Content-Type: text/html

Different Voices, Same Script
Different Voices, Same Script




Different Voices, Same Script:
How Newsmagazines Cover Media Consolidation Issues

Bryan Greenberg



S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications
Syracuse University
215 University Place
Syracuse, NY 13244

(315)472-9254
<a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0109B%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3D8bit%26P%3D3642104%26B%3D--%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D_303622917%253D%253D_%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1" >[log in to unmask]</a>








 Different Voices, Same Script:
How Newsmagazines Cover Media Consolidation Issues

Bryan Greenberg
Syracuse University

The increase in media consolidation over the past 20 years has led to a growing debate over the impact of ever-widening media conglomerates.  An important and growing part of this debate revolves around how the media cover themselves.  Through a content analysis of three newsmagazines, this study demonstrates that while editorial choices may differ as to story mix, coverage of consolidation is strikingly similar, framed as a battle of personalities, and not a matter of public interest.
 Different Voices, Same Script:
How Newsmagazines Cover Media Consolidation Issues

Media consolidation has become an increasingly important issue over the past 20 years, as the number of firms controlling the industry has fallen from approximately 50 in the early 1980s to fewer than 10 today (McChesney, 1997).  This increase in consolidation within the media industry has led to a growing debate within academic and popular circles regarding the social and economic impact of ever-widening, vertically integrated media conglomerates.  This debate has raised serious questions as to whether consolidation jeopardizes the democratic underpinnings of society, as well as what role the news media should play in this changing landscape.
On one side of this debate stand the media critics, who focus on the increasing power of these media conglomerates.  It is this power, they argue, that provides media corporations with the ability to shape our political and economic agenda  (Bagdikian, 1997).  This power becomes increasingly worrisome when the reach of media conglomerates crosses media boundaries, with holdings in television, film, newspapers, magazines, and more recently, the Internet.  The decrease in the overall number of media conglomerates controlling the majority of the media, combined with an increase in vertical integration across media outlets, leads to more concentrated power and, the critics argue, the creation of a media agenda that conflicts with the public good.
On the other side of the debate there are those who believe that media consolidation provides benefits to society, with increasing economies of scale leading to lower costs and additional investments, synergistic opportunities providing more in-depth programming and coverage, and an increase in cross-cultural understanding and democratic ideals as media become globalized (Demers, 1999).  The argument on this side is that the availability and choice of media outlets continues to increase, even as consolidation of ownership occurs, and it is the competition between these outlets, not the corporate entities that own them, that leads to a more public-responsive industry.
While the debate on the impact of media consolidation takes many forms, the question of how the media cover themselves, especially with regard to this increase in consolidation, receives relatively little coverage.  Some critics point to anecdotal evidence illustrating how the media's increasing power leads to censorship of stories critical to media organizations, both directly and through self-censorship resulting from the creation of corporate values and norms (Bagdikian, 1997; Bennet, 1988).  If this argument is true, then consumers may be unaware of changes in media ownership patterns and how these changes could effect society.
To test the validity of this argument requires an analysis of media content; specifically, an analysis of how the media cover themselves when it comes to issues of consolidation and ownership.  Insight into this is crucial to the media consolidation debate, as an educated media consumer is better prepared to be a part of any public discourse regarding the effects, both positive and negative, of media consolidation. However, there are three challenges in reaching the goal of a media savvy consumer. First, the information regarding media ownership and consolidation needs to be available.  Second, the information provided needs to be presented in a way that addresses social issues and the implications of ownership patterns, or at minimum provides insight into what the issues are so as to allow the consumer the chance to analyze the potential implications.  Lastly, the consumer must be able to process and act upon this information.  This study will address the first two points, with the belief that information on media ownership issues must be available and presented properly before one turns toward the question of how consumers process this information.
Therefore, underlying this study are two research questions.  The first step, discerning what choices the media make when deciding upon story topics involving the media industry, leads to the first research question: How do editorial decisions, with regard to the selection of media stories, differ among competing media outlets?
 From this starting point the next step is to look specifically at those media stories focusing on structural change within the media industry, including consolidation, divestiture, and mergers, which leads to the second research question: Within structural change stories, how does the type and tone of coverage differ among competing media outlets?

Literature Review
Previous literature can provide insight into these research questions in two ways.  First, this literature can illuminate the media ownership debate, an important step in establishing the relevance concerning media coverage of the media industry.  With the relevance of this topic established, it is possible to review additional literature concerning organizational issues and their impact upon media content, which is further helpful in the construction of a hypothetical framework for this study.

Media Ownership Literature
There is an extensive amount of literature analyzing the implications of corporate ownership and media consolidation, much of it anecdotal.  Overall, the literature provides conflicting views of the media landscape, with compelling arguments on all sides of the debate, although the limited empirical evidence makes it difficult to completely support any of these opposing viewpoints.
In a broad sense, the literature can be divided into three categories: corporate power, economics, and diversity in opinion.  Categorizing the literature in this way provides some challenges, however, since there is much overlap, and a symbiotic relationship exists between categories.  It is better to view these categories as an interrelated and layered system, with corporate power the top layer, and economic considerations and media diversity below it.  From this perspective, corporate power shadows the discussion of the other two categories, with all three categories interconnected.
Corporate power refers to both the power of the organization as a whole as well as the power of the owner, represented as the chairman or CEO.  This corporate power, critics claim, results in corporate censorship, such as ABC killing a story on pedophilia at DisneyWorld or the refusal to run the critical film "Fear and Favor in the Newsroom"  (Saltzman, 1995; Lieberman, 1997; Guensburg, 1998).  These examples illustrate the problems that arise when a media organization is faced with a story that relates to some aspect of the parent company. Critics see this type of censorship taking place whenever stories approach a forbidden zone that cuts too close to some piece of the corporate puzzle (Lieberman, 1997).  Rarely do these cases of corporate censorship link directly to the owner or CEO, either because it rarely happens, or because they are insulated by other managers.  When owners or CEO's do get involved, such as when Rupert Murdoch pulls the BBC from his satellite broadcasts int
o China or when Gerald Levin requests that Steven Brill refrain from writing about the FTC, it becomes a lightening rod for critics, raising questions as to the impact of the organizational structure upon content (Baker, 1998; Synergy Watch, 1997).   But the question of how often this type of censorship occurs is problematic, since critics are aware only of the instances that come to light.  The belief is that there are many more occurrences that never receive public attention.
Corporate power is further exerted through the use of lobbying, political contributions, and media junkets.  According to a report by Charles Lewis (2000), between 1996 and 2000 the media spent more than $100 million in lobbying, $75 million in campaign contributions, and $2 million on junkets and related trips.  The use of this political persuasion occurs most often when there are questions of taxation, regulation, and antitrust action (Bagdikian, 1997).  However, critics believe that this financial power remains in force even without direct lobbying, since the need for financial support remains a political consideration.
Corporate power also is exercised through the personal relationships and interaction of high-level executives.  While employees may regularly discuss work and organizational issues, the larger organizational decisions, which guide the course of the parent company, are many times discussed at informal and formal conferences and retreats for high-level executives.  These get-togethers rarely are covered by the press, except for an occasional piece in Variety or the trade journals, but it is at these events where the seeds of mergers and partnerships are sown, and where corporate agendas are discussed and set (Huey, 1999; Landler, 1998; Schechter, 1996).
Yet, there are those who disagree with such pessimistic views.  For example, Saltzman (1995) points out that media organizations historically have been at the whim of ownership, and that the situation was worse when the owner, such as Hearst or Luce, had more direct control of the organization and was less concerned with public perception, instead focused on their own political and economic agenda.  Yes, there were responsible owners in the past, including some newspaper barons with reformist attitudes, but these were just a small percentage of media owners (Rogers, 1996).  The success of today's media corporations is similar to what it was years ago, with entertainment, shock, and inflammatory material the building block of the successful organization (Rogers, 1996).  But others, while agreeing with this historical perspective, take exception to the line of argument that defends the current state of media through a comparison to the past.  Instead of comparing the present situati
on to the past, they argue, we should look to the future, and the democratic and social potential of the media that is currently unrealized (Gitlin, 1996).
Related to this issue of corporate power are the economic conditions both driving and supporting consolidation, specifically stockholder pressure for higher returns, which can lead to both organizational cost cutting and higher prices for content.  Cost cutting can occur through downsizing or through a decrease in resources, which are especially damaging in news organizations.  Examples of this include the dismissal of 300 employees from ABC after its merger with Capital Cities in the 1980s and the announced intention of the combined Viacom/CBS to create $100 million in savings through the cutting of redundant jobs (Naureckas, 1995; Miller, 1999).  These types of cuts result in fewer reporters, writers, and editors, less in-depth coverage and the inability to fully develop stories focusing on the larger issues facing society  (On that chart, 1996).
In addition to cost cutting, critics claim that consolidation can lead to an increase in consumer prices, pointing to studies that have shown consolidation leads to higher newsstand prices and advertising rates (Bagdikian, 1997; Eversole, 1971).  This rise in price can be linked to both the oligopolist nature of the media industry nationally, which enables corporations to monitor their business environment and match their competitor's pricing arrangements, as well as the monopolistic nature of local markets, especially in such industries as newspapers and cable, which enables media organizations to raise prices with little impact upon their sales.
On the other end of the spectrum falls the concept of economies of scale, which leads to lower prices and a more competitive environment.  Vertical integration, Hill and Landro (2000) argued, allows media organizations to bundle a variety of services for prices much lower than if those services were provided by a number of companies.  A study by Blackstone and Bowman (1999) utilized economic models to argue that vertical integration within the film industry linking production, distribution, and exhibition would lead to lower ticket prices, increased investments in theatres, and higher budgeted films.  Research has also shown that consolidation leads to increased investments in capital stock.  When Gannett purchased The Des Moines Register and the Louisville Courier-Journal, it added newshole, increased color usage, and purchased higher-quality equipment (Gissler, 1997).
The final level of analysis with regard to media consolidation is that of diversity in opinion.  While diversity traditionally refers to a spectrum of voices representing gender, racial, or religious differences, most critical analyses of media consolidation focus on the overall range and quality of opinion that is presented on specific topics.  Some critics feel that quality of opinion suffers under consolidation, as there is an increased emphasis on soft news and a reduction in serious news and investigative journalism, as well as fewer voices overall.  This in turn damages the marketplace of ideas (Bagdikian, 1997; Miller, 1996; Rosenwein, 2000).
Other researchers argue with this analysis, pointing to the explosion in news outlets, both in traditional and new media.  In news alone there has been a proliferation of sources over the past 10 years, including national television outlets (MSNBC, CNBC, Fox News Channel), local television stations (NY1 News), magazines (The Weekly Standard) and Internet sources (MSNBC.com, Slate, Salon) (Hickey, 2000; Compaine & Gomery, 2000).  And since these outlets are owned by media conglomerates, proponents use this as an example of the benefits of corporate ownership, where the availability of resources allows an increase in investment, leading to more offerings.
Burnett (1992) found that in the phonogram industry (records, cassettes, compact discs), the traditional inverse relationship between concentration and diversity has broken down.  Since the early 1980s, the music industry has been forced to constantly create new products featuring new styles of music.  This analysis points to a more consumer driven model as opposed to a producer driven model.  To support this, the author discusses the resource partitioning model, which suggests that as the concentration of large firms increases, they produce homogeneous output.  This provides an opportunity for innovative, specialized firms to produce products that appeal to narrow markets.  As these products gain market share, the larger firms co-opt the smaller ones, which then creates opportunities for new specialized firms to enter the market.  This study points to the need to reevaluate the methodology employed when analyzing traditional media outlets as technology changes.  But whether this
holds in other media industries, where the cost to enter the market is higher than in the phonogram industry, has not been studied.
Nevertheless, the explosion in alternative media sources, from the Internet to cell phones to two-way communication devices, has added to the ever-increasing availability of information, which also can further diminish the power of media conglomerates (On that chart, 1996).  This explosion in information availability can have the effect of decreasing the power of elite organizations, for as choices multiply the prominence of any one outlet is diminished (Goldstein, 1998).  According to this argument, we are entering a golden age of competition, where more information, from more sources, is available, and where size and type of organizational structure shouldn't matter - market share and availability of information should be the true measure of analysis (Rattner, 1996).
At first glance, this may be the case.  It has been shown empirically that there are more outlets and more content choices for consumers.  It is possible that the radically changing media landscape, featuring new technology and new methods of consumption, has altered the way we should analyze media ownership.  But at the same time, while content has increased, the question of whether that content is more diversified and reflects a broad range of opinions is suspect (Turow, 1994).

Theoretical Perspectives
What is clear from the literature is that there are radical changes occurring within the media industry, and these changes are reshaping media organizations and directly affecting those who work within them, raising new questions and concerns about the content ultimately being produced.
The rise of larger, ever-widening organizational structures raises concerns that there is also a rise in organizational conflict avoidance, where generally accepted practices drive organizational decisions, while those practices that might cause organizational distress or address ambiguous issues are avoided.  Shoemaker and Reese (1996) provide a framework for analyzing this pattern through six levels of influence upon media content - individual, organizational, extramedia, ideological, and through media routines - all of which work in connection with the others.  While their research points to little impact due to individual differences, they do discuss how professional roles are a factor in the choices made by employees within media organizations.  These choices are influenced by established media routines, bureaucratic structures that both help deal with constraints as well as create them, and also organizational factors, such as economic motives.  Economic motives also come in
to play when looking at the extramedia level, as advertisers demand specific audiences, influencing content, while consumers and government entities, who don't pay the bills, play a very small role.  Taken as a whole, this analysis supports the viewpoint that the media industry is risk-averse, where special interests and economic considerations drive the decision-making process and thus permeate through all levels of the organization.
This perspective reflects a hypothesis proposed by McChesney (1992) that the corporate media have cultivated an ideology that supports the status quo, to the exclusion of alternative viewpoints.  While McChesney's hypothesis focuses on the public, it can be argued that it fits equally as well for employees within media organizations, where risks to personal livelihood could help reinforce their focus on content supporting the dominant ideology.  Donohue, Tichenor, and Olien (1995) provide a related concept, the guard dog role of the media, which also posits that the media supports dominant ideology.  The guard dog perspective views the media as a sentry for those groups who have power and influence, as opposed to the traditional watchdog perspective, where the media act on behalf of society.  Even though the media may cover issues pertaining to powerful entities, as a guard dog they will only present coverage in a constrained way, under conditions that do not disrupt the overall s
tatus and importance of the powerful elite.  As such, this perspective views the media as dependent upon dominant powers.
Theories of researchers such as McChesney and Donohue et. al. point to a type of organizational agenda setting, with an increased reliance on organizational values and norms, both for the good of employees and for the prosperity of the organization.  These norms are increasingly being set from above, as the dynamics of technological innovation, corporate change, and growing corporate interdependence have led to an increasing need for one agenda within and across organizations to diminish dissonance and allow the organization to prosper in an environment of industry consolidation.  Conflict will occur, and will be covered by media outlets, but this conflict will remain limited in scope so as not to upset the system.
Turow (1994) believes this is accomplished through silent routines between employees in an organization.  These routines are based upon silent bargains, where an unstated negotiation takes place that allows different sides to understand the other side's perspective, although the extent of this bargaining is limited by the more powerful party.  Over time, these silent bargains add up, helping to establish norms of self-coverage.  When these norms are established and in place, silent routines occur, since stakeholders understand organizational limits and therefore no longer need to bargain.  In other words, employees learn what is and isn't allowed and then act accordingly.  From this perspective, organizational norms are not just supported by written rules, but also from silent bargains that become entrenched as silent routines.  Since these silent bargains and silent routines take place among all levels of employees, it would be expected that values and norms that start at the top
 of the organization would be disseminated down the corporate level, creating an environment where everyone knows what is and is not permitted.
But what is the impact of these silent routines across different media organizations?  Given this framework, it would be expected that in an environment of growing media consolidation and interdependence that similar values and norms would travel across subsidiaries, divisions, and departments, creating similar values throughout an organization.  These values in turn would travel across organizations, leading to similar coverage based on a similar agenda.  Even though organizations may have different types of ownership structures, the economic focus and oligopolistic nature of the industry as a whole should lead to a similar risk-averse system, with coverage reflecting an elite and corporate viewpoint.  This does not mean that media outlets will not choose different stories to cover, or choose to devote differing amounts of space to similar stories, but that how they cover similar issues will reflect shared values.
If this perspective is true, one would expect different outlets to cover similar issues in a similar fashion, regardless of their organizational structure.  This similarity would be seen most often when the social or economic system is questioned or is in danger.  Within this discussion, the expectation would be that issues pertaining to the structural change of media organizations, such as consolidation, divestitures, and mergers, would fit within this category, leading different outlets to offer coverage from a similar perspective.  Further, it would be expected that  this similar perspective will reflect a shared news value, itself a reflection of the similar norms across media outlets, which leads to what Bennett (1998) calls the "good-guys-versus-bad-guys melodrama" (p.xiv), or the entertainment approach to news content.  This entertainment perspective adds to the bland nature of news, as it is another factor preventing in-depth analysis and debate.
These findings point to different article choices by different media outlets, yet similar content within articles of similar themes across media outlets.  Applying this to the two research questions stated earlier forms the basis of this study's hypotheses
First, looking at the first research question - how do editorial decisions, with regard to the selection of media stories, differ among competing media outlets? - one would expect independent editorial decisions, and not a shared agenda, across media outlets.  This would especially be the case if media outlets had varying ownership structures and corporate goals, which would lead to different editorial values, and therefore a variation in content.  Thus hypothesis 1 states:
ù       H1: As ownership structure differs, the selection of media content will change accordingly .
 Turning to research question 2 - within structural change stories, how does the type and tone of coverage differ among competing media outlets?   - the focus now becomes the way different media organizations cover the same topic.  While hypothesis 1 posits that editorial choice would differ across media outlets, previous literature points to a similarity within specific story content, leading to hypothesis 2:
ù       H2: As ownership structure differs, coverage of structural change within the media industry remains the same.

Method
It should first be noted that, due to the difficulty of linking ownership to content, especially within large organizations, the use of ownership structure as an independent variable is problematic.  Instead, an analysis of similar media holdings by media organizations with different ownership structures can provide an approximate insight into the above hypotheses. Therefore, to test these hypotheses, a content analysis of three news magazines, Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report, was conducted through a census of issues from the period January 1, 1997 through September 1, 2000 (N=559; NTime=189, NNewsweek=188, NU.S. News=182).  This time period was chosen for two reasons: it includes some of the largest consolidation cases within the media industry (measured in size and/or value), including Time Warner/AOL, Viacom/CBS, Bertelsmann/Random House, Seagram/Polygram, AT&T/TCI/MediaOne, and Vivendi/Seagram, and it coincides with a period of increased attention by academicians
on the topic of media consolidation.  Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report were chosen as each is part of a distinct ownership structure.  Time is part of Time Warner (1998 revenues of $14.3 billion), one of the top-tier media conglomerates, with holdings in print, cable, broadcast television, and magazines, almost all primarily focused on entertainment.  Newsweek is also owned by a large (but much smaller) media organization, the Washington Post Co. (1998 revenues of $1.9 billion), and unlike Time Warner, the Washington Post organization has holdings that are primarily focused on news and information.  U.S. News & World Report is part of the smallest media empire of the three, Zuckerman Media Properties (1998 revenues of $584 million), with holdings primarily in news.  Unlike Time and Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report is part of an entrepreneurial organizational structure, led by its owner Mort Zuckerman.
To test the first hypotheses, the magazine was treated as the independent variable (representing ownership structure), and the selection of articles within each magazine was the unit of analysis.  A census was conducted to review all issues to identify all articles pertaining to the media industry, with the exception of film, television, and electronic equipment reviews, unless those reviews dealt specifically with their impact upon the media industry, a specific company within the media industry, or the management, employees, and/or artists within the media industry.  These articles were coded according to the overall theme of the article, the dependent variable, with the intent of comparing the choice of topic made by each magazine.  The reliability of this dependent variable, article theme, was established with a Scott's Pi of .70.  These themes were defined as:
ù       Structural Change - Articles focusing on mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, etc.
ù       Administrative Strategy - Articles focusing on administrative functioning of a media organization.
ù       Content Strategy - Articles focusing on the creation, marketing, or choice of content by media outlets.
ù       Celebrity focus - Articles featuring a profile or news item relating to a media celebrity.
ù       Management Focus - Articles featuring a profile or news item relating to an executive within the media industry.
ù       Technology - Articles focusing on the impact of technology upon the media industry.
ù       Public Interest - Articles focusing on the impact of the media industry or media content upon society and consumers.
ù       Other - Articles with themes not fitting in categories above

To test the second hypothesis, only those articles defined as having a theme of structural change were analyzed in-depth, with the intent of aggregating data by magazine.  Thus the independent variable was the magazine, the unit of analysis was the individual articles, and the following were dependent variables.
First, to measure to content of each article and the themes covered, all sentences within each structural change article were coded according to the themes below, with the number of sentences coded for each of the themes then totaled to arrive at a single variable representing the total number of appearances for each sentence theme per article (thus six variables coinciding with the six themes).  Reliability of these variables was established through a Scott's Pi of .71.  The six themes coded were:
ù       Public Advocacy - Sentence focuses on the social and/or cultural impact of topic.
ù       Consumer Interest - Sentence focuses on consumer concerns, such as price, quantity, etc.
ù       Stockholder Interest - Sentence focuses on issues pertaining to individual stockholders.
ù       Personality/Relationship - Sentence focuses on an individual character or characters whose power or influence shapes policy or business decisions.
ù       Strategic Approach - Sentence focuses on the strategic or financial decision-making process of a company, and/or implications of these decisions.
ù       Other - Sentences not fitting in categories above

Next, the first occurrence of each of the six sentence themes above, within each article, was recorded.  The first occurrence of each theme was coded as a separate variable (thus six first occurrence variables coinciding with the six themes).
Finally, all sources used by the author within each article were coded.  Every sentence featuring a source, either cited directly or paraphrased, was recorded according to the eight source variables below.  The number of sources coded for each then was totaled to arrive at a single count representing the total number of sources for each source variable per article (thus eight variables coinciding with the eight sources).  Reliability of this coding structure was achieved with a Scott's Pi of .81.  The sources coded were:
ù       Industry Employee
ù       Industry Lobbyist/Trade Organization
ù       Consumer/Consumer Organization
ù       Educator/Educational Institution
ù       Analyst/Investment Banker
ù       Government Official
ù       Other
ù       No Representation Given
 Results

Thematic Analysis
Descriptive Data

Of the 559 magazines analyzed, a total of 557 articles relating to the media industry were identified.  Of these 557 articles, 187 were found in Time, 234 in Newsweek, and 136 in U.S. News & World Report.
Table 1 lists the percentage frequency of each theme within each magazine.  Both Time and Newsweek had a disproportionate number of articles focusing on celebrities - 51.9% and 34.2% respectively - while U.S. News & World Report had a much heavier emphasis on stories dealing with consumer issues (37.5%).

Table 1.  Article theme by magazine, in percentages

Time
Newsweek
U.S. News
All Magazines
Structural Change
10.2%
15%
20.6%
14.7%
Administrative Strategy
7%
12.4%
12.5%
10.6%
Content Strategy
5.9%
7.7%
8.8%
7.4%
Celebrity Profile
51.9%
34.2%
5.1%
33%
Management Profile
8.6%
8.5%
4.4%
7.5%
Technology
5.3%
4.7%
11%
6.5%
Consumer Interest
10.2%
15.8%
37.5%
19.2%
Other
1.1%
1.3%
0%
.9%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
N=187
N=234
N=136
N=557






Test of H1 -  As ownership structure differs, the selection of media content will change accordingly.

        H1 posits that there is a statistically significant difference among media outlets, here represented by each magazine, and their selection of media article topics.  A chi-square test reveals that there are differences between what article choices would occur by chance, and what appears in this data ((=106.86; df=16; p<.01).  While this does not show where these differences occur, a Cramer's V.31 points to a relationship between the independent variable, the magazine, and the dependent variable, the selection of article themes within each magazine, thus supporting H1.

Article Analysis
Descriptive Data
All articles coded as structural change were further analyzed to measure the article perspective variables (by number of sentences for each theme per article),  first appearance variables (the sentence number for the first appearance of each theme in each article), as well as the type of sources used in each article.  A few aspects of the data stand out.   First, there were very few structural change stories as a percentage of the overall number of media stories within each magazine, especially Time and Newsweek.  As Table 1 shows, Time devoted only 10% of its media stories to structural change stories, and Newsweek was slightly higher at 15%.  U.S. News & World Report had the most coverage, as a percentage of total stories, with 20% devoted to structural change.  However, looking at the total number of stories, Newsweek (n=35) had 20% more than U.S. News & World Report (n=28), and 45% more than Time (n=19).
Looking at the content of each structural change article, Table 2 presents the percentage and number of articles within each magazine title that contain the various sentence themes.  As shown, all three magazines devote very little space to the three measures dealing with the public: public advocacy, consumer interest, and stockholder interest.  Public advocacy appear in only two Newsweek articles and three articles in Time and U.S. News & World Report, and consumer interest appears in only 11 articles in Time, 15 in Newsweek, and 16 in U.S. News & World Report.

Table 2.  Percentage and number of structural change stories containing each sentence theme
Time
Newsweek
U.S. News
Public Advocacy
16% (3)
6% (2)
11% (3)
Consumer Interest
58% (11)
43% (15)
57% (16)
Stockholder Interest
42% (8)
40% (14)
39% (11)
Personality
95% (18)
100% (35)
86% (24)
Strategic
100% (19)
100% (35)
100% (28)
N=19
N=35
N=28

Table 3 elaborates on these results by showing the mean number of occurrences for each sentence theme, presented as a percentage of the total article to control for varying article lengths.  This data further demonstrates that all three magazines devote very little space to the three measures of public issues.  For example, none of the magazines have a mean above .5 for public advocacy, meaning that all three magazines average less than .5 percent of each structural change article on public advocacy issues.  All three magazines have a mean less than 6 for consumer interest and stockholder interest, thus devoting less than 6 percent of each article to either consumer or stockholder interest.  By far the most common sentence for all three magazines are those dealing with strategic issues, followed by those focusing on personalities, with the split between strategic and personality sentences nearly even in Time and Newsweek.  An analysis of variance for each of the sentence theme var
iables reveals no significance for the public issues, but does show significance for both the personality and strategic article perspective variables.  A post-hoc analysis using the Bonferroni test shows significance in these variables for comparisons involving U.S. News & World Report and Time, and for comparisons involving U.S. News & World Report and Newsweek; no other significance was found.

Table 3. Mean # of sentences, standard deviations, and ANOVA results for sentence themes
Time
Newsweek
U.S. News
ANOVA
Mean
StDev
Mean
StDev
Mean
StDev
F
Sig.
Public Advocacy
.47
1.22
.36
   .13
.36
1.3
.785
.459
Consumer Interest
3.69
5.91
2.63
4.48
5.77
7.76
2.089
.131
Stockholder Interest
2.74
7.18
2.34
3.76
3.43
6.04
.307
.736
Personality
40.19
19.55
40.18
21.94
23.65
20.66
5.722
.005
Strategic
45.54
17.04
43.49
17.39
62.63
18.76
9.964
.000
Other
7.5
5.3
11.23
8.2
4.16
4.22
9.458
.000
100%
N=19
100%
N=35
100%
N=28
*Means are presented in percentage form to control for articles of varying lengths

Looking at when each of these sentence themes first appear in structural change articles, the mean data reveals very little difference between all three magazines (Table 4).  For example, public advocacy issues were first covered, on average, at the 49th sentence for Time, the 32nd sentence for Newsweek, and the 46th sentence for U.S. News & World Report, while strategic and personality issues were covered within the first six sentences for all three magazines.  While there were some differences, most notable with consumer interest and stockholder interest, with sentences in U.S. News & World Report appearing much earlier than Time and Newsweek for this variable, an analysis of variance found no significance.  This lack of significance is likely due to the length of stories, with those in U.S. News & World Report much shorter (Appendix 3).

Table 4. First occurrence of each theme - mean sentence, standard deviation, and ANOVA
Time
Newsweek
U.S. News
ANOVA
Mean
StDev
Mean
StDev
Mean
StDev
F
Sig.
Public Advocacy
49.00
42.58
32.50
10.61
46.00
50.32
.100
.907
Consumer Interest
37.18
35.59
29.20
26.33
14.44
12.08
2.908
.066
Stockholder Interest
37.00
40.62
22.14
18.96
13.18
14.24
2.167
.132
Personality
2.72
3.64
5.17
7.41
5.38
7.57
.966
.385
Strategic
4.16
5.41
4.14
4.35
3.04
2.57
.668
.516
Other
10.72
12.42
8.06
9.52
7.88
10.12
.447
.642
N=19
N=35
N=28

As for sources within each article, those most often quoted or cited are industry employees and analysts, with Time and Newsweek relying most often on industry employees and U.S .News & World Report focusing on analysts.  Table 5 presents each magazines use of sources aggregated for all structural change articles, demonstrating all three magazines' reliance on industry sources and analysts.  For example, when a source was used by Time, more than 70 percent of the time it was an industry employee and more than 15 percent of the time it was an analyst, with a consumer representative relied on only 1 percent of the time.  In fact, all three magazines show very little usage of consumer or educator sources, as would be expected from the results of the sentence theme variables discussed above.  An analysis of variance shows significant difference only within the industry employee and analyst variables - a result, according to a Bonferroni test, of differences between U.S. News & World R
eport and the other two magazines.  No significance was found within the other source variables.

Table 5.  Percentage of sources used across all articles - mean, standard deviation, and ANOVA

Time
Newsweek
U.S. News
ANOVA
Mean
StDev
Mean
StDev
Mean
StDev
F
Sig.
Industry Employee
71.47
24.64
66.54
39.84
36.00
31.66
8.375
.001
Industry Lobbyist
2.06
5.17
.48
2.82
1.89
6.70
.891
.414
Consumer
1.05
4.58
.48
2.82
.70
2.61
.194
.824
Educator
.88
3.82
0
0
1.00
4.34
.951
.391
Analyst
15.76
18.34
5.65
12.19
36.16
34.12
13.55
.000
Government
3.39
7.46
.57
3.38
3.57
11.43
1.38
.257
100%
N=19
100%
N=35
100%
N=28


Test of H2: As ownership structure differs, coverage of structural change within the media industry remains the same.

        While there are differences between the coverage of Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report, statistical analysis reveals very little significant differences between them when it comes to public issues.  The use of industry and analyst sources is a strong indicator of this, as is the focus on personalities and strategy instead of consumer issues.  However, there are some statistical differences between U.S. News & World Report and both Time and Newsweek, with U.S. News & World Report relying less on the personality battles as described by Bennett (1998), and instead focusing on the nuts and bolts strategy of the deal.  But given the difference in length between stories in  U.S. News & World Report compared to both Time and Newsweek (Appendix 3) it would appear that there is actually very little difference in the coverage.  Therefore, H2 is supported.

Discussion
        As mentioned in the methodology section, linking the above results to ownership patterns is tenuous, for there may be many interceding variables that impact each magazine's content, which may or may not be subject to ownership patterns.  For example, editorial policy may guide the selection of stories, but it is difficult to say that this policy reflects, either directly or indirectly, the wishes of upper management.  This concern, however, is more relevant to H1, where the overall selection of stories can be influenced by any number of variables. The results from H2 point to a number of issues that question all three magazines, thus, in many ways, making the question of ownership a mute point, since the defining aspect of these results is the striking editorial similarities across all three outlets.
Another limitation is that only some of the structural change articles dealt with the largest of the media mergers, such as Time Warner/AOL and Viacom/CBS, while many others dealt with smaller issues, such as the launch of the Oxygen network or the sale of The Daily Racing Form.  While these clearly fall within the realm of structural change, and are important in their own right, they nonetheless don't approach the level of importance of the megamedia mergers.  While sub group analysis was attempted on those cases identified as pertaining to megamedia mergers, there were too few cases to make any significant observations.  It may be helpful to include additional cases in future studies, although that raises other concerns, including whether coverage in earlier years is comparable to the current situation, as the scope and number of mergers has grown dramatically only recently.
 It would also be helpful to bring in other media, both as a separate study and as a comparison to the results found here.  It is possible that as media become more fractured that there is an increased focus on different types of coverage in different outlets, including print, broadcast, and new media, as each strives to differentiate their product.  But what happens if readers, viewers, and Internet surfers rely on a single source for their information, or a single source for certain types of information, to the exclusion of the other sources?  If this is the case, it becomes increasingly difficult for consumers to get an overall understanding of the world around them.
Nevertheless, the results of this study raise questions regarding the type of coverage the media devote to issues pertaining to the media industry.  While differences were found between the editorial decisions on story choice of each of the three magazines studied here, all three had very few articles devoted to structural change.  Consequently, the immense changes occurring within the media industry are receiving short shrift, raising questions as to how educated consumers are about these changes.  While H1 is supported through statistical analysis, there is a question of whether the differences between these three magazines are actually beneficial to the consumer.  Even what appears to be a bright spot, the coverage of consumer interest stories by U.S. News & World Report, loses its luster when looking at raw scores, which shows that while U.S. News & World Report may offer a higher percentage of consumer interest stories, its raw number is about the same as Newsweek and Time. I
n addition, the shorter length of many of the articles in U.S. News & World Report raises questions as to the depth of its articles, and thus the resultant value to the reader.
        The in-depth analysis of the structural change articles to test H2 raises additional questions, with important implications.  None of the magazines devote very much space to any of the consumer measures, instead primarily framing these stories as personality pieces, and how personalities impact strategy.  This supports Bennett's (1988) contention that the news is entertainment as opposed to information.  Just as politics is covered as a race, as opposed to a public issue, coverage of structural change is presented as a battle of media titans, with Levin, Eisner, Case, Middlehoff, and the rest of the media leadership all using their wily managerial skills as they vie for the best deal.  This soap-opera approach provides for an entertaining story, but in most cases does not provide insight into the implication of the event.  This in turn limits the debate over the impact of structural change within the media industry, as consumers are without the background information required to be an active and educated participant in such a debate.
   Overall, this study raises questions as to the media's coverage of the media industry.  Whether this is due to self-censorship, is a result of the nature of magazine publishing, or is an anomaly based upon the three magazines chosen is unknown.  In any case, additional research, both quantitative and qualitative, would be helpful in the further analysis of this topic.

 References
        Bagdikian, B. H. (1997). The Media Monopoly. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
        Bain, G. (1989).  When a publisher has the last word.  Maclean's, 102, 36.
Baker, R. (1998, May/June). Murdoch's mean machine.  Columbia Journalism Review,
Bennett, W. L.  (1988). News: The Politics of Illusion.  New York, NY: Longman Publishing.
Blackstone, E. A. & Bowman, G. W.  (1999).  Vertical integration in motion pictures.  Journal of Communication, 49, 123 - 139.
Bogart, L. (1996) What does it all mean? Media Studies Journal, 10, 1 - 27.
Burnett, R. (1992).  The implications of ownership changes on concentration and diversity in the phonogram industry.  Communication Research, 19, 749 - 769.
Compaine, B. M., & Gomery, D.  (2000)  Who owns the media?.  Mahwah, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Coulson, D.C. (1994). Impact of ownership on newspaper quality. Journalism Quarterly, 71 (2), 403 - 410.
        Demers, D. (1999). Global Media: Menace or Messiah?. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.
        Donohue, G. A., Tichenor, P. J., & Olien, C. N. (1995).  A guard dog perspective on the role of media.  Journal of Communication, 45 (2), 115 - 132.
Eversole, P. (1971).  Consolidation of newspapers: what happens to the consumer?.  Journalism Quarterly, edition?, 245.
Gissler, S. (1997, November/December).  What happens when Gannett takes over?.  Columbia Journalism Review,
Gitlin, T. (1996).  Not so fast.  Media Studies Journal, 10, 1 - 6.
Goldstein, T. (1998, September/October).  Does big mean bad?  Columbia Journalism Review,37, 52.
Guensburg, C. (1998).  American Journalism Review, 20, 10.
Hickey, N. (2000, April/June).  Coping with mega-mergers.  Columbia Journalism Review,
Hill, G. C. & Landro, L. (2000, January 12).  Behind the vast media octopus, a much simpler strategy emerges.  The Wall Street Journal,
Huey, J. (1999, November 8).  Breaking down the wall. Time, 24.
Landler, M.  (1998, January 11).  From gurus to sitting ducks.  The New York Times, 3-1.
Lewis, C. (2000, Sept./Oct.). Media money.  Columbia Journalism Review,
Lieberman, T. (1997, June 23). Censorship that dare not speak its name.  The Nation, 264, 10 - 11.
McChesney, R. W. (1997). Corporate Media and the Threat to Democracy. New York, NY: Seven Stories Press.
McChesney, R. W. (1992).  Off limits: an inquiry into the lack of debate over the ownership, structure and control of the mass media in U.S. political life.  Communication, 13, 1 - 19.
Miller, M. C.  (1996, June 3).  Free the media.  The Nation, 262, 9.
Naureckas, J. (1995, November/December).  Media monopoly: long history, short memories.  Extra!,
On that chart.  (1996, June 3). The Nation, 262, 15.
Rattner, S. (1996)  A golden age of competition. Media Studies Journal, 10, 7 - 13.
Rogers, M. (1996).  Moguls past and present. Media Studies Journal, 10, 49 - 54.
Rosenwein, R.  (2000, January).  Why media mergers matter?  Brill's Content, 93 - 97.
Saltzman, J. (1995, November). New media owners, same old problems.  USA Today Magazine, 124, 31.
Schecter, D. (1996).  Media summits. Media Studies Journal, 10, 79 - 86.
Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D.  (1996)  Mediating the Message.  White Plains, NY:  Longman Publishers USA.
Synergy Watch.  (1997, September/October).  Columbia Journalism Review,
Turow, J.  (1994).  Hidden conflicts and journalistic norms: the case of self-coverage.  Journal of Communications, 44, (2) 29 - 46.
Turow, J.  (1992).  The organizational underpinnings of contemporary media conglomerates.  Communication Research, 19, 682 - 704.


 Appendix 1
Coding Protocol
Introduction
This protocol is aimed at assessing the amount and type of coverage of the media industry by three newsmagazines - Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report.  All articles focusing on the media industry and have appeared in these three magazines between January 1, 1997 and October 1, 2000 will be analyzed.  There are two goals of this study.  The first is to measure the amount and type of coverage that the media devotes to covering themselves.  The second goal is to further analyze those articles that deal with Structural Change to measure the similarities and differences in coverage between each magazine.  This will be accomplished by categorizing each sentence of each article according to the approach taken by the author so as to ascertain how much space is devoted to each of five perspectives - Public Advocacy, Consumer Interest, Stockholder Interest, Personality/Relationship Driven, and Strategic Approach.

Media Industry
For the purpose of this study, the media industry includes all companies involved directly or indirectly in broadcasting, film, television, radio, and magazine, book, and newspaper publishing.  Articles featuring telecommunication firms, such as AT&T, WorldCom, Sprint, etc., are included if the article is primarily focused on their media holdings, but are not included if the primary focus is on phone service, data delivery, etc.

Types of articles selected
All articles that focus on business, legal, social, and environmental issues of individual media companies or the industry as a whole, as well as those articles focused on the individuals involved in the management, creation, or delivery of media content, have been chosen.  Only articles where the majority of coverage involves a media company or the media industry are included.  Articles dealing with reviews of entertainment products (films, software, music, fashion, etc.) or new technology (DVD, PVR's, etc.) are not included, unless the article is focused on the impact of these products or technology upon the industry or companies within the industry.

Structural Change
Articles defined as having a theme of Structural Change will be further analyzed to gauge the type of coverage within these articles.  Structural Change refers to mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, consolidation, etc.

Procedure
One coding form will be used for each magazine article.  The following steps should be taken to complete each coding form.
 Article Analysis

1)      Title
Check the title of magazine

____1 - Time
____2 - Newsweek
____3 - U.S. News & World Report

2)   Issue Date
Cover date of issue in month, date, year form (i.e. 11/12/97).  If date covers a period of time, use start date (i.e. November 12 - 19, 1997 would be 11/12/97)

                _ _ / _ _ / _ _

3)      Article title
Actual title of article

_______________________________________________________________


4)      Article Theme
Overall focus of article. If there is more than one theme mentioned in the article, choose the one that best describes the main focus of article.

                _____1 - Structural Change
Articles focusing on a completed or potential merger, acquisition, sale, divestiture, etc. within the media industry.

_____2 - Administrative Strategy
Articles focusing on the administrative functioning of a media organization, including corporate maneuvering, human resource issues, day-to-day administrative decisions, etc.

_____3 - Content Strategy
Articles focusing on the creation, marketing, or choice of content, such as network programming strategy, marketing methodology for a publisher, etc. Does not include reviews of content, nor profiles of those appearing in, or responsible for said content.  Does not include articles relating to technology's impact upon content, unless the content, and not the technology, is the primary focus of the article.

                _____4 - Celebrity Focus
Articles featuring a profile or news item relating to a media celebrity, including actors, actresses, directors, authors, musicians, etc. Does not include reviews (film, television, music, etc.) that contain information on a celebrity, unless the primary focus of the article is the celebrity.

_____5 - Management Focus
Articles featuring a profile or news item relating to an executive, manager, owner, or group of such working within the media industry.

_____6 - Technology
Articles focusing on the impact of technology, new uses of technology, and new technological/audio-visual equipment, upon the media industry. Does not include articles reviewing new equipment for consumer or corporate  use, unless the primary focus is on the technology's impact upon the industry and/or players within the industry.

_____7 - Public Interest
Articles focusing on the impact of the media industry, individual media companies, or media content upon society, consumers, etc. Includes articles focusing on consumer pricing, media effects, diversity of content, and ethics.  Also includes any article or column that is primarily composed of social commentary related to the media industry or associated with individuals and/or companies in the media industry.

_____8 - Other: Please state ______________________________
Articles other than those above. Please provide theme that you feel best reflects the article.


5)      Article Perspective - Sentence Count
Each sentence of the article will be coded according to the categories described below.  As you encounter a sentence that fits the definition for each category, place a hatch mark to the right of the category.  Upon completion of the article total and place in space before each category.  Only one category should be chosen for each sentence; the category chosen should be the one that BEST represents the focus of the sentence.  The coder should consider the sentence in context to what is written earlier in that paragraph so as to choose the best category that would represent the meaning of that sentence as a reader comes across it.  In addition, the coder should indicate the paragraph number in which each category first appears.

_______ Public Advocacy
_______ Sentence where this first appears
Sentence focuses on the social and/or cultural impact of the topic, such as diversity of coverage, quality of coverage, cultural/social implications, etc.

_______ Consumer Interest
_______ Sentence where this first appears
Sentence focuses on consumer concerns that are economic in nature, such as the price of a service, or relate to quantity, such as number of newspapers.  This is not to be confused with public advocacy, which would include sentences that focus on the social or cultural implications, such as what the death of a newspaper means to coverage of urban decay.  Consumer interest would include such topics as the price of the newspaper changing or the number of cable channels increasing.

_______ Stockholder Interest
_______ Sentence where this first appears
Sentence focuses on issues pertaining to individual stockholders, including fluctuation of prices, how decisions will impact stockholders, and so forth. Does not include sentences that focus on corporate strategy and stock prices, management and stock prices, or strategy to deal with stock prices, unless the main focus of the sentence is the impact on individual stockholders.

_______ Personality/Relationship
_______ Sentence where this first appears
Sentence focuses on an individual character or characters whose power or influence is portrayed as likely to shape policy or business decisions, as well as sentences that concentrate on relationship issues as the determining factor of business decisions.

_______ Strategic Approach
_______ Sentence where this first appears
Sentence focuses on the strategic or financial decision-making process of a company, as well as the business or financial implications of these decisions.  Includes sentences that focus on the impact of a policy decision upon the financial or strategic outlook of a company/industry.  These sentences include such topics as stock price, market share, revenue projections, customer satisfaction, etc.

_______ Other
_______ Sentence where this first appears
Sentences with a focus not included in the categories above.


6)      Total number of sentences in article
Total of sentences from all categories in question 4

___________

7)      Sources
Each source used in the article will be coded according to the categories below. As you encounter a source, either cited directly, or paraphrased, place a hatch mark to the right of the category. Include each time the source is used

____1 - Industry Employee
Includes anyone who works for the company discussed in the article, or competitors/partners of the company discussed in the article.

        ____2 - Industry Lobbyist/Consulting Organization/Trade Organization
Includes any organization or representative of an organization that focuses on lobbying, consulting, or other such work on behalf of the media industry and/or companies within the media industry.

____3 - Consumer/Consumer Advocate/Consumer Organization
Includes any individual consumer, group of consumers, consumer organization or representative of an organization that focuses on consumer interest issues, or works on behalf of/represents consumers.

____4 - Educator/Educational Organization
Includes any organization or representative of an organization focused on education, including elementary, secondary, and post-secondary, educators/organizations.

____5 -Analyst/Investment Banker
Includes any organization or representative of an organization that analyzes companies within the media industry, the industry as a whole, or segments of the industry, as well as any organization or representative of an organization that analyzes, invests, or assists others in investing in the media industry.

____6 - Government Official
Includes any governmental organization/entity, or representative of such organizations or entities, both elected and appointed.

____7 - Other: Please State
Includes any source not listed above; please define source and include in space.

____8 - No Representation Given
Includes any source that has no identifying markers within the article.

8)      Total number of sources __________
Total from question #7 above.

 Appendix 2
Coding Form

1) Title
____1 - Time
____2 - Newsweek
____3 - U.S. News & World Report

2)      Issue Date              _ _ / _ _ / _ _

3)      Article title ________________________________________________________

4)   Article Theme

                _____1 - Structural Change
_____2 - Administrative Strategy
_____3 - Content Strategy
                _____4 - Celebrity Profile
_____5 - Management Profile
_____6 - Technology
_____7 - Public Interest
_____8 - Other: Please state ______________________________

5)      Article Perspective

1       _______ Public Advocacy
_______ Sentence where this first appears

2       _______ Consumer Interest
_______ Sentence where this first appears

3       _______ Stockholder Interest
_______ Sentence where this first appears

4       _______ Personality/Relationship
_______ Sentence where this first appears

5       _______ Strategic Approach
_______ Sentence where this first appears

6       _______ Other
_______ Sentence where this first appears

6)  Total number of sentences in article ___________
7)   Sources

____1 - Industry Employee
        ____2 - Industry Lobbyist/Consulting Organization
____3 - Consumer Advocate/Organization
____4 - Educator/Educational Organization
____5 -Analyst
____6 - Government Official
____7 - Other: Please State _________________________________________
____8 - No Representation Given

        8)  Total number of sources ___________