Suchergebnisse

"Media, War, and Foreign Policy" published on by Oxford University Press.

This study merges framing and agenda-setting research by focusing on the relative power of certain news frames to limit audience cognition and influence attitudes. It proposes a cognitive-based model for understanding when news stories are likely to have the dual effect of transferring both object and frame salience to audiences, an effect here called "frame-setting," that is more likely to occur when the press employs advocacy frames using consensus cues as opposed to objectivist frames based on the journalistic norm of two-sidedness. Data from a controlled experimental test show that advocacy frames had a stronger framesetting effect than objectivist framed crime stories, transferring both object and frame salience to audiences and limiting audience cognition.

The issue of quality programming for children has occupied a prominent place on the policy agenda for the last several years. The study reported here examined newspaper coverage of this issue from the beginning of July 1995 to the end of February 1997. Using a multi-method design, the study explored the way in which a social issue can be accorded different statuses on the news agendas within a single newspaper. This contrasts with typical agenda-setting research, which assumes a single news agenda for a single media organ. Although the scope of the study did not allow for an assessment of the effects of this coverage on audiences or policymakers, it was able to examine how theories of news work and news production may explain differences in coverage within a newspaper. It also represents a comprehensive analysis of national newspaper coverage of a social issue concurrent with significant developments in policy, in this case, new federal guidelines for airing children's educational programming.

Examines print news coverage in nine major newspapers of the issue of quality television programming for children, from the beginning of July 1995 to the end of Feb. 1997; explores the way a social issue can be accorded different statuses on the news agendas within a single paper, using theories of news production to explain differences; US.

Much of the political communication scholarship concerning state—media relations concludes that the media are highly dependent on and even subservient to the state. This is particular true during wartime. Partial and conditionally based exceptions to this general conclusion include event-driven news and the cascade model. We argue that another important exception to standard conclusions regarding state—media relations involves transnational advocacy organizations and epistemic communities.

This analysis compares newspaper coverage of Elizabeth Dole's presidential campaign with that of former Texas Governor George W. Bush, Arizona Senator John McCain, and publisher Steve Forbes. The authors examined three months of coverage in the Des Moines Register, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and the Washington Post. Dole received less coverage than did Bush, but more than McCain and Forbes. However, the authors found qualitative differences in coverage that they attributed to Dole's gender. Compared to her male opponents, Dole received less coverage on her positions on the issues but more coverage on her personal traits. The authors conclude that these differences were due to stories written by male reporters covering the 2000 presidential campaign. The authors also found that Dole was quoted in different ways when compared to her male opponents: she was directly quoted at a lower rate, while her speech was paraphrased at a higher rate.