used.
Conclusion
This study is the first stage of a three-part research project which
investigates the adoption of new media among the power elite. This case study
explores how various information sources are used by state legislators to meet
certain information needs. Three research questions were posed which addressed
the role and importance of information sources used by legislators, the role
information technology plays in helping legislators make voting decisions, and
factors such as age, tenure and education which may influence how these sources
are used. Results indicate that interpersonal sources--colleagues in the
legislature and interest group representatives-- are highly valued sources of
information. Mass media sources generally play second fiddle to these
statehouse insiders. The use of information technology by state legislators is
remarkable in its absense--the great irony of the men and women who make
communication policy being the least likely to be familiar with it is
self-evident. Again, we note that factors such as age, tenure and education
have little influence on how information sources are utilized.
Of course the answer to the question posed in the title of this paper
cannot be answered with any certainty. As noted previously, interviews will be
conducted with legislators and their staffs to delve more deeply into this
issue. Future research should explore the relationship between state
legislators and their staffs. Is there a two-step flow in place where
information flows from constituents, friends and others to a staff person and
from that staff person to the legislator? If that is true, how well versed in
information technology are staff people? How influential are they in shaping
policy-decisions made by their legislator?
In addition, how experienced are constituents with information
technology and what channels are they likely to employ when voicing concern
about an issue? What channels would they prefer if given a choice? Future
research should focus on that side of the dyad--or triad--to compare and
contrast information channels from that perspective.
Additional research should help refine the survey instrument. The
nine-items which addressed information needs requires adjusting. Also to be
addressed is the dimensionality of the items. What information needs are being
described and are the items unidimensional or multi-dimensional in nature?
Finally, this research is restricted to members of the Lousiana State
House of Representatives and Senate. Generalizing these results to all state
legislatures is therefore problematic. Further investigation should expand the
population to explore geographical influences. Louisiana legislators may regard
face-to-face communication differently than legislators in a state such as Texas
or California, where geographic area and population dispersion may diminish the
reliance on interpersonal communication. Or, since constituents may be 500
miles away in some cases, perhaps colleagues and interest group representatives
have more influence. In addition, the level of technological diffusion and
advancement in the state itself may be a factor: how would legislators in more
technology-rich states like Massachusetts or California fair? In such cases the
linking function new media could provide could have profound impact on how
legislators reach decisions. Future research should address this matter.
[1] This point has been recently voiced in: McChesney, Robert W.
1996. The Internet and U.S. communication policy-making in historical and
critical perspective. Journal of Communication, 46(1): 98-124. See also:
Stoll, C. 1995. Silicon snake oil: Second thoughts on the information highway.
New York: Doubleday; Talbott, S. 1995. The future does not compute:
Transcending the machines in our midst. Sevastapol, CA: O'Reilly.
[2] Kuhn, Thomas S. (1977). the essential tension: Selected studies
in scientific tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[3] Dyson, Freeman. 1993. George Green and Physics. Physics World,
August.
[4] Dyson, op cit.
[5] Rogers, E.M. 1983. The diffusion of innovations, 3rd ed. New
York: Free Press. p. 5.
[6] Betran, Luis R. 1976. Alien premises, objects and methods in
Latin American communication research. Communication Research, 3: 107-134.
[7] Rogers, op cit.
[8] Fiske, Susan T. & Shelley E. Taylor. 1991. Social cognition.
2nd ed. New York: Random House. p. 665. See also: Brewere, W.F. & G.V.
Nakamua. 1984. The nature and functions of schemas. In R.S. Wyer, Jr. & T. K.
Srull, (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition, vol. 1. (pp. 119-160). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; Fiske, S.T. & P.W. Linville. 1980. What does the concept
schema buy us? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6:543-557; Hastie, R.
1981. Schematic principles in memory. In E. Tory Higgins, C. Peter Herman Mark
P. Zanna, (Eds.). Social cognition: The Ontario Symposium, vol. 1 (pp. 39-88).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Tayler, S.E. & Crocker. Schematic
bases of social information processing. 1981. In E. Tory Higgins, C. Peter
Herman, Mark P. Zanna (Eds.). Social cognition: The Ontario Symposium, vol. 1
(pp. 89-134). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[9] Calvin, William H. 1991. The ascent of mind: Ice age climates
and the evolution of intelligence. New York: Bantam.
[10] Bell, Daniel. 1976. The coming of post-industrial society. New
York: Basic Books; Drucker, Peter. 1969. The age of discontinuity. New York:
Harper & Row; Williams, F. 1983. The communications revolution. New York: New
American Library.
[11] Rogers, Everett, op cit.
[12] Rogers, Everett, op. cit.
[13] Rogers, Everett, op. cit.
[14] Feldman, M. & M. March. 1981. Information in organizations as
signal and symbol. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, p. 174.
[15] Rogers, Everett, op. cit. p. 4.
[16] Lazersfeld, Paul, et. al. 1944. The people's choice. New York:
Columbia University Press; Katz, Elihu & Lazersfeld, Paul. 1955. Personal
influence. Glencoe, Ill: Free Press.
[17] Schiff, Frederick. 1994. Deconstructing "Attitude Structure"
in Public Opinion Studies. Cricial Studies in Mass Communication, 11(3).
[18] Lerner, Daniel. 1958. The passing of traditional society:
Modernizing the Middle East. With the collaboration of Lucille W. Pevsner.
Glencoe, Ill: Free Press. p. 27.
[19] Lang, Kurt & Gladys Engel Lang. 1959. The mass media and
voting. In Eugene Burdic & Arthur J. Brodbeck (eds.), American voting
behavior, pp. 217-235. New York: The Free Press. p. 333; Katz, Elihu &
Lazersfeld, Paul, op. cit. p. 185; J.T. Klapper. 1949. The effects of mass
media. New York: Columbia University.
[20] Clanchy, Michael. 1979. From memory to written record.
London: Edward Arnold.
[21] Dunn, Delmer D. 1969. Differences among public officials in
their reliance on the press for information. Social Sciences Quarterly, 49:
829-839; Zukin, Cliff. 1981. Mass communication and public opinion. In Dan
Nimmo & Keith Sanders (Eds.). Handbook of Political Communication. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage; Strouse, J.C. 1975. The mass media, public opinion and public
policy. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
[22] Sigal, Leon V. 1973. Reporters and officials: The organization
and politics on newsmaking. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath; Soley, Lawrence.
(date). The sources who explain the news. New York: Praeger); "Are you on the
Nightline Guestlist?" Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. New York.
[23] Tuchman, Gaye. 1978. Making news: A study in the construction
of reality. New York: Free Press; Gans, Herbert J. 1980. Deciding what's
news: A study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time. New
York: Vintage Books.
[24] Cohen, Bernard C. 1963. The press and foreign policy.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[25] Manheim, Jarol B. 1991. All of the people, all of the time:
Strategic communication and American politics. New York: M.E. Sharpe. p. 130.
[26] Chang, Tsan-kuo. 1993. The press and China policy: The
illusion of Sino-American relations, 1950-1984. Norwood NJ: Ablex, p. 2;
Kaiser, R.G. 1977, Nov. 17; Cronkite: Matchmaking in the Mideast. Washington
Post, A20; Koppel, T. 1985. TV diplomacy in South Africa. Newsweek, p. 14;
Reston, James. 1966. The press, the president, and foreign policy. Foreign
Affairs 44: 553-573.
[27] Nimmo, Dan & James E. Combs. 1990. Mediated political
realities. 2nd Ed. New York: Longman.
[28] Riffe, Daniel. 1988. Comparison of media and other sources of
information for Alabama legislators. Journalism Quarterly (65): 46-53; Riffe,
Daniel. 1990. Media roles and legislators' news media use. Journalism
Quarterly (67): 323-329.
[29] Riffe, Daniel. 1988. op. cit. Riffe refers to purposive versus
non-purposive media in distinguishing between interpersonal sources and mass
media sources, and cites Westley, Bruce H. & Malcolm S. Maclean, Jr. 1958. A
conceptual model for communication research. Journalism Quarterly (34): 31-38.
[30] Bradley, Robert S. 1980. Motivations in legislative information
use. Legislative Studies Quarterly. (5): 1980; Sabatier, Paul & David Whiteman
1985. Legislative decision-making and substantive policy information: Models
of information flow. Legislative Studies Quarterly. (10): 295-421.
[31] Key, V.O. 1961. Public opinion and American democracy. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf.
[32] Dunn, op cit.
[33] Fenno, Richard F. Jr. 1978. Home style: House members and
their districts. Boston: Little Brown & Co.
[34] Bybee, Carl, R. & Mark Comadena. 1984. Information sources and
state legislators: Decision-making and dependency. Journal of Broadcasting.
(28): 333-341.
[35] Riffe. 1988. op. cit.
[36] Babbie, Earl. 1992. The Practice of Social Research (6th Ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
|
