Content-Type: text/html
Intermedia Agenda Setting
in the 1996 Presidential Election
Thomas P. Boyle
Susquehanna University
514 University Ave.
Selinsgrove, PA 17870
717.372.4079
[log in to unmask]
Submitted to:
Mass Communication & Society Division
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
Baltimore, MD
August 5-8, 1998
1996 Intermedia Agenda Setting
Intermedia Agenda Setting
in the 1996 Presidential Election
Submitted to:
Mass Communication & Society Division
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
Baltimore, MD
August 5-8, 1998
Abstract
This study focuses on the network news coverage across two time periods during
the 1996 presidential election. Results from a content analysis of 116 political
advertisements, 818 newspaper stories, and 101 network news stories found
support for the belief that advertising influences the prominence of an issue
within network newscasts, but not in the overall time devoted to it. Also,
findings suggest prestige newspapers play a role in determining what issues lead
television newscasts.
List of Tables
Table 1: Combined Mentions of the Political Advertisement Agenda
Table 2: Combined Time of the Political Advertisement Agenda
Table 3: Pearson Coefficients of the 1996 Presidential Political Advertisement
Mentions
Table 4: Pearson Coefficients of the 1996 Presidential Political Advertisement
Seconds
Table 5: Combined Mentions of the Network News Agenda
Table 6: Combined Time of the Network News Agenda
Table 7: Prominence of Issue Stories in First Segment of Network Newscasts
Table 8: Pearson Coefficients of 1996 Network Presidential Campaign Coverage
Table 9: Combined Mentions of the Newspaper Agenda
Table 10: Combined Column Inches of the Newspaper Agenda
Table 11: Combined Prominence of the Issues of the Newspaper Agenda
Table 12: Pearson Coefficients of 1996 Presidential Coverage by Newspaper
Column Inches
Table 13: News Mentions and Seconds at Time 2 Regressed on Advertising,
Prestige Press, and Real-World Indicators
Table 14: News Prominence at Time 2 Regressed on Advertising, Prestige
Press, and Real-World Indicators
Introduction
The goal of this study is to analyze on a national level the influence of the
television advertising agenda on the network news agenda during the 1996
presidential political campaign season.
This study is driven by two areas of inquiry. First, considering the large
number of agenda-setting studies considering the media agenda's relationship the
public or policy agendas, it is crucial to understand the construction of the
media agenda. This is an area outlined by other researchers (Rogers, Dearing,
and Bregman, 1993). Second, if campaigns do play a major role in determining the
media agenda, what does this say about the importance of campaigns in choosing
our president.
Recent Agenda-Setting Research
In 1993, Rogers, Dearing, and Bregman noted the original McCombs and Shaw study
(1972) has been cited in nearly 200 agenda-setting studies. They also outline
four areas of present and future research: 'setting the media agenda, real-world
conditions, individual-level cognitive processes, and increasing the accuracy of
the public agenda' (1993, p. 80). This study falls into the first of these
areas: intermedia agenda setting.
In this area, one study of special note is by Marilyn Roberts and Maxwell
McCombs and supports a strong link between television advertising and the
television news agenda (1994). Considering the 1990 Texas gubernatorial race,
Roberts and McCombs found support for a strong relationship between newspaper
and television news content (Roberts & McCombs, 1994, p. 257). Also, a strong
correlation was found between television political advertising, and television
news and newspaper coverage (Roberts & McCombs, 1994, p. 257).
In a related study, Roberts considered how the agenda-setting function of the
news and political advertising helped predict who voters supported during the
1990 Texas gubernatorial battle (1992). Roberts used discriminant analysis to
see if the three different agendas -- voters, news, and advertising -- had a
strong relationship with the vote reported in the post-election survey.
Initially, this classification technique had a 70 percent success rate (Roberts,
1992, p. 892).
An important note is Roberts' explanation of the limitations of the
agenda-setting process to explain voting behavior. Only a "subset" separates the
voters of each candidate and even when an issue is high on the "advertising
agenda" it does not always transfer into a predictor of the vote (Roberts, 1992,
p. 889). Yet when "partisanship, gender, degree of media reliance" and other
controls are added to the analysis, the predictive power of the issue agenda
increases -- in some cases up to 90 percent or more (1992, pp. 890-892).
In addition to considering the influences of the television advertising agenda
on the news agenda, the consideration of the "prestige press" and its impact on
network news programming has been examined by media scholars. Danielian and
Reese (1989) conducted an extensive 40-week study of intermedia agenda-setting
focusing on the cocaine issue and reported the results in two book chapters.
They found network news programs followed the lead of the New York Times in
their coverage of the issue (Reese & Danielian, 1989, p. 41). As in the original
agenda-setting study (McCombs & Shaw, 1972), Danielian and Reese found great
similarity within media categories (1989, pp. 52-53). Danielian and Reese
conclude while the New York Times lead coverage initially, other media also lead
at various points and in some cases "converged" on the issue (1989, p. 56).
Along with considering the influence of one agenda on another, the placement of
news stories within their larger program vehicle has been considered by the
researchers. In an extensive agenda-setting study, Iyengar and Kinder (1987)
found the placement of news story within simulated broadcasts had a great
influence on what stories viewers believed important.
With another variable -- real-world indicators, Behr and Iyengar (1985) studied
survey data and a selected network newscast from 1974 through 1980. The
researchers found changing national indicators influence the amount and
prominence of an issue's treatment by network news (Behr & Iyengar, 1985, p.
45). The researchers suggest real-world indicators lead to an increase in an
issue's saliency on the news and public agendas (Behr & Iyengar, 1985, pp.
53-54).
Overall, the literature supports the importance of political advertising,
prestige press coverage, and real-world indicators to network news coverage. The
study here focuses on their influence during the 1996 presidential content.
Summary of the Design
Primary data were collected through a content analysis of four sources: the
universe of the advertisements produced by the three major candidates in the
1996 presidential race, a text-based analysis of randomly constructed weeks of
the network news verbatim transcripts for eight weeks prior to election day, a
text-based analysis of news stories in three major daily newspapers, and an
analysis of changes in real-world indicators for a subset of the forty issue
categories.
Issue mentions and the time or column issues devoted to it were coded by the
researcher. A second coder analyzed ten percent of the advertisements and texts.
The intercoder reliability rate was similar to other content analyses using the
appropriate formula for two coders: 84 percent for the advertisements and
newspapers, 83 percent for the network newscasts (for formula see North, Holsti,
Zaninovich, & Zinnes, 1963). Along with coding for mentions and amount of space
or time, the study analyzed the placement of the issues within the network
newscasts and major dailies.
Campaign coverage on the network news agenda was the dependent variable. The
unit of analysis was the forty issue categories. The units of observation were
116 political advertisements, 101 campaign-focused network news stories, and 817
campaign newspaper stories.
In summary, the study sought to find support for or against two hypotheses.
H1 The greater an issue is mentioned by televised political advertisements in
Time 1, the greater an issue is mentioned by network news programs in Time 2.
H2 The greater an issue is mentioned by televised political advertisements in
Time 1, the greater prominence of an issue within network newscasts in Time 2.
Analysis of the Data
The advertising, network news, and newspaper agendas are presented below
followed by the findings for correlation and regression analyses. After a
discussion of the statistical significance of each agenda, a discussion of the
substantive significance of individual variables occurs in the discussion
section that follows.
Table 1
Combined Mentions of the Political Advertising Agenda:
Top 15 Issues
Time 1 Mentions Time 2 Mentions
1. Taxes 68 1. Leadership 140
2. Leadership 60 2. Political Process 74
3. Political Process 54 3. Taxes 45
4. Drugs 44 4. Children 34
5. Family 17 5. Family 32
6. Campaign 15 6. Elderly 28
Employment 15 7. Drugs 27
7. Economy 13 8. Morality 25
8. Budget 12 9. Education 21
9. Children 9 10. Immigration 20
Morality 9 11. Crime/Violence 19
10. Government Sp. 8 12. Campaign 16
11. Elderly 6 Employment 16
12. Education 5 13. Economy 15
13. Crime 3 14. Environment 11
Experience/Ability 3 Gun Control 11
Trade Issues 3 15. Budget 9
14. Compassion 2 Government Sp. 9
Environment 2
Welfare 2
15. Gun Control 1
Knowledgeable 1
N=40. Unit of observations = 116 advertisements. Total mentions, Time 1 = 352
and Time 2 = 574. Time 1: Sept. 2 - Sept. 29, 1996. Time 2 : Oct. 9 - Nov. 5,
1996.
Table 2
Combined Time of the Political Advertising Agenda:
Top 15 Issues
Time 1 Seconds Time 2 Seconds
1. Political Process 211.2 1. Leadership 546.7
2. Leadership 203.0 2. Political Process 253.7
3. Taxes 195.6 3. Taxes 154.1
4. Drugs 166.0 4. Children 116.5
5. Family 63.9 5. Elderly 102.5
6. Morality 58.1 6. Family 101.6
7. Campaign 50.2 7. Morality 101.2
8. Children 39.3 8. Drugs 95.9
9. Employment 36.3 9. Education 64.3
10. Budget 33.1 10. Campaign 61.3
11. Economy 30.4 11. Crime/Violence 60.4
12. Government Sp. 29.3 12. Immigration 60.0
13. Experience/Ability 20.0 13. Economy 44.4
14. Compassion 15.0 14. Employment 41.1
15. Elderly 14.6 15. Environment 38.5
N=40. Unit of observations = 116 advertisements. Total time, Time 1 = 1215.0
seconds and Time 2 = 2010.9 seconds. Time 1= Sept. 2 - Sept. 29, 1996. Time 2 =
Oct. 9 - Nov. 5, 1996.
Advertising:
Tables 1 and 2 show the major issues on the combined advertising agendas for
the Clinton, Dole and Perot teams. In Table 1, taxes, leadership, political
process, drugs, family, children, and morality were issues in the top ten ranks
while campaign, employment, economy, budget and government spending all fell
between time 1 and time 2. In the later time period, elderly, education and
immigration all moved up to become top ten issues. The leadership category
garnered a large portion of the issue mentions -- almost a quarter of the total
mentions
Table 3:
Pearson Correlation of 1996 Presidential Political Advertisements Mentions
Clinton
Mentions T1
Clinton
Mentions T2
Dole
Mentions T1
Dole
Mentions T2
Perot
Mentions T1
Clinton
Mentions T2
.61
Dole
Mentions T1
.84
.35
Dole
Mentions T2
.61
.56
.69
Perot
Mentions T1
.08
.20
.04
.27
Perot
Mentions T2
.35
.40
.29
.47
.92
Table 4:
Pearson Correlation of 1996 Presidential Political Advertisements Seconds
Clinton
Seconds T1
Clinton
Seconds T2
Dole
Seconds T1
Dole
Seconds T2
Perot
Seconds T1
Clinton
Seconds T2
.56
Dole
Seconds T1
.80
.40
Dole
Seconds T2
.66
.60
.80
Perot
Seconds T1
.07
.18
.04
.29
Perot
Seconds T2
.38
.50
.30
.54
.86
Table 2 focuses on the actual time each advertisement devoted to an issue.
Political process, leadership, taxes, drugs, family, morality, campaign, and
children all remained as top ten issues throughout the two time periods.
Employment and budget dropped significantly while elderly and education emerged
on the top ten issue agenda for the network news agendas at time 2.
Pearson correlation coefficients in table 3 suggest a strong relationship
between the two major party candidate advertising at time 1 with a r = .84. At
time 2, the statistical relationship drops to a moderate one with a r = .56.
There is a weak relationship between the Dole advertisements at time 1 and
Clinton ads time 2 (r = .35). The reverse relationship is moderate: Clinton ads
at time 1 and Dole at time 2 (r = .61). Moderate coefficients are also found
between each candidate's advertising in time 1 and time 2.
The issues in the Perot advertisements in time 1 have a weak relationship with
major party candidate ads. Pearson coefficients range from .04 to .29 in tables
3 and 4. Perot mentions at time 2 were stronger in relationship to Dole and
Clinton than in time 1 with coefficients range from .29 to .54. Perot mentions
and seconds between time 1 and time 2 provide coefficients of .92 and .86
respectively.
Advertising seconds in table 4 reflect the same positive relationships
described above for the Democratic and Republican nominees. A fairly strong
relationship (r = .80) at time 1 and a moderate one (r = .60) at time 2 between
the major party candidates. A stronger relationship was seen between Clinton
issues at time 1 and Dole time 2 (r = .66) than the reverse relationship (r =
.40). The relationship between the two time periods for Dole advertising was
higher (r = .80) than with the Clinton campaign (r = .56).
Discussion: The advertising data reflects a number of substantively significant
findings when put in the context of the 1996 campaigns. Changes from time 1 to
time 2 in the sum of mentions and seconds are supported by the issues focused on
by Clinton, Dole, and Perot. The leadership category is the number one category
by far in time 2 as the candidates focused on their vision for America. For
example, one of the themes of the Clinton campaign was his vision for "building
a bridge to the 21st century" -- Dole often asked if was a toll bridge.
Also seen in tables 1 and 2, immigration was an issue that rose from zero
mentions to 20 mentions or 10th in the rank-order on the advertising agenda at
time 2. A similar rise is seen in table 2. The immigration issue was
substantively used by the Dole campaign, especially in California where Dole
spent most of his resources in the closing month of the campaign. It was
speculated by pundits the immigration issue would be a wedge issue in the golden
state with its 54 electoral votes. Along with leadership, political process was
a major focus of the Perot ads. Taxes, morality, and drugs were also major
issues in Dole advertising. Clinton's camp focused on a variety of family and
working class issues: children, family, elderly, and education.
The Pearson correlation coefficients in tables 3 and 4 reflect a number of
elements in the issue context of the 1996 campaign. Perot's weak correlation
coefficients with the major candidates reflects his limited resources --
constrained by spending limits since accepting federal campaign money. The Perot
team's issues had low coefficients at time 1 with the major party candidates
while rising to moderate ones during time 2. In the context of the campaign,
Perot was forced to focus on only a few issues because he could only buy so much
air time. His advisors eventually bought 15-second spots instead of the normal
30-second spots in an effort to disseminate his message further with limited
funds. Perot's coefficients between his own advertising at time 1 and time 2 was
higher than the relationship between the major party candidates with their own
advertising. This consistency of messages is substantially supported by two
elements of the presidential race. First, Perot's messages was that of the
"outsider" and he continued that theme throughout the two time periods. Second,
the Perot team didn't have the resources or willingness to re-evaluate their
messages and make daily strategic changes in advertising copy.
Tables 3 and 4 reflect the dominance of the Clinton campaign in setting the
issue agenda between the campaigns. The Clinton team had gained a reputation in
1992 to quickly respond to charges within one day's news cycle and this
dominance was even further perfected in 1996. The strong coefficients between
Clinton time 1 and Dole time 2 reflects the possibility the Dole campaign
attempted to distinguish itself from the earlier views communicated by Clinton
who used the bully pulpit very effectively to get his message out. This belief
has further substantive support in light of the late leadership changes the Dole
campaign made in their advertising team. The Clinton ads in time 2 showed a
weaker relationship with Dole in time 1.
Network News Agenda
Table 5 shows the issues important on the network news agenda. Campaign-related
coverage was dominated by the campaign's race aspects: who was leading, team
strategy, polling results, and media buys. In time 1, campaign elements made up
60 percent of news mentions while in time 2 those elements made up 77 percent of
coverage.
Other issues that were top ten topics in both time periods: economy, education,
taxes, political process, crime/violence, and leadership. Three issues fell
considerably: drugs, foreign policy, and environment. In time 2, morality,
elderly, budget, and civil rights/race relations emerged as important issues.
Table 5
Combined Mentions of the Network News Agenda:
Top 15 Issues
Time 1 Mentions Time 2 Mentions
1. Campaign 204 1. Campaign 444
2. Drugs 35 2. Morality 135
3. Economy 27 3. Education 75
4. Education 26 4. Economy 52
5. Taxes 21 5. Elderly 30
6. Political Process 19 6. Taxes 15
7. Crime/Violence 18 7. Crime/Violence 13
8. Foreign Policy 12 8. Economy 11
9. Leadership 11 Leadership 11
10. Environment 10 9. Political Process 10
11. Budget 9 10. Budget 9
12. Immigration 8 Civil Rights/Race 9
Government Sp. 8 11. Gun Control 7
13. Abortion 7 12. Environment 6
Employment 7 13. Children 5
Morality 7 Drugs 5
14. Welfare 4 14. Family 4
U.S. Military Inv. 4 Government Sp.
4
15. Children 3 Immigration 4
Elderly 3 Poverty 4
Family 3 15. Compassion 4
Gun Control 3 Health 2
Poverty 3 Welfare 2
Trade Issue 3 Women's Issues
2
N=40. Unit of observations = 101 network news stories. Total number of mentions,
Time 1 = 468 and Time 2 = 864. Time 1= Sept. 2 - Sept. 29, 1996. Time 2 = Oct. 9
- Nov. 5, 1996.
Table 6
Combined Time of the Network News Agenda:
Top 15 Issues
Time 1 Seconds Time 2 Seconds
1. Campaign 1906.51 1. Campaign 4416.93
2. Economy 262.30 2. Morality 1015.62
3. Drugs 247.00 3. Education 464.45
4. Education 207.00 4. Economy 430.65
5. Political Process 173.61 5. Elderly 310.75
6. Employment 170.82 6. Taxes 152.00
7. Crime/Violence 113.78 7. Leadership 103.75
8. Taxes 109.58 8. Political Process 94.21
9. Foreign Policy 104.58 9. Civil Rights/Race 86.69
10. Environment 82.58 10. Employment 77.28
11. Leadership 67.73 11. Crime/Violence 75.40
12. Abortion 56.44 12. Budget 60.75
13. Budget 54.83 13. Gun Control 51.61
14. Immigration 53.73 14. Environment 43.28
15. Morality 48.76 15. Children 43.17
N=40. Unit of observations = 101 network news stories. Total seconds, Time 1 =
3971.6 and Time 2 = 7682.5. Time 1= Sept. 2 - Sept. 29, 1996. Time 2 = Oct. 9 -
Nov. 5, 1996.
Table 6 focusing on the actual time devoted to the issues reflects much the
same issue landscape as table 5. Drugs, foreign policy, and environment drop out
of the top ten in addition to another issue not seen in table 5: crime/violence
dropping to 11th. Morality, elderly, and civil rights/race relations emerged as
important issues in addition to a new one: leadership. Again, coverage focusing
on the race aspects of the campaign reigned. Campaign race coverage made up 48
percent of network stories at time 1. The percentage increased in time 2 to more
than 57 percent.
Table 7 reflects the overall dominance of the campaign " horse race" aspects of
network news coverage in relationship to other issues that make-up the
predominate content of campaign stories on the network news agenda.
In time 1, the campaign race category included 8 stories that were in the first
segment (before the opening and first commercial) of the newscast. Overall, this
reflects 8 out of the 42 prominent campaign stories or 19 percent
Table 7
Prominence of Issue Stories in
First Segment of Network News Program
Time 1 # Stories Time 2 # Stories
1. Campaign 8 1. Campaign 36
2. Economy 3 2. Morality 21
Environment 3 3. Economy 6
Political Process 3 4. Leadership 5
Morality 3 5. Civil Rights/Race 3
3. Crime/Violence 2 Crime/Violence 3
Drugs 2 Drugs 3
Education 2 6. Children 2
Elderly 2 Family
2
Government Sp. 2 Government Sp.
2
Taxes 2 7. Education 1
Morality 2 Employment 1
4. Budget 1 Environment 1
Family 1 Gun
Control 1
Health 1 Religion
1
Housing 1 Women's
Issues 1
Immigration 1 Foreign Aid 1
Infrastructure 1
Trade Issues 1
Experience/Ability 1
N=40. Unit of observations = 101 network news stories. Total number of mentions,
Time 1 = 42 and Time 2 = 98. Time 1= Sept. 2 - Sept. 29, 1996. Time 2 = Oct. 9 -
Nov. 5, 1996.
in the first segment were about the horse race aspects of the presidential
campaigns. In time 2, the number of campaign horse race stories jump
significantly as election day approaches and the network agendas turn their
attention to the presidential contest. Nearly double the time 1 results, 36 of
90 stories in the top segment or 40 percent of the campaign-related stories now
focused on the horse race aspects of the contest. Another significant number of
stories was those focusing on morality -- 21 stories total. From there the
number of stories focusing on an issue drops considerably with only 6 stories
focusing on the economy, third in the rankings.
Table 8:
Pearson Correlation of 1996 Network Presidential Campaign Coverage
Network
Mentions T1
Network
Seconds T1
Network
Prominence T1
Network
Mentions T2
.94
.94
.79
Network
Seconds T2
.96
.96
.79
Network
Prominence T2
.85
.85
.78
Note: The network news coverage is represented by randomly constructed weeks
and it is appropriate to consider the statistical significance of the
correlation coefficients. All of the coefficients in the table are statistically
significant at the p _ .05 level. The other data sets, political advertisements
and prestige press, are the universe of those stories and advertisements and are
not samples.
Table 8 shows strong correlation coefficients between the network news
mentions, seconds, and prominence. With coefficients of .78 up to .96 when
considering the 40 issue categories. In light of the rank-order tables of the
network news agendas above, it is not surprising to find high correlation
coefficients between these three levels of measurement between the two time
periods.
Discussion: A number of findings appear substantively significant in the context
of the 1996 presidential race and the advertising agenda. Tables 5 and 6
indicate issues at time 2 -- the month before election day -- include many of
the major issues of the advertising agenda. The morality issue focused on by the
Dole camp late in the campaign was ranked number two on the network news agenda.
A focus on the elderly -- a Clinton campaign issue -- was also high on the
list. Medicare funding became a controversial issue with Clinton noting Dole's
congressional votes in favor of program cuts and Republicans accusing Clinton of
scaring older Americans. Leadership was another issue each candidate tried to
claim with their own vision of America.
The civil rights/race relations category emerged as a top issue in the time
devoted to it as is seen in table 6. This issue is not a major issue at time 1
or at either time period in the network mentions categories (table 5). Yet,
affirmative action became a very controversial issue in California where it was
a referendum question focusing on the role of affirmative action in school
admissions. This could explain the issue's rise on the rankings, especially as
the presidential race focused on California and the candidates positioned
themselves accordingly.
One thing is clear -- campaign horse race coverage dominated all other issue
categories. The rest of the findings of the network news agenda and the
advertising requires further analysis of the issues to determine any influences
on the network news agenda.
Prestige Press Coverage
Considering the campaign coverage by the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and
Washington Post, the rankings in table 9 reflect -- like their electronic
counterparts -- campaign horse race issues dominated overall coverage. Campaign
race mentions constituted more than 55 percent of those in time 1 and more than
60 percent of those of time 2. Fifteen issues make up the top ten at time 1 and
19 issues at time 2. Most remained consistently in the top group, but government
spending dropped off considerably from between the two time periods. Defense
spending, budget, women's issues, environment, and defense spending all emerged
as major issues.
The column inches for the combined prestige press newspapers are show in table
10. Not surprising, campaign horse race coverage dominated both time periods.
Similar to the newspaper mentions table, government spending was a highly ranked
issue at time 1, yet fell dramatically -- here out of the top 15 list. Yet,
different than the mentions table, drugs and family fell out of the top ten
between time 1 and time 2. Column inches of immigration, leadership, and
education emerged as top issues in time 2.
The majority of campaign-related coverage on the front pages of the newspapers
consist of two issue categories (table 11). Again, stories about the campaign
race, polling, strategy, and media buys dominated the number of position on both
rankings. Campaign race coverage far outpaced all other issue stories making up
50 of 77 stories or 65 percent of time 1. At time 2, campaign race coverage made
up 65 percent of campaign coverage. The only other category in double-digits was
morality in time 2.
Table 9
Combined Mentions of the Newspaper Agenda:
Top 15 Issues
Time 1 Mentions Time 2 Mentions
1. Campaign 201 1. Campaign 275
2. Drugs 26 2. Morality 57
3. Taxes 17 3. Leadership 13
4. Government Sp. 16 4. Civil Rights/Race 10
5. Crime/Violence 14 Foreign Policy 10
6. Economy 9 Defense Spending 10
7. Education 8 5. Crime/Violence 9
Foreign Policy 8 Immigration 9
8. Family 7 Taxes 9
Morality 7 6. Economy 7
9. Elderly 5 7. Education 6
Immigration 5 8. Budget 5
10. Abortion 4 Elderly 5
Civil Rights/Race 4 Women's Issues 5
Leadership 4 9. Drugs 4
11. Environment 3 Family 4
Traditional Values 3 10. Abortion 3
12. Employment 2 Environment 3
Infrastructure 2 Defense Spending 3
Poverty 2 11. Gay Rights 2
Religion 2 Government Sp. 2
Nuclear Arms Race 2 Health 2
U.S. Military Inv. 2 Infrastructure 2
13. Children 1 12. Poverty 1
Gay Rights 1 Welfare 1
Health 1 U.S. Military Inv. 1
Veteran's Issues 1 Compassion 1
Welfare 1
Compassion 1
Experience/Ability 1
N=40. Unit of observations = 817 newspaper stories. Total number of mentions,
Time 1 = 364 and Time 2 = 453. Time 1= Sept. 2 - Sept. 29, 1996. Time 2 = Oct. 9
- Nov. 5, 1996.
Table 10
Combined Inches of the Newspaper Agenda:
Top 15 Issues
Time 1 Inches Time 2 Inches
1. Campaign 4353.51 1. Campaign 8063.86
2. Drugs 567.56 2. Morality 1338.06
3. Taxes 349.22 3. Civil Rights/Race 418.69
4. Government Sp. 333.77 4. Immigration 281.73
5. Crime/Violence 279.22 5. Economy 245.05
6. Foreign Policy 207.52 6. Foreign Policy 236.37
7. Family 134.14 7. Leadership 224.39
8. Morality 130.61 8. Crime/Violence 164.51
9. Civil Rights/Race 113.47 9. Education 158.74
10. Economy 107.29 10. Taxes 158.32
11. Immigration 97.15 11. Women's Issues 125.19
12. Environment 95.98 12. Drugs 105.25
13. Traditional Values 90.63 13. Elderly 95.93
14. Elderly 70.66 14. Family 85.80
15. U.S. Military Inv. 53.61 Defense Spending 85.50
15. Budget 74.11
N=40. Unit of observations = 817 newspaper stories. Total number of inches, Time
1 = 7529.9 and Time 2 = 12196.0. Time 1= Sept. 2 - Sept. 29, 1996. Time 2 = Oct.
9 - Nov. 5, 1996.
Pearson correlation coefficients in table 12 show very strong correlation
coefficients between the three prestige presses coverage of the presidential
candidates in 1996. The correlation coefficients suggest strong and positive
relationships between the three newspapers in their coverage of the 1996
election.
Table 11
Combined Prominence of Issues on the Newspaper Agenda:
Time 1 # Stories Time 2 # Stories
1. Campaign 50 1. Campaign 91
2. Drugs 3 2. Morality 16
Economy 3 3. Civil Rights/Race 6
Immigration 3 4. Economy 5
Taxes 3 5. Education 3
3. Crime/Violence 2 Immigration 3
Government Sp. 2 Taxes 3
Foreign Policy 2 Leadership 3
Morality 2 6. Women's Issues 2
Foreign Policy 2
7. Budget 1
Crime/Violence 1
Drugs 1
Government Sp. 1
Traditional Values 1
Defense Spending 1
N=40. Unit of observations = 817 newspaper stories. Total number of page one
stories, Time 1 = 77 and Time 2 = 140. Time 1= Sept. 2 - Sept. 29, 1996. Time 2
= Oct. 9 - Nov. 5, 1996.
Discussion: The results from the newspaper agendas reflect a consistency seen in
the network news coverage: predominant coverage of the race aspects of the
presidential race.
Several other issue categories at time 2 are especially noteworthy. First, the
top non-horse race issue on the network news agenda was also seen in the
newspaper mentions and seconds. Substantially, this supports the belief by the
Dole team stated publicly numerous times during October that they would focus on
making the "character" issue stick on Clinton. In addition, this was an issue
the Perot team attempted to bring into focus.
Table 12:
Pearson Correlation of 1996 Presidential Campaign Coverage
by Newspaper Column Inches
Los Angeles
Times T1
New York
Times T1
Washington
Post T1
Los Angeles
Times T2
.98
.98
.97
New York
Times T2
.96
.96
.96
Washington
Post T2
.98
.98
.97
After campaign horse race and morality, newspaper inches includes civil
rights/race relations, immigration, economy, foreign policy, and leadership.
Again, as the race focused more on California and both major party candidates
aimed their advertising on those media markets, civil rights/race relations
(affirmative action) and immigration become important issues as the candidates
lined up their positions on those two controversial issues for the golden state.
Like many presidential races before, the economy was an important issue with
Clinton claiming his leadership was in part responsible for the strong economy
while Dole criticized his policies. In addition, foreign policy in the Middle
East and other parts of the globe were debate topics. Consequently, leadership
was high on the newspaper agenda with all three candidates try to tie-in issues
with their leadership in the past and their vision for the future.
Television has been called a headline service and no doubt newspapers are often
better vehicles for more complex stories. This could have played a role in the
differences between the newspaper agenda and the network news agenda.
Specifically, the network news agenda had foreign policy in their top ten
listings of mentions and seconds at time 1. Yet, at time 2 the issue didn't
appear on the top 15 rankings. On the newspaper agendas, the same issue appeared
in the top ten in both time periods in mentions and inches. Furthermore,
newspaper inches of foreign policy rose from the seventh place in time 1 to the
4th place in time 2.
This discussion also makes another point -- the need to go beyond mere rankings
to more sophisticated measures of analysis. The analyses above point to two
major findings: newspaper campaign coverage consistently reflects a positive
strong relationship between the three newspapers included in the study, and the
relationship between the newspaper, advertising, and network news agendas have
some issues in common. Below a more statistically sophisticated level of
analysis is used to better understand the relationships between the variables.
Regression Analysis
Network News Mentions and Seconds:
The advertising agenda, network news agenda, prestige press agenda, and
real-world indicators at time 1 were all considered for their predictive ability
in determining the network news agendas at time 2.
In table 13, the first two ordinary least squares models and their weighted
least squares transformations show the coefficients for network news mentions at
time 2 regressed on advertising mentions, prestige press stories, and network
news mentions at time 1. Two variables are statistically significant in at least
two of the models. Advertising mentions in the first model is statistically
significant and produces a negative coefficient of -00.42. In the other three
models, with network news mentions at time 2 as the dependent variable, this
variable is not statistically significant.
In all of the first four models, network news at time 1 is statistically
significant, positive, and has a substantial coefficient ranging from 1.41 to
2.99. In the OLS models, the variable is significant at the .05 level. The
addition of the real-world indicator variable in the model produced a
coefficient not statistically significant. The real-world coefficients reduced
the adjusted R2 of the models. The standard errors were reduced for the OLS
models and increased for the WLS models. Clearly, their inclusion in the models
is of questionable analytic value.
In the remaining four models with network news seconds at time 2 regressed on
the predictor variables, two variables are statistically significant. Prestige
press inches is significant at the .20 level in the OLS model. Yet, the model
could be problematic due to heteroscedasticity. The weighted least squares model
attempting to address this problem transforms the variable into one that is not
statistically significant.
Again, the results show the network news coefficients -- measured as seconds in
the final four models -- are statistically significant in three of the models.
The network news seconds at time 1 produce coefficients ranging from 1.48 to
1.76.
The introduction of the real-world indicators using a subset of the data
produces coefficients not statistically significant. The adjusted R2 and the
standard error of the model were reduced in the OLS models. Yet, the standard
error increased in the WLS models when real-world indicators were added.
Table 13
News Mentions and Seconds at Time 2
Regressed on Advertising, Prestige Press, and Real World Indicators
Dependent Variable
Network News Network News
Mentions T2 Seconds T2
Independent Variables T1 OLS WLS OLS WLS
OLSb WLS OLS WLS
Constant term 01.22 00.85 02.50 02.78 -02.13 00.24 52.59 08.44
(4.58) (1.37) (9.91) (3.54) (35.52) (2.92) (94.72) (14.80)
Ad mentions -00.42* -01.48 -00.08 -09.64
(0.25) (3.52) (1.28) (13.01)
Ad seconds -0.69 -03.12 -03.52
-34.80 (0.53) (23.15) (7.05) (110.01)
Prestige press stories 00.60 00.57 -01.42 -02.27
(0.81) (0.89) (2.07) (2.13)
Prestige press inches 0.36* 00.18 -0.11 -0.23
(0.22) (0.27) (0.71) (0.69)
Network news 01.59*** 01.41** 02.63*** 2.99* 01.48*** 01.65***1.76*
01.51 (0.80) (0.81) (1.03) (1.55) (0.51) (0.57) (0.97) (1.36)
Real world indicators -0.56 -01.19 -03.94 -12.53
(0.66) (1.94) (6.41) (22.45)
R2 89.70 69.60 75.70 75.20 93.30 79.00 56.50 55.60
Adjusted R2 88.80 64.50 56.30 25.60 92.70 75.50 21.60 00.00
Standard Error of Model 24.34 04.30 16.93 04.42 191.60 09.86 162.70 15.28
Durbin-Watson 00.93c 01.36d 01.34d 02.27d 01.04c 01.65d 01.96d 02.46
N 40 40 10 10 40 40 10 10
Note: The Weighted Least Squares are transformed variables constructed by taking
the OLS coefficients and dividing through by the Ad Mentions or Seconds. This is
a remedial measure designed to reduce heteroscedasticity. In addition,
autocorrelation is especially problematic in data across time. These ad
variables were chosen for the transformations because they are theoretically
linked to network news mentions and seconds. Also, regression diagnostics
indicated they are a good choice for the transformation. Without this
transformation, OLS coefficients with autocorrelation and heteroscedasticity
present are biased and unreliable (see Gujarati, 1995, pp. 366-367, 411).
*p _ .20 aBreusch-Pagan-Godfrey test indicates heteroscedasticity is likely in
OLS model.
**p _ .10 b Heteroscedasticity is possible in OLS model.
***p _ .05 cIndicates autocorrelation is likely.
d Indicates autocorrelation is possible.
Standard errors in parentheses. Time 1= Sept. 2 - Sept. 29, 1996. Time 2 = Oct.
9 - Nov. 5, 1996.
Discussion: The results from table 13 would appear to not support the
substantive significance of advertising mentions and seconds on the network news
agenda. The one statistically significant variable would seem to support the
reverse hypothesis. In addition, the one prestige press variable that is
statistically significance is problematic because of heteroscedasticity. Its
statistical significance disappears in the WLS model.
Most noteworthy is the size and statistical significance of the network news
variables. These variables support the routinization of news beats and other
influences of the gatekeeping process that would encourage coverage of the same
issues over time. Substantively, the importance of this variable is reflective
of the consistent agenda with which networks cover presidential campaigns and
their candidates.
Network News Prominence:
The models in table 14 focus on the explanatory power of variables to determine
which issues were covered in the first segment of the network newscast.
Advertising mentions and prestige press stories both had statistically
significant variables. Ad mentions were significant at the .20 level in the OLS
model with the real-world indicators included. The prestige press variable was
significant in three of the four models. When the first model was transformed
due to an indication of heteroscedasticity, the prestige press variable
increased slightly and remained significant at the .05 level.
The only other variable that appears statistically significant is network news
prominence, but in the transformed model it loses its statistical significance.
The last four models consider advertising seconds and prestige press inches.
Advertising seconds is statistically significant at the .05 level in the WLS
model when the OLS model indicates the presence of heteroscedasticity. In the
second OLS model -- with real-life indicators included -- it remains
statistically significant, but at the .20 level.
Prestige press inches is a statistically significant variable in three of the
four models. Since the variables are measured on different units of measurements
(i.e. newspaper inches versus advertising seconds) it is difficult to interpret
the size of the variables. Yet, the prestige press inches appear to be small --
only .01 across all four models.
Network news prominence at time 1 is statistically significant in one of the
models. When the model is transformed, this significance disappears. Unlike the
network news mentions and seconds at time 1 discussed in table 13, the dependent
variable presented at the earlier time period for news prominence didn't produce
consistently statistically significant coefficients.
Discussion: Two independent variables appear significant in the models presented
in table 14. Advertising mentions and seconds, and prestige press stories and
inches are statistically significant. Greater focus should be placed on the
first and third WLS models where transformation supported by the presence of
heteroscedasticity in the original OLS models, and the second and fourth OLS
models where heteroscedasticity is not evident.
Focusing on those models, prestige press stories are statistically significant
at the .05 level in two models and advertising seconds in two. Also, ad mentions
is statistically significant in one of those models.
Of special note is the third WLS model in the table. Advertising seconds is
significant at the .05 level and has a coefficient of .62. This weighted model
is appropriate because the original OLS model indicates heteroscedasticity. The
transformed model has an R-squared of 66.70 and a standard error of the model is
low at .11.
Moving from the total time and mentions in table 13 to the prominence of which
issues are considered important enough to be included in the lead block of
stories (table 14), the greatest agenda-setting influences are support by the
regression analyses. The statistical significance of the dependent variable at
time 1 is gone except in two biased OLS models. Of the other independent
variables, only prestige press and advertising seconds are statistically
significant at the .05 level.
More importantly, the substantive significance of these models is supported by
the theoretical basis of the study. Major newspapers setting the agenda of
network newscasts is certainly not an astonishing finding. Considering the
variables in the models in table 14, for every six stories in the prestige press
newspapers at time 1 there would be one network news story either leading the
news or soon following it in the lead block. Prestige press inches follows that
for every 100 inches of newspaper coverage there would be one network news story
in the lead block.
Of even more substantive significance is the importance of the advertising
mentions and seconds. For every six times an issue like the economy was
mentioned in advertising at time 1, there was a network news story whose
predominate focus was the economy in the first block of the newscast at time 2.
On the level of advertising seconds, every two seconds devoted to an issue by
one of the candidates in their advertising spots at time 1 would produce 1.24
stories about the issue at time 2 in the lead segment of the network newscast.
It is logical that campaign advertising is representative of larger campaign
efforts. Since most presidential advertising is only 30 seconds, every second is
important real estate and its occupation is planned extensively by media
consultants. Table 14 supports the
Table 14
News Prominence at Time 2
Regressed on Advertising, Prestige Press, and Real World Indicators
Dependent Variable
Network News Prominence T2
Independent Variables T1 OLSa WLS OLS WLS
OLSa WLS OLS WLS
Constant term 00.08 00.13 -01.19* 00.22 00.06 00.01 -01.21 00.08
(0.66) (0.18) (0.81) (0.21) (0.67) (0.03) (0.84) (0.11)
Ad mentions -00.01 00.18 00.16* -00.88
(0.04) (0.42) (0.09) (0.69)
Ad seconds 00.01 00.62*** 00.07*
-00.54 (0.01) (0.24) (0.04) (0.78)
Prestige press stories 00.13*** 00.17*** 0.18 00.31*
(0.03) (0.05) (0.14) (0.11)
Prestige press inches 00.01*** 00.01***00.01
00.01* (0.00) (0.00) (0.01) (0.01)
Network news prominence 01.23** 00.04 00.50 -00.72 01.15** -00.14 00.70
-00.11 (0.65) (0.38) (0.64) (0.83) (0.65) (0.20) (0.55) (0.81)
Real world indicators 0.07 00.12 00.06 -00.00
(0.05) (0.12) (0.05) (0.14)
R2 76.40 47.70 73.90 89.60 76.30 71.40 72.6 79.2
Adjusted R2 74.50 39.00 53.00 68.90 74.30 66.70 50.7 37.5
Standard Error of Model 03.26 00.55 01.34 00.21 03.27 00.11 01.37 00.10
Durbin-Watson 01.05c 01.20c 01.99d 01.87d 01.14c 01.32c 02.13d 01.59d
N 40 40 10 10 40 40 10 10
Note: The Weighted Least Squares are transformed variables constructed by taking
the OLS coefficients and dividing through by the Ad Mentions or Seconds. This is
a remedial measure designed to reduce heteroscedasticity. In addition,
autocorrelation is especially problematic in data across time. These ad
variables were chosen for the transformations because they are theoretically
linked to network news mentions and seconds. Also, regression diagnostics
indicated they are a good choice for the transformation. Without this
transformation, OLS coefficients with autocorrelation and heteroscedasticity
present are biased and unreliable (see Gujarati, 1995, pp. 366-367, 411).
*p _ .20 aBreusch-Pagan-Godfrey test indicates heteroscedasticity is likely in
OLS model.
**p _ .10 b Heteroscedasticity is possible in OLS model.
***p _ .05 cIndicates autocorrelation is likely.
d Indicates autocorrelation is possible.
Standard errors in parentheses. Time 1= Sept. 2 - Sept. 29, 1996. Time 2 = Oct.
9 - Nov. 5, 1996.
belief that their decision to devote two seconds of a 30-second spot to an issue
could influence the network news agenda.
Conclusions and Implications
In review, the study sought to test the hypotheses below.
H1 The greater an issue is mentioned by televised political advertisements in
Time 1, the greater an issue is mentioned by network news programs in Time 2.
H2 The greater an issue is mentioned by televised political advertisements in
Time 1, the greater prominence of an issue within network newscasts in Time 2.
Hypothesis 1
The first hypothesis sought to investigate whether support could be found for
the belief that political advertisements had an influence on the amount of time
or mentions devoted to an issue during network newscasts of the 1996
presidential campaigns. The findings would appear to be inconclusive of
supporting the belief in the ability of advertising to influence overall network
news content. Based on the consistency across the models, the findings are
unable to determine support for the hypothesis.
In addition, only one of the prestige press coefficients are statistically
significant. The strongest support is found for the influence of the network
news agenda at the previous time period influencing time 2.
In summary, the analyses does not support the influence of television mentions
and seconds influencing the network news agenda.
Hypothesis 2
The second theoretical statement sought to investigate whether support could be
found for the belief that political advertisements had an influence on the
decision of media gatekeepers in the placement of stories in the most important
part of the newscast. The study finds support -- although not overwhelming -- in
favor of this belief.
With news prominence as the dependent variable, three of the statistically
significant advertising coefficients in the regression analysis were positive.
Also, six of the prestige press variables were statistically significant. Two of
models found support for the network news prominence at time 1 as an indicator
of time 2 prominence.
In summary, the analyses here supports the belief that the content of the
political advertisements at time 1 influence the placement of news stories
devoted to those issues in the lead-off segment of the network newscasts.
Implications for Intermedia Agenda-Setting
The research hypotheses focused on the influence of televised issue advertising
on the network news coverage of a presidential political campaign. Three major
implications are suggested by the findings.
First, influences of other media are suggested when network news prominence is
the dependent variable. It is a logical conclusion that where the influences of
agenda-setting would be found the most would be in the placement of issue
stories within a newscast. The overall number of mentions and time in a newscast
would be expected to be less impacted by advertising influence. This study does
not focus on the public agenda, but research considering the public agenda
suggests the importance of stories that lead the newscast. Iyengar and Kinder
(1987) found issues focused on in the lead stories were issues important on the
public agenda. Also, the researchers found stories contained elsewhere in the
network news programs did not have any influence on the public agenda. In the
context of the 1996 presidential campaign coverage, the Iyengar and Kinder
(1987) study supports the significance of issues contained in the lead block of
the network newscasts.
Second, support found in this study -- while not overwhelming -- would
indicate the influence of presidential political advertisements in the 1996
presidential campaign coverage. This finding supports one of the only similar
studies focusing on the intermedia agenda-setting influence of advertising
(Roberts & McCombs, 1994). Furthermore, it is important to note Roberts and
McCombs observation that advertising acted as a "parsimonious surrogate for the
campaign" (1994, p. 258). In the 1996 presidential campaign, it is logical to
note that the advertising variables are the variables representing the influence
of the overall campaign messages. Political campaigns develop messages used in
paid media (advertising) and earned media (news coverage). Hopefully, between
the two channels their message will resonant with voters. When political
advertising works best is when it receives news attention and thus the message
is disseminated well beyond the reach of the original advertising audience.
Standard procedure in large campaigns -- especially presidential ones -- is to
release advertising spots directly to journalists, often before they air on
television. This is sometimes done for strategic reasons to get the other
campaign to expend resources to develop, produce and air response advertising
for an ad critical of their candidate. Campaigns have been know to release spots
with much fanfare to get the other campaign to expend their resources for an
advertisement that -- unlike originally stated -- only runs briefly. Important
in considering intermedia agenda setting is that campaigns directly release
advertisements to the media. Consequently, journalists are exposed to
advertisements and their issue content regardless of how many times the spots
actually ran in media markets.
Third, the prestige press variable was significant in an overwhelming number of
the models. This finding is supported by other intermedia agenda-setting
studies. Newspapers, those in this study and smaller dailies, have been found to
lead network news coverage of issues and campaigns (Merriam, 1989; Reese and
Danielian, 1989; Danielian and Reese, 1989). Even the seminal agenda-setting
analysis by McCombs and Shaw (1972) found a moderate to strong relationship
between the newspaper and network news agendas.
Overall, the network news agenda from the two time periods support the belief
that television is a headline service taking cues from other sources --
advertising and the prestige press. In considering the total time and mentions,
there is some support for the consistency of the network news agenda from time
one to time two. The campaign issues on the network news agenda at time one have
predictive value for all of the issues in the newscast at time two, but this
relationship disappears when greater focus is put on the lead story or block
(issue prominence). Issues may remain on the network news agenda for two months
time because of the routinization of news beats and other factors influencing
decisions by network gatekeepers. Yet, the networks survey the news media
environment to help decide what issues will get their greatest attention. In the
future, greater attention needs to be focused on how issues rise on the network
news agenda to become lead stories.
Bibliography
Behr, R. L., & Iyengar, S. (1985). Television news, real-world cues,
and changes in the public agenda. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49, 38-57.
Brians, C. L., & Wattenberg, M. P. (1996). Campaign issue knowledge and
salience: Comparing reception from TV commercials, TV news, and
newspapers. American Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 172-193.
Danielian, L. H., & Reese, S. D. (1989). Chapter 6: A closer look at
intermedia influences on agenda setting: The cocaine issue of 1986. In
P. J. Shoemaker (Ed.), Communication campaigns about drugs, Government,
media and the public (pp. 47-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gujarati, D. N. (1995). Basic econometrics. (3rd ed). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Hall, M. (1997). One-to-One Politics in Cyberspace. Media Studies
Journal, 11(1), 97-103.
Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: Agenda-setting
and priming in a television age. Chicago: University of Chicago.
McCombs, M. E., & Estrada, G. (1997). The news media and the pictures
in our heads. In S. Iyengar & R. Reeves (Eds.), Do the media govern?
Politicians, voters, and reporters in America (pp. 237-247). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of
mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.
North, R. C., Holsti, O. M., Zaninovich, M. G., & Zinnes, D. A. (1963).
Content analysis, A handbook with applications for the study of
international crisis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
Patterson, T. E., & McClure, R. D. (1976). The unseeing eye: The myth
of television power in national politics. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons.
Reese, S. D., & Danielian, L. H.(1989). Chapter 5: Intermedia influence
and the drug issue: Converging on cocaine. In P. J. Shoemaker (Ed.),
Communication campaigns about drugs, Government, media and the public
(pp. 29-45). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Roberts, M. (1992). Predicting voting behavior via the agenda-setting
tradition. Journalism Quarterly, 69(4), 878-892.
Roberts, M., & McCombs, M. (1994). Agenda setting and political
advertising: Origins of the news agenda. Political Communication, 11,
249-262.
Rogers, E. M., Dearing, J. W., & Bregman, D. (1993). The anatomy of
agenda-setting research. Journal of Communication, 43(2), 68-84.