|
The 1996 Presidential Campaign, Civic Journalism and Local TV
News: Does RDoing Civic JournalismS Make Any Difference? By Amy Reynolds Ph.D.
student, University of Texas - Austin 6200-A Laurel Valley Drive Austin, TX
78731 Ph. (512) 349-7968 E-mail: [log in to unmask] Submitted to the
Civic Journalism Interest Group Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication April 1, 1997 The 1996 Presidential Campaign, Civic Journalism
and Local TV News: Does RDoing Civic JournalismS Make Any
Difference? Abstract: This content analysis compares the local television
news coverage of the 1996 presidential election by two stations, one that
supports the civic journalism philosophy and one that supports traditional
journalism. The civic journalism station successfully eliminated opinion
polls/horserace from its coverage and focused on voting efforts and issues; but,
while the station clearly showed civic journalism leanings and provided some
notable differences in coverage, it still didnUt fully achieve the goals of
civic journalism. RThe institution of journalism is not doing its job well now.
It is irresponsible with its power. The damage has spread to the public life
Americans all share. The damage can be corrected, but not until journalism
comes to terms with what it has lost (p. 9)S (Fallows, 1996). In a recent book
on how the American media RundermineS democracy, James Fallows (1996) uses the
above four sentences to lead into the bookUs first chapter -- RWhy We Hate the
Media.S Of course, if you polled journalists, politicians and the public, the
answers to that question would probably vary dramatically -- but the question
would not likely be debated. The one thing virtually everyone can agree upon is
that the American media are not well liked, sometimes even by themselves. One
of the other agreed upon notions in most discussions of the modern-day media is
that, as Fallows notes, Rthe damage can be corrected.S The media donUt have to
be hated, nor do they have to be paralyzed by their self-created inability to
reach and inform the public, an ineffectiveness that is increasingly visible,
especially during election years. If the media can come to terms with and
regain what they have lost -- namely a connection with citizens and the issues
that truly concern them -- they can begin to play a constructive role in
American society. Part of the solution, Fallows argues, is that the media need
to regain the ability to Rcorrect defects in their own internal values.S This
paper will examine one of the proposed solutions to the mediaUs primary problem
of RdisconnectednessS from society, a detachment that has had strong, negative
implications for both American journalists and democracy (Fallows, 1996;
Patterson, 1993; Rosen, 1994). That solution is commonly called civic or public
journalism. What follows is a content analysis of two network-affiliate
television stations in Austin, Texas, one that attempts to define itself as a
civic journalism news organization, the other which labels itself a traditional
journalism news organization. By comparing how these two stations covered the
1996 presidential campaign, we may be able to come to a better understanding of
which model of journalism better serves the needs of both the public and
democracy and subsequently test and apply that model in a more general sense to
the broadcast media as a whole. What is civic journalism? Civic journalism
is, in essence, a movement of the 1990s. It had its earliest beginnings in
1987, but the notion of civic journalism didnUt really take hold until several
prominent journalists and communications scholars started wondering aloud about
how the media could do a better job. They collectively decided that Rjournalism
ought to make it as easy as possible for citizens to make intelligent decisions
about public affairs, and to get them carried outS (Charity, 1995). Civic
journalism, as it is known today, grew out of a concept that New York University
professor Jay Rosen initially called Rcommunity connectedness.S Rosen noted
that Democracy not only protects a free press, it demands a public-minded press.
What democracy also demands is an active, engaged citizenry, willing to join in
public debate and participate in civic affairs. No democracy -- and thus, no
journalist -- can afford to be indifferent to trends in public (or private) life
that either draw citizens toward the public sphere or repel them from it. Part
of journalismUs purpose, then, is to encourage civic participation, improve
public debate, and enhance public life, without, of course, sacrificing the
independence that a free press demands and deserves. Taken together, these
propositions amount to a revised public philosophy for daily journalism
(p.3).{1} Much of RosenUs thinking about the subject of the media,
responsibility and the public coincided with public remarks by several respected
journalists and editors, including James Batten, the chief executive officer of
the Knight-Ridder newspaper chain and Burl Osbourne, editor of the Dallas
Morning News. Rosen also frequently cites a series of David Broder columns that
appeared in the Washington Post in January, 1990, that talked about the press
and their responsibility to the public. In those columns, Broder, one of the
most respected political reporters in the U.S., Rurged his colleagues to take
more responsibility for the deteriorating quality of political discourseS
(Rosen, 1993). Broder wrote that the media must Rhelp reconnect politics and
government -- what happens in the (political) campaign and what happens
afterward in public policy -- if we are to have accountability and general
democracy in this country (p. 5)S (Rosen, 1993). Once civic journalism as a
philosophy was articulated, it began slowly working its way into newsrooms
across the country. Prior to the growing number of writings about civic
journalism, a small newspaper in Columbus, Georgia, provided the first example
of what civic journalism in practice might be. In 1987, the Columbus
Ledger-Enquirer decided to run a series of articles that would address the
future of their city and the issues that its citizens needed to confront. The
newspaper surveyed local residents to get their views about their community and
where they hoped the community would be in the future. A team of reporters
conducted in-depth interviews with Columbus residents in their homes. Other
reporters interviewed experts in a variety of fields to explore their views.
All of the newspaperUs research was combined to create a package called
RColumbus: Beyond 2000,S which appeared as eight reports during the spring of
1988, accompanied by some Rstrongly wordedS editorials (Rosen, 1992). After the
series of stories and editorials appeared in the newspaper, nothing happened.
Although the Ledger-Enquirer had identified and addressed a series of important
problems, those problems were gradual, long-term problems that could easily be
put off for a while, problems that involved foresight and the need to make
difficult choices. Because nothing happened, the newspaper decided to take
another step toward encouraging public discourse -- it organized a town meeting
at which 300 citizens showed up for six hours of discussion. From that meeting
and subsequent others, a new civic organization called United Beyond 2000 was
born (Rosen, 1992). The civic organization and the newspaper then worked
together to sponsor public events and town meetings and to create a public
agenda for the cityUs future. As Rosen (1992) observed, Rwhat (they) also did
was reimagine the position of the journalist in politics. Instead of standing
outside the political community and reporting on its pathologies, they took up
residence within its borders (p. 14).S Similar projects emerged, most notably
in Wichita, Kansas, at the Wichita Eagle and in Charlotte, North Carolina, at
the Charlotte Observer. In the case of Charlotte, the reporters and editors
joined forces with the Poynter Institute for Media Studies and spent two years
designing different approaches to covering political campaigns. The Observer
also teamed up with a local television station, WSOC-TV, for the project. At
the outset of the Charlotte project, some specific guidelines were created that
included Rno more horse-race pollingS (Miller, 1994). Currently, civic
journalism is practiced at a growing number of newspapers in the United States
-- but, it is also readily criticized as well. Leonard Downie, executive editor
of the Washington Post has said that he RcouldnUt disagree more with (the public
or civic journalism) view of newspaper journalismS (Fallows, 1996). Former New
York Times executive editor Max Frankel and former St. Louis Dispatch editor
William Woo also disagree with the civic journalism philosophy. Their primary
problem with the movement is that it effectively disavows objectivity, opting
instead to support the idea that it is impossible for journalists to be detached
and objective about public life. Critics say that a loss of objectivity would
encourage an active partisan bias on the part of journalists (Fallows,
1996). The central argument put forth by supporters of civic and public
journalism is that it encourages a bias not toward partisan politics, but rather
toward democracy and public discourse, which is part of the role the press was
designed to fill under the First Amendment. Because civic journalism is such
a new concept, it doesnUt have clear-cut rules to follow. Or, as Davis Merritt,
Jr., the editor who introduced civic/public journalism at the Wichita Eagle, has
said, RNobody knows how to do public journalism yet. ThatUs because itUs not a
formula, not a set of rules. It is a conviction and a resultant attitude about
the relationship between journalism and public life (p. 375)S (Rosen,
1994).{2} And what is the relationship between journalism and the public?
RInsofar as journalism is grounded, it is grounded in the public. Insofar as
journalism has a client, the client is the public. ... The canons of journalism
originate in and flow from the relationship of the press to the public (p.5)S
(Carey, 1987). Carey also noted that Rjournalism only makes sense in relation
to the public and public life.S KVUE & KXAN: Civic vs. Traditional
Journalism The roots of civic journalism lie in print, perhaps because
lackluster sales over the past decade have forced newspapers to rethink their
purpose. Television stations have participated in numerous civic and public
journalism projects, but virtually always as a partner to a local newspaper.
Rarely have television stations headed down the civic journalism path totally on
their own, nor have they generally shown the great interest in the idea of civic
journalism that their newspaper counterparts have. Considering the fact that
substantially more people rely on television as their primary source of
information and news, this lack of interest is disheartening if you support the
civic journalism philosophy. But, in Austin, Texas, the television trend of
indifference seems to be ending, at least in one particular case. KVUE-24 is an
ABC-affiliate that is the top-ranked news station in Austin. In January, 1996,
KVUE began examining the way it covered crime. The station reached out to the
community to form focus groups to address the question, RHow can we do a better
job in covering such an important issue?S KVUE also held staff meetings where
the reporters, producers, editors and other newsroom workers discussed what they
were doing wrong and what they were doing well. They concluded that the key to
covering crime is Rresponsibility.S In late January, 1996, KVUE kicked off a
six-week campaign it called RKVUE Listens to You on CrimeS and provided viewers
with clear guidelines for its crime coverage (complete with a graphic of a
checklist). It also aired long-form television RpackagesS that featured the
staff discussions about crime coverage and sound bites from members of the
community focus groups. Every time KVUE subsequently covered a crime story, it
explained how the story met the stationUs guidelines and encouraged the public
to phone in or send electronic mail messages to the station to express their
opinions on how well the station was doing in holding to its pledge of
responsible coverage. In the meantime, KVUE sent one of its main anchors and
one of its reporters to the Poynter InstituteUs public journalism sessions held
at the National Issues Convention{3} and began airing promotional commercials
about how it was going to Rfocus on the issuesS during the 1996 campaign. In
addition, one of the hallmarks of KVUEUs coverage became what the station calls
the RTruth TestS -- stories that tested the accuracy of political campaign ads,
fashioned after the traditional adwatches. KVUE devoted a substantial amount of
its election coverage to these stories, most notably in ads that focused on
state senate and congressional races. While KVUE was promoting its
changes in coverage, the second-highest rated news station in Austin, KXAN, was
sticking to traditional reporting -- of crime, of the N.I.C., of the 1996
campaign. The stationUs promotional commercials focused on the fact that they
were the only station in Austin to travel to New Hampshire to broadcast the
Republican primary results Rlive,S and were the only local station to team up
with a regional polling firm for Ran exclusiveS look at the race for the
presidency and how it was progressing. Neither KXAN, which is an NBC-affiliate,
nor the other two Austin stations (KEYE, a CBS-affiliate and KTBC, a
Fox-affiliate) attended either of the public journalism sessions at the N.I.C.
These two stations -- KVUE and KXAN -- were chosen for this content analysis
of Rcivic journalism v. traditional journalismS for several reasons. First,
Austin was selected because it was the host city for the N.I.C.Us public (or
civic) journalism seminars that KVUE (and very few other television stations)
did attend; and, because recordings of the two stationUs newscasts were easily
accessible. Second, KVUE and KXAN are the two top-rated news stations in
Austin, which allows for a measure of the two most powerful Rmedia agendasS in
the area. Finally, these two stations were selected because, based on the
background information presented above, KVUE seems to have clear leanings toward
civic journalismUs basic philosophy, while KXAN does not. This seemed like a
strong environment in which to test several hypotheses about the way two
different journalistic philosophies affected the coverage of the 1996
presidential campaign. Hypotheses The goal of this paper is to find out what
differences existed in the two types of coverage (civic and traditional) of the
1996 presidential campaign by these two local television stations. The
differences in coverage are important to note because they might have had a
profound impact on how informed and active the local public was. More than
two decades of research have documented the phenomenon of agenda-setting, based
on the idea that the media help determine what issues the public thinks about
(McCombs & Shaw, 1972). Current research in the area of agenda-setting focuses
on what McCombs calls the second dimension -- it states that the media not only
help determine what issues the public thinks about, but also how they think
about those issues. The focus of the second dimension of agenda-setting is on
the transfer of issue attributes and not just issue salience (McCombs & Bell,
1995). In the case of civic journalism, the salience of issue attributes is
important because it suggests that an informed and involved public actually
plays an active role in determining the issue attributes -- how the media will
cover certain political issues. It, in essence, reverses the agenda-setting
arrow, from the public agenda to the media agenda. This study offers several
hypotheses about how the civic journalism station, KVUE, will cover the
presidential election compared to how the traditional station, KXAN, will cover
the election. The first two hypotheses deal with framing as a way to indicate
differences.{4} H1: When covering the 1996 presidential election, the civic
journalism station (KVUE) will predominantly frame its stories to emphasize
policy issues and voter issues. H2: When covering the 1996 presidential
election, the traditional journalism station (KXAN) will predominantly frame its
stories to emphasize the horserace/political consequences of the campaign and
partisan/campaign activities. H3: The civic journalism station (KVUE) will
provide coverage that is more positive in tone than the traditional journalism
station (KXAN); consequently, the traditional journalism station (KXAN) will
provide coverage that is more negative in tone. H4: The traditional journalism
station (KXAN) will rely more heavily on horse-race information from public
opinion polls than the civic journalism station (KVUE). H5: When covering the
1996 presidential election, the civic journalism station (KVUE) will rely more
heavily on informed public sources (citizens, candidates and experts), while the
traditional journalism station will rely more heavily on traditional sources
(partisan participants, random people on the street and surrogates for the
candidates). Method Four waves of daily newscasts were coded for this
analysis. Those waves include the week before the Texas primary, a randomly
selected week in September, a randomly selected week in October and the week
before the election. For both stations, the 6 p.m. Monday-through-Friday
newscast was used for coding since it is considered the featured newscast in the
Austin market. Both stations devote the majority of their resources to filling
the 6 p.m. newscast with local news and they promote the 6 p.m. newscast in
their marketing efforts. During the weekends, the 10 p.m. newscast is
considered the featured newscast and was used for coding stories that aired on
Saturdays and Sundays. In the Austin market, the Sunday 10 p.m. newscast is the
most watched of any of the newscasts aired. The content analysis included any
stories (locally or nationally produced) about the 1996 presidential campaign,
the candidates or campaign issues (for example, a story about the flat tax) that
appeared on the KVUE and KXAN newscasts. A total of 31 newscasts for each
station (62 combined total) were coded and analyzed.{5} Within each newscast,
every story that dealt with the presidential election was coded. The stories
took on different forms that ranged from an anchor simply reading information
(for example, the results of an opinion poll of Rwho would winS in November) to
a reporterUs RpackageS or completed story.{6} The total number of stories
broadcast by the two stations during the four time periods was 96. The content
analysis included the identification of a storyUs tone, a storyUs length, a
storyUs dominant and secondary frames and a storyUs dominant and secondary
sources.{7} Coders also identified whether or not an opinion poll was used as a
source of information within a story. The category system of possible frames
included the following and was based largely on an extensive examination of the
existing literature about how to categorize coverage of presidential
elections: % Partisan/campaign activities: This included stories about
specific campaign activities or aspects of the campaign such as endorsements,
advertisements, campaign tactics, debates, plans for debates, rallies,
fundraising, the primaries or caucuses as events (but not strategic
implications). % Political consequences/horserace: This included stories
with a focus on the analysis of political parties and candidates; the political
consequences of events, decisions, the primaries, caucuses, etc. Focus is on
the horserace aspect of the campaign and often includes opinion polls as
sources. % Candidate image: This included stories with a focus on the
discussion of candidate qualifications, leadership, style, background (personal
and professional), age, etc. Also included here were discussions of a
candidateUs family or friends and their impact on the candidates image. %
Policy issues: This included stories about discussions of specific or general
issues that are a focus of the campaign (for example, the flat tax) or of a
candidateUs or candidatesU stands on specific issues. % Voter issues:
This included stories that focused on get-out-the-vote efforts, voter turnout,
voter registration, early voting participation and/or issues related
specifically to voting (training volunteer workers, counting ballots,
etc.). Results from the Primary The first wave of data focused on coverage of
the 1996 presidential campaign, the candidates and/or the campaign issues that
appeared on the KVUE and KXAN newscasts between March 6 and March 13, 1996, and
represent the six days prior to, the day of and the day after the Texas primary
election. Statistically significant differences did emerge. The data from this
time period supports hypothesis one -- Rwhen covering the 1996 presidential
election, the civic journalism station (KVUE) will predominantly frame its
stories to emphasize policy issues and voter issues.S The data also supports
hypothesis two, which held that Rwhen covering the 1996 presidential election,
the traditional journalism station (KXAN) will predominantly frame its stories
to emphasize the horserace/political consequences of the campaign and
partisan/campaign activities.S Table 1 (next page) shows these results. In the
22 stories about the 1996 presidential election that KVUE broadcast, the
dominant frame was voter turnout/efforts/issues in 41 percent of the stories.
These stories ranged from reports about how many people had gone to the polls
for early voting to a package about MTVUs RRock the VoteS project coming to
Austin to get University of Texas students and other younger Americans to
register to vote in November. Table 1 Differences in Coverage of the 1996
Presidential Election Wave #1 (March 6-13, 1996) Variable
KVUE-24 KXAN-36 (Civic Journalism)
(Traditional Journalism) Dominant Frame* (KVUE n=22; KXAN n=24)
Partisan/Campaign Activities 14% (3) 54%
(13) Political Consequences/ Horserace 14% (3) 21%
(5) Candidate Image 0% (0) 4% (1) Policy Issues
27% (6) 0% (0) Media coverage of election 4% (1)
4% (1) Voting Efforts/Turnout/Issues 41% (9) 17% (4)
*p<.01 The policy issues frame appeared as the dominant frame in 27 percent
of KVUEUs stories. An example of one of the policy issue stories that aired was
a report that compared how taxpayers would fare under all of the different
proposed flat tax plans. On the other end of the spectrum were the 24 KXAN
stories that held to the traditional focus on the horserace and partisan
campaign activities. The dominant frame in 54 percent of the traditional
journalism stationUs stories was partisan/campaign activities. Several of these
stories focused on Texas Gov. George W. BushUs endorsement of Bob Dole. They
also included reports about Steve ForbesU campaign bus stop in Austin, Pat
BuchananUs visit to a Texas rodeo and former contender Phil GrammUs endorsement
of Dole. The horserace/political consequences frame appeared as the dominant
frame in 21 percent of the KXAN stories. KXAN reported that it had teamed up
with a local polling firm, Mason Dixon, to gage how well the candidates were
performing and showcased different poll results during some of its coverage.
Most of these reports focused on how well a single Republican candidate would
fare against Bill Clinton in Texas Rif the election were held today.S Story
tone was briefly discussed at the beginning of this paper and is the focus of
hypothesis three, which suggested that KVUE would provide overall coverage more
positive in tone and that KXAN would provide overall coverage more negative in
tone. This hypothesis was partially derived from PattersonUs (1993) findings
that media coverage of presidential campaigns has become increasingly negative
over the past few decades. The data from the first time period does not support
the hypothesis. Of KVUEUs 22 stories, four were positive in tone, none were
negative and 18 were neutral. Of KXANUs 24 stories, eight were positive in
tone, two were negative and 14 were neutral. Hypothesis four moves the analysis
of the data into the realm of sources. It suggested that the traditional
station, KXAN, would rely more heavily on horserace information. Table 2 (on
the next page) shows that in the first time period KVUE did not use any public
opinion polls as a source of information, while KXAN utilized poll information
in four of its stories. The difference is statistically significant. As
previously mentioned, KXAN teamed up with a local polling firm to conduct its
own public opinion polls to use as a source of information in its
coverage. Table 2 Use of Public Opinion Polls as a Source of Information Wave #1
(March 6-13) Newscast Poll(s) Used Poll(s) Not Used (n=46)
(YES) (NO) KVUE-24 0 22 (Civic
Journalism) KXAN-36 4 20 (Traditional Journalism) Chi Square =
4.01; df = 1; p<.05 The primary sources of information that each station used
came from a variety of people. Hypothesis five takes a closer look at the types
of sources each station used. It suggested that the civic journalism station
would use more informed public sources such as citizens and experts while the
traditional station would rely most heavily on traditional sources such as
partisan participants and people on the street. The data shows no support for
this hypothesis -- in fact, it supports the opposite. The types of sources that
each station used were virtually identical. For both stations, the dominant
source was the candidates. Although the other sources vary in their degree of
use, they are not substantially different. Both stations relied heavily, for
example, on officials and experts as sources. Results from September and
October The data from the second and third waves were combined for analysis
because of the small number of stories they netted separately and are
hereinafter referred to as the second wave of data. The randomly selected weeks
analyzed were September 22 through September 28 and October 14th through October
21st. A total of 28 stories aired on both stations during this time
period. Table 3 shows that the findings from these two weeks is similar to the
findings from the primaries for hypotheses one and two. The differences in
story frames were again significant. KVUE continued to focus its stories on
voting efforts, voting turnout and general voting issues, while KXAN maintained
its focus on partisan and campaign activities. Table 3 Differences in Coverage
of the 1996 Presidential Election Wave #2 (Sept. 22-28, 1996 and Oct. 14-21,
1996) Variable KVUE-24 KXAN-36 (Civic
Journalism) (Traditional Journalism) Dominant Frame* (KVUE n=11; KXAN
n=17) Partisan/Campaign Activities 36% (4)
35% (6) Political Consequences/ Horserace 9% (1) 18%
(3) Candidate Image 0% (0) 12% (2) Policy Issues
0% (0) 23% (4) Media coverage of election 0% (0)
0% (0) Voting Efforts/Turnout/Issues 55% (6) 12% (2)
*p<.07 Unlike the first wave of data, the second wave showed a significant
difference between the two stations and story tone, although this difference
does not completely support hypothesis three. Table 4 shows that KVUE aired an
almost even mix of positive and neutral stories during wave two, while KXAN
aired mostly neutral stories, followed by negative stories, then positive
stories. The difference in tone is notable, but does not follow the clear
pattern that hypothesis three suggests. Table 4 Differences in Story Tone Wave
#2 (Sept. 22-28 and Oct. 14-21) Newscast Positive Negative Neutral
KVUE-24 (Public Journalism) 6 0 5 KXAN-36
(Traditional Journalism) 3 4 10 Chi Square = 5.64; df =
2; p<.06 In terms of sources, the second wave of data does not show any
significant differences and provides no support for hypotheses four and five.
KVUE continued to avoid the use of public opinion polls in all of its 11 stories
and KXAN only used an opinion poll as a source in one of its 17 stories, but the
difference is not significant. Both stations continued to use the candidates as
their primary sources of information. Results from Election Week The third
wave of data includes stories that aired October 27 through November 4, 1996.
The most interesting finding from this time period is that neither station
covered the election very thoroughly -- only 22 total stories aired on both
stations (10 on KVUE, 12 on KXAN), with the bulk of these stories appearing
November 3 and 4, the two days immediately before the election. None of the
proposed hypotheses is supported in the data analyzed during election week. One
plausible explanation for this is the fact that two important local events
overshadowed the election. Austin received record amounts of rainfall during
the week that caused serious flood threats along the Highland Lakes chain in the
neighboring Hill Country. The continual rain became an important story not only
because of the flooding but also because Austin had endured a drought for much
of 1996 and the rains were replenishing record-low water levels throughout
Central Texas. In addition to the rain, both newscasts devoted a substantial
amount of airtime to the murder of a police officer in the nearby town of
Giddings, Texas. Throughout the week both stations reported on the murder, the
memorial service, the effect of the murder on the small town and the capture of
a suspect several days later. These two stories, coupled with the general lack
of enthusiasm about the 1996 presidential election, probably affected the amount
of coverage that appeared during this time period. Collective Results
Although each wave of data provided differing amounts of support for the five
hypotheses, when the waves are taken together the data strongly support four of
the five hypotheses. A total of 96 stories were analyzed, 43 that aired on
KVUE, 53 that aired on KXAN. Table 5 shows that the differences in the way the
two stations framed their election stories remained fairly consistent from March
to November. KVUE continued to look most heavily at voting issues and voter
turnout, while KXAN focused largely on partisan and campaign activities. KVUE
focused next on partisan and campaign activities, followed by policy issues,
while KXAN focused on voting issues second and the horserace aspect of the
campaign third. These second and third dominant frames are a slight switch from
the primary to November. Table 5 Differences in Coverage of the 1996
Presidential Election All Waves Variable KVUE-24
KXAN-36 (Civic Journalism) (Traditional
Journalism) Dominant Frame* (KVUE n=43; KXAN n=53)
Partisan/Campaign Activities 23% (10) 41%
(22) Political Consequences/ Horserace 9% (4) 19%
(10) Candidate Image 2% (1) 8% (4) Policy Issues
16% (7) 8% (4) Media coverage of election 2% (1)
2% (1) Other 2% (1) 0% (0) Voting
Efforts/Turnout/Issues 44% (19) 22% (12) *p<.08 The
combined data also show some support for the third hypothesis, although the
pattern that emerges from the data is not quite as Rblack and whiteS as
hypothesis three suggests it might be. KVUE and KXAN both treated the majority
of the stories neutrally. The noticeable difference in the tone of the coverage
by the two stations is that KVUE only aired one story with a negative tone,
while KXAN aired 10. Although KXAN did maintain a more negative tone than KVUE,
as suggested by hypothesis three, KVUE did not overwhelmingly air stories with a
positive tone (which also was suggested by hypothesis three). Table 6 shows
these results. Table 6 Differences in Story Tone All
Waves Newscast Positive Negative Neutral KVUE-24 (Civic Journalism)
13 1 29 KXAN-36 (Traditional Journalism) 13 10
30 Chi Square = 6.41; df = 2; p<.04 Although support for hypothesis four
was not shown in the second and third waves, the collective results
overwhelmingly support it. KVUE did not air the results of a single opinion
poll during the election, which is one of the few general civic journalism
guidelines that is widely accepted. Although KXAN did not rely as heavily on
polling information in September, October and November as it did in March, it
still used polls often enough to make the difference in use by the two stations
significant. Table 7 shows these results. Table 7 Use of Public Opinion
Polls as a Source of Information All Waves Newscast Poll(s) Used Poll(s)
Not Used (n=96) (YES) (NO) KVUE-24
0 43 (Civic Journalism) KXAN-36 8 45 (Traditional
Journalism) Chi Square = 7.08; df = 1; p<.01 Finally, the combined results
show no support for hypothesis five. As seen throughout all three waves, no
discernable differences in the use of information sources emerged. As
previously noted, both stations relied most heavily on the candidates as sources
throughout the election year. No difference in the use of officials, experts,
people on the street or informed citizens was seen. Although not hypothesized,
one other difference emerged from the overall data analysis -- the type of story
the station aired. Of KVUEUs 43 stories, more than half (28) were either
readers or voice-overs, two story forms that donUt utilize sound bites. KXAN
aired anchor voice-overs with sound bites most frequently (14 versus 5 for
KVUE). Both stations relied heavily on stories that came RliveS from a reporter
and KXAN also relied heavily on traditional reporter packages (6 versus 2 for
KVUE) that were pre-recorded (as opposed to aired with a RliveS introduction by
the reporter). The differences in the type of stories that each station aired
was statistically significant (p<.07). Discussion The most interesting result
from this study is that KVUE began its coverage of the 1996 election with a
fairly clear adherence to the civic journalism model. Although KVUE did not
attempt to organize community groups to help it identify the important campaign
issues, it did illustrate several civic journalism practices in its coverage
before the Texas primary. The lack of significant horserace coverage and the
complete elimination of opinion polls is noteworthy, as is the way KVUE framed
the election -- by issues, by encouraging people to vote and by explaining the
importance of voting. All of these fit with the civic journalism
philosophy. RWe made it a practice to carry no polls -- they are a waste of air
time and money because they only tell people what bandwagon to jump on,S KVUEUs
News Director, Carole Kneeland said when asked about the absence of polls on the
KVUE newscasts. She said the articulated focuses of KVUEUs coverage were the
RTruth TestsS and issue comparison stories. Civic journalism-type stories
appeared on KVUE throughout all three waves, but as seen in the data, they
substantially dropped off in number during election coverage in September,
October and November. One possible explanation for the absence of presidential
stories -- that would fit with the civic journalism philosophy -- is that KVUE
was spending more time covering county and state races as well as U.S.
Congressional and Senate races. The myopic approach of focusing heavily on the
presidential race to the exclusion of other equally important races is
commonplace in traditional election reporting. To determine whether or not this
might be a reason for the drop in election coverage, all 62 newscasts were
re-coded to include stories about Travis County races; stories about all of the
state races (such as the Texas Board of Education, the Railroad Commission,
etc.) including the higher profile State Senate and State Congressional races;
and stories about the U.S. Congressional and Senate races. The re-coding also
included stories that dealt with issues specific to any of the aforementioned
races. During the first time period, KVUE aired 14 stories that fit the Rother
racesS category, while KXAN aired 12. The KVUE stories were one minute and 30
seconds in length on average, while the KXAN stories were one minute and 19
seconds in length on average, a difference that is not significant. All of the
stories were categorized by subject rather than frame, and those categories
included: county race, state legislature race, U.S. Congressional or Senate
race, general issues, other state race, and KVUE RTruth Test.S No significant
subject differences emerged. In the second time period, only three stories
aired on KVUE and none aired on KXAN. Because of the small number, these three
stories were not analyzed. Those three stories included a reporter RpackageS
that highlighted the background of the two Travis County Sheriff candidates and
two stories about the influence of the religious right on the Texas State Board
of Education elections. In the final election week time period, KVUE aired five
stories about county, state or U.S. Congressional and Senate races, while KXAN
aired four. The only significant difference that emerged was the average length
of time each story ran, and ironically the KXAN stories proved to be longer.
KVUEUs stories averaged one minute and 12 seconds in length, while KXANUs
stories averaged one minute and 36 seconds in length (p <.01). Taken together,
38 RotherS campaign stories aired on both stations (KVUE aired 22, KXAN aired
16) between March and November. The only difference that showed in the combined
analysis is that KVUE devoted more time to these stories overall -- the KVUE
stories averaged one minute and 34 seconds in length, while the KXAN stories
averaged one minute and 24 seconds in length (p<.08). The results of the second
analysis leave a question mark -- the analysis of the coverage of the local,
state and non-presidential US races does not help explain the reason coverage of
the election dwindled by November. One obvious answer for the lackluster
coverage as the election neared was the commonly held idea that Clinton could
not be beaten by Bob Dole. This explanation works to explain the lack of
coverage by a traditional news station, but it does not explain why KVUEUs
coverage sagged in the end. The primary differences in coverage that emerged
were consistent with the proposed hypotheses, based on the differences in the
civic journalism and traditional journalism philosophies. But the lack of
significant coverage of the election after the primary is troubling and does not
support the claim that KVUE fulfilled its role as a civic journalism outlet.
Conclusion Part of the problem with quantitatively analyzing civic
journalism is that it can be difficult to pin down. The ambiguity of civic
journalismUs method isnUt all bad -- it allows for creative, innovative and
different approaches to a common problem. On the flip side, though, the
ambiguity makes it hard to distinguish what is truly civic journalism and what
is simply a small step toward it. That might be what happened with KVUEUs
coverage of the 1996 elections. This examination of civic journalism and local
television shows that the efforts to employ civic journalism ideas and values to
news coverage of an election need to be long-term. While KVUE clearly showed
civic journalism leanings and provided some notable differences in coverage for
its viewers, it still didnUt deliver the knockout punch in the final round.
But, to the stationUs credit, first attempts are often just that -- first
attempts. Worth noting is that throughout the ratings periods in 1996 --
November included -- KVUE maintained its spot as the highest-rated news station
in Austin and KXAN stayed in second place. ItUs interesting that KXAN backed
away from the use of opinion polls and backed away from the constant horserace
coverage in the second and third waves of this analysis and focused more on
KVUE-style stories about voting efforts. Although this shift certainly didnUt
dominate KXANUs coverage as the data showed, it was still apparent.
Consequently, the slight shift could be an example of inter-media agenda-setting
that had a positive effect on the public. Perhaps coincidentally -- and perhaps
not -- Travis County voter turnout and registration broke records in 1996, while
numerous cities across the country saw serious decline in voter turnout because
the presidential race was so dull. Clearly, the importance of the local media
to the civic journalism movement is apparent. But sometimes the importance of
whatUs at stake is not so clear. As Merritt explains, A healthy symbiosis
between politics and journalism is essential and life sustaining not only for
them both but also for a third entity: democracy. When the symbiotic
relationship falls ill, so does democracy. This is not to say that the aim of
journalism should be to make Americans love politics. Nor should it be the aim
for us to try to mold politics according to our own lights. Rather, our aim
should be to insure that Americans understand the true choices they have about
issues so they can see themselves, their hopes and their values again reflected
in politics. In turn, this would result in a more responsive politics and the
recapture of credibility by journalism (p. 48). If the print and broadcast
media begin to accept their responsibility to sustain democracy through
informing the public, then the political climate in the United States will
change, arguably for the better. Studying the smaller building blocks of this
process -- such as local television news -- is one way to monitor the growth of
the civic journalism seed. If KVUEUs efforts are any indication, that seed
should grow stronger as the elections of the 21st Century approach.
FOOTNOTES******************************** {1} Rosen, J. (1993) RCommunity
connectedness passwords for public journalism.S Poynter Report. St.
Petersburg: The Poynter Institute for Media Studies. {2} Rosen notes that
MerrittUs remarks are from a presentation he gave to the Radio and Television
News DirectorUs Foundation Community Journalism Workshop at Northwestern
University, June 10, 1994. {3} In January, political scientist Jim Fishkin
organized a deliberative poll in the United States that became known as the
National Issues Convention (N.I.C.). At a cost of close to four million
dollars, the event brought 459 randomly selected delegates to Austin, Texas, to
discuss issues with each other and with politicians. In November, 1995, the
National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago conducted field
interviews with 600 randomly selected American adults and invited them to
participate in the deliberative aspect of the experiment in Austin in January,
1996. After the first poll, those who accepted the invitation to Austin
received non-partisan, specially prepared briefing materials to read about three
specific issues -- the family, the economy and foreign affairs. They were also
encouraged to read about and research those issues on their own. RInstead of a
top of the head impression from shrinking sound bites and headlines, people will
really have a good chance to get good information, hear opposing points of view
and come to a considered judgment,S Fishkin told the Public Broadcasting
Service. RSo this represents what the country would think if it were really
engaged in the issues.S As Jim Lehrer, the U.S. moderator of the televised
portions of the N.I.C. said during the final broadcast, RIt was an experiment
aimed at exploring the connection between information and deliberation and the
way voters think and vote.S {4} Entman (1993), writes that framing essentially
involves selection and salience. He says, Rto frame is to select some aspects
of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text (p.
52).S Across numerous mass media studies, frames are operationalized in a
variety of ways. Gamson (1988) finds frames to be the focus of concern that
Rsuggests what the issue is about.S To simplify, a frame can be considered a
storyUs dominant focus. Gamson & Modigliani (1989) describe the use of
exemplars, catch phrases, and depiction as devices which identify the frame or
the Rcentral organizing idea or story that provides meaning.S Iyengar (1991)
describes frames in terms of subtle differences in the way information is
presented. {5} Intercoder reliability (Holsti) is .86. {6} Story type
included locally and nationally produced RreadersS (when the anchor reads a
story without video or a graphic); Rvoice oversS (when the anchor reads a story
and during the process of reading either video or a graphic (with numbers, such
as percentages from a poll) appears as they continue reading); Rvoice overs with
sound bite(s)S (when the anchor is reading over video or a graphic, then
proceeds to a sound bite of a source giving information); RpackagesS (when a
reporter presents a story but does not introduce or close the story by
broadcasting somewhere RliveS); Rlive shots onlyS (when the reporter is simply
talking to the anchor from a remote location -- this can include video appearing
on screen as the reporter speaks); Rpackages with a live shot introduction or
closeS (when the reporter introduces or closes his or her package from a remote
location; and Rlive donutsS (when a reporter reads a Rvoice over with sound
bite(s) from a remote location and is seen both before and after the video and
sound bite segment). {7} A storyUs dominant and secondary frames and dominant
and secondary sources was determined by using a stopwatch to record the amount
of time within each story that was devoted to either individual frames or
sources. The time allocated to the frames and sources was then totalled and
rank ordered to determine which frame or source was dominant and which was
secondary. References Carey, J.W. (1987) The press and the public
discourse. The Center Magazine, 4-16. Charity, A. (1995) Doing Public
Journalism. New York: Guilford. Entman, R. (1993) RFraming: Toward
clarification of a fractured paradigm.S Journal of Communication, 43, 51-58.
Fallows, J. (1996) Breaking the news: How the media undermine American
democracy. New York: Pantheon. Gamson, W., & Modigliani, A. (1988). RMedia
Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach.S
American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1-37. Gamson, W. (1988). RA Constructionist
Approach to Mass Media and Public Opinion.S Symbolic Interaction, 11,
161-174. Iyengar, S. (1991) Is anyone responsible? How television frames
political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McCombs, M.E., &
Shaw, D. (1972) The agenda setting function of mass media. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 36, 176-185. McCombs, M.E., Einsiedel, E., & Weaver, D. (1991).
Contemporary public opinion, issues and the news. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates. McCombs, M.E., & Bell, T. (1995) In M. Salwen & D. Stacks
(Eds.), An integrated approach to communication theory and research.
Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Merritt, D. (1995) Public
journalism and public life. Why telling the news is not enough. Hillsdale,
N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Miller, E.D. (1994) RThe Charlotte
Project: Helping citizens take back democracy.S Poynter Report. St.
Petersburg: The Poynter Institute for Media Studies. Patterson, T.E. (1993)
Out of Order. New York: Vintage. Rosen, J. (1992) RPolitics, vision and the
press: Toward a public agenda for journalism,S in The New News v. the Old
News. The press and politics in the 1990s. New York: Twentieth Century
Fund. Rosen, J. (1993) RCommunity connectedness passwords for public
journalism.S Poynter Report. St. Petersburg: The Poynter Institute for Media
Studies. Rosen, J. (1994) RMaking things more public: On the political
responsibility of the media intellectual.S Critical Studies in Mass
Communication, 11, 363-388.
|
