We all know journalists help set the public's agenda. What reporters cover, people find more important. And when people see something as more important they act in very different ways -- from how they attend to the news to how they behave or support political action.
But does the gender of journalists make a difference?
Yes, at least in a recent Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly study that found "the presence of females as reporters and news executives in the newsroom affected news content related to women, such as coverage of the HPV vaccine." Examining data at the organizational and individual level, the authors found the more "gender-balanced" the newspaper, the more pominent the coverage of the HPV vaccine. Male-dominated newspapers relied more on official sources and less on people (teens, parents, teachers) as compared to more gender-diverse newspapers.
There are limitations to the study. There always are. But it's interesting that the gender makeup of a newsroom could so clearly influence the quantity of stories and how they were reported.
What we don't know, at least from this study, is whether the differences in coverage make a difference in the readers of these newspapers. It would be interesting to know whether, in different communities, there were fewer or more teenage girls getting vaccinated depending on such differences in coverage. When you extend data that far, things tend to unravel, but I'm guessing you might be able to tease out some significant behavioral effects.
Full cite: Teresa Correa and Dustin Harp (2011). Women matter in newsrooms: How power and critical mass relate to coverage of the HPV vaccine. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 88 (2), 801-319.
Showing posts with label journalism and mass communications quarterly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label journalism and mass communications quarterly. Show all posts
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Sunday, July 11, 2010
If News Orgs had Personalities ...
If news media outlets had a personality, what would it be? I see Fox News as a grumpy guy who doesn't take any crap, CNN as a buttoned-down type who tries so very hard, and MSNBC as that loon of an uncle -- you know, the smart guy who's just also a wee bit eccentric.
Someone actually studied how people perceive the personality dimensions of various news organizations. Why? I dunno, but it's in the latest Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, an academic journal read by tens of people worldwide. And, in full disclosure, the folks who did the research are either at, or connected to, my university and college.
So the authors compiled a long list of personality attributes based on previous research and then threw this list at respondents who rated a long list of major news organizations: the major TV networks, the cable news listed above, the major national newspapers (NYTimes, WSJournal, USAToday), the three major news mags (Time, etc.), and that popular TV network watched by about as many people who read academic journals -- PBS.
Yeah, yeah, so how'd it all turn out?
The authors conducted a factor analysis to reveal certain personality dimensions always pop up for news organizations. These won't surprise anyone. They're trustworthiness, dynamism, sincerity, sophistication, and toughness. How this works is simple, the respondents were slapped upside the head with a long list of traits (experienced, reliable, serious, edgy, flashy, friendly, sincere, rugged, etc.). It's a long list. The factor analysis pools how people answered these and finds the underlying dimensions, which I listed in boldface above. Fairly routine social science stuff.
The results?
Setting aside statistical significance, below I give you top three in the dimensions:
Trustiworthiness
1. Wall Street Journal
2. Time Magazine
3. CNN
Dynamism
1. Time Magazine
2. Local newspaper
3. USA Today
Sincerity
1. PBS
2. ABC News
3. Local newspaper
Sophistication
1. Time Magazine
2. New York Times and USA Today (tie)
Toughness
1. Fox News
2. Wall Street Journalj
3. CNN
Now keep in mind I'm fudging these because some of the differences are not statistically significant, so #3 on a list is probably a tie with #2 and the four or five below it.
There are some interesting findings. Look at toughness, for example. About the only place Fox News pops up high is in this category, no doubt thanks to Papa Bear Bill O'Reilly, Sean (I can say Specificity more often than you) Hannity, and of course Glenn Beck, who with his bestselling "novel" is now Mr. Media. Fox guys are tough. Rugged. Without mercy, unless of course you happen to be a Republican politician.
Now the brief section on why none of this matters. First, the coefficients are so close to one another as to raise questions about whether real differences exist among most of the media personalities. Second, the study is of college student respondents and as we all know, while teenagers and college students in many ways resemble humans, they're not quite there. I find it hard to buy into an intensive study of 444 students presumably from my own college. Hell, they may have even been from my own class. In any case, I suspect real human beings would have had very different results. Still, the results are an interesting first step.
Full cite: Jooyoung Kim, Tae Hyun Baek, and Hugh J. Martin (2010). Dimensions of news media brand personality. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 87 (No. 1, Spring), 117-134.
Someone actually studied how people perceive the personality dimensions of various news organizations. Why? I dunno, but it's in the latest Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, an academic journal read by tens of people worldwide. And, in full disclosure, the folks who did the research are either at, or connected to, my university and college.
So the authors compiled a long list of personality attributes based on previous research and then threw this list at respondents who rated a long list of major news organizations: the major TV networks, the cable news listed above, the major national newspapers (NYTimes, WSJournal, USAToday), the three major news mags (Time, etc.), and that popular TV network watched by about as many people who read academic journals -- PBS.
Yeah, yeah, so how'd it all turn out?
The authors conducted a factor analysis to reveal certain personality dimensions always pop up for news organizations. These won't surprise anyone. They're trustworthiness, dynamism, sincerity, sophistication, and toughness. How this works is simple, the respondents were slapped upside the head with a long list of traits (experienced, reliable, serious, edgy, flashy, friendly, sincere, rugged, etc.). It's a long list. The factor analysis pools how people answered these and finds the underlying dimensions, which I listed in boldface above. Fairly routine social science stuff.
The results?
Setting aside statistical significance, below I give you top three in the dimensions:
Trustiworthiness
1. Wall Street Journal
2. Time Magazine
3. CNN
Dynamism
1. Time Magazine
2. Local newspaper
3. USA Today
Sincerity
1. PBS
2. ABC News
3. Local newspaper
Sophistication
1. Time Magazine
2. New York Times and USA Today (tie)
Toughness
1. Fox News
2. Wall Street Journalj
3. CNN
Now keep in mind I'm fudging these because some of the differences are not statistically significant, so #3 on a list is probably a tie with #2 and the four or five below it.
There are some interesting findings. Look at toughness, for example. About the only place Fox News pops up high is in this category, no doubt thanks to Papa Bear Bill O'Reilly, Sean (I can say Specificity more often than you) Hannity, and of course Glenn Beck, who with his bestselling "novel" is now Mr. Media. Fox guys are tough. Rugged. Without mercy, unless of course you happen to be a Republican politician.
Now the brief section on why none of this matters. First, the coefficients are so close to one another as to raise questions about whether real differences exist among most of the media personalities. Second, the study is of college student respondents and as we all know, while teenagers and college students in many ways resemble humans, they're not quite there. I find it hard to buy into an intensive study of 444 students presumably from my own college. Hell, they may have even been from my own class. In any case, I suspect real human beings would have had very different results. Still, the results are an interesting first step.
Full cite: Jooyoung Kim, Tae Hyun Baek, and Hugh J. Martin (2010). Dimensions of news media brand personality. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 87 (No. 1, Spring), 117-134.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Priming and Levels of Political Knowledge
Beware the Moderates
We often study -- or expect to find -- nice and neat linear relationships among our variables, but it's often more complex than that. A recent Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly article proves this point by noting theoretical explanations that argue those moderate in political knowledge act very differently than those with high or low political knowledge.
In this study they were looking at priming. What's that? It's how some message or factor influences how we process or remember subsequent messages. Think of the times you've gone to a movie theatre and watched a scary film. Come out more cautious? Looking deeply at shadows you normally ignored? That's priming. It fades after a time.
According to theory, moderate levels of political knowledge should result in greater priming effects by political messages. What theory? Let's not get into that today, because I feel lousy and don't want to spend all this time typing, so take my word for it.
The JMCQ piece found exactly this, that "individuals with minimal knowledge are more likely to reject media primes, as are those extremely knowledgeable -- albeit for entirely different reasons."
That's damned important, that caveat. Yeah, low and high knowledge folks act the same way in response, but for very different reasons. High knowledge folks tend to be more experienced with politics, with news, to be more critical because they've been the subject of stories or coverage or know people who have. Low knowledge people are more critical because of a lack of trust in institutions but mostly because they have little direct experience with media. Thus the moderates, they're the ones most open to media primes.
There's an ultimate message here, but I'm struggling to decide exactly what it may be -- other than moderates (I consider myself politically a radical moderate who hates everyone equally) are not to be trusted.
In this study they were looking at priming. What's that? It's how some message or factor influences how we process or remember subsequent messages. Think of the times you've gone to a movie theatre and watched a scary film. Come out more cautious? Looking deeply at shadows you normally ignored? That's priming. It fades after a time.
According to theory, moderate levels of political knowledge should result in greater priming effects by political messages. What theory? Let's not get into that today, because I feel lousy and don't want to spend all this time typing, so take my word for it.
The JMCQ piece found exactly this, that "individuals with minimal knowledge are more likely to reject media primes, as are those extremely knowledgeable -- albeit for entirely different reasons."
That's damned important, that caveat. Yeah, low and high knowledge folks act the same way in response, but for very different reasons. High knowledge folks tend to be more experienced with politics, with news, to be more critical because they've been the subject of stories or coverage or know people who have. Low knowledge people are more critical because of a lack of trust in institutions but mostly because they have little direct experience with media. Thus the moderates, they're the ones most open to media primes.
There's an ultimate message here, but I'm struggling to decide exactly what it may be -- other than moderates (I consider myself politically a radical moderate who hates everyone equally) are not to be trusted.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Local vs. National Political Knowledge
What people know about local politics is apparently different than what people know about national politics, according to a really good study published this week. And asking about one versus the other can have interesting methodological and theoretical ramifications.
In the new Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly is a study by Lee Shaker that I wish I had done. There's enough material here for two or three posts, but for today I'll focus on the difference between local and national political knowledge and some key findings.
In the analysis of national knowledge, the usual suspects appear. Greater national knowledge, even in a model in which factors statistically control for one another, is associated with being white, male, older, of higher income, or greater education, and having an interest in national (but not local) politics. No surprise. BUT, for local political knowledge, race and sex disappear. In other words, when it gets closer to home, those don't seem to matter all that much, and whites or men don't outperform those who are not white or male. And, hardly surprising but worth mentioning, local political interest predicts local knowledge, but national political interest is not related to local knowledge. This suggests separate interest groups that we often miss in broad studies of what people know.
As to media factors, only Internet access was a predictor of national political knowledge but newspaper delivery (an odd way to measure this, but that's for another post) is the only media factor that predicts local political knowledge. In other words, access to the Internet contributes unique variance to the model on national political knowledge. No doubt newspaper "delivery" (a stand in for exposure, I suppose) is explained by all those other factors -- income, education, etc. On local political knowledge, however, access to a daily newspaper still explains something unique above and beyond all those socio-demographic factors. In other words, reading the newspaper still matters despite income, education, and all the rest, at least when it comes to local knowledge of public affairs. Not surprising, but important to establish.
More on this study another day. Worth the read.
In the new Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly is a study by Lee Shaker that I wish I had done. There's enough material here for two or three posts, but for today I'll focus on the difference between local and national political knowledge and some key findings.
In the analysis of national knowledge, the usual suspects appear. Greater national knowledge, even in a model in which factors statistically control for one another, is associated with being white, male, older, of higher income, or greater education, and having an interest in national (but not local) politics. No surprise. BUT, for local political knowledge, race and sex disappear. In other words, when it gets closer to home, those don't seem to matter all that much, and whites or men don't outperform those who are not white or male. And, hardly surprising but worth mentioning, local political interest predicts local knowledge, but national political interest is not related to local knowledge. This suggests separate interest groups that we often miss in broad studies of what people know.
As to media factors, only Internet access was a predictor of national political knowledge but newspaper delivery (an odd way to measure this, but that's for another post) is the only media factor that predicts local political knowledge. In other words, access to the Internet contributes unique variance to the model on national political knowledge. No doubt newspaper "delivery" (a stand in for exposure, I suppose) is explained by all those other factors -- income, education, etc. On local political knowledge, however, access to a daily newspaper still explains something unique above and beyond all those socio-demographic factors. In other words, reading the newspaper still matters despite income, education, and all the rest, at least when it comes to local knowledge of public affairs. Not surprising, but important to establish.
More on this study another day. Worth the read.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Knowledge Gap Research
The knowledge gap has been one of those long-standing mass comm research areas, not unlike agenda-setting, that refuses to die (and I wish agenda-setting would, but that's a different issue).
The knowledge gap hypothesis "proposes that the media can increase gaps in knowledge" and as information increases, those of higher SES tend to acquire information more than those lower in SES. A meta-analysis published in the latest issue of Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly (volume 66, #3, Autumn, 2009, 515-532, for the citationally inclined) confirms the existence of a knowledge gap and reports a consistent moderate correlation between education and level of knowledge.
A meta-analysis is basically a test of lots of tests. In this study, it's 71 effect sizes published in 46 studies. I did a meta-analysis once for a book chapter. I'll never do another. It's statistical hell.
So knowledge levels differ across "social strata," as the study reports. But the study failed to find changes over time, even in increases of publicity, which is rather interesting and "does not offer strong support for the knowledge gap hypothesis," which rests solidly on the idea of changes as time progresses and information becomes more available.
Now for a cool methodological moment.
A smaller gap was found when studies used "belief-type" measures, as "compared to awareness-type and factual-type measures." Fact-based questions are harder, thus increasing the knowledge gap that exists between those of lower and higher SES. This makes sense. "Belief-type" measures are apparently when respondents were asked to list arguments and these were simply counted, regardless of the quality of those responses. "Awareness-type" measures seem to be the ability to answer questions, even evaluations of candidates. If an answer is provides, then you are "aware" of that person regardless of the quality of that response. It's an interesting approach and one necessary given the wide number of studies examined in the meta-analysis. So when people can just say stuff, SES matters less. When they have to be accurate, SES matters more.
The knowledge gap hypothesis "proposes that the media can increase gaps in knowledge" and as information increases, those of higher SES tend to acquire information more than those lower in SES. A meta-analysis published in the latest issue of Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly (volume 66, #3, Autumn, 2009, 515-532, for the citationally inclined) confirms the existence of a knowledge gap and reports a consistent moderate correlation between education and level of knowledge.
A meta-analysis is basically a test of lots of tests. In this study, it's 71 effect sizes published in 46 studies. I did a meta-analysis once for a book chapter. I'll never do another. It's statistical hell.
So knowledge levels differ across "social strata," as the study reports. But the study failed to find changes over time, even in increases of publicity, which is rather interesting and "does not offer strong support for the knowledge gap hypothesis," which rests solidly on the idea of changes as time progresses and information becomes more available.
Now for a cool methodological moment.
A smaller gap was found when studies used "belief-type" measures, as "compared to awareness-type and factual-type measures." Fact-based questions are harder, thus increasing the knowledge gap that exists between those of lower and higher SES. This makes sense. "Belief-type" measures are apparently when respondents were asked to list arguments and these were simply counted, regardless of the quality of those responses. "Awareness-type" measures seem to be the ability to answer questions, even evaluations of candidates. If an answer is provides, then you are "aware" of that person regardless of the quality of that response. It's an interesting approach and one necessary given the wide number of studies examined in the meta-analysis. So when people can just say stuff, SES matters less. When they have to be accurate, SES matters more.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Why Question Order Matters
In a case of studies I wish I had done, the latest Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly includes a research paper that finds that question order can influence how interested survey respondents say they are -- the good old political interest variable.
What decreases political interest? Asking them political knowledge questions beforehand.
That seems kinda obvious, now that I see it on paper in a major journal, but I'd never given it much thought until now. The study, by Dominic Lasorsa, is a nice and tight study that examines not only how asking political knowledge questions might affect political interest, but also neatly examines the placement of questions that might excuse one for not being very knowledgeable. It all boils down to priming and context effects.
The placement of political knowledge items in a survey before a political interest question had its greatest impact among women, the less educated, those of lower income, and younger respondents. These are folks who typically, for various reasons, do less well on political knowledge tests. So being hit by questions that make you feel less knowledgeable leads to you saying you're less interested in politics. There's some priming going on, but also probably some self-esteem. Blowing some knowledge questions makes you a little more likely, I'd think, to then say politics doesn't really matter to you. Ace 'em, and sure, politics matters.
This latest issue of JMCQ (Autumn 2009, Volume 86, Number 3) includes "Political Knowledge" on the cover six studies inside that touch on some way political knowledge. I'll try to discuss them as the week progresses, assuming I actually get prepared for my Spring Semester classes.
What decreases political interest? Asking them political knowledge questions beforehand.
That seems kinda obvious, now that I see it on paper in a major journal, but I'd never given it much thought until now. The study, by Dominic Lasorsa, is a nice and tight study that examines not only how asking political knowledge questions might affect political interest, but also neatly examines the placement of questions that might excuse one for not being very knowledgeable. It all boils down to priming and context effects.
The placement of political knowledge items in a survey before a political interest question had its greatest impact among women, the less educated, those of lower income, and younger respondents. These are folks who typically, for various reasons, do less well on political knowledge tests. So being hit by questions that make you feel less knowledgeable leads to you saying you're less interested in politics. There's some priming going on, but also probably some self-esteem. Blowing some knowledge questions makes you a little more likely, I'd think, to then say politics doesn't really matter to you. Ace 'em, and sure, politics matters.
This latest issue of JMCQ (Autumn 2009, Volume 86, Number 3) includes "Political Knowledge" on the cover six studies inside that touch on some way political knowledge. I'll try to discuss them as the week progresses, assuming I actually get prepared for my Spring Semester classes.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Titular Colonicity
I've blogged about titular colonicity so many times (latest one here but also see here), it feels like an old friend. There's a theory that as an academic field "matures" you see more and more journal titles (hence, titular) with a colon (hence, colonicity). Plus the name is damn funny.
I'd love to do a serious study of mass comm journal titles, but I'm not sure where the heck I'd publish the thing. But as a quick-and-dirty study, I looked at 1960 titles from Journalism Quarterly and then what's been published so far in 2009 (now it's called Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly).
This was not a careful, systematic study, but if we can argue mass comm has "matured" as a field -- and I think we can -- the academic journal titles certainly seem to reflect that -- at least as far my small sample from one journal are concerned.
This is clearly a good AEJMC conference paper and possibly, but less likely, journal article. I'm tempted, oh so tempted, to carry through with it. But if someone out there wants to take a stab at it, I claim no ownership. Go for it. Just let me know how it comes out.
I'd love to do a serious study of mass comm journal titles, but I'm not sure where the heck I'd publish the thing. But as a quick-and-dirty study, I looked at 1960 titles from Journalism Quarterly and then what's been published so far in 2009 (now it's called Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly).
This was not a careful, systematic study, but if we can argue mass comm has "matured" as a field -- and I think we can -- the academic journal titles certainly seem to reflect that -- at least as far my small sample from one journal are concerned.
- In 1960, I count an almost 3-to-1 ratio in favor of NO colons in titles.
- In 2009, I count an almost 2-to-1 ratio in favor USING colons in titles.
This is clearly a good AEJMC conference paper and possibly, but less likely, journal article. I'm tempted, oh so tempted, to carry through with it. But if someone out there wants to take a stab at it, I claim no ownership. Go for it. Just let me know how it comes out.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Question Order Effects
The order you ask questions can influence how people answer survey questions. That's why you often see the general all-purpose "how would you evaluate the president's job" first, not after a long series of questions that ask about all the stuff that is wrong with the country.
Order matters.
One of my earliest academic efforts was a question-order paper. Hell, it even won first place in the theory and methodology division at AEJMC (must have been a weak year because I didn't even mention agenda setting, and I don't think T&M allows a paper that doesn't mention agenda setting. It's a law).
So how about political knowledge? Well, according to one study, asking difficult political knowledge questions early in a survey will dampen how much respondents say they pay attention to the media and are interested in politics. That's kinda interesting. Maybe they get these tough questions and become more self aware of their actual knowledge or interest or media use, or perhaps it artificially dampens their true sense of how much they care and keep up with public affairs. Give people a "buffer" item that allows them to think it's okay to not know so much and the effect is less.
The upshot is such questions, like sensitive items people hate to answer, should go later in the survey. We often preface questions today to make it okay for people to say they don't vote (always inflated) and now you will see respondents told that some people don't keep up with the news, then they are asked "how about you?" This makes good sense. We want accurate measures, not socially desirable ones.
Order matters.
One of my earliest academic efforts was a question-order paper. Hell, it even won first place in the theory and methodology division at AEJMC (must have been a weak year because I didn't even mention agenda setting, and I don't think T&M allows a paper that doesn't mention agenda setting. It's a law).
So how about political knowledge? Well, according to one study, asking difficult political knowledge questions early in a survey will dampen how much respondents say they pay attention to the media and are interested in politics. That's kinda interesting. Maybe they get these tough questions and become more self aware of their actual knowledge or interest or media use, or perhaps it artificially dampens their true sense of how much they care and keep up with public affairs. Give people a "buffer" item that allows them to think it's okay to not know so much and the effect is less.
The upshot is such questions, like sensitive items people hate to answer, should go later in the survey. We often preface questions today to make it okay for people to say they don't vote (always inflated) and now you will see respondents told that some people don't keep up with the news, then they are asked "how about you?" This makes good sense. We want accurate measures, not socially desirable ones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)