Content-Type: text/html
[Frederick Fico and Geri Alumit Zeldes, Michigan State U.]
INTRODUCTION
More than half of likely voters regularly obtain information about political campaigns from either network or local television news coverage.[1] For general information, the public primarily relies on network and even more so, local news broadcasts.[2] News consumers expect coverage to be fair, representing both sides of a story, and balanced, representing both sides equally.[3] On the other hand, journalists extol fairness and balance as one of the bedrocks of quality journalism; its absence raises concerns in academia, the government and more importantly, the public.[4]
Broadcast journalists control the structure of stories when choosing for example what sources to use, the time to give each source and the video. Moreover, the broadcast journalist influences story placement in the newscast, a decision driven by the newsworthiness of the story as it relates to other news stories.
The purpose of this study is to further understand story and newscast structure in network and local television news coverage of elections. The researchers assessed structural factors for individual stories and for news segments made up of one or more stories broadcast during a particular day's newscast. The study first focuses on the structural attributes of individual stories: 1) how partisan sources are used and ordered in the story, 2) the time and attention given them in terms of broadcast seconds, 3) visuals, and 4) sound bites. Researchers then examine news segments to determine the ordering and relative attention given to individual election stories during a newscast. Story and segment analysis assess the use of partisan sources, and calculate specifically, balance within stories and within segments.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Bias in the News
Two authors have recently received considerable media attention for their critiques of liberal bias in the news media. Bernard Goldberg's Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distorts the News climbed to the top of The New York Times' bestseller list. Goldberg, who worked as a reporter and producer for CBS News for 28 years, winning seven Emmy Awards, lambastes his former network for having a liberal news bias.[5] William McGowan, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute in New York City, wrote Coloring the News: How Crusading for Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism, in which he uses examples of news coverage in print and broadcast news to demonstrate how political correctness has watered down journalism.[6]
The public's concern over news bias has also motivated professional studies of media credibility and attempts to guard against such flaws.[7] For instance, the Freedom Forum pledged $1 million for research and other projects on newspaper fairness and how that influences credibility.[8] Based on a subsequent series of national roundtable discussions, the Freedom Forum also produced handbooks detailing "best practices" for newspaper and broadcast journalists.[9]
Journalists can control some factors that lead to news bias, but audiences can also be biased in their perception of the news. Vallone et al., for example, found that pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli students both rated TV coverage of Lebanon as biased against their cause.[10] Gunther similarly found that individual attitudes on issues and group involvement predicted attribution of bias to media.[11]
Societal and media factors that editors or reporters cannot control also lead to news bias. Shoemaker and Reese note that influences such as societal ideology, news organization resources and news routines affect such factors as time and news hole that constrain how reporters search for sources and use them in stories.[12] But reporters, particularly when they are covering highly visible state or national elections, also have important gatekeeping power that may offset the influences noted above. Certainly reporters are motivated by societal norms, which emphasize that citizens need information about "all sides" in order to make good decisions in an election. Campaigns also attempt to supply information to journalists, at least in part making up for any resource scarcity in their news organizations. Further, news organizations see election reporting as one of their central missions, and norms of fairness are especially salient, in part to deflect possible criticism from partisans.[13]
Consequently, this study focuses on the structural factors of stories that reporters and their immediate superiors directly control. In packaging an election story for broadcast, reporters may decide to include one or both sides, how much time to give candidates, whether to include on-air quotes or to do voice-overs. Reporters also decide on the order of presentation of sources in a package, including which candidate in an election story speaks first. News producers are most likely to decide whether to lead with an election story, and whether to run it alone or with other stories in that day's election segment. Producers also decide whether to cover election news through anchor readers or reporter packages.
Previous Research on TV News Bias
Bias in election coverage is a common research topic for studies of print and broadcast media.[14] Most of this has concerned the "partisan balance" of stories between Democrats or Republicans? Few studies focus on the story or segment structural characteristics of television election coverage. And while network election coverage has received much attention, local TV news studies have been rare.
Further election research on network television has produced mixed results on bias. Evarts and Stempel who examined the three major TV networks, the three major news magazines and six major newspapers covering the 1972 presidential campaign found no clear-cut bias in the media's election coverage that year.[15] Hofstetter also used a cross-media analysis to determine bias in election coverage, but with mixed results.[16] Johnson probed election news bias in the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and the three major television networks during the pre-primaries and the primaries of the 1988 Democratic presidential primaries.[17] He found a cyclical relationship between media coverage and the campaign's performance, with candidates who performed poorly getting negative coverage, while those who did well enjoyed more positive coverage. In a study of the 1996 elections covered by CNN, ABC, and more than 40 national newspapers, Domke et al. found noticeably balanced media coverage of
the two presidential candidates in spite of comments from the Republican candidate and the public suggesting "liberal bias" in the media. However, Lowry and Shidler's studies of TV sound bites during the 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns found a liberal news bias evident in the sound bites of non-candidate news sources.
Local television election news has generated little scholarly interest, whatever the level of the office, despite its importance as an information source to local viewers.[18] Christ et al. found in a study of stations in San Antonio, Texas, that most of the 1996 election coverage concerned President Clinton's visit to the Alamo. Studies of gubernatorial and other state races in Ohio[19] and Michigan found a similar scarcity of coverage.[20] Carter et al. found that only 4 percent of the hard news stories broadcasted by four local TV stations covered the 1998 gubernatorial election campaign in Michigan. Moreover, individual stories tended to be one-sided and imbalanced, but these partisan stories on one given day tended to off set one another, thereby covering both candidates. Carter et al. also found imbalance in election segments made up of one or more stories broadcast each day by other stations.[21]
Partisan and Structural Balance of Election Coverage
Much research has focused on network election news stories, while few studies have examined local TV election stories. Much research has illuminated the partisan balance of election stories, but few studies have examined the structural balance of such stories. Finally, much research has focused on individual election stories, while few studies have examined daily election segments. The present research aims to help fill those gaps by illuminating the partisan and structural balance of individual election stories and segments in network and local TV coverage of the year 2000 presidential election.
This research follows Carter et al.'s approach in measuring television news coverage of elections by examining both partisan and structural balance and assessing such balance in both individual stories and election segments. This research first examines discrete, quantitatively measurable parts of each election story to determine how that story balanced election opponents. Next, the study assesses the broadcast station's daily "election segment," which may be made up of one or more individual election stories. Finally, aggregating both stories and segments illuminates the balance of the election coverage as a whole.
Partisan balance, following past research, illuminates whether news stories give more attention to the Republican or Democratic candidate. Partisan balance therefore measures the degree to which a candidate has set the campaign "agenda" relative to the opponent, and therefore the public's agenda.[22]
The structural balance of coverage illuminates the degree to which coverage emphasizes one candidate over the other, regardless of party. In other words, was the typical newscast or story constructed in a balanced manner? Further, how often could viewers encounter such structurally balanced or imbalanced coverage?
RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES
Partisan Balance of Coverage
This research examines the partisan balance of broadcast stories covering an election. Much past quantitative research has illuminated network attention paid to Republican and Democratic candidates in presidential races. Carter et al. found differences in partisan domination between stories and segments of local TV news stations of the 1998 Michigan gubernatorial race. No research however, has looked at partisan balance in both stories and election segments covering a presidential election. Moreover, no guidance is available to guide comparisons of such balance in presidential election coverage between networks and local TV stations. Hence:
RQ1: Did the partisan domination of broadcast stories and segments favor Bush or Gore?
RQ2: Was there a difference in the partisan domination of stories and segments broadcasted by networks and local stations?
Structural Balance of Coverage
This research also examines the structural balance of broadcast stories and segments covering an election. The outcome of balanced news given to Republicans or Democrats may reflect "off setting" imbalanced stories in a segment rather than individually fair and balanced stories. In fact, it is plausible that the typical election story, reflecting events, such as rallies or staged speeches, is more likely to be structurally imbalanced. Little is known however, about the results of balance after aggregating network and local stories that cover a presidential campaign. Hence:
RQ3: How imbalanced is the typical story and segment covering the campaign?
RQ4: Do network and local station stories differ in the structural imbalance of their stories and segments?
It is also plausible, however, that structurally balanced stories are more likely to lead newscasts or be produced by reporters rather than be buried inside newscasts or read by anchors. In fact, Carter et al. found that stories that led newscasts were more structurally balanced than those elsewhere. It seems intuitively plausible that a lead story is more likely to be more important than others, and that such importance would mean more attention to fair and balanced story structuring. Stories packaged by reporters also are more likely to be well-considered and researched, and therefore constructed with balance norms in mind. Moreover, networks have more resources than local stories and may therefore have the news staff to ensure more balanced coverage of the presidential election. Hence:
H1: Stories leading newscasts will be less imbalanced than other stories.
H2: Network lead stories will be less imbalanced than local lead stories.
H3: Network stories generally will be less imbalanced than local stories
METHOD
This study explores these questions and hypotheses with a content analysis of all election stories of the 2000 presidential campaign broadcasted during the major evening newscast of three networks, ABC, CBS and NBC. A convenience sample of local stations included KING, KVOA, WLNS and WOOD.
The four local stations selected serve diverse regions of the country and vary in the size of the market they serve, but each leads in its market. KING, the NBC affiliate in Seattle, Washington is a No. 12 market station; KVOA, the NBC affiliate in Tucson, Arizona is a No. 71 market station; WLNS, the CBS affiliate in Lansing, Michigan is a 107 market station, and; WOOD, the NBC affiliate in Grand Rapids is a No. 38 market station.[23] Each network and station's major evening newscast was selected for analysis. These broadcasts were taped from the Labor Day start of the campaign to November 6, the day before election day.
Partisan and Structural Balance Measures
Fico and Cote in studies of newspaper coverage of elections have defined components of an election story's partisan and structural balance that were adapted in the Carter et al. study and followed in this research.[24] Story balance was defined as the extent to which sides on an issue or in an election were treated evenly in terms of the prominence and space given assertions. The authors argued that readers of election stories may judge their fairness or bias relatively quickly, within a few paragraphs.
A broadcast story, unlike print, gives viewers only a single exposure to content that cannot easily be reexamined. As with print, that story might present only one side in an electoral contest or two (or more) sides. The order in which the sides are presented, and the relative length of their assertions, will similarly influence the likelihood that a viewer will be exposed to a particular candidate. However, the broadcast medium also affords candidates the opportunity for visual exposure though sound "bites" and other images of their candidacies. Such exposure, especially if different for the candidates, can potentially have an impact on public perception.
Partisan and structural balance of stories were determined by how the stories used attributed assertions by candidates and their supporters. First, the story was coded as one-sided or two-sided depending on whether assertions supporting only one or both candidates were included. Four story components, following Carter et al., were used to assess partisan and structural balance of stories containing campaign assertions. The story was analyzed to determine the side making assertions first and the total time given sides for such assertions. The balance measure also included whether visuals of the candidates or their campaign activities were included, under the assumption that viewers focused more on such visuals than the anchor or reporter's words. Similarly, the balance measure included whether the candidates were quoted on air rather than quoted or paraphrased by reporters or anchors.
The Partisan Balance of a story was then determined by counting how many of the four story components (order of appearance, total time given assertions, candidate visual and on-air candidate quotation) favored either Bush or Gore. For example, if Bush was seen first in a story, the order component was judged to favor Bush's candidacy. If Gore was favored by three story components and Bush by one, the story as a whole was judged to favor Gore. The story was judged to be balanced if an equal number of components favored the candidates.
The Structural Balance of a story was similarly determined by counting how many story components favored each candidate. However, in the case of structural balance, the number of components favoring Bush was subtracted from the number favoring Gore, and the absolute value of that figure is taken. The resulting scale could range from 0, indicating a perfectly balanced story (and also one balanced on the partisan balance measure) to 4, indicating that the same candidate dominated every measured story component.
Analysis of election segments of each station also was made for each day in which at least one election story was broadcasted. Each segment was analyzed to determine if one or more stories included covered both Bush and Gore, or only one of them. If the first story in a multi-story segment covered only one of the candidates, the segment was examined to see if a second story focused on the opponent. If the only story broadcasted that day focused on one candidate, the next day's coverage from that station was examined to see if it covered the opponent.
Reliability of Measures
The coding procedure employed in this study had one researcher and two research assistants initially identify election-relevant stories and the other researcher confirms that judgment. Both researchers then coded the stories. The two researchers subsequently performed a coder reliability assessment on all election stories containing campaign-relevant assertions, thereby producing an actual assessment of reliability rather than an estimate of it. No variable achieved less than a 93 percent agreement. The Alpha Reliability for the four-item Structural Balance index was .88.
Analysis of Data
Hypotheses on the structural balance of election stories were addressed with story and segment proportions and with structural balance index means. These data are from the universe of election stories, so findings do not require inferential statistics for generalization.
RESULTS
The networks carried 571 stories on the election during their major evening newscast, 309 stories or 54 percent of the network stories featured Bush or Gore campaign statements on the election. About 47 percent of ABC's coverage featured Bush or Gore assertions, whereas 59 percent of CBS's and NBC's coverage had such partisan assertions.
The local stations carried 285 stories on the election during their major evening newscast, 160 stories or 56 percent of the local stories featured Bush or Gore campaign statements on the election. About 59 percent of KING's coverage featured Bush or Gore assertions, whereas 87 percent of KVOA's, 53 percent of WLNS's and 45 percent of WOOD's coverage had such partisan assertions.
The 469 partisan stories were further content analyzed: 104 from ABC, 103 from CBS, 102 from NBC, 60 from KING, 26 from KVOA, 37 from WLNS and 37 from WOOD. These stories ran from September 4 to November 6.
Networks varied from 44 to 46 in the number of days they covered the presidential campaign; local stations varied from 17 to 37 days. About 17 percent of the stories led newscasts, 34 percent were the first or only story that day on the election and 49 percent of the stories followed other election stories. Most network coverage consisted of at least two stories and some days as many as seven or eight made up a day's election segment for each network. Most local station coverage consisted of at least one story and some days as many as four made up a day's election segment for a station. About 52 percent of the election stories covered by the local stations had only one story on one particular day.
Roughly half of all election stories were completely one-sided. About 3 in 5 of the election stories were reporter packages. The rest of the stories were almost evenly divided among anchor voice-overs (vos), anchor voice over/sound on tape (vo/sot), and other types of stories. About 70 percent of the network stories used reporter packages, whereas only 40 percent of the stories covered by local stations used packages. About 35 percent of local coverage used anchor vos.
Viewers had a one in four chance of seeing an election story that was balanced on all four balance component measures. Imbalanced individual stories were however, usually paired to achieve balance in the day's election news segment; this occurred more often in network coverage (94%) than local station coverage (82%). Overall, only 11 percent of the stories were one-sided and structurally imbalanced in favor of one of the candidates and were not offset during a broadcast day by another one-sided story focused on the opponent. Considering news segments, Bush (54%) was slightly more likely to lead each day than Gore (46%), whereas Gore (49%) was slightly more likely to receive more time than Bush (47%). No differences were found in terms of visuals or on air quotations.
Partisan Balance of Coverage
In response to Research Question 1, the partisan domination of broadcast stories slightly favored Bush (47 %) than Gore (44 %) and the rest were evenly divided (See Table 1). The partisan domination of broadcast segments again slightly favored Bush (54%) than Gore (47%) (See Table 2).
Findings addressing Research Question 2 showed no differences in the partisan domination of stories between networks and local stations (See Table 1). Moreover, the results showed no differences in the partisan domination of news segments between networks and local stations (See Table 2). However, a breakdown in terms of which candidate led, and the amount of time given, reveals that when a candidate was covered first, that candidate also received more airtime. About 64 percent of the coverage follows this pattern: In 33 percent of the stories on a given day, Bush led and was given more airtime, and in 31 percent of the stories, Gore led and was given more airtime (See Table 2).
Structural Balance of Stories
Findings addressing Research Question 3 on the structural balance of individual stories indicate that few viewers got a chance to encounter a structurally balanced presentation of both candidates. The mean structural balance score of stories was 2.44 on a scale of 0, indicating a perfectly balanced story, to 4, indicating that the same candidate dominated every component measure (the side making assertions first, total time given sides for such assertions, visuals of the candidates or members of their campaign, and whether each candidate's campaign source was quoted on air rather than quoted or paraphrased by reporters or anchors). Stories were therefore imbalanced in more than two out of the four structural elements (See Table 3).
Research Question 4 asks whether network and local station stories differed in their structural imbalance. The results showed that the stories covered by the networks were slightly more imbalanced than the stories covered by the local stations (See Table 3).
Hypothesis 1, asserting that network stories would be more balanced structurally than local stories was not supported (See Table 3). The mean network imbalance score was .16 higher than that for local stories.
Hypothesis 2, which stated that stories leading newscasts will be less imbalanced than other stories, also was not supported. The mean structural imbalance score of 2.72 for a story leading the newscast was higher than the scores for other stories (See Table 3).
Hypothesis 3, which stated that network lead stories will be less imbalanced than local lead stories, was supported. Network lead stories were slightly less imbalanced than local lead stories (See Table 3).
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Overall, the coverage showed that Bush and Gore campaigns received roughly equal coverage in terms of partisan domination and time. A Bush source was more likely to be the first source presented, but Gore sources received more airtime. Results showed that nearly half of the individual stories tended to be unfair, favoring either Bush or Gore, but the news segment tended to be fair, presenting both Bush and Gore sources; these findings are consistent with Carter et al.'s findings on local television station coverage of the 1998 governor's race in Michigan. Here too, a news director considering total election coverage may be satisfied that the candidates were treated equally.
However, the networks and stations broadcasted only one story on one-third of the days, and infrequent viewers of the coverage may well have obtained a negative impression of its fairness and balance. More than half of the stories broadcasted by local stations were the only election story that particular day. Moreover, the viewer had only a one in four chance of seeing an approximately balanced story, while nearly half of the time the viewer was likely to see a story that was structurally imbalanced by at least three out of the four measured components. While network stories were on average (and contrary to expectations) more imbalanced than local stories, those network stories were also more likely to appear in multi-story segments that were fair.
Remarkable similarities existed in the percentages between network and local coverage in story partisan sourcing, story structural imbalance, and partisan domination of news stories. The local stations' use of news feeds from the networks likely explains this result. Local news station personnel relied on national coverage on the network level to update its viewers on the national presidential campaign. Possibly, the local stations included in this study may not be typical of such stations generally. However, network and local stories given more prominence in the newscast --- and therefore more likely to get viewer attention --- were more structurally imbalanced than others. One possible explanation is that especially newsworthy campaign-driven or related events, by their nature one-sided, displaced balance norms on a significant number of days. But it would be strange if local stations attempting to cover a national election ignored the feeds their network affiliate provide
s. Obviously too, these network feeds will be supplemented by the local station's own coverage if and when campaign events or developments occur nearby.
Overall, network coverage was more fair and balanced than that of the local stations' included in this study. Given more resources and more news hole time, the networks were able to cover the election thoroughly and consequently, more fairly. Another difference was that 70 percent of network stories used reporter packages compared to 40 percent of local station coverage. Local stations used anchor voice overs for nearly a third of their coverage, which was six times more than the networks used the story type. Again, this is likely because networks had more money and more resources such as reporters and producers, enabling the use of the longest story type, the package. Also, local stations had to provide a news hole for local coverage, whereas the networks do not, giving networks more time available for election coverage. This also may explain why local stations broadcast only one story on the election on a given day. In fact, a majority of local stories made up single-stor
y segments.
The fact that 94 percent of network segments were fair likely reflects conscious attempts by news personnel at providing fair coverage of the presidential elections. By contrast, local stations were three times more likely than networks to have one-sided segments. Network producers and reporters may have established methods to monitor and control their coverage. Local stations may want to do the same. In any event, whatever bias observers attributed to networks, little evidence of bias was found using the methods employed in this study.
However, other methods such as surveys and focus groups should be used to determine how viewers determine fairness and balance in individual stories and news segments. It is particularly important to assess if viewers are most attuned to the partisan or structural balance of stories and segments. Future studies using content analysis also should also take a closer look at the kinds of sources and story topics that were covered during the presidential election to provide a bigger picture of coverage of the 2000 presidential election. Finally, while judgments of the "tone" of coverage may be subjective, such assessment may provide a rich complement to the quantitative context provided by analyzing story and segment structure.
Table 1: Partisan Domination of Broadcast News Stories
Network Local All
Favors Bush 46% 48% 47%
Favors Gore 45% 42% 44%
Balanced 9% 9% 9%
Story N 309 160 469
Table 2: Partisan Domination of Broadcast News Segments
Network Local All
Bush First/Bush More Time 32% 35% 33%
Bush First/Time Balanced 1% 4% 2%
Bush First/Gore More Time 22% 14% 19%
Gore First/Gore More Time 32% 29% 31%
Gore First/Time Balanced 1% 3% 2%
Gore First/Bush More Time 13% 14% 14%
Segment N 130 99 229
Table 3: Structural Balance of Broadcast Election Stories (Mean Structural Balance Scores. Higher scores indicate more story imbalance.)
Imbalance Score N
All Stories 2.44 468
Network 2.49 309
Local 2.33 159
Story Prominence
Leads Newscast 2.72 79
First/Only Story 2.05 159
Following Story 2.60 230
Network Lead Stories 2.66 56
Local Lead Stories 2.87 23
Endnotes
[1] "News Source of Choice," USA Today, 14 February 2000, p. 1A.
[2] "Trends," PR News Media Hotline, 21 December 1998.
[3] Christine Urban, "Examining Our Credibility: Perspectives of the Public and the Press," American Society of Newspaper Editors (August 30, 1999) Available on-line: http://www.asne.org/index.cfm?ID=2616.
[4] Christine Urban, "Examining Our Credibility."
[5] See: James Roberts, "Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distorts the News," Human Events, 25, February 2002, p. 12; Christian Toto, "Righting the Liberal News Slant," Insight on the News Slant, 25 February 2002, p. 30; "What's Bush Reading?" Human Events; 11 February 2002, p. 8; Lou Cannon, "Tackling Bias," National Review, 11 February 2002, p. 43; Eric Alterman, "'Whacking' the Liberal Media," The Nation, 11 February 2002, p. 10; Al Neuharth, "'Bias': Book You Can Judge By Its Cover," USA Today, 8 February 2002, p. A13; Rachel Orvino, "Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distorts the News," Entertainment Weekly, 25 January 2002, p. 98.
[6] See: Julia Duin, "Bias Crimes," Insight on the News, 25 February 2002, p. 30-31; Susan Colowick, "Coloring the News: How Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism," Library Journal, 1 February 2002, p. 110, Frederick Lynch, "Coloring the News: How Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism," The Weekly Standard, 17 December 2001, p. 43.
[7] See: Cecelie Gaziano, "How Credible is the Credibility Crisis?" Journalism Quarterly 65 (Summer 1988): 267-278; Cecelie Gaziano and Kristin McGarth, "Measuring the Concept of Credibility," Journalism Quarterly 63 (Autumn 1986): 451-462; Christine Urban, "Why Newspaper Credibility Has Been Dropping: A report for the American Society of Newspaper Editors," Urban & Associates, Inc. (1998).
[8] "Project will study fairness in media," Freedom Forum News, 24 February 1997, p.1, col. 1. The Freedom Forum announced that it would allocate $1 million to "explore new procedures to enhance free press, to increase fairness in the media and to improve public perception of fairness in the media."
[9] See: R. Haiman, Best Practices for Newspaper Journalists (Freedom Forum Free Press/ Fair Press Project, 2000); A. Westin, Best Practices for Television Journalists (Freedom Forum Free Press/Fair Press Project, 2000).
[10] Robert Vallone, Lee Ross, and Mark Lepper, "The Hostile Media Phenomenon: Biased Perception and Perceptions of Media Bias in Coverage of the Beirut Massacre," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49 (1985): 577-585.
[11] See: Albert Gunther, "Attitude Extremity and Trust in Media," Journalism Quarterly 65 (Summer 1988): 279-287; Albert Gunther, "Biased Press or Biased Public?" Public Opinion Quarterly 56 (Summer 1992): 147-168.
[12] Pamela Shoemaker and Stephen Reese, Mediating the Message: Theories of
Influences on Mass Media Content. 2nd. ed. (White Plains, N.Y.: Longman, 1996).
[13] Gaye Tuchman, "Objectivity as Strategic Ritual," American Journal of Sociology 77 (January 1972): 660-679. Tuchman used the term "strategic ritual" to characterize the journalistic convention of getting both sides of a controversy into a story in order to avoid criticism.
[14] See: Dru Evarts and Guido Stempel, "Coverage of the 1972 Campaign by TV, News
Magazines and Major Newspapers," Journalism Quarterly 51 (Winter 1974): 645-676; C. Richard Hofstetter, Bias in the News: A Study of Network News Coverage of the 1972 Election Campaign. (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1976); C. Richard Hofstetter, "Perception of News Bias in 1972 Presidential Campaign," Journalism Quarterly 56 (Summer 1979): 370-374; C. Richard Hofstetter and Terry Buss, "Bias in Television News Coverage of Political Events: A Methodological Analysis," Journal of Broadcasting 22 (Fall 1978): 517-530; Dennis Lowry and Jon Shidler, "The Sound Bites, the Bitters and The Bitten: A Two Campaign Test of the Anti-Incumbent Bias Hypothesis in Network TV News," Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 75 (Winter 1998): 719-729; David Domke, David Fan, Michael Dhavan, Steven Smith and Mark Watts, "News Media Candidates and Issues, and Public Opinion in the 1996 Presidential Campaign," Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 74 (Winter 1997):718-737; Frederick
Fico and William Cote, "Fairness and Balance in the Structural Characteristics of Newspaper Stories on the 1996 Presidential Election, " Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 76 (Spring 1999): 124-137; Sue Carter, Frederick Fico and Jocelyn A. McCabe, "Partisan and Structural Balance in Local Television Election Coverage," Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media (in press).
[15] Dru Evarts and Guido Stempel, "Coverage of the 1972 Campaign by TV."
[16] C. Richard Hofstetter, "News Bias in the 1972 Campaign: A Cross-Media Analysis," Journalism Monographs 58 (November 1978): 1-30.
[17] See: Thomas Johnson, "Filling Out the Racing Form: How the Media Covered the Horse Race in the 1988 Primaries," Journalism Quarterly 70 (Summer 1993): 300-310; Thomas Johnson, "The Seven Dwarfs and Other Tales: How the Networks and Select Newspapers Covered the 1988 Democratic Primaries," Journalism Quarterly 70 (Summer 1993): 311-320.
[18] See : W. Christ, H. Haines, and R. Huesca, " Remember the Alamo: Late-Night Local Newscasts in San Antonio, Texas." In Lynda Lee Kaid and Dianne G.
Bystron, eds. The Electronic Election: Perspectives on the 1996 Campaign
Communication. (Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1999); David Ostroff, "A Participant-Observer Study of TV Campaign Coverage," Journalism Quarterly 57 (Fall 1980): 415-417;
David Ostroff and Karin Sandell, "Local Station Coverage of Campaigns: A Tale of Two Cities in Ohio," Journalism Quarterly 61 (Summer 1984): 346-351; David Ostroff and Karin Sandell, "Campaign Coverage by Local TV News in Columbus, Ohio, 1978-1986," Journalism Quarterly 66 (Spring 1989): 114-120.
[19] David Ostroff and Karin Sandel, "Local Station Coverage of Campaigns."
[20] See: Sue Carter, Frederick Fico and Jocelyn A. McCabe, "Partisan and Structural Balance in Local Television Election Coverage," Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly (in press).
[21] Sue Carter, Frederick Fico and Jocelyn A. McCabe, "Partisan and Structural Balance."
[22] James Dearing and Everette Rogers, Agenda Setting. (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1996): 109-128.
[23] Broadcasting Cable Yearbook, (New Providence, NJ: Bowker, 2001).
[24] See: Frederick Fico and William Cote, "Fairness and Balance in Election Reporting," Newspaper Research Journal 18 (Summer/Fall 1997): 50-63; Frederick Fico and William Cote, "Fairness and Balance of Stories in Newspaper Coverage of the 1996 Presidential Election," Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 76 (Spring 1999): 123-137.