2005-John A. Fortunato - Making Media Content.

Making Media Content
The Influence
of Constituency Groups
on Mass Media
LEA’s COMMUNICATION SERIES
Jennings Bryant and Dolf Zillmann, General Editors
Selected titles include:
Berger • Planning Strategic Interaction: Attaining Goals Through

Communicative Action
Bryant/Zillmann • Media Effects: Advances and Theory in Research,
Second Edition
Ellis • Crafting Society: Ethnicity, Class, and Communication Theory
Greene • Message Production: Advances in Communication Theory
Reichert/Lambiase • Sex in Advertising: Perspectives on the Erotic
Appeal
Shepherd/Rothenbuhler • Communication and Community
Singhal/Rogers • Entertainment Education: A Communication
Strategy for Social Change
Zillmann/Vorderer • Media Entertainment: The Psychology of Its
Appeal
For a complete list of titles in LEA’s Communication Series, please

contact Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers at
www.erlbaum.com
Making Media Content
The Influence
of Constituency Groups
on Mass Media
John A. Fortunato
University of Texas
LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, PUBLISHERS

2005 Mahwah, New Jersey London
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2008.
“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s
collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”
Copyright © 2005 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in
any form, by photostat, microform, retrieval system, or any
other means, without prior written permission of the
publisher.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers

10 Industrial Avenue
Mahwah, New Jersey 07430
www.erlbaum.com
Cover design by Sean Sciarrone
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Fortunato, John A.
Making media content : the influence of constituency groups on
mass media / John A. Fortunato
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-8058-4748-0 (cloth : alk. paper)
1. Mass media. 2. Content analysis (Communication) I. Title.
P91.F673 2005
302.23—dc22 2004056416
CIP
ISBN 1-4106-1384-4 Master e-book ISBN

To My Mother and Father:
The most fortunate thing is something I had

nothing to do with. It occurred the moment
I was born to great parents.
Thank You for Everything.

Contents
Preface xi
About the Author xv
Introduction 1
I: Media Powers
1 The Mass Media Responsibility 15

Marketplace of Ideas 19
Suggested Readings 24
2 Mass Media Use 25

Uses and Gratifications 26
Active Audience: Interpretation of Messages 31
Media Dependency 35
Individual Media Dependency 35
Factors of Individual Media Dependency 37
Organizational Media Dependency 40
3 Mass Media Selecting and Framing 46

Selection 48
Framing 50
vii
viii CONTENTS
Agenda Setting 54
Framing and Content Providers 58
Framing and the Audience 61
Theoretical Overview 64
II: The Internal Mass Media Organization
4 Establishing the Mass Media Organization: Routines, 71

Branding, and Promotion
Media Routines: Allocation of Resources 74
Media Routines and Branding 78
Brand Communication and Promotion 86
5 Ownership 92
Concern of Corporate Ownership of Media
Organizations 93
The Political Economy Approach to Mass
Communication 95
No Concern of Corporate Ownership of Media
Organizations 98
Diversity of Media Content 103
Recruitment and Socialization 107
Ownership and Promotion 109
6 Day-to-Day Decision Makers 115

Gatekeeping 118
The Hierarchy of the Gatekeeping Process: Practitioner
Perspective 123
Dave Anderson and The New York Times 128
Internal Mass Media Summary 130
CONTENTS ix
III: The External Mass Media Organization:

Constituency Groups
7 Mass Media Organization Interaction With Content 135

Providers
The Public Relations Function 136
Public Relations Practitioner Perspective 140
The Nature of the Interaction 145
The Nature of the Interaction: Sources 148
Government Sources 152
The Office of Global Communications 155
The Interaction Summary 157
8 Advertisers 161
The Advertising Function 163
Sponsorship and Product Placement 166
Advertiser Influence on Content 173
The Advertising Summary 185
9 Audience 187
The Audience Function in Relation to Content Providers
and Advertisers 189
Conclusion 195
Basic Generalizations of the Mass Media Content
Decision-Making Process 197
Process Suggestions 200
References 205
Author Index 223
Subject Index 229

x CONTENTS
Tables
4.1 Monthly Cable Channel Subscription Costs: New York 85
Market
6.1 Mass Media Internal Decision Making 131
7.1 Baron’s (2003) Public Relations Rules for the New 140
Media Environment
8.1 Advertising Rate in Time Magazine: Interest Editions 181
8.2 Advertising Rate in Time Magazine: Geographic 182
Editions
8.3 USA Today Advertising Rates 182
Figures
I.1 The Process of Mass Media Content Decision Making 9
2.1 Factors of Individual Media Dependency in Predicting 40
Media Use
5.1 Media Ownership Promotion and Desired Audience 110
Movement
8.1 Objectives of an Advertising Strategy 164
Preface
The idea for Making Media was conceived when I was asked to teach a
media business course. Upon organizing the class, I first attempted to
finish the statement, “The media business is …” This statement led to a
few central questions necessary to study the mass media business:
What are the goods or services that the organizations of the mass media
produce? How do these mass media organizations develop and distrib-
ute their products? How do the aspirations of the business aspects of the
mass media coexist with any societal responsibilities? And, how do the
people who work in the mass media deal with all of the pressures that
are incorporated into decision making involved in their job?
In responding to the initial question of what is it that mass media or-
ganizations produce (i.e., the media business is …), I arrived at the
general conclusion that the primary business of the mass media is to
produce content—fill the broadcast hours, the print pages, the Internet
site. Before forming any ideas of how the mass media function to in-
form or to entertain, or before responding to why people use the me-
dia, it must be recognized that all decision making emanates from the
mass media responsibility to produce content.
The questions of the standards and practices of how these mass me-
dia organizations arrive at producing their content are more compli-
cated than responding to what is the media business. Media can be a
very ambiguous term, with each mass media organization having a dif-
ferent audience reach, different resources to gather and distribute con-
tent, and different types of content they desire. This ambiguity makes
producing a volume that encompasses any singular explanation of the
mass media industry virtually impossible. To try to limit this immense
xi
xii PREFACE
field, this book focuses on national news, as this content has the impor-
tant function of helping move the democracy forward.
Determining what becomes content is a powerful position for a
mass media organization. The people employed by these organiza-
tions have the ability to select and frame the content that will poten-
tially be seen, heard, or read by the audience. In thinking of the
business of media as the production of content, however, the mass
media organizations are not acting unilaterally. For example, mass
media organizations need advertisers to buy time and space on their
broadcast or in their publication. Advertisers are, however, most inter-
ested in reaching an audience to promote their products. Mass media
organizations thus need to obtain quality content so as to attract an au-
dience. Finally, people with content are using the mass media to reach
the audience. All of these constituency groups are constantly, simulta-
neously trying to influence the content decision-making process, with
all of these efforts converging at the mass media organizations’ deci-
sion-making efforts.
The purpose of the media business course I was asked to teach, and
eventually the purpose of this book, became to examine the mass me-
dia industry and provide insight into the complex relationships be-
tween the mass media organization and the various constituency
groups that try to, and in some instances do, influence the media busi-
ness. The rationale for achieving this purpose is that the mass media
are such an important component of society, with a tremendous im-
pact on the daily functions of so many people as well as on the daily
functions of the government, other industries, and the economy as a
whole. Because of the mass media’s profound impact on society, it is
important for people to have some understanding about their business
practices and how they gather, organize, and distribute their content.
My simple goal is for people to learn something about how the mass
media operate and to provide some insight into the complex processes
of an important industry so that they can better evaluate what they are
seeing, hearing, or reading.
To achieve this goal I implement two tactics. The first tactic is to ex-
amine some of the essential communication literature that has already
provided tremendous insight into the media industry. The second tac-
tic is to provide some commentary from people in the mass media and
the various constituency groups with which a mass media organization
must interact. This combination of a theoretical overview and practi-
tioner perspective will hopefully create a more complete explanation
of the decision-making process.
From the project’s inception until its publication, many people are
deserving of credit. At the earliest stages, the members of the St. Peter’s
PREFACE xiii
College communication and English departments were very helpful.

The advertising department at the University of Texas at Austin has
been extremely supportive of my efforts. Conversations with Dr. Max
McCombs from the University of Texas were always insightful. I also
need to recognize the communication Ph.D. program at Rutgers Uni-
versity for the incredible training I received—I am always thankful. The
careful review and suggestions from Dr. Robert Wicks were invaluable
in the evolution of the project. Finally, Linda Bathgate was very patient
and supportive in assisting me in this work. I could not have asked for a
better advocate for this project.
I would like to acknowledge the people who helped me coordinate
interviews and offered assistance in providing data: Edward Farmer,
John Gault, Kelley Gott, Terry Hemeyer, and Peter King. I am greatly ap-
preciative of the people who willingly gave up some of their time and
allowed themselves to be interviewed. The hope was their profes-
sional perspective would illuminate some of the critical concepts:
Mark Beal, Mike Bevans, Karen Blumenthal, Mandy Bogan, Lorraine
Branham, Tom Breedlove, Sally Brooks, Mike Emanuel, Kelley Gott,
Terry Hemeyer, Peter King, Alain Sanders, Bob Sommer, Rachel
Sunbarger, David Wald, Jeff Webber, David Westin, Kinsey Wilson, and
Clint Woods.
—John A. Fortunato
About the Author
John A. Fortunato, PhD is an assistant professor at the University of

Texas at Austin in the Department of Advertising, College of Communi-
cation. He previously was the chair of the communication program at
St. Peter’s College. Dr. Fortunato wrote The Ultimate Assist: The Rela-
tionship and Broadcast Strategies of the NBA and Television Networks
(Hampton Press). His research articles have appeared in Public Rela-
tions Review, Communications and the Law, New Jersey Journal of
Communication, Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertain-
ment Law Journal, Rutgers Law Record, and Journal of Sport Manage-
ment special issue on sports media. Before earning his PhD from
Rutgers University, he gained industry experience as a production as-
sistant for NBC Sports, including NFL Live, NBA, Showtime, and the
1992 and 1996 Summer Olympics, and as a part-time sports producer
for WWOR-TV Channel 9 (New York).
xv
Introduction
As an industry with such a profound impact on society, it seems the

mass media and their functions would be greatly understood by the
general public. The mass media, however, can be one of the more mis-
interpreted and misunderstood industries. The term mass media can
be better understood by breaking down the meaning of each of the two
words. When used as an adjective, the word mass denotatively means
large. Because of communication technological advances, mass is ap-
propriate in describing the current media environment, as the media
are at unprecedented size. The term mass indicates size but also con-
veys a sense of speed with which information can reach the many. It
can simply be stated that every time technology changes, the commu-
nication and mass media environment changes. Through the technol-
ogy of cable, satellite, and Internet communication vehicles there are
more opportunities for gathering, distributing, and retrieving mass me-
dia content and these opportunities are almost certain to grow.
The term media is much more difficult to define. The term is ambig-
uous but often used in a monolithic fashion. For example, hearing
statements such as, “The media are to blame” or “The media are blow-
ing this story out of proportion” are not uncommon. By using the term
media in a general, all-encompassing manner, certain mass media
organizations are immediately elevated to a higher status and others
disparaged by being lumped together into one entity. Mass media orga-
nizations are not homogenous and differ in some fundamental ways:
(a) size: the resources (money, equipment, and personnel) that the
particular media organization has access to, the amount of time and
space they have to fill content, and the audience reach of their output;
1
2 INTRODUCTION
(b) delivery mechanism of the message: print, audio, video, and

Internet based; and (c) scope: the types of content they provide to the
audience. Add in the quality of content produced and the decision-
making philosophies of each mass media organization, as well as the
skills and philosophy of each individual who is a part of the content de-
cision-making process, and there can be as many definitions of media
as there are organizations that produce content.
Disparities of how content is gathered, distributed, and retrieved by
the audience can exist among mediums or even within one medium.
Clear disparities exist among the different mediums by simple trans-
mission capabilities of audio, video, and print; how quickly the mass
media organization can distribute that content; and how quickly,
when, and where the audience can access that content. Within one
medium the disparities exist more on the amount of resources and the
types of content that the mass media organizations are trying to gather
and distribute to the audience.
To amplify the difficulty of defining media, disparities can exist
within one mass media organization, using essentially one medium
and producing content of only one genre. For example, look at the
components of NBC News, which are made up of:
• NBC Nightly News

• The Today Show
• Dateline NBC
• Meet the Press
• MSNBC (Imus in the Morning, Hardball with Chris Matthews,
Countdown with Keith Olberman, and Scarborough Country)
• CNBC
• Local affiliates NBC News
Each of these television programs (therefore, a similar delivery mecha-

nism) has a far different mandate in the types of stories they are looking
for, the types of content they produce, the amount of time and analysis
they provide to each story, and the overall resources devoted to each of
these programs despite all being within the single genre of news. In ad-
dition to the television programs, NBC News has its own Internet site,
msnbc.msn.com, which has links to stories on news, business, sports,
entertainment, technology science, and health. On the Internet site
there is also a link to Newsweek magazine and all of the individual NBC
News programs. The larger television networks, such as NBC, are more
than just a news organization. The news division is but one area of a
larger mass media organization, as NBC has its prime-time division,
sports division, daytime division, and late night programming division.
INTRODUCTION 3
All of these divisions can draw some of the resources away from the
news division. NBC is also part of a larger corporation, General Electric,
which is involved in numerous other industries that can potentially
draw resources away from NBC.
Thus, the difficulty in describing the decision-making process of
mass media content is that not all mass media organizations are the
same, and in fact, no two are the same. When you factor in the individ-
ual aspect of every person that has a role in the decision-making pro-
cess, the difficulty in offering a description is only exacerbated. Trying
to develop any generalities or standard operating procedures for the
mass media industry as a whole is next to impossible.
Although mass media organizations are different and using the term
media in any generic fashion that encompasses all types of mass me-
dia organizations is incorrect, there are some critical similarities
among all mass media organizations. The initial major similarity is that
all mass media organizations need content. No industry exists without
a product or service to offer customers, which it hopes customers will
desire. A second similarity emerges as every mass media organization,
whether entertainment or news oriented, needs content to attract an
audience. Within this need, the personnel at all mass media organiza-
tions have to obtain quality content and make critical decisions in eval-
uating their options and determining which content to provide to an
audience. With the mass media being limited by time and space avail-
able, content is always subject to a complex decision-making process
of what will appear on the air, in print, or on the Internet. Once a story or
issue has been selected to receive exposure, decisions still need to be
made about how that content will be presented or framed to the audi-
ence. Framing decisions include the location (the lead story of a news
broadcast or somewhere in the middle, the front page above the fold in
a newspaper or on the back page, what first appears when visiting an
Internet site or a link that needs to be clicked to another site), overall
time spent on a particular story, and pictures or language to be used in
the story.
Shoemaker and Reese (1996) defined content as “the complete
quantitative and qualitative range of verbal and visual information dis-
tributed by the mass media” (p. 4). For this book, content is simply de-
fined as the messages that the audience actually has the potential to
see, hear, read, or click onto—the messages that are given exposure by
a mass media organization that the audience has the opportunity to
retrieve. Through this definition there is an indication that some stories
never become content and are not exposed to a mass audience.
The decision-making process of what becomes and does not be-
come content is even more critical for the national news media. The
4 INTRODUCTION
importance of understanding the process of content decision making

for news is enhanced by a few critical factors: (a) in a democratic soci-
ety, people need information to make the proper decisions about their
governance; (b) with news happening all over the world, people need
the mass media and their resources to gather and distribute informa-
tion; and (c) with the limitations of time and space, the mass media
cannot provide all of the happenings of the world and therefore must
make careful evaluations about the stories they select and the perspec-
tives of the stories that they present.
The purpose of this book is to examine the complex decision-mak-
ing process of national mass media organizations in determining what
news content to put on the air, in print, or on an Internet site. Trying to
lend some insight into this complex decision-making process is impor-
tant because of the profound impact and power that the mass media
have in society. Their power originates through the extensive and con-
sistent media use on the part of the audience and the potential for the
audience to be influenced by mass media content.
The power also emanates from the mass media organizations’ abil-
ity to be in locations where the audience is not. The mass media are
then entrusted with the responsibility and ability to select and frame
content. The process of how that content arrives to the audience is one
of complex decision making by the people who work for mass media
organizations. Although the responsibility of the mass media is to make
content decisions, this book begins with the premise that the mass me-
dia organization is not the sole entity involved in the content decision-
making process. Mass media employees are not making decisions uni-
laterally, as there are several people and organizations trying to influ-
ence simultaneously the mass media organization decision-making
process. In addition to mere exposure and getting stories selected,
these constituency groups are equally focused on how that content is
framed, that is, the facts and perspectives that will be featured in the
story. Because selection and framing are necessary components of the
system, there is tremendous competition to be included in the news
content, and constituency groups try to influence the mass media
organization content decisions through a series of communication
initiatives.
Complicating the process is the business side of the news media in-
dustry, as the companies that produce news content are part of larger
private corporations. Another major premise of this book is that the
business of the media is to produce content that will attract an audi-
ence. The audience is then offered to advertisers, giving the mass me-
dia organization its opportunity for economic profit. The business
objective of the decision-making process of a mass media organiza-
INTRODUCTION 5
tion can thus be defined as producing content with the objective of get-
ting the audience to use the media in a way that will bring advertiser
support, and eventual profit, to the mass media organization.
Therefore, critical to explaining the content decision-making pro-
cess is examining the strategic relationships that mass media organiza-
tions have with the many constituency groups that attempt to influence
the process. The phrase “attempt to influence” implies the question:
Do, or to what extent do, these constituency groups influence the con-
tent decision-making process? All mass media organizations, whether
it is NBC, Fox News, Sports Illustrated, The New York Times, abc.com,
or a local town newspaper, do, however, have to deal with many or all
of these constituency groups. The extent of influence from each con-
stituency group might vary based on each mass media organization
and on each situation. Any constituency group can have a direct im-
pact only under certain conditions. It is also necessary to note that con-
stituency groups, and the people that represent these constituency
groups, are not equal.
Constituency groups for a mass media organization can be sepa-
rated by internal or external affiliation. The internal groups are em-
ployed or financially involved with the mass media organization and
include the ownership level (both CEOs and stockholders) and the
day-to-day decision-maker level (producers, directors, editors, writers,
reporters, camera operators, and announcers). There is much com-
plexity to the decision-making process simply within the mass media
organization.
The complexity is only increased as external constituency groups
are continuously and simultaneously trying to influence the process.
External constituency groups are not directly employed by mass media
organizations but attempt to establish relationships with many mass
media organizations and influence them in any decision making re-
garding content. The external constituency groups are: (a) media con-
tent providers, (b) advertisers, and (c) the audience.
Mass media content providers are broadly defined as any group or
person with a message designed to reach an audience. It is often
through the various vehicles of the mass media that they attempt to re-
ceive exposure for their messages. Content providers include: politi-
cians, government departments, companies making news, public
relations practitioners, publicists, marketing professionals, artists, ath-
letes and professional sports leagues, entertainment production com-
panies, actors and actresses, musical performers, and authors. Media
content providers are critical in any description of the content deci-
sion-making process in that although they need the mass media to ob-
tain exposure, they, too, can be a powerful entity in the process, as
6 INTRODUCTION
mass media organizations need quality content that will attract an au-
dience. In the news industry, the powerful content providers are the or-
ganizations or the prominent people that have desirable content, such
as government officials or corporate leaders.
Advertisers are an essential external constituency group in any eval-
uation of the business aspects of the mass media, as they generate all
of the revenue for the broadcast media and most of the revenue for the
print and Internet media. Many theorists argue that the economic fac-
tions of ownership, stockholders, and advertisers are the most influen-
tial constituency group in the content decision-making process. Others
contend the desire on the part of advertisers is merely for exposure of
their brands and products to the largest possible audience.
The arguments that the mass media organizations are only trying to
please the economic constituency groups of owners, stockholders,
and advertisers is a little misleading in that the business can only thrive
financially if there are customers, an audience. Advertisers most want
an audience, particularly a desired target audience, that might buy
their product and will invest in commercials and other promotional
communication strategies only if that content delivers an audience.
Mass media organizations most please advertisers not by allowing
them to influence overtly the decision-making process but by produc-
ing content that does indeed attract a large audience. The relationship
between mass media organizations and advertisers does not necessi-
tate interference in the editorial aspects of content decision making.
That level of influence is not a prerequisite for advertisers to achieve
their goals of: (a) exposure to the desired target audience, (b) in-
creased product brand recall, and (c) increased sales.
Although all constituency groups have an opportunity to influence
decision making, one characteristic of the process that appears
throughout this book is that the audience is a constant factor in content
decision making. So much of the content decision-making process is
dictated by the expectations, desires, dependencies, and behavior of
the audience. The behavior of all other constituency groups, especially
content providers and advertisers, often follow the behavior of the au-
dience and their mass media use in terms of the medium and the types
of content they are participating in.
Audience behavior can influence future content decision making
based on their participation in the media through critical behavior
feedback measures of television ratings, newspaper or magazine cir-
culation, attendance at or rental of movies, hits on an Internet site, and
book or compact disc sales. It is the media use behavior of the audi-
ence that is primarily of interest to content providers so they can learn
the best location to place their messages. Mass media use on the part
INTRODUCTION 7
of the audience is important in that there are a variety of reasons that

people participate in the mass media, notably, for information, enter-
tainment, and social needs. For these reasons there will always be a
steady stream of media users. Thus, I argue here that the most critical
group in the decision-making process is the audience.
It is a large audience that generates advertising revenue and a profit
for the mass media organization. For example, a statement might be
made about the television industry that content decisions are made
only to get audience ratings. Saying a mass media organization is under
ratings pressure is akin to saying that it is under pressure to obtain and
maintain an audience. Saying that the goal is to get ratings is the same
as saying the goal is to obtain an audience. The mass media organiza-
tion simply tries to acquire or create content that will generate an audi-
ence. The important caveat for content existing in the public dialogue
is that there is not a need for all or even a majority of the audience to
participate in the content, just enough participants of the audience to
attract advertisers and sustain a business. Another important caveat is
that the audience can only choose from the content offered.
Because there are so many different mass media organizations and
so many constituency groups, with many individuals within these orga-
nizations, there are many relationships simultaneously at play, and the
process of content decision making is not a standard formula that op-
erates the same way every time. Therefore, trying to explain defini-
tively such a process, even within one genre of national news, is
daunting. This book is not designed to present a standard formula of
how the process of mass media content decision making should oper-
ate but instead to provide perspectives that can illuminate an under-
standing of how the process does operate in certain circumstances—
this or any volume cannot cover every situation encountered in the
decision-making process. The similarities of each mass media organi-
zation that goes through a process of content decision making, which
can be influenced by constituency groups, might lend to some
common philosophies and consistent features that can be examined.
In addition to providing insight about how mass media organizations
function, I hope this book encourages thought and debate about the
mass media decision-making process itself. Jamieson and Campbell
(2001) stated, “The mass media are so familiar, so much a part of our
everyday lives, that we all feel we know and understand them. But it is
precisely because they are so familiar that we need to study them” (p.
4). Shoemaker and Reese (1996) simply posited the question of “what
factors inside and outside media organizations affect media content”
(p. 1). In explaining the value of studying media content, they argued
that this area of study “helps us infer things about phenomena that are
8 INTRODUCTION
less open and visible: the people and organizations that produce the
content” (p. 27).
Theory helps illuminate the plausibility of actions in a complex sys-
tem. Mass communication and mass media theories of uses and grati-
fications, media dependency, framing, and agenda setting are used in
analyzing the content decision-making process. Each of these theoreti-
cal frameworks provides explanations at various stages of the process.
The uses and gratifications framework focuses on the desires and be-
havior of the audience, depicting an active audience where individuals
make decisions about selecting and interpreting content. Media de-
pendency provides an explanation of the interaction between the
mass media organization and its constituency groups and the mass
media organization and the audience. This theory depicts a series of in-
terdependent relationships, with the mass media positioned in the
middle, and needs are satisfied through the resources possessed by
others. Agenda setting speaks to the ability and responsibility of the
mass media organization selecting and framing messages, under-
standing that selecting some issues and emphasizing certain perspec-
tives can increase audience salience regarding these issues and
perspectives. Conversely, issues and perspectives that are not selected
are relegated to a less important status.
With content as the outcome of the process, the mass media organi-
zation, the group that is always in the center of the process, and its rela-
tionships are the unit of analysis. The process is interactive among all
groups involved. Mass media organizations need advertisers for reve-
nue, and advertisers need mass media organizations for exposure of
their products and services to the audience. Mass media organizations
need content providers for quality content, and content providers need
mass media organizations for exposure of their messages. On certain
occasions content providers are also advertisers and use advertising as
a communication strategy where they are willing to pay for time and
space to ensure the desired media placement and control the
message, thus eliminating media gatekeepers.
The audience influences all of the other constituency groups and ev-
ery aspect of the process through watching, listening, reading, visiting
Internet sites, evaluating and reacting to the content, and purchasing
sponsor products. The audience behavior influences: (a) the mass me-
dia organization that is trying to produce content to attract an audi-
ence, (b) content providers who might adjust their message, and (c)
content providers and advertisers who need to be where the audience
is for exposure of their products and services (see Fig. 1).
The model in Fig. 1 depicts the interactive relationships and shows
that all of these constituency groups still have to go through the mass
INTRODUCTION 9
FIG. I.1. The process of mass media content decision making.
media organization, which can fulfill or deny these requests. The

model does not depict the nature of these relationships, other than that
they are interactive. The nature of these relationships can be as varied
as the number of organizations and people involved. The speed of the
process is also difficult to capture. The model merely offers a snapshot
of a never-ending, continuous process. The model does not show the
great competition among content providers to receive coverage and
exposure. There is great inequality of constituency groups and audi-
ences. Certain audiences are more valuable than others based on de-
mographic variables of gender, age, income, or geography. Some
constituency groups, sources that provide quality content that the audi-
ence desires or advertisers who spend more money with that organiza-
tion, are more valuable to the mass media organization. Mass media
organizations therefore vociferously compete for quality content from
the many content providers, hoping to obtain the messages from the
most prestigious. This process is occurring for every mass media orga-
nization through every delivery system. The audience has a multitude
10 INTRODUCTION
of media choices. Among all of these choices, mass media organiza-

tions are not equal, as some have established a brand credibility that
helps attract an audience.
Although providing a theoretical foundation helps allude to the re-
sponsibility of the mass media organization, the model does not depict
that selection and framing of content is a necessary condition because
of time and space restrictions that are at the core of the decision-making
process. Once there is content selection and framing inevitably there
will be complaints: Why was this story covered? Why wasn’t that story
covered? Why were certain facts emphasized or ignored? Why was the
story covered from this angle? How should the mass media operate
and how do the mass media operate are two entirely different ques-
tions. How should they operate invites as many opinions and answers
as there are people, with the presumed response being the mass me-
dia should operate in a way beneficial to the respondent’s views. It be-
comes virtually impossible to please everyone because essentially
everyone has a vested interest in what becomes content. It is this nec-
essary condition of selection and framing that begins to set up a logical
conclusion: The mass media system is not, and can never be, perfect.
The mass media system is market driven, similar to other industries.
The notion that the audience most dictates the process is not a bad
thing; it is not a perfect system, but perhaps it is the best possible. Is it
the best system that mass media organizations only provide content
they believe will attract an audience? Perhaps not. Are there some sto-
ries or issues that people should learn about but are not being covered
as extensively because they will not deliver a larger audience? Proba-
bly. The criticism about the media system as currently constructed is:
What stories are we not learning about?
If the audience is one of the major constituency groups that can in-
fluence the process of content decision making in a variety of ways, it is
incumbent on them to learn about the process itself and all of its intri-
cacies. The audience must become enlightened about the complex
content decision-making process—that is the point of this book.
The book is organized in three sections. The first section explores
the power of the mass media and their importance and prominence in
the culture. The second section examines the internal environment of
a mass media organization. The third section looks at the external con-
stituency groups that try to influence the mass media content deci-
sion-making process.
Chapter 1 provides a debate about the mass media responsibility, fo-
cusing on their role in a democratic society but also examining that
ideal positioned next to the potential contradiction as private corpora-
tions designed to make a profit. The mass media technological envi-
INTRODUCTION 11
ronment is described in this chapter to explain the possibilities of

gathering, distributing, and retrieving messages that must always be
factored into the process. Chapter 2 explains how and why the audi-
ence uses the mass media. The theoretical frameworks of uses and
gratifications, and mass media dependency demonstrate that the
power of the mass media is that people use the media to satisfy a vari-
ety of needs, notably, information, entertainment, and social inclusion.
Dependency, however, demonstrates the interactive characteristic of
the process in which mass media organizations also need content pro-
viders for obtaining quality content and attracting an audience. With
mass media use being an important factor, chapter 3 looks at the mass
media organization’s responsibility to select and frame messages. Us-
ing the agenda-setting theoretical model, the role of the mass media in
determining which messages receive exposure emerges, with the sto-
ries and perspectives selected having a greater opportunity to be per-
ceived as more important by the audience. The idea that constituency
groups try to influence this process and the way agendas are estab-
lished also begin to develop.
In examining the internal mass media organization, chapter 4 ex-
plains that selection and framing is not based on all of the stories possi-
ble and that overall philosophies and mass media routines are
developed to help a mass media organization limit the scope of its
content. The decisions at the routines level help simplify a complex
process. Through media routines, a mass media organization can dif-
ferentiate itself from the competition and establish itself as a brand that
relates to audience expectations. Chapter 5 looks at the impact of own-
ership on mass media content decision making. In addition to estab-
lishing any overall standards of practice or allocating resources, the
relationship between owner and day-to-day decision makers is dis-
cussed. Chapter 6 peers into the working of the day-to-day decision
makers at a mass media organization and demonstrates the complex-
ity of the process within the mass media organization. The day-to-day
decision makers are at the center of the process, as all of the other con-
stituency groups have to go through this group. The day-to-day deci-
sion makers have to select and frame content, but the process is more
complex than unilateral decisions being made by this group and
ignoring the demands and behavior of all others.
External constituency groups, their pivotal relationships with the
mass media organization and their potential influence on content deci-
sion making are examined in the third section of this book. Chapter 7
examines content providers, the groups that actually have the quality
content that mass media organizations desire. The critical relationship
between content providers, particularly the most sought after and used
12 INTRODUCTION
sources, and mass media decision makers is the core of this chapter.
Chapter 8 examines the role of advertisers and their potential influence
in the content decision-making process. The chapter focuses on the
desires of advertisers, which mainly are in obtaining exposure for their
brand to an audience, product brand recall, and sales. Chapter 9 looks
at the vital role the audience plays in the process, arguing that the be-
havior of the audience is always a factor in the process, as every other
group is reacting to the behavior of the audience. A conclusion is pre-
sented to offer a final overview and additional commentary of the en-
tire mass media decision-making process.
Each chapter provides insight into the relationship between a mass
media organization and each constituency group, and how it might in-
fluence the decision-making process. To support the previous research
and the theoretical frameworks presented in section 1, and in compar-
ing theoretical philosophy with practice, several key informant inter-
views were conducted. The rationale for interviewing professionals
intimately involved in the content decision-making process is explained
by Ball-Rokeach (1985) who claimed “that the average individual, as op-
posed to groups and organizations, does not come into direct contact
with media information creators, gatherers, or processors” (p. 487).
Interviews were conducted with: Mark Beal, executive vice presi-
dent, Alan Taylor Communications public relations firm; Mike Bevans,
executive editor, Sports Illustrated; Karen Blumenthal, Dallas bureau
chief, The Wall Street Journal; Mandy Bogan, broadcast buying direc-
tor, GSD&M advertising agency; Lorraine Branham, director of the
School of Journalism, University of Texas at Austin; Tom Breedlove,
managing director, Ruff, Coffin, and Breedlove advertising agency;
Sally Brooks, vice president and group media director, GSD&M adver-
tising agency; Mike Emanuel, correspondent, Fox News Channel;
Kelley Gott, sales managing director, Time; Terry Hemeyer, former
communication executive, Pennzoil; Peter King, senior writer, Sports Il-
lustrated; Alain Sanders, former senior reporter, Time; Bob Sommer,
executive vice president, MWW Group public relations firm; Rachel
Sunbarger, spokeswoman, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Da-
vid Wald, director of communication; New Jersey Senator Jon Corzine;
Jeff Webber, senior vice president and publisher, usatoday.com; David
Westin, president, ABC News; Kinsey Wilson, vice president and edi-
tor-in-chief, usatoday.com; and Clint Woods, account supervisor,
Pierpoint Communications public relations firm.
I
Media Powers
CHAPTER
1
The Mass Media
Responsibility
To explain better the content decision-making process of a mass

media organization, some context and understanding of the debate
about the perceived role of the mass media in society need to be pro-
vided. It is the believed philosophical function of the mass media re-
sponsibility that affects the practical content decision-making process.
The philosophy can be on an organizational level as a whole and on an
individual level, from the people who are employed by the mass media
organization, as to the types of content they should provide. There are
clearly strong opinions as to what the mass media should be and the
types of content they should provide. These philosophies are as varied
as the people and organizations, both internal and external to the mass
media organization, that have a vested interest in the content provided
to an audience. How the mass media should do their job is reflective in
what people view as the responsibility of the media. With so many
opinions coming from so many groups the mass media cannot please
everyone with their decisions.
Mass media organizations receive pressure and criticism about their
content decisions in the context of a responsibility to the larger societal
ideals and needs. A central conflict for mass media organizations in the
United States is their service to democracy, as they are by law sup-
posed to serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity (e.g.,
Communications Act of 1934, Telecommunications Reform Act of
1996) while operating as profit-oriented companies. The vital role of
the mass media in a democracy might be the most important rationale
for studying their content decision making. Rachlin (1988) commented
15
16 CHAPTER 1
on the value of studying the mass media and their processes, stating, “If
indeed a free press is necessary to provide the communication that is
indispensable to the survival of democracy, we need examine our own
press, the forces that guide it, and evaluate its contribution to democ-
racy” (p. 3).
Trying to serve both the public interests and economic interests can
be problematic (e.g., Compaine, 2000; Ehrlich, 1995; Jamieson &
Campbell, 2001; Lee & Solomon, 1990). For many scholars there
should not be a conflict, as an informed citizenry, and not economic
profit, is the only laudable goal of any mass media organization (e.g.,
Alger, 1998; Bagdikian, 2000; Ehrlich, 1995; Gans, 1979; Gitlin, 1972,
1980, 1982; Husselbee, 1994; Mazzocco, 1994; McManus, 1994, 1995;
Mosco, 1996; Rachlin, 1988; Rideout, 1993; Siebert, Peterson, &
Schramm, 1974; Slattery, Doremus, & Marcus, 2001). Siebert et al.
(1974) described a social responsibility of the press that contends the
news media are obligated to present information that will enlighten cit-
izens of democracy and support their efforts of self-governance
through rational decision making. Croteau and Hoynes (2001) argued
“The media also have the special task of providing independent infor-
mation to citizens. Ideally, they are watchdogs of our freedoms, in-
forming citizens about current events and debates, and alerting us to
potential abuses of power. In this context, a free press is a means by
which the public is served” (p. 6).
Although serving the democratic citizenry is a noble objective, the
reality is that the economics of any industry have to be a part of any
evaluation of the goods or services being produced. The mass media
are no different in evaluating the economic impact of their output, their
content. The production of news can be a very expensive endeavor.
The business of the media is to produce content within certain eco-
nomic parameters but with the desire of attracting the largest possible
audience that can be offered to advertisers, thereby attaining the great-
est revenues for the mass media organization. Kellner (1990) pointed
out that television corporations are no different from other corpora-
tions that are organized to extract maximum profit from the production
process. Jamieson and Campbell (2001) simply commented “One im-
portant distinction between mass communication and other forms of
communication in the United States is their commercial basis: the pri-
mary function of the mass media is to attract and hold large audiences
for advertisers” (p. 4).
It is determining the content and the investment made in obtaining
content that will attract an audience that is being played against the in-
formation that the mass media should be gathering and providing to an
audience but is not because it is to costly to produce. Gathering and
THE MASS MEDIA RESPONSIBILITY 17
distributing information take enormous amounts of money in terms of

technology needed and payment required for the people who perform
these tasks for a mass media organization. The media business is the
business of planning, gathering, evaluating, processing, organizing,
and distributing content (information and entertainment messages) to
an audience. In this simple business objective of producing goods or
services available for consumption by an audience, mass media orga-
nizations are no different from other companies and the mass media
business is no different from other industries.
The content of a mass media organization is the product it offers to
an audience and that audience is sold to advertisers to make a profit for
the mass media organization. Coca-Cola produces soft drinks; General
Motors produces automobiles; Continental Airlines offers airline ser-
vice; and the Walt Disney Company produces mass media content
such as films, books, music, and television programs. All of these com-
panies have the simple objective of producing products or services that
will attract customers to sustain their business. Baron (2003) com-
mented, “It is a strange but powerful testament to the American demo-
cratic and market system to have one of its most important democratic
institutions to be a resounding market success” (p. 67).
To some authors, comparing the mass media with other industries is
a false analogy because of the central democratic information function
the mass media provide. To some, earning a profit should not be a fac-
tor in the business of providing information to the public. Baker (1992)
contended, “Anything preventing the press from effectively providing
information and commentary that the public would want or that an ‘in-
dependent’ press would conclude the public needs, is a serious threat
to sound social policy and a properly functioning democracy” (p.
2153). Croteau and Hoynes (2001) argued that the media are unique
for three reasons: (a) the central function of advertising in creating rela-
tionships with the media and therefore the media is not responsive to
the audience; (b) the fact that the media are not merely a product used
by consumers but rather are resources for citizens with important in-
formation, education, and integrative functions; and (c) the role the
media play in a democracy (pp. 25–26).
Many of these theorists suggest that there is not a conflict, as demo-
cratic ideals of an informed citizenry are secondary to the profit earn-
ings. This position is articulated by the political economy approach to
mass communication, which focuses on the economic relationships
among powerful industries and how these relationships affect govern-
ment policy, limit diversity of media content, and exert some form of
control on the flow of information (e.g., Mazzocco, 1994; Mosco, 1996;
a more detailed explanation of the political economy approach is pro-
18 CHAPTER 1
vided in chap. 5). The idea often argued is that the mass media organi-
zation simply cannot be both a profit-oriented business and a true
disseminator of information. Gitlin (1972) argued that “the mass media
in capitalism are private properties before all else. Their prime self-
conscious function is profit-making” (p. 338). Schudson (1978, 1995)
described the situation of a mass media organization as a fair
dispenser of news and a company that is a profit industry as an inher-
ent contradiction. The two positions are mutually exclusive.
The difficulty is: How does a mass media organization exist in a sys-
tem dependent on money but operate with the belief that it does not
have a justifiable right to factor economics into the decision-making
process and produce content that might earn a profit? In terms of at-
tempting to earn a profit, it is important to point out the fallacy that the
mass media are the sole entity in which the democracy rests. Some
authors have blamed the mass media for contributing to political dis-
content (e.g., Fallows, 1996; Lichter & Noyes, 1996). Although unques-
tionably vital, the mass media relationships with important
constituency groups begin to emerge, and other factors involved in
their perceived responsibility as to the content they should provide can
be addressed.
Any group that provides information to the public is a major stake-
holder in the democratic process and has the responsibility to provide
the mass media with accurate, factual content. It is the relationships
that the mass media have with the people who control power, most no-
tably government officials, that become a central criticism. Black,
Steele, and Barney (1993) argued, “Society is committed to the free
flow of information as a means of educating the population, so that its
members may make informed decisions. Information control is re-
lated to power. Distribution of information is a redistribution of power.
Thus, the journalist is often at odds with individuals and entities wish-
ing to retain power by controlling the free flow of information or with-
holding information altogether” (pp. 25–26). In having relationships
with those who control power, and by association having power
through having access to information and the ability to evaluate and
disseminate information, questions of the nature of these relationships
need to be raised.
The determination of what is the proper and valuable information
that best serves the public is subjective and open for debate. The pro-
cesses of how these mass media organizations obtain their informa-
tion and the relationships between the mass media organization and
content providers who have the actual information all become critical.
Mass media organizations simply do not have information. It has to be
gathered, evaluated, organized, and distributed. All of the activities in-
volved in these relationships have crucial decisions that are made at

every point of the process.
MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS
The role of the mass media in a democracy is centered on the right to free
speech as articulated in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The importance of this amendment is not only that people can express
their views but also that the public can hear various viewpoints.
In 1644 Milton, in Areopagitica, promoted the marketplace of ideas
concept where freedom of expression and debate would lead to the
discovery of truth. Mill (1859/1956) later stressed the need for debate
and an open exchange of ideas so that faulty opinions can be exposed.
The marketplace of ideas concept is that democracy is best served by
an open exchange of many ideas so that the citizenry has the best pos-
sible information with which to make a decision. Without all of the per-
spectives being offered, potentially valuable information cannot be
learned and therefore the best possible decisions on the part of the citi-
zenry cannot be made. Without a system where all opinions and infor-
mation are exposed, perhaps the most vital information that is
necessary to make a decision is what is being concealed. Franklin
(1987) argued, “An individual who seeks knowledge and truth must
hear all sides of the question, consider all alternatives, test his judg-
ment by exposing it to the opposition, and make full use of different
minds” (p. 13).
It is this exchange of ideas that becomes a necessary, core compo-
nent of an effectively functioning democracy. Gomery (2000) stated, “A
democracy needs freedom of expression to make it work and the mass
media ought to be open enough to promote debate on all points of
view. The marketplace of ideas calls for criteria of factualness, accu-
racy, and completeness” (p. 523). The marketplace of ideas concept
puts much pressure on the mass media but can provide a clear and
easy philosophy to content decision making, as the people working in
the media can simply evaluate content with a simple question: Is this
information that helps the citizenry make an informed decision about
an issue or an election? An answer in the affirmative would make it
worthy of being a story or part of a story that should be provided to the
20 CHAPTER 1
public. The marketplace of ideas concept begins to bestow a great

amount of power to the mass media organizations, as they have the ca-
pability to gather the various ideas, select and frame ideas, and
distribute these ideas to a mass audience.
Although idealistic, the practicality of achieving the marketplace of
ideas utopian concept where there is an open exchange of all ideas is
extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible. There are some basic char-
acteristics of a marketplace that appear in the evaluation of the mass
media industry. These characteristics illuminate both the strengths
and the flaws of the marketplace of ideas concept. Marketplaces have
vehicles for distribution and retrieval of products or services. The mar-
ketplace of ideas concept needs the opportunity both to disseminate
messages by all people and groups, and to provide access for all of
these messages to the audience.
Perhaps the key part of the phrase “marketplace of ideas” is that it is
a marketplace, and in a marketplace certain products, certain ser-
vices, and certain ideas become more receptive and simply win out
over others and remain in the marketplace. There is competition
within the marketplace and, therefore, winners and losers in this com-
petition. Therefore, some content that gets to stay in the marketplace
and receives an accepted status was in competition with ideas that
were dismissed. In a marketplace, products, services, or ideas are not
all of equal value. The marketplace of ideas concept falters in that all in-
formation is not created equal, and therefore some ideas do not get
equal time and equal staying power in the marketplace. Some sources
of ideas have established a high degree of credibility, and the credibility
of the source is always a factor in such an evaluation of ideas. Certain
organizations also have more resources to deliver products, in this
instance messages, into the marketplace.
There is tremendous competition within the marketplace because
marketplaces can only be so large; there is only a certain amount of
“shelf space.” For the mass media industry the practical limits of time
and space that foster competition create the size of the marketplace
and the amount of ideas that might emerge into the public dialogue at
any one time. Because of competition there are stages to entering the
marketplace and challenges to remaining in the marketplace. Proper
thought formulation and packaging of the idea by the content pro-
vider, the ability to persuade the mass media organization to provide
it exposure, the interest of the audience retrieving the message, the
ability of the audience to believe in the plausibility, and the behavior
execution of the idea are all necessary. Then, after an evaluation of
the audience response, the process begins again. The initial source or
content provider has an opportunity to reshape or reframe the mes-
sage to obtain media coverage and achieve the desired behavioral re-
sponse by the audience.
Because the marketplace concept is characterized by the size of the
market and what is available, the mass media marketplace is always
governed by technological communication advancements. It is the
technology that people deem useful that affects society. The changes in
technology have created a new communication environment in which
unprecedented opportunity exists for gathering, distributing, and retriev-
ing content. In using the terminology of the marketplace of ideas, the
market for mass communication is much larger. Cable and satellite
technology considerably changed the communication environment,
particularly for television. In 1980 only 19.9% of the homes had cable
television, whereas in 2002 the number had more than tripled to 69.8%
(e.g., Nielsen Media Research, www.mediainfocenter.org).
The Internet has had a profound impact on all mass media indus-
tries by altering the possibilities for distributing messages into the mar-
ketplace, as many people now can disseminate content through their
own Internet sites. With this development, however, there is pressure
on the audience to evaluate the source credibility of this information.
Kaye and Johnson (2002) explained that “the Internet provides a
wealth of political information, including a considerable amount of
material that has not been filtered, edited, or scrutinized by traditional
media” (p. 66).
The news cycle, which was once dominated by the morning news-
paper and the evening news with only important breaking news being
reported during the day, has now turned into a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week
period with cable news channels and the Internet. Baron (2003) ex-
plained that “a news cycle is how long it takes to get information and
post it up on a Web site. Once that is done, the process of using the
slower methods of distribution can begin” (p. 56). Kaye and Johnson
(2002) simply pointed out that “there is little denying that the Web is be-
coming an important medium that is taking its place alongside televi-
sion and newspapers. It is becoming an influential medium and one
that people are turning towards for serious and reliable information”
(p. 67).
The ability to retrieve messages is also a factor in evaluating a tech-
nological impact (e.g., Chafee, 1986). Johnson and Kaye (2000)
claimed that the Internet increases access to political information,
which should create a better informed citizenry who participate more
in politics and who then could have a greater influence on the political
process. These technological changes allow for the diversity of mes-
sages to become content and potentially reach an audience. If a per-
son truly desired to learn about an issue, it would be near impossible in
22 CHAPTER 1
the current technological environment to get some information about

it. Kaye and Johnson (2002) did point out that in the current technologi-
cal mass media environment, political attitudes are shaped by many
factors and current studies about political beliefs, and the flow of politi-
cal information involves respondents who had formed their political
beliefs before the advent of the Internet. That, however, will not be the
case in the future as generations will not have known life without the
Internet, thus increasing the possibility that the Internet will play a
major role in how political communication is transmitted and how
political beliefs are formed.
Responsibility for a functioning democracy also rests with the citi-
zenry itself to become engaged and make informed decisions about
the important issues that could affect their lives. The more information
people have about a topic, the more likely it is that they might become
engaged or interested in that topic. The more information they have
should lead to a better decision about how to view an issue, or which
candidate to support. Although the marketplace concept places a huge
amount of responsibility for distributing information on the mass me-
dia, it also places a tremendous amount of trust in the public to evalu-
ate the many perspectives and make the proper decisions that would
benefit society. Burson (1997) added “that invitation to speak out is the
basis of democracy. Public opinion is the final arbiter. That idea places
a lot of trust in the public” (p. 17).
Trust becomes a critical aspect in a marketplace: trust in the people
who are distributing goods, services, and ideas (mass media organiza-
tions), and trust in the people who are evaluating these items and be-
having in a manner that endorses or rejects them. With the freedom
granted through the First Amendment and the trust endowed by the
public comes great responsibility for the mass media and the audi-
ence—the responsibility on the part of the mass media to provide the
necessary information and the responsibility on the part of the audi-
ence to do its due diligence and become informed on the relevant
issues of the day.
The final, ultimate marketplace characteristic is that the market, the
people, decide what remains, what happens to the remaining items,
and what gets eliminated. Out of all of the ideas that the mass media or-
ganization decides to provide to the audience, the audience then gets
to make an evaluation about that content. Even if an idea does get
mentioned, if it is quickly dismissed by the audience as irrelevant, that
idea might not again receive exposure. In this scenario only certain in-
formation remains part of the public dialogue. This is an acceptable
outcome so long as it is the citizenry making the final evaluation about
an issue after getting exposure to the various ideas. The marketplace of
ideas concept becomes problematic, and the critique of the mass

media is in their controlling the marketplace.
Trust in the audience is arguably the best characteristic of the mar-
ketplace of ideas concept in that it recognizes the ability to make a
proper decision when presented with all of the information. This idea
of the people’s ability to come to a proper decision should convey a
feeling of welcome for different ideas rather than a feeling of stagna-
tion for different ideas on the part of the various content providers try-
ing to get a message to the audience in an attempt to influence their
opinions and behavior. For example, if, following the marketplace of
ideas philosophy, political candidates from the Republican and Demo-
cratic parties would desire numerous debates and encourage partici-
pants from any other third party to speak, the public will be able to see
the value in their respective arguments and correctly dismiss the oth-
ers. For this to occur, confidence in one’s message must be paramount
and a fear of being wrong nonexistent, characteristics that few
politicians or their strategists are either unwilling or unable to possess.
In a larger nation with decisions about issues that can affect the pub-
lic, the mass media are invariably an integral part of the marketplace
system as gatherers and distributors of information. The complexity of
the system is that someone has to make decisions about what informa-
tion is important and gets exposure in the marketplace. The informa-
tion that gets the opportunity for exposure is critical. The information
must get national mass media exposure, often in many mediums, even
to reach the marketplace and be considered in a meaningful way. It is
impossible for any issue, national candidate, or product or service to
resonate with a national audience without significant mass media ex-
posure. The selection and framing of content decisions by the people
of the mass media organizations thus become pivotal factors in the
marketplace of ideas and the informing of the democracy. Mass media
organizations, particularly those that report on news happenings, are
entrusted with the responsibility to provide the many perspectives that
would assist the citizenry in making correct decisions that would be
based on an informed opinion. Burson (1997) claimed, “The quality of
our government, the quality of our society depends on the quality of the
public opinion that directs it. And the value of the public’s opinion
depends on how well the public is informed” (p. 17).
Once the message is distributed, the audience will then evaluate
this information and base its opinions not only on the message (the
facts presented) but on the source of these facts. The audience is incor-
porating its own set of beliefs, values, and relationships that have been
attained through previous experience with the issue, other information
learned through other mass media sources, or any interpersonal com-
24 CHAPTER 1
munication. Evaluating the audience is difficult because the audience

is not a monolithic group receiving and interpreting messages in the
same manner. People place different importance on and desire about
becoming engaged and learning about certain issues. For example,
this disparity of what the audience deems important is indicated in
election exit polls when voters are asked, “Which issue mattered
most?” The responses vary for many reasons but can provide insight
into what the voters care about.
Several authors have made the claim that mass media organiza-
tions are only profit oriented, and certainly they have made this state-
ment as a negative reflection on the current practices of the mass
media industry as a whole. It must, however, be pointed out that the
behavior of the audience is the impetus for any profits. Without the
audience behavior and participation in the media content, there are
no advertisers, and without the advertisers, there are no profits. The
advertisers are essentially going to expose their brands in the loca-
tions in the mass media where the audience is attending (the influ-
ence of advertisers and their desires in the production of mass media
content are discussed in more detail in chap. 8). An argument can be
made that being profit oriented is following the will of the people, as
expressed by their media use behavior. If the audience’s media use
behavior is the driving influence of the decision-making process and
the mass media environment has created more opportunities to ac-
cess information and experience different content, an examination
into theories of mass media use is vital.
SUGGESTED READINGS
Baker, C. E. (1992). Advertising and a democratic press. University of Pennsylvania

Law Review, 140, 2097–2243.
Croteau, D., & Hoynes, W. (2001). The business of media: Corporate media and the
public interest. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Ehrlich, M. C. (1995). The ethical dilemma of television news sweeps. Journal of
Mass Media Ethics, 10(1), 37–47.
Jamieson, K. H., & Campbell, K. K. (2001). The interplay of influence: News, adver-
tising, politics, and the mass media (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Mill, J. S. (1974). On liberty. Baltimore: Penguin. (Original work published 1956)
Milton, J. (1644). Areopagitica.
Schudson, M. (1995). The power of news. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Slattery, K., Doremus, M., & Marcus, L. (2001). Shifts in public affairs reporting on
the network evening news: A move toward the sensational. Journal of Broad-
casting & Electronic Media, 45, 290–302.
CHAPTER
2
Mass Media Use
The media use behavior of the audience in relation to the marketplace

of ideas concept demonstrates that the audience has an important
function in mass media content decision making. Different from other
industries, and other marketplaces, is the nature of the product in the
mass media industry. The cultural products of information and enter-
tainment make the mass media marketplace far different in their im-
pact from the goods and services produced in other industries. The
profound impact this industry has on society makes the study of the
mass media so important.
The impact of the mass media is through the behaviors of mass me-
dia use by the audience and is the result of two primary functions: (a)
the mere presence of the mass media and (b) the desire on the part of
the audience to experience the content the mass media provide. Both
functions make it clear that the mass media draw whatever power they
have through the audience’s use of the media. Simply put, media use is
the main impact the media have on society in that there will always be
people using the mass media because their presence makes them
easy to access and they provide content that people not only need or
enjoy but are willing to pursue and obtain.
The ubiquitous presence of the mass media creates the primary im-
pact of mass communication through easily accessed content. Thayer
(1986) contended that the phenomenon of mass communication is
not in the technology, the message, or the effect, but rather in “the so-
cial and personal uses to which people put the media and their fare”
(p. 46). The argument that the presence of the mass media is the great-
est impact on society is a position often articulated by citing McLuhan
25
26 CHAPTER 2
(1964). Through his saying that “the medium is the message,”

McLuhan thought society was shaped more by technology through the
availability of the medium and the way in which people communi-
cated rather than by the specific content itself.
The McLuhan (1964) philosophy is that the various forms of media
delivery systems create the primary impact of mass communication.
In making the content a secondary characteristic, the focus of
McLuhan was on how we experience the world rather than what (the
content) we experience. Although the simple access and use of the
mass media cannot be overlooked, it would be unrealistic not to ac-
knowledge that in certain circumstances media use can be a purpose-
ful behavior that is driven by the content provided by mass media
organizations.
USES AND GRATIFICATIONS
With the most recognizable characteristic that establishes the power

of the media within society being audience use, examining how, why,
when, and in what manner people use the mass media is vital. People
use the media for a variety of reasons, including information, entertain-
ment, or social reasons, including to provide something to talk about
with others (e.g., Thayer, 1986). This mass media use can be a purpose-
ful behavior on the part of the audience and can be driven by having ac-
cess to a particular medium or participating in specific content that is
available through any medium. For mass media use that is content
driven, essentially, people are turning to the mass media because they
know that the content will satisfy their needs.
One media theory that is helpful in explaining the mass media con-
tent decision-making process from a more audience-centered perspec-
tive and media use as a purposeful behavior is the uses and gratifications
literature inspired by Blumler and Katz (1974). The initial idea of Katz
(1959) was to synthesize critical work on popular culture and effects
studies. Katz questioned what it is that people do with, and what gratifi-
cations they find in, mass-produced news and entertainment (e.g.,
Carey & Kreiling, 1974, p. 226). Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch (1974)
claimed that uses and gratifications “simply represents an attempt to ex-
plain something of the way in which individuals use communications,
among other resources in the environment, to satisfy their needs, and to
achieve their goals” (p. 21). More recently, Rubin (2002) explained that
from the uses and gratifications perspective, “communication behavior
is largely goal directed and purposive. People typically choose to partici-
pate and select media or messages from a variety of communication
alternatives in response to their expectations and desires. These expec-
MASS MEDIA USE 27
tations and desires emanate from and are constrained by personal traits,
social context, and interaction” (pp. 528–529).
McLeod and Becker (1981) identified fundamental characteriza-
tions of the uses and gratifications perspective. These characteristics
are: (a) the audience is active; (b) media use is goal directed; (c) me-
dia use fulfills a wide variety of needs; (d) people can articulate the rea-
sons for using the media; and (e) the gratifications have their origins in
media content, exposure, and the social context in which exposure
takes place. The most notable characteristic of the uses and gratifica-
tions perspective is that of an active audience. Hunt and Ruben (1993)
described the uses and gratifications approach as a general perspec-
tive rather than a specific theory, claiming “it represents an attempt to
understand audience members as active information consumers, and
to place the emphasis not on what media do to people, but rather what
people do with the media” (p. 83). The uses and gratifications ap-
proach contends that an active audience selects and uses the mass
media to satisfy its own needs, attitudes, values, and beliefs. In this me-
dia use the audience is acting as people who are volunteering to partic-
ipate and selecting where they participate based on their own needs
and goals (e.g., Levy & Windahl, 1985; Lin, 1993).
Choosing media content thus links with the particular gratifications
sought, knowing that the media compete with other sources of need
satisfaction. Audience members are aware that mass media use can
satisfy some of their needs better than any other resource. The individ-
ual uses his or her own experience and perspective in selecting and us-
ing media based on expected outcomes of fulfillment of desires and
satisfaction of goals. Rubin (2002) explained that “the principled ele-
ments of uses and gratifications include our psychological and social
environment, our needs and motives to communicate, the media, our
attitudes and expectations about the media, functional alternatives to
using the media, our communication behavior, and the outcomes or
consequences of our behavior” (p. 527). The concept of needs driving
behavior indicates that media use can be a purposive behavior on the
part of the audience to satisfy its desires. The participation in the media
often becomes, thus, a purposeful behavior based on an expectation of
the audience member that his or her needs will be satisfied as they
have been in previous experiences with that medium and the content
they produce.
Rubin and Perse (1987) claimed that the intention of the audience
member toward media use is a key factor in evaluating their behavior.
Intentionality is described as the extent to which mass media participa-
tion is purposive and planned. Similar to Rubin and Perse’s ideas of in-
tention, expectancy is defined as a set of beliefs about the various
28 CHAPTER 2
communication media and their content before interacting with the

media (e.g., McCombs & Weaver, 1985).
In relation to the variable nature of audience activity, particularly au-
dience intention, Rubin (1983, 1984, 2002) identified two media use ori-
entations toward a medium and its content that are based on motives,
attitudes, and behaviors: (a) ritualized mass media use and (b) instru-
mental mass media use. Rubin (2002) explained that “ritualized and in-
strumental media orientations tell us about the amount and type of
media use and about one’s media attitudes and expectations” (p. 534).
The ritualized and instrumental uses of media as identified by Rubin
are not static or discrete characteristics of individual users.
Ritualized media use focuses on a particular medium, rather than
on content. It indicates how people use their discretionary time and
which medium they attend to when all of them are available. Ritual-
ized media use is a less intentional and nonselective orientation with a
tendency to use the medium regardless of the content. Rubin (2002)
explained ritualized use is using a medium more out of habit to con-
sume time as it is the medium the person enjoys. In this situation peo-
ple are turning on the television and randomly going through different
channels during their leisure time attempting to find a program worthy
of taking the time to view, as watching is the ritual activity. A similar ex-
ample could be applied to a random reading of certain articles in a
newspaper, going online and simply clicking through various Internet
sites, or randomly selecting any particular content during ritualized
participation in any medium. Perhaps the better example of where
people often engage in ritual media use is driving in a car with the radio
on, as listening is the ritual activity.
Instrumental media use focuses on purposive exposure to specific
content and is more intentional and selective on the part of the audi-
ence member (e.g., Rubin, 2002; Rubin & Perse, 1987, p. 78). It is the
content available through a particular medium at a particular time that
is dictating behavior. In an instrumental media use orientation, a per-
son turns on NBC on Thursday night because he or she wants to watch
ER or picks up the newspaper or visits a specific Internet site to find out
a stock quote or a baseball score, or read a favorite columnist. The in-
strumental mass media use could be a factor in the way a person orga-
nizes his or her day to be done with any other activities that might need
to be accomplished and be available to participate in the mass media
content when it is available. This purposeful, content-driven media use
remains interesting in that of all the activities people could participate
in, they engage in mass media use. For example, there could be a beau-
tiful day on an autumn Sunday, yet millions of people will elect to re-
main indoors and watch football on television.
MASS MEDIA USE 29
Gantz and Zohoori (1982) claimed that accommodation to televi-

sion changes may be a function of two factors: (a) type of time and ac-
tivity involved and (b) television content and gratifications associated
with it. The element of time deals with the opportunity for media use
and is separated into what Gantz and Zohoori referred to as “non-dis-
posable time for required activities such as work or sleep vs. dispos-
able time for leisure activities such as watching TV” (p. 265). They
summarized their position claiming:
The likelihood of accommodation for television is maximized when it in-

volves the rearrangement of leisure activities during disposable time for
content sought out and uniquely associated with desired gratifications.
The likelihood of accommodation for television is minimized when it in-
volves the rearrangement of non-leisure activities during non-disposable
time for content of little interest or value to the viewer or for which there are
functional alternatives available. (p. 265)
Accommodation of media use to the other activities people need to

do cannot be overlooked. Media use occurs in relation to other media
sources and the nature of the other mediums’ availability as well as the
other activities and responsibilities people need to perform in their
daily lives. Mass media organization personnel would like to believe
that they produce content whose audience participation is instrumen-
tal in nature and that people alter their schedule to participate in the
content because of its quality. However, understanding that facilitation
of access is also important, mass media organizations develop strate-
gies that relate to ritualistic media use by making certain content can
be accessed at a certain time when the audience is available.
Mass media organizations select their content and then carefully sit-
uate it to ensure its desired target audience the opportunity to be ex-
posed. Although simple exposure or participating in a medium might
produce audience gratifications (ritualized media use), mass media
organizations are most hopeful that it is their content that produces the
gratification sought and obtained by their target audience (instrumen-
tal media use). It is the content being provided on a specific channel or
publication that leads to audience gratifications.
However, also understanding that mass media use can be ritualized
(e.g., Rubin, 1983, 1984) and based on leisure or disposable time (e.g.,
Gantz & Zohoori, 1982), mass media organizations try to make quality
content available at the appropriate time for the audience. More than
simple use, mass media executives must develop and provide content
so that people actively select a certain medium at a certain time. For ex-
ample, a television network might create a compelling programming
schedule that also capitalizes on the ritualized nature of television
30 CHAPTER 2
viewing, giving the networks an opportunity for one or both media use
orientations to be exercised by the audience. For example, cartoons
are placed on Saturday morning when children do not have school,
and sports are placed on the weekends when people do not have to
work. The Sunday newspaper is the largest, the day when most people
are not working. The top talents in radio have their programs during the
morning and evening when many people are driving in their cars to
and from work and are a captive audience in that they have no access
to any other medium and they are able to listen. Simply stated, in an at-
tempt to maximize their business, mass media organizations attempt
to align certain programs with the leisure time of their desired target
audience and desired advertisers, in essence, align the ritualized and
instrumental media use functions.
The uses and gratifications literature indicates that individuals have
preferences for a specific type of content, and when needs can be sat-
isfied by that type of content, people actively seek out that type of
media (e.g., Rosengren, Wenner, & Palmgreen, 1985). This characteris-
tic is important because it provides an indication to patterns of repeat
behavior on the part of the audience. This repeat behavior is a critical
factor in the decision making that determines future mass media con-
tent through the idea that in the future, people will choose similar types
of content (e.g., Webster & Lin, 2002). Webster, Phalen, and Lichty
(2000) explained that this audience duplication is relevant to both ad-
vertisers and programmers. They pointed out that duplication indi-
cates critical behavior activities such as exposure, frequency, audience
flow, and audience loyalty. Choosing content of a similar type is evident
in the popularity of reality television, as with a different reality show on
every night the audience simply moves from reality show to reality
show regardless of which television network the shows are on. Sports
provide a similar phenomenon of audience movement as sports fans
move from network to network to watch games. Even in news, if
people are responding to stories about foreign affairs, health, or
religion, there will be more types of stories on those subjects.
In analyzing gratifications based on content, medium availability, and
mass media use within the scope of people’s day, any new opportunity
to access content changes the mass media environment. The Internet
has dramatically changed the mass media environment and therefore
changed the media use environment, as the audience has a new vehicle
to retrieve messages and any type of message at any time they desire.
People no longer have to wait until the evening news or the following
day’s newspaper to learn of the top stories. Even within new opportuni-
ties for access, Webster and Lin (2002), claimed that studying Internet
use reveals regularities similar to those found in more traditional mass
MASS MEDIA USE 31
media in that there is still a business component and a need to attract an

audience. In pointing out the similarity between the Internet and other
forms of the mass media, Webster and Lin stated, “Audience size is criti-
cal to virtually all forms of subscriber or advertiser-supported media.
Electronic and print media depend upon audience ‘ratings’ and circula-
tion to sustain their operation. The Internet is no exception” (p. 2). Even
for the Internet, the uses and gratifications principles wherein the audi-
ence member actively selects the medium and certain content available
through that medium to satisfy needs have not changed.
Lin and Jeffres (1998) pointed out that Internet use is goal directed,
and users are aware of the needs they are trying to satisfy. Internet us-
ers are active in their search for information, clicking on links or using
search engines. Perse and Dunn (1998) pointed out that perceptions of
the media’s ability to gratify needs are influenced by the attributes of
the media, particularly the content that is provided and the mode of
transmission. Papacharissi and Rubin (2000) indicated that Internet
use is more purposeful and instrumental than ritual, as a habit or sim-
ply passing time. Kaye and Johnson (2002) found a similar result, stat-
ing, “When individuals connect to political sites, it is likely they do so
with goal-oriented purposes rather than just for the sake of entertain-
ment gratifications offered by the Web at large” (p. 67).
The Internet possesses characteristics that other forms of the mass
media do not, most notably the ability to access at any time, the variety
of information available, the interactive nature of choosing the content
rather than having the mass media organization simply supply it, and
the speed with which new information can be ascertained. It is be-
cause these characteristics are beneficial to the audience (and other
characteristics such as having no media filter that are beneficial for
content providers) that the Internet has had such a revolutionary im-
pact. Rubin and Rubin (1985) claimed that if a “channel is not available,
or if the interaction does not effectively fulfill the need, a functional al-
ternative would be chosen” (p. 48). Atkin and Jeffres (1998) explained
that similar media may serve similar needs, and replacing the time
spent with traditional media could occur if the new technology is per-
ceived to have an advantage over previous technology. If the Internet
did not satisfy all of the desires and needs that it does, its impact would
be nominal and limited use irrelevant.
ACTIVE AUDIENCE:
INTERPRETATION OF MESSAGES
In addition to suggesting the audience is active in choosing media con-

tent, the uses and gratifications perspective also contends that the au-
32 CHAPTER 2
dience is active in interpreting messages (e.g., Katz et al., 1974).

Swanson (1987) explained that “media messages are seen as at least
partly malleable, capable of being interpreted or taken in somewhat
different ways by auditors who seek different gratifications from them”
(p. 238). The uses and gratifications approach assumes that different
active audience members are oriented to mass media content in dif-
ferent ways and that these orientations are systematically related to dif-
ferent social circumstances and roles, personality dispositions and
capacities, different patterns of mass media use, and media effects
(e.g., Blumler, 1979). Rubin (1993, 2002) explained that psychological
characteristics, social context, and attitudes and perceptions influence
people’s motives and behavior.
The active audience characteristic in interpreting messages is partic-
ularly important in the evaluation of mass media effects. Much research
in communication deals with the power of the mass media to influence
audience thinking and behavior. The power of the mass media to influ-
ence an audience thinking and behavior is often debated (Becker &
Kosicki, 1995; Bryant & Zillmann, 2002; Perse, 2001, offer succinct sum-
maries and address the critical issues of the media effects debate). The
core of mass media effect studies remains the same, evaluating the im-
pact of the independent variable of exposure to media messages influ-
encing the dependent variable of audience behavior. Gerbner, Gross,
Morgan, Signorielli, and Shanahan (2002) described that “traditional-ef-
fects research is based on evaluating specific informational, educa-
tional, political, or marketing efforts in terms of selective exposure and
measurable before/after differences between those exposed to some
message and others not exposed” (p. 47).
Several of these mass media content effects studies focus on: (a) the
exposure of violent television programming influence on behavior
(e.g., Anderson, 1997; Centerwall, 1989; Gerbner, 1972, 1998; Sparks &
Sparks, 2002), (b) the exposure of violent programming influence on
children’s behavior (Huesmann & Eron, 1986; Jason, Kennedy, &
Brackshaw, 1999; Kubey & Larson, 1990; Schramm, Lyle, & Parker,
1961; Zillmann, Bryant, & Huston, 1994), (c) news coverage influence
on voting behavior (e.g., Bennett, 2000; Graber, 1984; McCombs &
Shaw, 1972; McLeod, Kosicki, & McLeod, 2002; Roberts, 1997; Weaver,
Graber, McCombs, & Eyal, 1981), or (d) advertising influence on the
consumer behavior of purchasing goods or voting (e.g., Stewart,
Pavlou, & Ward, 2002).
There are two dichotomous perspectives of mass media effects. A
more direct effects perspective contends that mass media messages
are powerful in influencing the audience. The indirect, or limited ef-
fects, perspective, where the uses and gratifications theoretical model
MASS MEDIA USE 33
is grounded, contends that mass media messages are not an over-

whelming influence and are only one potential factor in influencing be-
havior as the message is interpreted by the individual audience
member. Kline, Miller, and Morrison (1974) claimed the “uses and grat-
ifications model suggests that individual uses for media content act as
an intervening variable: mitigating or enhancing the ultimate effects of
a media message” (p. 113).
Prominent in the media effects research from a more direct effects
perspective is the concept of cultivation, as inspired by Gerbner (1972).
Cultivation examines exposure to messages over long periods and was
described by Gerbner et al. (2002) as “the independent contributions
television viewing makes to viewer conceptions of social reality. The
most general hypothesis of cultivation analysis is that those who spend
more time ‘living’ in the world of television are more likely to see the
‘real world’ in terms of the images, values, portrayals, and ideologies
that emerge through the lens of television” (p. 47). From the cultivation
perspective, the difference in the amount of television viewing, either
light or heavy, is the determination in the cultivation effect, with heavy
viewers more likely to take on the reality as expressed by television.
People, therefore, essentially have different cultivation levels based on
the amount of their media exposure.
Even proponents of perspectives that lean toward a philosophy of a
powerful and influential mass media temper their ideas and recognize
that the audience through its experiences and interpretive abilities is a
mitigating factor in any ultimate effect that a media message might
have on an audience. Gerbner et al. (2002) pointed out that cultivation
analysis is an ongoing process that takes into account the interaction of
messages, audiences, and contexts. They explained:
From the reception perspective, it seems logical to argue that other cir-
cumstances do intervene and can neutralize the cultivation process, that
viewers do watch selectively, that program selections make a difference,
and that how viewers construct meaning from texts is more important
than how much they watch. We do not dispute these contentions. The
polysemy of mediated texts is well established. From the cultivation per-
spective, though, to say that audiences’ interactions with media texts can
produce enormous diversity and complexity does not negate that there
can be important commonalities and consistencies as well across large
bodies of media output. (p. 48)
Although the mass media message is selected and framed, a key to

the uses and gratifications approach is that the gratifications experi-
enced by the audience are not dictated by the message content, the
message producer, or the message conduit, but through the interpreta-
34 CHAPTER 2
tions of the individual audience members. Klapper (1960) questioned

a more direct effects perspective by pointing out that several elements
interact with the message in producing the person’s response to that
message. He thought that most media messages reinforce existing atti-
tudes, which, however, can still be argued as an effect. Perspectives of
more powerful mass media effects tend to view the audience in a
more monolithic nature, but it is a diverse audience of individuals that
is active in interpreting the content they are receiving, as described in
the uses and gratifications literature. Individual audience members in-
terpret the meaning of these messages they are exposed to based on
their own experience, needs, attitudes, values, and beliefs.
Willnat (1997) pointed out that “different people can be exposed to
the same message and yet perceive it quite differently, depending on
their prior knowledge about the issue under consideration” (p. 58).
Budd, Entman, and Steinman (1990) claimed that “whatever the mes-
sage encoded, decoding comes to the rescue. Media domination is
weak and ineffectual, since the people make their own meanings and
pleasures” (p. 170). They continued, “We don’t need to worry about
people watching several hours of TV a day, consuming its images, ads
and values. People are already critical, active viewers and listeners, not
cultural dopes manipulated by the media” (p. 170).
Evans (1990) pointed out that except for the hypodermic needle
model, “no tradition in mass communication research posits a pas-
sive audience. Thus, the real difference is not a question of active ver-
sus passive, but rather the postulation of one kind of activity versus
another kind” (p. 150). Livingstone (1993) believed that researchers
should consider audience and text and context together because
“text and reader are interdependent, mutually conceived, joint con-
structors of meaning” (p. 7). I take Livingstone’s ideas one step fur-
ther by considering the producers of the text (the mass media
organizations), their resource characteristics, their relationship to the
text, their relationship with the constituency groups, the complex pro-
cess by which the text was produced, and the audience to whom they
are presenting that text.
Livingstone (1990) succinctly summarized the problem of analyzing
an active audience relating to a mass media organization that is select-
ing and framing messages, stating:
If we see the media or life events as all-powerful creators of meaning, we

neglect the role of audiences; if we see people as all-powerful creators of
meaning, we neglect the structure of that which people interpret. The
important questions concern the interrelation between the two: how do
people actively make sense of structured texts and events; how do texts
guide and restrict interpretations. The creation of meaning through the
MASS MEDIA USE 35
interaction of texts and readers is a struggle, a site of negotiation between

two semi-powerful sources. Each side has different powerful strategies,
each has different points of weakness, and each has different interests. It
is this process of negotiation which is central. And through analysis of this
process, traditional conceptions of both texts and readers may require
rethinking, for each has traditionally been theorized in ignorance of the
other. (p. 23)
MEDIA DEPENDENCY
Media use is prevalent and purposeful because of the ubiquitous pres-
ence and because there are so many needs satisfied through this be-
havior. If people were able to fulfill their needs elsewhere there would
not be as extensive media use and the mass media would not have the
powerful role in society they posses. The fact that the mass media con-
sistently satisfy many of these needs creates a situation in which peo-
ple become dependent on the mass media. Media dependency
research as described by Ball-Rokeach and DeFleur (1976), examined
media use by the audience with a focus on the critical characteristics
of media availability, the type of content, and the purposeful behavior
on the part of the audience.
Ball-Rokeach and DeFleur (1976) defined dependency as a “rela-
tionship in which the satisfaction of needs or the attainment of goals by
one party is contingent upon the resources of another party” (p. 6).
From a mass media organization perspective, the resources they pos-
sess include the capacity to: (a) create and gather, (b) process, and (c)
distribute information (e.g., Ball-Rokeach, 1985, p. 487). It is the capac-
ity to perform these tasks of creating and gathering, processing, and
distributing information on a wide range of issues that the audience
deems important that creates the dependency. Through these defini-
tions dependency occurs on many levels from both individual and or-
ganizational standpoints. The individual dependency on the mass
media is through the reception of content that cannot be otherwise ob-
tained. The organizational dependency on the mass media is through
the distribution of content and the need for an exposure vehicle to
reach an audience. The recognition of both individual and organiza-
tional needs on the mass media is a strength of the media dependency
model in examining the content decision-making process.
INDIVIDUAL MEDIA DEPENDENCY
Individual media dependency relates strongly to media use and the uses
and gratifications perspective. The words needs and dependency be-
come analogous, as at the core of both streams of research is the pur-
36 CHAPTER 2
poseful behavior of participation in the mass media because the needs

or dependencies of the active audience member will be satisfied. This
experience of satisfaction serves as a predictor for future media use be-
havior with participation being in the same form and with the same type
of content that produced previous success for that individual.
Ball-Rokeach and DeFleur (1986) identified three needs where au-
dience members are dependent on the media system: (a) the need to
satisfy information goals to understand one’s social world; (b) the
need to act meaningfully and effectively in the world; and (c) the need
to play, satisfy exposure, or escape from daily problems and tensions.
Individuals depend on various types of product or service organiza-
tions, as well as other individuals, to provide the amenities for everyday
life. The need for information, entertainment, and social uses is among
these amenities and creates a dependency on the work of mass media
organizations. Events happen and people look for an explanation of
what it means or a context as to why this event is important. Hunt and
Ruben (1993) even described an information dependency on advertis-
ing. There is a dependency on certain products to help people in their
work and everyday lives, as certain products make life easier or more
enjoyable. Through the mass media and advertising, the audience
learns about those products that can affect their everyday lives (e.g.,
Hunt & Ruben, 1993).
Similar to the ritualistic and instrumental mass media use orienta-
tions, individual dependencies can be developed for certain content or
on a particular medium. Ball-Rokeach, Rokeach, and Grube (1986)
provided an example of a media dependency on a particular medium
by defining television dependency as “the extent to which the attain-
ment of personal goals is contingent on the information resources of
television” (p. 282). They claimed that “when the information televi-
sion provides in the form of news or entertainment is necessary to peo-
ple being able to understand, act, and play, we say they have
established dependency relations with television” (p. 282). To amplify
further the dependent nature of television, considering all of the enter-
tainment options available, although the audience does not watch any
one television program (few television shows in a given year have an
audience share of more than 50%—the Super Bowl is normally the
television show with the highest share, as the game between the New
England Patriots and the Carolina Panthers in 2004 had a television
share of 63%), the cumulative number of people watching television
every night is still significant.
Although at certain times a dependency on one medium might be
prevalent, it is having a variety of media forms available and a depend-
ency on all of the media forms that really makes a societal impact. At
MASS MEDIA USE 37
certain times radio is best; at others, newspaper; and others, the

Internet might be the best option for media use. It is using all of these
mediums that strengthens the media dependency argument as a
whole. For the most part it is not a dependency on only one form; in-
stead, people shift through various mediums. Content providers, there-
fore, need to be in various delivery systems and locations.
FACTORS OF INDIVIDUAL MEDIA

DEPENDENCY
Media dependency takes the behavior of mass media use a step further
than the uses and gratifications perspective by introducing factors that
strengthen the dependency and increase the likelihood of media use.
It is these media dependencies that can predict the behavior of media
use. Simply put, the stronger the dependency, the greater is the chance
of media use. Because of a diverse and active audience composed of
individuals, mass media dependency is not a static condition and can
be strengthened or weakened based on a variety of factors.
For individuals, media dependency occurs because the mass media
are the only vehicle available for experiencing or learning about events
or people they do not encounter through everyday experience. People
cannot learn about important issues on a daily basis on their own with-
out participating in some form of the mass media. Individual depend-
ency predicts media use that is driven by experiences that people
cannot participate in themselves. Ball-Rokeach et al. (1999) point to
the origin of a media dependency, stating, “Media systems develop
when interpersonal communication systems no longer can handle the
organizational demands placed upon social actors, whether they be
societies, organizations, groups, or individuals” (p. 240). McCombs and
Reynolds (2002) explained that issues can be categorized along a con-
tinuum ranging from obtrusive, issues that people can personally
experience, to unobtrusive, issues that people can only learn about
through the mass media.
On issues of foreign affairs or following a political campaign, people
do not have that type of interpersonal contact necessary to provide in-
formation and are therefore dependent on the mass media. In a media
context with news occurring all over the world, the mass media are
necessary for people to learn some of what is happening. For unobtru-
sive issues there is potentially a stronger media dependency, as the
mass media provide information that cannot be obtained through
face-to-face contact alone. Even if people have the ability to learn infor-
mation through interpersonal communication, they might still opt to
learn through the mass media. For example, people could learn about
38 CHAPTER 2
issues of health from a local doctor, but rarely do people speak to their
doctor; instead, they get more of their general health knowledge from
television or newspaper reports or from searching the Internet. Also, if
people were to learn of information through interpersonal communi-
cation, it is probable that the person relaying the information learned of
it through the mass media.
Halpern (1994) emphasized the availability or lack of a functional al-
ternative to the mass media in creating a dependent relationship.
Functional alternatives are simply options that an individual has at his
or her disposal to obtain the same content. Functional alternatives are
different because the characteristics inherent in the forms of media
themselves create disparities. Therefore, some forms of media might
not be considered a functional alternative to some members of the au-
dience. For example, there are several events that are covered by every
form of media. A presidential state of the union speech is live on televi-
sion and on the radio. It is highlighted and analyzed later on the televi-
sion news, video clips of it might appear on the Internet, and articles
about it appear in the newspaper and news magazines. Experiencing
the event is different through each of these mediums. A similar exam-
ple can be described for a sports event, but clearly for a fan of a team,
reading about the game in the newspaper the next day is not a
functional alternative or adequate substitute to watching the game live
on television.
The lack of a functional alternative is having access and being ex-
posed to content that the audience desires but cannot ascertain them-
selves. It is the lack of functional alternatives to the mass media that
has created the initial and most vital audience dependency factor. The
preferred medium to learn about important issues might be different
for each individual, as there are distinct differences to the experience
based on the medium, but some form of mass media is used. Rubin
and Rubin (1985) claimed that “the more an individual comes to rely
on a single communication channel, the greater is the predictability of
the outcome of communication. The more functional alternatives
available to an individual, in terms of both quantity and quality, the less
is the dependency on and influence of a specific channel” (p. 39).
The type of issue can also be a major factor in the strengthening or
weakening of a mass media dependency. In analyzing media exposure
and media use in relation to media dependency, First (1997) described
that the dependency on television increases for issues such as politics
that are somewhat remote from personal experience. Fortunato (2001)
described a similar mass media dependency on the part of the audi-
ence to experience sports, particularly on television. As individuals’
motivations differ, their selection of information sources also differs
MASS MEDIA USE 39
(e.g., Pinkleton & Austin, 2002; Pinkleton, Reagan, Aaronson, & Chen,
1997; Tan, 1980). Reagan (1995) claimed that heightened interest leads
to an increased use of information sources.
McCombs and Reynolds (2002) pointed out that individuals orient
themselves to certain issues based on their relevancy and uncertainty
regarding the issue. Relevancy relates to the importance people place
on a particular issue, and uncertainty relates to the knowledge individ-
uals have about the issue. Both relevancy and uncertainty can dictate
active audience media use. Individuals with low relevancy about an is-
sue have a low need to orient themselves to that issue, and because
they do not deem the issue important, they will not actively seek out in-
formation about the issue. A low need for orientation also exists if there
is low uncertainty about an issue, as in this case people are confident in
their knowledge of an issue and do not have a strong need to retrieve
actively mass media content about the issue. Under conditions of high
relevance and low uncertainty, the need for media orientation is mod-
erate, as the person deems an issue important but is confident in his or
her knowledge of the issue. The situation that most dictates mass me-
dia use is when relevance and uncertainty are high. When people
deem an issue important but lack sufficient knowledge, their need to
learn about the issue increases as does the potential for mass media
use. If the conditions of high relevance and high uncertainty exist for an
issue defined as unobtrusive by McCombs and Reynolds, a mass
media dependency results and active mass media use is likely.
The type of issue also relates to the audience intensity toward that is-
sue, with certain issues featuring intense audience members (i.e., poli-
tics, sports). The perceived importance or audience intensity toward
issues is another variable that could strengthen or weaken individual
media dependency. Intensity was described by Loges (1994) as the ex-
tent to which media information resources are perceived as helpful in
attaining an individual’s goals, with higher intensity indicating that me-
dia information is more helpful in attaining goals. In this instance, inter-
est or perceived importance of a topic could cause media dependency
for individuals who wish to connect and be familiar with what others
might be talking about. People do not want to be left out of conversa-
tions about current events, and that could lead to participation in some
form of media. People might engage in television programs such as
American Idol or watch a sports event because they know those
programs will be talked about the next day in the office.
Although mass media use might be voluntary on the part of the audi-
ence, a strong argument can be made that there will always be volun-
teers because the mass media provide us with many of the things we
“need” or are “dependent” on and cannot experience ourselves. Me-
40 CHAPTER 2
dia use becomes a necessary condition for the majority to experience

unique events, but in reality to experience life. The different mass me-
dia dependency factors—lack of a functional alternative, interest in the
issue, and the perceived importance of the topic—can combine to cre-
ate an even stronger dependency. The characteristics that can
strengthen mass media dependency can perform with each other, as
the lack of a functional alternative together with an increase in an inter-
est in the topic, and the perceived importance of the topic lead to a
strong mass media dependency and therefore an increase in the
likelihood of media use (see Fig. 2.1).
ORGANIZATIONAL MEDIA DEPENDENCY
Because so many people use the media for a variety of reasons, gov-
ernment officials, corporations, advertisers, marketers, public rela-
tions professionals, and all content providers vociferously compete for
media attention and media time and space. Competition for media
time and space is fierce, as explained in the marketplace of ideas con-
cept, as there is only a limited supply but an incredibly large demand
on the part of content providers to get their message exposed to the au-
dience. Understanding the relationship between content providers
and the people from the mass media organization becomes critical in
evaluating organizational dependency. These content providers sim-
ply desire to gain exposure and access for their messages in mass me-
dia locations where their potential consumers attend. It is analogous to
McDonald’s wanting to be on a busy highway, a tool company wanting
its products available at Sears or Wal-Mart, or an airline creating a hub
in a major city. These companies know people are going to be in these
locations and can receive exposure for and ultimately purchase their
respective brands. Setting up an environment for distribution of goods
and services and facilitating the consumers’ ability to receive exposure
FIG. 2.1. Factors of individual media dependency in predicting media use.

MASS MEDIA USE 41
and purchase goods need to be considered in any industry. Content

providers have the same challenge of facilitating audience retrieval of
their messages and have to develop and implement communication
strategies that enhance the possibility of receiving media coverage.
Therefore, in relation to the content decision-making process, mass
media dependency research also examines dependency on an organi-
zational level. Dependencies occur for any organization, regardless of
the industry, that needs other constituency organizations for its own in-
dustry to function. For example, the airline industry is dependent on
the fuel industry. Any organizations or persons (content providers) with
a message are dependent on the media as the communication vehicle
or link for exposure of their messages to the audience. Organizations
need the mass media to communicate the features of their brand in
trying to persuade consumers to purchase the goods or services that
are produced by the organization for their industry to thrive. People or
groups compete for their messages to become media content because
the mass media provide access to the audience. Without using the
mass media, how do content providers get to their audience,
particularly if they are trying to reach a large number and wide range of
people on a national or global level?
In recognizing both individual and organizational dependencies,
two spheres of dependency are created, with the mass media posi-
tioned in the middle. Situating the mass media between organizations
or content providers, who have a message and are dependent on the
mass media as the vehicle for exposure, and the audience, who is de-
pendent on them for information, entertainment, and other social de-
sires, gives the mass media a tremendous amount of power in these
relationships. Knowing that there will always be participants using the
mass media, the power of the mass media could be in their potential
ability to influence the audience, as examined in media effects studies.
The power could also emanate from their inherent responsibility to
make decisions as the gatherers, evaluators, organizers, and distribu-
tors of content.
The decision-making power of the mass media organization to pro-
duce content is, however, somewhat devalued if constituency groups
external to the mass media organization strongly influence the content
decision-making process. The mass media organization has the pri-
mary responsibility to produce content. Time magazine’s primary re-
sponsibility is that there will be an issue of Time magazine next week.
The same way, NBC must fill all 24 of its broadcast hours. Even an
Internet site has some limits to the amount of content it can provide.
External constituency groups are in a position of power because the
mass media organization is dependent on content providers. The
42 CHAPTER 2
quest is not merely to fill the time and space to fill them with quality
content that will attract an audience and, in turn, attract advertisers.
At this juncture, an interdependent relationship is a better character-
ization of the content decision-making process between mass media
organizations and content providers. The interdependent character-
ization of the relationship indicates that the mass media are not auton-
omous in producing quality content and are very much in need of
content providers. Therefore, people such as Tim Russert, moderator
of NBC’s Meet the Press, needs top government officials to come on his
program; David Letterman, host of CBS’s The Late Show with David
Letterman, needs the top actors, actresses, comedians, and singers,
and sports reporters need access to top athletes. Without quality con-
tent, people will watch other television programs or participate in other
mediums. McQuail (2000) pointed out one common aim of all media
organizations is “to produce something which meets professional or
craft standards of quality and has a good chance of success with the
audience” (p. 291). Success with the audience for a mass media orga-
nization is determined by the initial desired media effect of participa-
tion—if the audience watches, reads, listens, or clicks on.
Organizational dependencies can also be strengthened or weak-
ened depending on the circumstances of the situation based on the
same criteria as individual dependency. There are instances where
content providers desperately need to get a message out to an audi-
ence. For example, in a presidential administration if a perspective on
an issue really needs exposure the president will conduct a news con-
ference or a prime-time television speech to ensure large amounts of
media coverage. The importance of the issue and the potential lack of
functional media alternatives to getting the message out, either be-
cause a speaker does not have the stature of the president and the me-
dia do not pay attention or the president gives a newspaper, magazine,
or radio interview that does not have the larger audience reach, create
a dependency on television in this instance.
The important component that needs to be considered in an evalua-
tion of media use theory is that dependencies can only be formed and
gratifications can only be attained based on the medium and the con-
tent that is available. Access and the ability to retrieve content on the
part of the audience must always be factored into the evaluation of
mass communication processes. Even the early uses and gratifications
literature recognized that gratifications and media use are dictated by
what is available. McLeod and Becker (1974) pointed out that “the ex-
posure characteristics of the message combine with the orientations of
the audience member in producing the effect” (p. 141). Important ex-
posure characteristics of the content such as when it is available, how
MASS MEDIA USE 43
often, and how much time is devoted to a particular topic all become a
critical part of the analysis. Although they are active in their media use,
audience members are never totally autonomous because they are
limited not only by their own psychological and sociological situations
or their predispositions to the content but also by the choices they are
presented in the media.
In regard to content exposure and mass media effects studies, Shoe-
maker and Reese (1996) simply stated that “media content is the basis of
media impact” (p. 27). They pointed out that media effects studies can
only occur on what messages are available to the audience, as it is only
these messages that have the potential to affect the audience. Rubin
(2002) argued, “By themselves, mass media typically are not necessary
or sufficient causes of audience effects, and a medium or message is
only a single source of influence in the social and psychological environ-
ment, although it is an important and crucial one” (p. 525).
If mass media effects are only a possibility based on what content is
available to an audience, learning about the decision-making process
of how this content becomes available is critical to understanding the
entire mass communication process. In traditional mass media effects
studies, the content is often the independent variable acting as the in-
fluencing force on the audience. In studying the process of how con-
tent is produced, mass media content can be construed as a
dependent variable that is a result of the decision making that is being
influenced by a multitude of constituency groups (e.g., Shoemaker &
Reese, 1996).
If gratifications can be satisfied and dependencies formed, increas-
ing the likelihood of participation in the mass media, it appears that the
media would always keep the audience in mind when making critical
content decisions. Understanding the audience and its needs is essen-
tial to the producers of media messages so they can select and frame
the content to meet these needs and achieve audience gratifications
through their content decisions. Achieving this success of audience
gratification through the content provided greatly help the audience
return to that media location.
Mass media organizations try to make decisions in which they
match the content being provided with the desires of the audience—
perhaps not the total audience, but more important, the target audi-
ence that the content is designed to reach and that can be delivered to
advertisers. Selection and framing strategies should have the objective
of alignment with audience activity. Therefore, it is strongly in the mass
media organizations’ best interests to understand the sociological and
psychological variables of the audience. The difficulty for mass media
organizations in producing messages is that audience members are
44 CHAPTER 2
not uniformly active in their media consumption (e.g., Blumler, 1979).

Audience members are not monolithic and active in choosing media
to satisfy their own particular needs; therefore, often generalizations
are made in content decisions.
Regardless of the reason—whether information, entertainment, or
social inclusion—media use is where media power is originated and
generated. Mass media dependency begins to provide an explanation
of media use on the part of the audience and reasons why organiza-
tions try to influence the content decision-making process. Media
dependency research helps illuminate those reasons from both an or-
ganizational perspective and an individual perspective. If people did
not use the mass media in the constant and consistent manner in
which they do, the institutions of the mass media would not have the
relevance or the means to influence the culture in a large, meaningful
way. Mass media organizations can capitalize on media use with the
power of their inherent responsibility to select and frame messages
that will be exposed to the audience. Knowing there will be media use,
and some of it will be instrumental and content driven, confers power
to mass media organizations that can provide exposure for the
messages of content providers to an audience.
SUGGESTED READINGS
Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (1985). The origins of individual media-system dependency: A

sociological framework. Communication Research, 12, 485–510.
Ball-Rokeach, S. J., & DeFleur, M. L. (1976). A dependency model of mass-media
effects. Communication Research, 3, 3–21.
Becker, L. B., & Kosicki, G. M. (1995). Understanding the message-producer/mes-
sage receiver transaction. Research in Political Sociology, 7, 33–62.
Blumler, J. G. (1979). The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Commu-
nication Research, 6, 9–36.
Blumler, J. G., Gurevitch, M., & Katz, E. (1985). Reaching out: A future of gratifications
research. In K. E. Rosengren, L. A. Wenner, & P. Palmgreen (Eds.), Media gratifica-
tions research: Current perspectives (pp. 255–273). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Blumler, J. G., & Katz, E. (Eds). (1974). The uses of mass communication: Current
perspectives on gratifications research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bryant, J., & Zillmann, D. (Eds.). (2002). Media effects: Advances in theory & re-
search (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilization of mass communication
by the individual. In J. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communica-
tion (pp. 19–32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kaye, B. K., & Johnson, T. J. (2002). Online and in the know: Uses and gratifications
of the Web for political information. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,
46, 54–71.
MASS MEDIA USE 45
Rubin, A. M. (2002). The uses-and-gratifications perspective of media effects. In J.

Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research
(2nd ed., pp. 525–548). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rosengren, K. E., Wenner, L. A., & Palmgreen, P. (Eds.). (1985). Media gratifications
research: Current perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
CHAPTER
3
Mass Media Selecting
and Framing
The ubiquitous presence of the mass media in the multiple forms that
have been created through technological communication distribution
and retrieval systems allows for opportunities of unprecedented mass
media use. Add in the factor that people use the mass media to satisfy a
variety of needs, and a system is created where there is constant and
consistent use. Some of this mass media use can become so important
for certain issues and information desired through certain mediums
that dependencies on the mass media are established. These depend-
encies can even be strengthened, creating a situation where mass me-
dia use on the part of the individual is more likely.
New communication technologies also create opportunities of un-
precedented choice of content by an audience. Although people are
constantly choosing which radio station, television channel, or Internet
site to attend, the concept of their unlimited choice might be mislead-
ing in that the choice is only among the mediums to which they have
access and the content available to them. Even though the audience is
active in its selection of content, Ang (1990), cautions, “Audiences may
be active, in myriad ways, in using and interpreting media … it would
be utterly out of perspective to cheerfully equate ‘active’ with ‘power-
ful’ ” (p. 247).
Decisions are made by people within the mass media organization re-
garding which content to show and how to present that content to the
audience. Although mass media power in terms of content effects are
debated, the fact that people use the mass media in the consistent man-
ner they do and that it is the mass media organizations that have the re-
46
MASS MEDIA SELECTING AND FRAMING 47
sponsibility and ability to select and frame the content they choose to
expose to an audience does confer substantial power to these mass me-
dia organizations and to the people who are employed by them. How-
ever, as the organizational dependency theoretical model indicates, the
power in this process of mass media content decision making is cen-
tered not only in the mass media organization. In this complex process
constituency groups depend on the mass media for exposure, but the
mass media organizations depend on content providers for quality con-
tent. Thus, making the relationship interdependent and the process one
of interaction leaves open for debate the issue of who the power brokers
are between mass media organizations and content providers.
Even though mass media effects are questioned, it is imperative to
point out that content providers try to influence the process of content
decision making because of the potential power the mass media have
in accessing the audience and delivering messages that could influ-
ence its thinking and behavior. All of these outside constituency groups
must still go through the decision makers of the mass media organiza-
tion. Although the mass media industry draws significant power be-
cause it produces a product that people consistently use, it is the ability
and responsibility to make decisions about the selection and framing
of content that convey much power to people within mass media orga-
nizations. Ball-Rokeach and Cantor (1986) claimed that “everywhere
mass media exist, the power to decide what is broadcast or distributed
ultimately rests with very few people who usually occupy formal roles
in bureaucratic structures” and “without understanding how content is
controlled (selected and created), by whom, under what conditions, it
is not possible to understand what messages finally reach audiences,
no matter how creative those messages will be” (p. 15).
Although constituency groups try to influence the process, the
members of the mass media organization must use their judgment in
making decisions regarding content and can advance or deny any re-
quests made on them. The refusal of a request by a constituency group,
however, can be met with consequences for the mass media organiza-
tion or for a specific media employee, depending on the details of the
situation. The process is very much a human process in that there are
relationships between people from the mass media organizations and
the constituency groups that are trying to influence the process. The
employees of these industries are also people with families and other
everyday, real-world issues that affect their decisions, perhaps simply
to keep a job. This type of capitulation to a boss, or another organiza-
tion with which the individual’s organization has to deal, is not different
from other industries except that the output, the content, is witnessed
by all and can potentially affect many.
48 CHAPTER 3
The human element of content decision making highlights the eth-

ics of every person within the mass media organization and how they
approach the responsibility of their job. Certainly, people within the
mass media organization are cognizant of the legal issues about the
content that they can or cannot use. Even if the employee is not sure,
larger mass media organizations have lawyers who could clear the use
of questionable content. Once the content decision making passes the
test for legality, all other decisions can be evaluated on ethical merits.
Moore (1999) provided a detailed examination of the legal and ethical
issues of the mass communication industry. Mass media organizations
are faced daily with making tough ethical decisions, and questions as
to where their ultimate allegiances should lie are debated, as evi-
denced by the literature or the mass media role in a democratic soci-
ety. The issues of ethics are where human judgment becomes a critical
factor in the mass communication process. With each person having
his or her own set of ethics, any general standard of decision making
regarding content becomes very difficult to establish, as the ethics peo-
ple apply to a decision are as varied as the number of individuals.
Individual ethics certainly factor into content decision making (e.g.,
Luna, 1995).
Decisions regarding content center around two main criteria: (a) se-
lection: Does the issue have the opportunity for exposure to the audi-
ence? and (b) framing: How is the issue portrayed or presented to the
audience in terms of both media placement and the facts or perspec-
tives emphasized in the report.
SELECTION
Mass media organizations have to undertake the selection decision-

making process, which involves such fundamental questions as: Do
we or do we not cover a story? If we do cover the story, does it appear
on the front page, or air first on the news, or be what people immedi-
ately see when they click on an Internet site? Even for entertainment-
oriented mass media organizations questions emerge, such as: Do we
put a situational comedy (sit-com), reality show, or drama on the air
and in what time slot? Does this movie get made? Does this book get
written? Do we give this singer or band air time on the radio?
The initial characteristic that must be considered in selecting of sto-
ries is that all mass media decision making is restricted by available
time and space. Not all stories can be aired or printed; therefore, selec-
tion of content is a necessary condition of the decision-making pro-
cess. Ettema, Whitney, and Wackman (1987) commented that “far
more ‘news’ is available at a given time than most organizations can re-
produce as ‘their’ news” (p. 766). There are only 24 broadcast hours in
a day, and only one thing can be on a television network or a radio sta-
tion at one time. Therefore, by definition, if one item is being broadcast
others are not. For example, a local nightly television news program is
scheduled for 30 minutes, but the true content amount that will consist
of the hard news of the day is immediately reduced. Commercials
might require 8 minutes; 3 minutes each for sports, weather, and per-
haps one minute each for other daily segments such as a stock market
report or lottery results leaving the total time for all of the news events
of that day at approximately 14–16 minutes. Only one item can be on
the front page of the newspaper or Internet site or on the cover of a
magazine. These decisions reflect a hierarchy of importance on issues.
A newspaper or a magazine will only be so large, and even the Internet
has its limitations.
The New York Times uses a slogan of “all the news that is fit to print.”
Under this general standard the newspaper would be huge. There are
people who determine what is news, what is “fit to print.” The people
making those determinations work within a standard format (the idea
of formats and mass media routines is expanded in chap. 4). The New
York Times philosophy exists within a format of a certain amount of
space allocated for advertising, sports, comics, television section,
stock quotes, and other daily sections before determining the remain-
ing amount of space for which news content decisions can be made. It
is these limits of time and space that create tremendous competition
for media attention among all of the people or groups with a message
(the content providers).
The idea of selection was introduced by Lippmann (1922), who
pointed out that reporters could not report all of the happenings of the
world; therefore, a selection process is necessary. It is through this ini-
tial characteristic of selection that people even have the opportunity to
be exposed to only certain content, with other issues having no oppor-
tunity to reach an audience, at least at that time through that medium.
If there is any consistency through the various mediums, as there tends
to be (i.e., stories that appear in the newspaper tend to appear on that
newspaper’s Internet site, tend to appear on television and the televi-
sion networks’ affiliated Internet site, and tend to be updated on radio
throughout the day), there really is only a small opportunity for an issue
to receive exposure to the audience. Without mass media exposure for
a story there is little chance for it to have a huge national impact.
Fishman (1997) simply stated, “Some happenings in the world be-
come public events. Others are condemned to obscurity as the per-
sonal experience of a handful of people. The mass media, and in
particular news organizations, make all the difference” (p. 210). Re-
50 CHAPTER 3
garding the importance of the selection decisions from a mass media

organization perspective and the potential value for a content provider,
Molotch and Lester (1974) pointed out that events become news
essentially because someone notices the event and has an interest in
telling about it.
FRAMING
It is not only selection of content and exposure to the audience but also
decision making regarding the manner in which the content will be
presented to the audience that is critical in the process. Similar to the
selection phase of content decision making, once the content is se-
lected the media are limited by time and space in presenting every as-
pect of a story. Just as some stories will not be covered at all, the nature
of news production does not permit even the issues that are covered to
be done so with the same standard. Therefore, selection not only in-
cludes the content that receives exposure but also includes the facts or
highlights that will be presented in that story. The selection of facts is
referred to more commonly in the communication literature as the
framing the content might receive.
Entman (1993) explained, “To frame is to select some aspects of a
perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating
text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal
interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation
for the item described” (p. 52). He also claimed that frames “call atten-
tion to some aspects of reality while obscuring other elements, which
might lead audiences to have different reactions” (p. 55). Jamieson
and Waldman (2003) pointed out that “just as there are countless
events reporters could write about each day, there are many more
pieces of information than could possibly fit into a single story. The
metaphor of a frame—a fixed border that includes some things and ex-
cludes others—describes the way information is arranged and pack-
aged in news stories. The story’s frame determines what information is
included and what is ignored” (p. xiii).
As was the case with selection, framing decisions are the final deter-
mination of the mass media organization production or editorial staff.
Framing methods can be separated into two distinct types: (a) expo-
sure and (b) portrayal. Exposure framing methods initially include se-
lection in terms of the stories that get aired, printed, or posted and even
have the opportunity of being retrieved by the audience. In addition to
mere selection, exposure becomes a method of framing the issue
through characteristics such as (a) frequency: how often and how
much time a story is given; (b) placement: where the story appears (as
the lead story of a broadcast or in the middle, on the front page of a

newspaper or on page 5, as what first appears when the Internet site is
visited or as a link); and (c) the amount of time or space devoted to an
issue within the entire scope of the mass media organization’s produc-
tion. Cohen (2002) explained that the Internet alleviates some of the
constraints of deadlines and source availability prevalent in broadcast
or print stories, but even the Internet follows similar patterns of
selection and framing and prioritizing stories (e.g., Cohen, 2002).
The exposure characteristics of selection, frequency, placement,
and amount of time or space devoted to a topic are determined by the
mass media organization and can be easily recognizable and consis-
tently identified by independent observers. Whether print media,
where frequency is in terms of topic selection, column inches, and
placement of an article; or the Internet and what is first viewed when
visiting an Internet site and the number of accompanying stories that
can be accessed; or television where frequency is in terms of topic se-
lection in its daily reporting, amount of time, and placement of a story,
these ideas that are based on issue exposure to the audience alone are
present in every major form of the mass media. These framing deci-
sions can be as important as exposure in how a story is perceived.
McCombs and Mauro (1977) pointed out that page placement,
story format, and other framing mechanisms influenced the level of
readership for a news story. Carroll and McCombs (2003) com-
mented that newspapers communicate a host of cues about the im-
portance of a topic through the placement of a story. They explained,
“The lead story on page one, front page versus inside page, the size of
the headline, and even the length of a story all communicate informa-
tion about the salience of the various objects on the news agenda” (p.
4). In speaking of television news, Carroll and McCombs continued,
“Even a mention on the evening television news is a strong signal
about the salience of an issue, person, institution, corporation, or any
other object that is in the news. For all the news media, repeated at-
tention to an object day after day is the most powerful message of all
about its salience” (p. 4). They added, “By calling attention to some
matters while ignoring others, the news media influence the criteria
by which presidents, government policies, political candidates, and
corporations are judged” (p. 12).
Portrayal framing methods are how the organization’s production
staff presents the content about a topic to the audience. Portrayal deci-
sion making involves which facts are included and emphasized and
how they might be analyzed, and which facts are not included or em-
phasized in the report. Portrayal framing could involve important
questions such as: What type of pictures will accompany the story,
52 CHAPTER 3
who is quoted in the story? What type of language is used in the de-
scription and analysis of a story? Just as every story cannot be covered,
every aspect of the story cannot be covered.
The pictures and the language used in the framing process can be
pivotal in the frame presented to the audience and what might be inter-
preted by the audience (e.g., Garcia & Stark, 1991; Wanta, 1988;
Zillmann, Gibson, & Sargent, 1999). Again, the audience is only able to
make a determination about a topic based on the information that is
made available. In studying photos of Hillary Clinton, Mendelson and
Thorson (2003) found that mere presence of a photo helped in having
that story thought of as more interesting, but it did not assist in recall of
the items that were contained in the story. They stated, “It appears typi-
cal news photos of political actors serve as attention-getting devices,
making stories more accessible or available, but are not used as an
important informational aid” (p. 146).
The words used in the story are as capable of an impact as are the
pictures. Scheufele (2000) commented that framing is based on “the
assumption that subtle changes in the wording of the description of a
situation might affect how audience members interpret this situa-
tion” (p. 309). In analyzing the press coverage of the Clinton–
Lewinsky affair, Yioutas and Segvic (2003) pointed to the differences
in coverage, with some reports referring to the events as a scandal
rather than a story. Similar events attain an elevated status of concern
or importance when language such as crisis (i.e., energy crisis, health
care crisis, education crisis) or war (i.e., war on drugs, war on terror)
is attached to a story.
Both the pictures and the language could be from the content pro-
vider. The language might not be the choice of the media but instead
be the words strategically used by the content provider to emphasize a
frame. If the report in the mass media quotes a government official, it is
the language of the official, but the people of the mass media organiza-
tion select the quote that is used. Skilled content providers understand
the nature of the medium and often provide photographs and video
footage as needed with the hopes of their being used. The content pro-
viders’ intention in trying to influence the framing process is clear—get
their perspective to be the dominant frame relayed to the audience to
influence the audience to think or behave in some manner (i.e., vote,
purchase). Consider some examples in recent political discourse
about either events or politicians of language framing:
• the liberation of Iraq versus the occupation of Iraq

• President Clinton was impeached for lying about sex versus
President Clinton was impeached for committing perjury
• reductions in an increase in spending versus cutting the budget

• terrorist versus freedom fighter
• soldier versus peacekeeper
• lobbyist versus supporter
• working families versus taxpayer families
• public servant versus bureaucrat
• stubborn versus conviction
• flip-flop on issues versus flexible thinker
• ideologue versus passionate supporter
• attacking an opponent versus drawing contrasts
• conservative versus right-wing conservative versus moderate
• liberal versus left-wing liberal versus moderate
Although similar in their objectives, exposure and portrayal framing

methods were differentiated by Lasorsa (1997), who pointed out that
newsrooms are concerned with surveillance (exposure), conveying
what is going on out there, and correlation (portrayal), interpreting
those events. He claimed that “in fulfilling their surveillance functions,
the media should agree generally about what is happening and what
deserves the most attention now” and “in fulfilling their correlation
functions, the media should not agree generally about how the public
should respond to what is happening” (p. 164).
Both selection and framing are important because of the potential
influence on how the issue might be perceived by the audience. Just as
the selection of issues can influence an audience so too can the fram-
ing, especially if the issue is unobtrusive and the audience is not famil-
iar with it (e.g., Gandy, 2001; McCombs & Reynolds, 2002; Tuchman,
1978). In these instances, the audience relies on the media to describe
and explain the importance of the story. Kaneva and Lenert (2003)
stated that “individuals routinely turn to major news outlets, such as lo-
cal and national newspapers, for information on issues of immediate
concern and tips on what action can and should be taken in response
to certain events” (pp. 149–150). People are interested in more than
simple facts—they seek out analysis of events. This is why people listen
to talk radio, read editorials of favorite columnists, and watch news talk
shows and choose the shows they watch based on hosts and guests
whose opinion they value.
Even more so than selection, these decisions that center around
how to frame an issue are where the mass media organizations draw
their most power. Nelson, Clawson, and Oxley (1997) commented that
“frames influence opinions by stressing specific values, facts, and
other considerations, endowing them with greater apparent relevance
to the issue than they might appear to have under an alternative frame”
54 CHAPTER 3
(p. 569). Jamieson and Waldman (2003) added, “Frames tell us what is
important, what the range of acceptable debate on a topic is, and when
an issue has been resolved. By choosing a common frame to describe
an event, condition, or political personage, journalists shape public
opinion” (p. xiii). Studies in message framing have demonstrated that
excluding information from a message frame can affect how people in-
terpret the message (e.g., Ashley & Olson, 1998; Gitlin, 1980). For exam-
ple, Kim (2002) posited that “Americans’ understanding of other
cultures and countries is significantly influenced by the way
international news is framed” (p. 431).
Content decision making is inevitable. Selection is inevitable, so too is
framing. Some frame will result from the content decision-making pro-
cess. The frame is the product of the decision and framing is the deci-
sion-making process itself. The frame is what is presented to the
audience. The audience does not see the alternative frames that were
not selected in the presentation of the issue, at least at that time, through
that medium. The audience can attend to an alternative medium for
more information to learn about alternative frames of the story, if avail-
able. The idea that the frame that is presented becomes the dominant
reading of the text is where the media effects debate begins to be a point
of contention, as an active audience might interpret the story and not ac-
cept the provided frame. Even though there is only the potential of the
frame to influence the audience, content providers do everything within
their power to influence the mass media framing of a story.
AGENDA SETTING
One research area that initiated with mass media content selection
and extended into framing is the agenda-setting research inspired by
McCombs and Shaw (1972). Agenda-setting research initially ques-
tioned mass media effects based on audience exposure (selection),
the amount of coverage an issue received, and it evolved to include
questions of framing, how the issue is presented (e.g., McCombs,
Shaw, & Weaver, 1997). The core idea of agenda setting is that selec-
tion by the mass media and exposure of a topic to the audience leads to
salience of that issue on the part of the audience. The initial idea of
agenda-setting did not, however, emphasize that how people thought
about the issue would be influenced by the exposure, but rather that
their awareness of the issue and the level of perceived importance of
that issue increased. The initial agenda-setting philosophy is often
characterized by citing Cohen (1963), who observed that the mass me-
dia “may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to
think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think
about” (p. 13). This transfer of salience based on exposure alone has
been referred to as Level 1 of agenda setting.
The original agenda-setting hypothesis proposed by McCombs and
Shaw (1972) tested whether media coverage influences the public’s
perception about the importance of issues. This transfer of issue sa-
lience from the media agenda to the public agenda was based on se-
lection alone. The mass media can implement the public agenda
through their selection of stories or events. Shaw and Martin (1992)
pointed out, “The press may, unconsciously, provide a limited and ro-
tating set of public issues, around which the political and social system
can engage in dialogue” (p. 903). They added “the media spotlight pub-
lic events and issues long enough for collective identification and so-
cial discourse. That is one major function of mass agenda-setting” (p.
920). Consistent with the work of Miller (1956), who estimated that the
information-processing capacity for people’s agendas was seven
items, plus or minus two, Shaw and McCombs (1977) found that the
public agenda typically included five to seven items. McCombs and
Reynolds (2002) stated that “establishing this salience among the pub-
lic so that an issue becomes the focus of public attention, thought, and
perhaps even action is the initial stage in the formation of public opin-
ion. Although many issues compete for public attention, only a few are
successful in reaching the public agenda” (p. 1).
Shaw and Martin (1992) claimed that “public issues always compete
for limited numbers of possible public attention slots” and “public at-
tention is limited. Space is limited. Time is limited” (p. 904). Lasorsa
(1997) pointed out that the reality is that the media select and give
more attention to some events and issues than to others. These se-
lected issues have the potential to become part of the public agenda.
Subsequently, the theory implies the lack of attention given to an event
or issue hinders the opportunity for that issue to become an item on the
public agenda (e.g., Hunt & Ruben, 1993; Wright, 1986). Wanta and Wu
(1992) stated, “If the news media do not devote coverage to issues, in-
dividuals will perceive these issues to be less salient than the issues
that do receive coverage” (p. 849).
Although transfer of issue salience from the media agenda to the
public agenda based on the amount of exposure alone was the original
claim to come out of agenda-setting studies, the theoretical frame-
work has evolved as agenda-setting researchers also focused on how
an issue gets presented. This second level of agenda-setting research
has examined how the framing of an issue by a mass media organiza-
tion can also affect the public agenda, positing that the mass media
may be successful in telling people how to think about an issue. The
way an issue is framed could shape public perception of the salience of
56 CHAPTER 3
that issue (e.g., Ghanem, 1997; McCombs & Reynolds, 2002;

Schoenbach & Semetko, 1992; Semetko & Mandelli, 1997). In addition
to exposure alone, the framing of content offers opportunity for the
mass media organization to transfer the salience of an issue from the
media agenda to the public agenda. McCombs and Shaw (1993) re-
considered their original agenda-setting hypothesis and extended the
agenda-setting function, describing it as a process that can affect both
what to think about and how think about it.
It is the second level of agenda setting in explaining decisions about
how messages are presented that can influence audience thinking
about an issue where comparisons between agenda setting and fram-
ing are made. In viewing framing as an extension of agenda setting,
McCombs (1997) stated that framing “is the selection of a restricted
number of thematically related attributes for inclusion of the media
agenda when a particular object is discussed” (p. 6). Other scholars
saw the similarity between agenda setting and framing as both dealing
with construction of media messages and public perception of those
issues (e.g., Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000; Yioutas & Segvic, 2003).
Maher (2001), however, drew a distinction between agenda setting
and framing, pointing out that “agenda setting has typically not consid-
ered the relationships of elements within a text, as they are organized
by the text’s author” (p. 86). He explained, “Framing scholarship typi-
cally concentrates on the communicator’s framing, that is, the journal-
ist’s framing. Agenda-setting research typically examines the transfer
of framing salience between the text (as interpreted by the researcher)
and the receiver (public)” (p. 89).
Whether through selection or framing, Protess and McCombs
(1991) claimed that “agenda-setting is about the transfer of saliences,
the movement of issues from the media agenda to the public agenda”
(p. 3). The agenda-setting effect on an audience is measured taking
into account the selection and framing that issues receive from the
mass media. Any agenda-setting effect is essentially based on the mass
media’s content decision making. The audience simply cannot make
judgments based on information it does not have. For stories in which
people have no personal experience for comparison, people might be
more willing to accept the perspective offered by the media. If people
have experienced the issue, the framing provided through the mass
media might not be as influential.
It is also imperative to recognize that the potential media influence on
an audience through portrayal framing methods is an extension and not
a replacement for the original agenda-setting idea of exposure alone.
Agenda-setting researchers now simply recognize that exposure and
framing of an issue can both have an effect on the audience. Although
the framing of an issue is now recognized in agenda-setting research as

a potential influencing factor about how the public thinks about an issue,
Ghanem (1997) still emphasized exposure, contending that “the fre-
quency with which a topic is mentioned probably has a more powerful
influence than any particular framing mechanism, but framing mecha-
nisms could serve as a catalyst to frequency in terms of agenda-setting”
(p. 12). Kosicki (1993) stated that “the amount of space or time devoted
to particular issues should be measured, and that this measurement
should relate to either the amount of attention people pay to issues or to
their judgments of the issues’ importance” (p. 105).
Although the results of McCombs and Shaw’s (1972) study indicate a
very strong relationship between the emphasis placed on various cam-
paign issues by the media and by the public, they are quick to point out
that their findings are not discussed in terms of media causality. Critical
to their analysis, McCombs and Shaw claimed that the agenda-setting
function is “not proved” (p. 184) by their correlation data but that the
data present evidence that agenda setting does occur. Even in this
seminal agenda-setting study, there is a maneuverability and allow-
ance for the audience to be factored into the media effects process.
McCombs (1976) clarified any misconceptions regarding direct
agenda-setting effects, stating that “no one contends that agenda-set-
ting is an influence process operating at all times and all places in all
people” (p. 2). Protess and McCombs (1991), however, pointed out that
“placing an issue or topic on the public agenda so that it becomes the
focus of public attention, thought, and discussion is the first stage in the
formulation of public opinion” (p. 2).
Agenda-setting research has evolved to pose questions of how me-
dia agendas are constructed. In recognizing that the mass media might
not be acting unilaterally in the selection and framing of content and
that the relationships with constituency groups are indeed a vital part
of the process, agenda-setting scholars have stressed a need for study-
ing the process of mass media content decision making (e.g.,
Carragee, Rosenblatt, & Michaud, 1987; Danielian & Reese, 1989; Rog-
ers, Dearing, & Bregman, 1993). Roberts (1997) pointed out that “it is
highly doubtful given the growing complexities of contemporary politi-
cal communication environments that any single medium or entity can
solely serve as the agenda-setter. Instead, the individual influence of
any particular entity must participate as an agenda builder” (p. 95).
Fortunato (2000) claimed, “The agenda-setting theoretical frame-
work operates from the perspective of the mass media having the
power to transfer the salience of an issue to the public. Perhaps, how-
ever, too much power is granted to the mass media without the consid-
eration of the processes by which mass media content is selected and
58 CHAPTER 3
framed” (p. 481). He added, “Recognition of other sources having a

role influencing mass media content, without accepting the mass me-
dia as the only plausible answer, raises the question: who sets the pub-
lic agenda?” (p. 482). Fortunato concluded, “Simply accepting the
mass media as the sole agenda-setting power without recognizing the
important role of content providers, the organizations with an agenda
to promote and transfer to the public, operating as advocates for their
organization is to neglect a critical phase of the creation of mass media
content” (p. 497).
FRAMING AND CONTENT PROVIDERS
McCombs and Ghanem (2001) stated, “Agenda setting is a theory

about the transfer of salience from the mass media’s pictures of the
world to those in our heads” (p. 67). They added that the “elements
prominent in the media’s pictures become prominent in the audi-
ence’s pictures” (p. 67). The critical question, however, is: Are they the
media’s pictures, or are others (content providers) simply using the
media as the vehicle to announce and promote their own agenda?
Maher (2001) raised important questions about any agenda-setting or
framing process, recognizing the prospect that content providers or
other constituency groups, including the audience, are a prominent
part of the process. He asked, “What kinds of issues, causal interpreta-
tions, and potential solutions are the news media ignoring that they
should not be ignoring? Where do frames originate and how do they
spread? Why do reporters adopt a given frame for a social problem and
ignore other frames? Which segments of society gain or lose from jour-
nalists’ framing decisions? Why do different publics accept or reject
journalists’ frames?” (p. 92).
It is studies of framing and the content decision-making process that
provide insight into these complex relationships (e.g., Gamson, 2001;
Kaneva & Lenert, 2003). Gamson (2001) pointed out that frame analy-
sis includes “attention to the production process—the ways in which
carriers of particular frames engage in activities to produce and repro-
duce them. A focus on the production process alerts us to issues of
power and resources, to the framing process as a struggle over mean-
ing that is ultimately expressed through texts” (p. ix). He added, “Atten-
tion to the production process also alerts us to less visible uses of
power, those that exclude certain sponsors or marginalize their pre-
ferred frames. It leads us to attend to absences and silences in a dis-
course as well as what is there” (p. ix).
Content providers try to get the mass media to select their stories
and frame those stories from their perspective. Why these content pro-
viders try to frame an issue is not difficult to discern: They are trying to
influence the public, policy, sales, voting, or whatever other behavior
might be their desired outcome. The rationale is simple, as Kaneva and
Lenert (2003) stated, “The way in which the press discusses an issue
can affect the popular interpretation of events and, ultimately public
opinion” (p. 150).
Because of the potential influence, the competition that exists for se-
lection is extended to competition for certain frames to be a part of the
story. Within each story there are many frames, and some frames will be
emphasized and others ignored (e.g., Gamson & Modigliani, 1989;
Reese, 2001). All of these potential frames are not of equal value and al-
though the journalist must choose from this array of frame choices, it is
at this juncture that the appeals made by content providers are most in-
tense. Gamson (2001) emphasized, “The central importance of the rela-
tionship between journalists and sources and the process of selecting
sources to quote” (p. ix). Reese (2001) stated, “The power to frame de-
pends on access to resources, a store of knowledge, and strategic alli-
ances” (p. 20). Ryan, Carragee, and Meinhofer (2001) explained that
journalistic frames do not exist in a political or cultural vacuum and are
“influenced by the frames sponsored by multiple social actors, including
corporate and political elites, advocates, and social movements. News
stories, then, become a forum for framing contests in which these actors
compete in sponsoring their definitions of political issues” (p. 176).
If there is competition for how the issue is going to be portrayed,
there is also a winner and loser in terms of whose frame is dominant in
the story. Some content providers are better and have more capabili-
ties when it comes to framing messages. Other content providers are
so powerful that their perspective will always be included in the text,
mainly because these perspectives are desired by the mass media or-
ganization and the audience (certainly top government officials fit into
this category). Ryan et al. (2001) explained that “the ability of a frame to
dominate news discourse depends on multiple complex factors, in-
cluding its sponsor’s economic and cultural resources, its sponsor’s
knowledge of journalistic practices, and its resonance with broader
political values or tendencies in American culture” (p. 176). Jamieson
and Waldman (2003) pointed out that in certain situations officials are
able to control the frame if they hold a temporary monopoly on the
relevant information about a story.
Once an event occurs, the goal of the various stakeholders is to es-
tablish a point of view that can be a part of the frame for the event
(Miller & Riechert, 2001). All of the stakeholders provide varying per-
spectives that each stakeholder hopes will be included and gain prom-
inence in the dialogue about the event. Through highlighting certain
60 CHAPTER 3
aspects of the story and downplaying others, Miller and Riechert (2001)
explained, “Stakeholders seek to articulate their positions to accom-
modate journalistic norms and to win support, competing for news
media attention. The more a particular stakeholder group is quoted in
news articles, the more prominently their particular issue definition is
represented in news coverage” (p. 112). They argued, “Stakeholders
try to gain public and policymaker support for their positions less by of-
fering new facts or by changing their evaluations of those facts, and
more by altering the frames or interpretive dimensions by which the
facts are to be evaluated” (p. 107).
If one story could have many frames, even if some frames are not
present in one report, many of these frames could still reach an audi-
ence, as different frames could be reported more prevalently by vari-
ous mass media organizations and through various mass media forms.
With this many mass media outlets, having only one frame presented
by one organization would not seem problematic, as different mass
media organizations could focus on and present different frames. Un-
less all of the mass media organizations use the same frames, multiple
frames are exposed and the responsibility to seek them out could be
transferred to the audience. In recognizing that there are many mass
media outlets and in trying to put forth the frame that supports their po-
sition, content providers (government officials, public relations
spokespersons, etc.) would make efforts to have their perspective
consistently appear in the various reports in the mass media forms.
If journalists use multiple sources, they are inevitably presented with
and asked to sift through multiple frames, and there is then pressure to
pick the correct frames. Jamieson and Waldman (2003) claimed, “Just
as politicians sometimes succeed in deceiving the public, journalists
sometimes fail in their task of discovering and describing the knowing,
relevant information at play in public discourse” (p. xiv). They pointed
out that “the critical variable is usually not the facts themselves but the
manner in which they are arranged and interpreted in order to con-
struct narratives describing the political world. Between these two ex-
tremes—that there is no such thing as truth, and that there is but a
single truth that simply waits to be found—lies the terrain journalists
attempt to chart every day” (p. xiv).
Frames can also act as an organizing guide that assists the journalist
and mass media organization in content decision making, as there are
certain perspectives or frames that need to be included in the story
(e.g., Gamson, 2001, Gamson & Modigliani, 1987; Gandy, 2001; Gitlin,
1980). Gitlin (1980) explained that frames are predictable patterns that
the people of the mass media organization use to influence the deci-
sion-making process. He claimed that media frames serve as working
routines for journalists that allow them to quickly identify and classify
information. He added that, media frames are “largely unspoken and
unacknowledged, organize the world both for journalists who report it
and, in some important degree, for us who rely on their reports” (p. 7).
Reese (2001) claimed that “framing is concerned with the ways inter-
ests, communicators, sources, and culture combine to yield coherent
ways of understanding the world, which are developed using all of the
available verbal and visual symbolic resources” (p. 11). Reese arrived
at the definition of framing as “organizing principles that are socially
shared and persistent over time, that work symbolically to meaning-
fully structure the social world” (p. 11).
Even though there are some organizing principles in framing, the jour-
nalist is paid for his or her judgment in selecting and arranging the facts
of a story. Journalists are in the position they have attained because of
their ability to present an acceptable frame of a story. In speaking of the
practical application of the people who are actually involved in the fram-
ing process, framing can be defined as a philosophy of decision making
about what that mass media organization deems important. This philos-
ophy of decision making can be extended to the individual reporters,
thus making it more difficult to define. Gamson (2001) simply pointed
out that “two independent investigators will inevitably slice up the dis-
course in different ways,” (p. x) as many reporters, or other media deci-
sion makers, could represent that many framing philosophies. As Reese
(2001) stated, “All frames are not equal in their ability to cause informa-
tion to cohere, making sense out of the world. We should ask how much
‘framing’ is going on?” (p. 13). Jamieson and Waldman (2003) argued,
“The frames that journalists adopt are in part a function of the lenses
through which reporters view the world and their conception of their
roles in the political process at a given moment” (p. xv).
Jamieson and Waldman (2003) summarized:
Journalists help mold public understanding and opinion by deciding

what is important and what may be ignored, what is subject to debate and
what is beyond question, and what is true and false. In order to make
those judgments, they have to navigate an often confusing thicket of
information and assertions. “Facts” can be difficult to discern and relate
to the public, particularly in a context in which the news is driven by
politicians and other interested parties who selectively offer some pieces
of information while suppressing others. (p. xiii)
FRAMING AND THE AUDIENCE

Frames are not equal for a multitude of reasons. Entman (1993)
claimed that frames have at least four locations in the communication
62 CHAPTER 3
process: (a) the communicator, (b) the text, (c) the receiver, and (d)
the culture. Certain facts are more prevalent than others and certain
perspectives more available than others, and journalists have to make
judgments about what to include in their stories. Frames are also not
equal because of the desires of the audience. The audience is expect-
ing certain frames to be part of a media report. There can be preferred
frames to which the audience desires exposure, and those could gen-
erally be from the more powerful sources. It is difficult for the reporter
not to include certain perspectives or certain frames. How can a re-
porter justify not putting a comment or the perspective of a top govern-
ment official into his or her story? The audience might turn to that
medium and that content because it is confident that those frames will
be part of the story.
Certain frames simply might not be accepted by the audience,
which has the ability to interpret actively the messages it is receiving
(e.g., Entman, 1993; Gamson & Modigliani, 1989; Goffman, 1974). In
coping with the framing of content being produced by the media, audi-
ence members orient and perceive media messages by producing
their own interpretive frames (e.g., Blumler, Gurevitch, & Katz, 1985).
Swanson (1987) explains that audience interpretive frames organize
and give coherence to the components that constitute the frame, and
direct attention to particular aspects of message content while obscur-
ing other less relevant aspects. Reese (2001) spoke to the interpretive
nature of frames, stating, “Frames are never imposed directly on media
audiences. The acceptance and sharing of a media frame depends on
what understandings the ‘reader’ brings to the text to produce negoti-
ated meaning” (p. 15).
Audience frames help the audience interpret the content the media
provide. The media frames collide with the frames and interpretations
of an active audience. Not only does message content factor into indi-
vidual interpretation, Swanson (1987) claimed that audience motiva-
tions are “thought to be capable of playing a significant role in
interpretively orienting the audience member to a media message
through using an appropriate interpretive frame” (p. 243). He also
stated that “audience members are resourceful in the sense that they
may construct and apply a diverse repertoire of interpretive frames,
shaping particular messages to serve various motivations” (p. 243).
Overall, frames have a greater opportunity for persuasive success if
they draw on a belief held by the audience (e.g., Binder, 1993).
Just as there are multiple frames to any singular issue, and multiple
sources trying to influence the media frame, there are multiple mass
media organizations reporting on the same issue. Gamson and
Modigliani (1989) described the process in which journalists develop
and obtain ideas and language from their many sources; however, “at
the same time, they contribute their own frames and invent their own
clever catchphrases, drawing on a popular culture that they share with
the audience” (p. 3). Gamson and Modigliani further explained that
certain frames “have a natural advantage because their ideas and lan-
guage resonate with larger cultural themes” (p. 5). Certainly, content
providers often employ language that will not only be understood by
audience members but resonate with them in a meaningful way.
Gamson (2001) concluded that framing analysis needs to examine the
“complex interaction of texts with an active audience engaged in
negotiating meaning” (p. x).
Schramm (1949) noted that news is not the event but the report of
the event. It is events that happen, and the various stakeholders re-
act and try to frame how that event should be thought of in the mind
of the public. Based on the reactions of the audience, content pro-
viders have the opportunity to readjust, or reframe, their messages
in the hopes that a new frame might resonate with the audience.
Content providers are simply always evaluating the impact of their
messages (e.g., Gamson & Modigliani, 1989; Ryan et al., 2001). Fram-
ing is thus a continuing process that can evolve daily if the story con-
tinues to maintain its presence in the public dialogue. Ryan et al.
(2001) explained that frames evolve and “particular frames may
gain or lose prominence in the news media. In addition, sponsors
may re-structure their framing of particular issues given changing
political conditions or given the frames advanced by their oppo-
nents” (p. 176).
Miller and Riechert (2001) described what they called a “spiral of
opportunity,” where content providers carefully evaluate audience
response to their messages. They explained, “Stakeholders articulate
their positions and then monitor public responses to those articula-
tions. If a stakeholder’s articulation resonates positively with the pub-
lic, then that group will intensify its efforts. On the other hand when an
articulation resonates negatively, the stakeholder group will change
its articulation or withdraw from debate” (p. 109). Miller and
Riechert’s position articulates a critical role of the audience and how
it will interpret and react to the messages it receives, with stake-
holders having the opportunity to reframe the debate. They described
the possible strategic options for the proponents of the losing frame,
stating, “In this case, they can either adjust their rhetoric to the new
frame or concede and withdraw from the policy debate” (p. 113).
They concluded through this perspective of the spiral of opportunity
that “news media framing of issues as an ongoing process in which
journalists and contending stakeholders interact. Thus we must ex-
64 CHAPTER 3
amine the imperatives under which journalists operate and how

stakeholders attempt to exploit these imperatives” (p. 120).
Miller and Riechert (2001) summarized:
Often topics remain on the news agenda for a continuing period, during
which time reporters write additional news articles and include com-
ments from people involved in the issue. As stakeholders find access to
journalists, they may be able to win visibility for their selective issue defi-
nition by exposure in the mass media. Journalists, striving for objectiv-
ity, depend on spokespersons as sources for information and
comments. This dependence would suggest a win-win situation in
which reporters need a quote, and group representatives want to publi-
cize their perspective. As issues become more complex they involve
multiple stakeholders or claimsmakers who then compete for access to
news reporters. (p. 112)
THEORETICAL OVERVIEW
With so many variables simultaneously at play, the best approach to

studying mass communication is to look at the production and recep-
tion process in tandem. Studying the process of mass media content
decision making does not replace, but rather strongly complements,
research on mass media effects and allows for a more complete un-
derstanding of the entire mass communication process. Learning
about mass communication processes is greatly enriched if the com-
prehensive literature about mass media effects—that is, questioning
what the impact of messages might be—is positioned next to informa-
tion that describes the complex process of why certain content is pro-
duced and how content decisions are made (e.g., Shoemaker &
Reese, 1996).
The theoretical frameworks of uses and gratifications, media de-
pendency, framing, and agenda setting assist in understanding the en-
tire mass media content decision-making process. None of the
theories, however, can alone explain the process and all of the relation-
ships between the mass media organization and its various constitu-
ency groups that influence, or try to influence, decision making.
Characteristics from each of these theoretical perspectives are needed
because they all contribute to the description of the complex mass me-
dia content decision-making process, and without all of these
characteristics, any description is not complete.
Media dependency helps explain why relationships between indi-
viduals and the mass media and relationships between content provid-
ers or other constituency groups and the mass media exist. Individuals
depend on the mass media for information, entertainment, or social in-
clusion. Content providers depend on the mass media for exposure of

their message to an audience. Media dependency research also indi-
cates that any dependency can be strengthened or weakened and
might not exist if the parties’ desires can be satisfied through other
means. Factors such as a lack of a functional alternative combine with
factors such as an increase in an interest in the topic and the perceived
importance of the topic, leading to a strong dependency on the mass
media and therefore an increase in the likelihood of media use.
Organizational media dependency relates to the agenda-setting
model. Agenda setting helps explain the role of the mass media in se-
lecting and framing stories, thus establishing or potentially increasing
the importance of certain issues. Agenda setting influences which is-
sues the public thinks about and how it thinks about those issues. This
cognitive thought process as implied in the agenda-setting literature of
an audience member relates more closely with the uses and gratifica-
tions characteristic of an active audience. The uses and gratifications
approach can extend the agenda-setting function of the media by com-
bining the idea that the mass media tell audience members what to
think about and how to think about it, with the active audience mem-
bers choosing mass media and interpreting the content to fulfill their
needs. This satisfaction of needs for an audience through experiencing
media content can predict future mass media use and future mass
media organization or content provider decision making.
The mass media may not have the power to control directly the au-
dience, but the media content does have the potential to influence it.
The audience may not be totally active and autonomous, but it can ac-
tively select and interpret the meanings of these mass media mes-
sages, and behave based on its needs. Even in the ability of the
individual audience member to assign his or her own thoughts about
an issue, it is imperative to recognize that the audience is always lim-
ited in its choices of topic and the amount of information presented
on that topic based on the selection and framing decisions of the
mass media organization.
McQuail (2000) stated that “there can be little doubt that the media,
whether moulders or mirrors of society, are the main messengers
about society” (p. 63). The comment by McQuail acknowledges the
media effects debate but dismisses the question of media effects or at
least relegates it to a different area of study. The statement implies that
scholars, whatever their position on the media effects debate, would
be in agreement that the media are the main messengers about soci-
ety—the vehicle through which people can learn about social and cul-
tural phenomena. This consensus that the media are the main
messengers about society not only encourages inquiry into mass me-
66 CHAPTER 3
dia effects but also emphasizes the remaining question: If the mass
media are the main messengers about society, how do they make
decisions about their content?
The mass media, however, are not autonomous in selecting and
framing content and are constantly being pushed by content providers
to provide coverage. Interdependent relationships emerge because
the mass media organization needs content providers. Content provid-
ers must ask how they can best operate their organization and their
business. Inevitably, an integral part of that response includes an asso-
ciation with the mass media to communicate the content providers’
message to the audience.
The content decision-making process begins with accepting the
general assumptions from each of the theoretical frameworks: (a) the
media can be successful in telling the audience which issues to think
about (agenda-setting Level 1, selection); (b) the media can be suc-
cessful in telling the audience how to think about that issue
(agenda-setting Level 2, framing); (c) organizations depend on the
mass media for communication links (organizational media depend-
ency); (d) individuals depend on the mass media for information and
social connection (individual media dependency); (e) mass media or-
ganizations depend on content providers for quality content and on the
audience to participate in this content; and (f) audiences actively se-
lect and interpret media to satisfy their own needs based on their own
experience, attitude, and values (uses and gratifications). This selec-
tion on the part of the audience is to satisfy needs, and the selection
could be based on participation in a mass media source that has previ-
ously been successful. In trying to capitalize on this audience behavior,
the mass media might try to produce their content in a consistent,
patterned way so that the audience knows what to expect from that
mass media organization.
SUGGESTED READINGS
Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal

of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.
Gamson, W. A. (2001). Foreword. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, & A. E. Grant (Eds.),
Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social
world (pp. ix–xi). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on
nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology,
95, 1–37.
Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and un-
making of the new left. Berkeley: University of California Press.
McCombs, M. E., & Reynolds, A. (2002). News influence on our pictures of the
world. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and
research (2nd ed., pp. 1–18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of the mass me-
dia. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176–187.
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1993). The evolution of agenda-setting research:
Twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Communication,
43(2), 58–67.
McCombs, M. E., Shaw, D. L., & Weaver, D. (Eds.). (1997). Communication and de-
mocracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reese, S. D. (2001). Prologue—Framing public life: A bridging model for media re-
search. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Per-
spectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 7–31).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reese, S. D., Gandy, O. H., & Grant, A. E. (Eds.). (2001). Framing public life: Perspec-
tives on media and our understanding of the social world. Mahwah, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum Associates.
Ryan, C., Carragee, K. M., & Meinhofer, W. (2001). Framing, the news media, and
collective action. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45, 175–182.
II
The Internal Mass Media
Organization
CHAPTER
4
Establishing the Mass
Media Organization:
Routines, Branding,
and Promotion
Before examining the complex relationships that mass media organi-

zations have with constituency groups outside of their organization, a
description of the complex internal mass media organization environ-
ment needs to be considered. McQuail (2000) commented, “The me-
dia organization, where media content is ‘made’ ” (p. 244). McQuail’s
claim that content is made implies the content selection and framing
decision-making responsibilities on the part of the mass media organi-
zation. The limits of time and space available for media content are the
root cause of and necessity for selection and framing decisions. As in-
dicated by some of the literature that defines frames as organizing prin-
ciples that provide coherence and guidance to the journalist and the
mass media organization, selection and framing of content are not so
open-ended to the unlimited possibilities as they might first appear.
Certain stories are eliminated from the selection process by the very
nature of their type of content because they do not fit within the scope
of the mass media organization. Even within the stories that are se-
lected, certain frames are eliminated because they lack source credi-
bility or are not deemed as relevant to the audience.
Each mass media organization, even within the same medium and
genre type, is different. However, in the greatest similarity among all
mass media organizations of needing content to attract an audience
71
72 CHAPTER 4
and, subsequently, advertisers, selection and framing are conducted in

some consistent pattern so that audiences have an idea what to expect
when they participate in a medium, network, periodical, or Internet
site. These consistent patterns are an important initial step in the con-
tent decision-making process of a mass media organization. These
patterns help make a complex decision-making process more simplis-
tic. As stories compete for media attention, McCombs and Reynolds
(2002) explained that “because the news media have neither the ca-
pacity to gather all information nor the capacity to inform the audience
about every single occurrence, they rely on a traditional set of profes-
sional norms to guide their daily sampling of the environment” (p. 6).
These patterns or professional norms are encompassed in the ter-
minology of media routines. The mass media routines are always a fac-
tor in the process of content decision making. The routine assists
selection and framing decisions in that these decisions are not as am-
biguous as imagined, largely because different mass media organiza-
tions focus on different types of content that attract different types of
audiences and different types of advertisers. Not all of the possible
news events are considered when selecting content, and many stories
are eliminated without even being evaluated.
The decision-making process begins on a larger philosophical level,
where the mass media organization chooses what type of content it
wants to cover. Then, within only one genre, there are still a myriad of
stories worthy of becoming content. The relationship between media
routines and content indicates the decision-making philosophy and re-
flects the content priorities of the mass media organization, or more
simply, the types of stories the mass media organization will or will not
cover. This philosophy could also reflect content decisions they believe
will attract an audience. The mass media organization tries to define it-
self in a manner that resonates with an audience and provides a con-
tent that an audience desires; it then attempts to present that type of
content in a quality manner.
Shoemaker and Reese (1996) defined routines as “patterned, rou-
tinized, repeated practices and forms that media workers use to do
their jobs” (p. 105). This definition can be expanded beyond how me-
dia workers do their job and recognize the variables that they are con-
strained by in making content decisions. Each characteristic of the
routine is one that facilitates selection for some issues and the framing
of the coverage for that issue but also inhibits coverage of some frames
and other issues altogether. McQuail (2000) argued that media rou-
tines are more of an influential factor in the content decision-making
process than any individual or ideological factor involved in the pro-
cess. He claimed that “in general all phases of media production in-
ESTABLISHING THE MASS MEDIA ORGANIZATION 73
volve a large volume of work that becomes routinized as a matter of

necessity. Even the starting point—a news event or ‘creative idea’—is
strongly (perhaps most strongly) influenced by convention and prior
experience that defines the event as ‘newsworthy’ ” (p. 276).
Shoemaker and Reese (1996) pointed out that prominent in estab-
lishing a routine is helping mass media organizations determine what
is acceptable to the consumer, the audience. Their point speaks to the
types of content mass media organizations could try to acquire. It is
probable that the media routines are based on the expectations of the
audience and in large part are established by previous audience be-
havior. Based on audience desires and expectations as explained in
the uses and gratifications literature, the media routine helps the mass
media organization by allowing it to make quick evaluations whether
to dismiss or pursue certain types of content. While helping simplify a
complex decision-making process for the employees of the mass me-
dia organization, the mass media routine also assists audience mem-
bers define content expectations from the mass media organization.
The routine thus helps audience members select content from the
myriad of media choices they are provided. The recognition of the au-
dience by Shoemaker and Reese is important because it points out that
at the earliest philosophical stages of decision making by the mass me-
dia organization, the audience is a critical component of the process.
Content that does not resonate with an audience often ceases to exist
in the public domain and does not become part of any future media
routine planning.
It appears that the mass media organization should always take the
audience into consideration during content decision making. So long
as the audience desires the “proper” content, another strong charac-
teristic of the audience as the preeminent media routines feature
emerges. For example, if service to democracy is the goal of mass me-
dia organizations, that would not be viewed as problematic, as the au-
dience should welcome informative content. In this concept where
the audience cannot be “wrong,” the system breaks down from its per-
fect blueprint, as the audience is not always interested in paying atten-
tion to information that some would deem important. As the market
system allows, organizations rely on only a small portion of the audi-
ence to participate in their product to sustain their business. This is par-
ticularly true for mass media organizations. Therefore, several types of
content remain in the public domain, even without a large audience.
Media routines are an internal decision in which the mass media or-
ganization tries to define itself. Being an internal decision, it seems a
shift in philosophy and media routine could easily occur. Once a media
routine is established, however, changes in the format can be difficult,
74 CHAPTER 4
as the routines have helped establish audience expectations that could

lead to a predictable behavior of media use and a media dependency.
The predictable behavior on the part of the mass media organization
through routine helps predict the behavior of the audience, the very
group that its content decisions are trying to attract.
MEDIA ROUTINES:
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES
In addition to the general philosophy regarding the type of content de-

sired, variables of time and space available, media organization bud-
gets, gathering and distribution technology, and mass media
organization genre format are all encompassed within the media rou-
tine. Shoemaker and Reese (1996) pointed out that routines are estab-
lished based on what the mass media organization is capable of
producing. Capability speaks to more than a desire of mass media or-
ganizations, as they might desire to obtain certain content but do not
have the resources to make that acquisition. Capability implies a selec-
tion of content based on a careful allocation of the mass media organi-
zations resources in gathering content. Even the largest mass media
organization is capable of gathering and distributing only a certain
amount of content. The allocation of resources helps demonstrate the
content that mass media organizations deem important or that they
believe will attract an audience.
Whatever the type of content the mass media organization attempts
to provide, decisions about how to allocate their resources have to be
considered. The resources are essentially the money, equipment, and
personnel that are strategically deployed to gather and distribute con-
tent. The allocation of resources leads to questions of: Do the mass me-
dia organizations have the time to cover that story? Is that content
financially and technically feasible to obtain and distribute?
The mass media resources and the types of content desired by the
mass media organization create disparities between all mass media
organizations. These disparities indicate that the process of mass me-
dia content decision making is not a straightforward recipe followed
by all organizations in all circumstances. Although some mass media
organizations have substantially greater resources, all mass media or-
ganizations must make decisions about the resources they are allo-
cated. The mass media routine helps allocate resources, as certain
stories and certain perspectives have to be covered. Ettema et al.
(1987) stated, “Uncertainty underlies the generation of news: The or-
ganization must make a priori decisions about where news is likely to
occur. When news breaks out in unexpected places (e.g., accidents,
disasters, conflict) decisions about reallocating staff resources be-

come necessary. Organizations deal with such uncertainties by routin-
ization” (p. 766).
The budget is the major decision-making tool in deciding the type of
content to provide to the audience. As Lacy and Niebauer (1995) sim-
ply stated, “The process of creating mass communication content can-
not be fully understood without considering the economics of the
media” (p. 12). As time is limited and always a factor in selection, so too
is money. There is not unlimited time and unlimited money to cover ev-
ery story. As indicated by the framing literature, even the stories that
are covered cannot be presented in the same standard, as there will be
varying time and resources allocated to the story.
How mass media organizations allocate their financial resources is
a strong indication of the type of content they desire and deem impor-
tant, or simply, the content they believe will attract an audience. For
example, if a news organization devotes a large portion of its news
budget and deploys a reporter to cover foreign news, one can con-
clude that this news organization finds that type of content important
or that people want to hear those stories, or both. Resources impose
restrictions and draw a separation, as some mass media organiza-
tions simply cannot afford to pay a reporter to be overseas to cover
foreign news or cannot afford to purchase the latest communication
technology equipment.
Technology is a function of the equipment being developed and of
the budget as a decision of allocation of resources through the types
of equipment that the mass media organization decides to or has the
ability to purchase. Communication technology greatly alters the
news media environment. As the media environment changes
through technology (satellite, cable, Internet), the routines of the
mass media organization and the content they have the ability to ac-
quire change. The routines of the audience and how, when, and
where they experience media and what content they have the ability
to access also change.
Cohen (2002) studied how technology and the Internet influence
the practices of journalism, questioning the value: “Does the medium
that enables interactive and flexible text change the way news pro-
ducers disseminate information, initiate discourse to cultivate a read-
ership, and satisfy commercial interests?” (p. 532). Arant and
Anderson (2001) pointed out that because of the 24-hour newshole
and the constant need for updates that online newspapers have to
deal with, online editors are more likely than traditional newspaper
editors to claim it is important to get news to the public as quickly as
possible. The desire to quickly post or update a story could lead to in-
76 CHAPTER 4
accuracies and a lack of balance in reporting (e.g., Brill, 2001; John-

son & Kelly, 2003). Johnson and Kelly (2003) claimed, “Ignoring
journalistic values such as accuracy and balance can damage the
credibility of online publications and, by association, their traditional
newspaper counterparts” (pp. 115–116).
Technological changes in how, when, and where the audience can
access content have made entire networks alter their routines. For ex-
ample, HBO has changed the type of content it offers its subscribers
based on the changes in communication technology and what the au-
dience can access. HBO originally focused on first-run movies and of-
ten provided the first option to see a movie after the theaters. Today,
with the audience able to access movies through home video and DVD
rentals or purchases and pay-per-view options, HBO would not keep
all of its subscribers if it showed only movies that many have already
seen. Instead, HBO has changed its type of content (its routine) and de-
veloped several original series to maintain a steady stream of subscrib-
ers. HBO must wonder how many subscribers would cancel the
network if it did not offer: The Sopranos, Sex and the City, Curb Your En-
thusiasm, and Six Feet Under.
Budgets are not only about what the mass media organization
deems important. The decisions regarding the budget and the allo-
cation of resources can essentially be looked at as an investment in
attracting an audience. The dilemma is to determine what the me-
dia organization can afford to spend while still providing audience
members with content they desire. In viewing the budget simply as
an investment, like all investments there is the hope of a return, and
for the mass media organization that comes in the form of an audi-
ence and subsequent advertisers. Shoemaker and Reese (1996)
claimed, “Since most media are profit-making enterprises, they
strive to make a product that can be sold for more than the costs of
production” (p. 109).
Coverage of international news is expensive and requires a large
portion of the resource allocation, and therefore it might not be as
practical as some other types of news for many mass media organi-
zations. Kim (2002) examined the attitudes and selection criteria of
U.S. journalists toward international news, claiming that “television
news continues to emphasize local and national events, often at the
expense of international news coverage” (p. 431). Of the 31 local
and national journalists analyzed, he found that they select interna-
tional news based on market demands and local relevance. All of
the journalists analyzed emphasized timeliness and U.S. involve-
ment in the news story selection. The finding that U.S. involvement
is a key variable in whether the issue becomes news content is con-
sistent with other research (e.g., Chang & Lee, 1992; Gans, 1979;
Shoemaker, 1999).
Kim (2002) did find a difference between national and local journal-
ists, with national journalists selecting international news with diverse
themes but local journalists catering more to business pressures and au-
dience demands, thus choosing stories with a local angle. He recog-
nized that organizational routines such as budget and airtime constrain
and limit international news. The decisions regarding international
news might not be surprising, as it reflects the audience that is receiving
the content, who might desire more local information. Kim described a
sense of international news that meets the audience demand, but
Graber (1997) cautioned that catering to audience demand could have a
spiral effect where the perceived lack of audience interest leads to less
coverage, which leads to even less audience interest.
At this point, the routine can best be described as a decision-making
philosophy expressed through the practices of gathering, organizing,
and distributing media content. A philosophy of decision making is
easy to learn through content analysis. Content analysis studies are an
easy and effective method for learning about the priorities of a mass
media organization. Bae (2000) provided an excellent example of us-
ing a content analysis to study the differences in the evening newscasts
of cable news networks as compared with broadcast networks. By
simply looking at the types of stories the media cover or the type of pro-
gramming the mass media provide indicates how they spend their
resources. In this case, the proof is in the pudding.
The question of who dictates the mass media routines remains. It is
a management policy decision, but in whose interests? If the argu-
ment is that it is in the business interests, essentially an argument is
being made that decisions are in the audiences’ interests, as the audi-
ences will create the business through their behavior. That is why me-
dia routines often align with the expectations and desires of
audiences. If to some extent, as is being argued, media routines are
established because of and work in relation to audience routines, the
routines of the audience and understanding their behavior during
work and leisure time become an important component of the con-
tent decision-making process. Understanding the audience is essen-
tial to mass media content decision makers so they can establish
routines. These routines can simplify a complex process and the se-
lection and framing of content to meet audience needs and achieve
gratification and, hopefully, a dependency that will increase the likeli-
hood of use—perhaps not the total audience, but the target audience
that the content is designed to reach and the target audience that can
be delivered to advertisers.
78 CHAPTER 4
MEDIA ROUTINES AND BRANDING

Media routines help establish a competitive difference among what
mass media organizations offer. Creating and communicating these
differences is important with so many communication options for the
audience. To try to distinguish themselves in a crowded communica-
tion environment and appeal to the audience, mass media organiza-
tions attempt to establish themselves as an industry leader by offering
different content and higher quality content than their competition. Es-
tablishing media routines as an initial aspect of the content decision-
making process is a step toward a mass media organization differenti-
ating and defining itself as a brand.
Strategic branding initiatives help clarify expectations for audiences
about what to expect when they engage in media use and participate
in that mass media organization’s content. Much as audience expecta-
tions as expressed in the uses and gratifications literature help explain
the implementation of media routines, uses and gratifications theory
also illuminates the concept of branding and how the audience ac-
tively selects content. Many theorists who write about branding com-
ment on audience expectations and desires, terms prominent in the
uses and gratifications literature, predicting behavior. Branding aligns
with uses and gratifications, as people know which media to attend to
satisfy their needs. In this instance, people know which brands have
been successful and have satisfied their desires; therefore they once
again purchase those brands.
Brand management focuses on the long-term development of a
brand (e.g., Keller, 1998; Shocker, Srivastava, & Ruekert, 1994). Bellamy
and Traudt (2000) stated that “branding is a form of product differentia-
tion, whereby firms attempt to make their product ‘stand out’ from com-
petitors by such means as pricing, packaging, and brand image” (p.
132). A brand becomes an implicit contract between a product and a
consumer (e.g., Aaker, 1991). Davis (2002) stated, “A brand is a set of
promises. It implies trust, consistency, and a defined set of expectations”
(p. 3). He added, “A customer cannot have a relationship with a product
or service, but they may with a brand” (p. 31).
Branding decisions obviously need to be made in relation to the com-
petition within that industry (e.g., Aaker & Joachimsthaler, 2000). Ries
and Trout (1997) described the concept of positioning, where the objec-
tive is to place products, companies, services, or institutions in the
minds of potential customers in a way that differentiates them from the
clutter of the marketplace. Davis (2002) explained, “A strong brand posi-
tion means having a unique, credible, sustainable, fitting, and valued
place in the customers’ minds. It revolves around a benefit set that helps
your product or service stand apart from the competition” (p. 25).
According to Lacy and Vermeer (1995) in an economic market, “at

the most basic level, competition exists when one or more potential
buyers consider two or more products to be acceptable substitutes
for each other” (p. 50). In a general economic business model, Porter
(1980) pointed out that price leadership and product differentiation
are two strategies that companies can employ in competition.
Redmond and Trager (1998) defined three characteristics of competi-
tive success: (a) product differentiation, (b) niche marketing, and (c)
cost control. Hollifield, Kosicki, and Becker (2001) claimed that for
the mass media with cost largely absorbed by the advertisers, “prod-
uct differentiation is almost the only strategy available to news execu-
tives seeking to win the attention of the news-seeking audience” (p.
98). They described the scenario where “to succeed they [news exec-
utives] must attract the largest possible audience by differentiating
their news products from their competitors’ offerings. At the same
time, however, they also must produce a newscast or newspaper that
meets the expectations of the news consumer, which requires some
level of adherence to the standards of news judgment, behavior and
reporting that traditionally guide journalistic practice” (p. 93).
Through interviewing, writing, photographing, and editing stories,
the mass media are in effect producing the news for a particular read-
ership or viewer, and when members of the public buy a newspaper or
turn on a news program they are acting as the consumer of what is be-
ing produced (e.g., Luna, 1995). Luna (1995) argued that when individ-
uals consume news they offer some type of exchange for it and “this
exchange can be made directly through subscriptions to newspapers
or cable news channels, or indirectly through advertisers who pay
news producers to reach a particular target market” (p. 158). Gomery
(1989) explained that product differentiation is standard in industries
that are competitive and the more companies in that industry should
lead to a greater amount of product differentiation. This perspective re-
lates to the defining characteristic of competitive success—product
differentiation—as identified by Redmond and Trager (1998).
Through differentiation from competition, the value of a brand helps
attain sales. Bellamy and Traudt (2000) explained, “The fundamental
concept is that a recognizable brand will more easily attract and retain
customers than an unrecognizable one” (p. 127). Aaker (1991) also
spoke to the value of the brand, pointing out that “for many businesses
the brand name and what it represents are its most important asset—the
basis of competitive advantage and of future earnings streams” (p. 14).
Kapferer (1992) argued, “Products are what the company makes;
what the customer buys is a brand” (p. 2). The important distinction is
that people will always have a need to use certain types of products,
but which companies they support with their behavior (either pur-
80 CHAPTER 4
chase or in this instance mass media use) is determined by the brand

they believe will best satisfy their desires. People need to buy a car, but
will they buy a Ford or Chevrolet? People need to fly, but will they fly on
Continental Airlines or Southwest Airlines? People need sneakers, but
will they buy Nike, Reebok, or Adidas?
A mass media organization competes for consumer attention and
advertising dollars and therefore attempts to brand itself. In relation to
having to deal with competition, the importance of brand-building
strategies is not different in the mass media than in any other industry
(e.g., Aaker & Joachimsthaler, 2000). Chan-Olmsted and Kim (2001)
wrote about what mass media organizations as brands accomplish,
stating that “brands can help media consumers cut through the clutter
by identifying the brands that are compatible with their needs and ex-
pectations. Developing a sound branding strategy (i.e., business activi-
ties that establish a recognizable and trustworthy badge of origin, and a
promise of performance) is an essential step for a broadcaster to
increase its value for consumers and advertisers” (p. 75).
In a mass media context, a person in New York City will buy a newspa-
per, but which brand will they buy: New York Times, New York Post, New
York Newsday, or New York Daily News? People will watch the evening
news, but will they watch ABC, CBS, or NBC, or will they bypass all of the
over-the-air networks and opt for one of the all-cable news networks?
For the news media industry the competition exists outside of any one
medium, as organizations from all of the distribution forms of media,
now prominently including the Internet, have to be considered as com-
petition for audience attention and advertiser dollars.
Brands have established characteristics that can lead to audience
behavior. Brands have images and personalities, and the perceptions
of these brand characteristics are largely in the mind of the customer
(e.g., Aaker, 1997; Blackston, 2000; Keller, 1993). Chan-Olmsted and
Kim (2001) claimed, “A viewer’s association, perception, and expecta-
tion of a television station or network can easily come into play when
he or she is making a viewing choice with channel-surfing in an in-
creasingly crowded television environment” (p. 78). The concept of
brand associations becomes interactive, where brand messages and
images are created and communicated, but the consumer still gets to
evaluate the brand.
Blackston (2000) emphasized the relationship between the brand
and the consumer, and that relationship requires observation of and
analysis about consumers’ attitudes and behaviors toward the brand
and the brand’s attitudes and behaviors toward the consumer. He de-
scribed two components of a successful brand relationship: (a) trust in
the brand and (b) customer satisfaction with the brand. Aaker and
Joachimsthaler (2000) explained that distinctions can be made be-

tween what the brand is and what the brand does for customers. What
the brand does for customers could touch on more of an emotional ap-
peal for purchase or use on the part of the customer. They contended
that “an emotional benefit relates to the ability of the brand to make the
buyer or user of a brand feel something during the purchase process or
use experience” (p. 49).
A goal of any long-term branding strategy is to develop a series of
assets. Mass media organizations have assets such as the trustworthi-
ness of their reporters or anchors, tradition, consistency, and overall
reputation. Certainly some people watch NBC’s Meet the Press be-
cause they find Tim Russert trustworthy or subscribe to Time maga-
zine because they find the reporting consistently credible. David
Westin is the president of ABC News, overseeing its television news
properties, World News Tonight, Nightline, 20/20, and Good Morning
America, its Internet news properties, and ABC News radio. He ex-
plained that television has an almost inverse branding power to print.
He described that in the newspaper industry people might not neces-
sarily read the byline and that the power of the brand is the name of the
newspaper itself (Washington Post, New York Times, USA Today). For
television, people might be dedicated to watching Peter Jennings but
not even be sure he is on ABC. Westin explained, for television, that
“the brand is the people and their appearance is coming into the home,
that does not work in print” (personal communication, May 28, 2004).
Westin summarized the idea that powerful brands are built through
their people, citing that ABC News as the strongest brand of the ABC
company because of the consistency and longevity of the people at
ABC News such as Peter Jennings, Ted Koppel, and Barbara Walters.
Assets are essential in building brand equity. The purpose of brand-
ing is to create awareness of familiarity with, and a positive image for
the brand, which help build brand equity (e.g., Blackston, 2000;
Chan-Olmsted & Kim, 2001, 2002; Keller, 1993; Park & Srinivasan,
1994). Brand equity has been characterized as perceived quality, loy-
alty, and associations, combined with brand awareness (e.g., Aaker &
Joachimsthaler, 2000). Brand equity exists through brand knowledge,
which consists of high levels of brand awareness and a positive brand
image (e.g., Bellamy & Traudt, 2000; Keller, 1993).
Through the use of these assets and a continued excellent perfor-
mance of the products or services offered, brand equity can be at-
tained. Keller (1998) explained that consumer brand equity is achieved
when the consumer is not only familiar with the brand but holds favor-
able, strong, and unique brand associations. It is these positive feelings
toward a brand that then drive consumer behavior. There might be
82 CHAPTER 4
many options available, but only a few brands will dominate the mar-
ket share in a given industry; therefore, branding strategies strongly
relate to consumer use.
Understanding consumer behavior is important in understanding
the value of a brand and evaluating its brand equity. Establishing brand
equity helps the consumer feel that the products from that company
are better than those from a more generic competitor, a trend seen in
consumer behavior. Berry and Biel (1992) explained that brand equity
reflects the judgment of the consumer, including a willingness to pay
for a branded product. Davis (2002) pointed out that 72% of customers
say they will pay a 20% premium for their brand of choice, relative to
the closest competitive brand; 25% say price does not matter if they are
buying a brand that owns their loyalty. Overall, Davis contended, “A
brand helps customers feel confident about their purchase decision”
(p. 31).
In trying to explain consumer behavior, marketing research has
identified the 80–20 rule, which claims that 80% of a brand’s sales vol-
ume is accounted for by 20% of its buyers (e.g., Anschuetz, 1997b;
Hallberg, 1995). In applying the 80–20 rule to mass media use, De Vany
and Walls (1999) found that 10% of the movies released in a given year
accounted for approximately half of the box office revenue. Compaine
and Gomery (2000) found that the top 10 book publishers account for
more than 60% of book sales in the United States. For Internet use in
studying America Online users, Adamic and Huberman (1999) showed
that the top 5% of Internet sites accounted for almost 75% of user vol-
ume. Webster and Lin (2002) also found that Internet users are con-
centrated in only a few sites, with the top 200 sites accounting for
roughly half of Internet traffic.
Although the 80–20 rule and other trends might cause a focus on
only a portion of the customers, Anscheutz (1997a) emphasized that
growth relies on more than only 20% of consumers. He stated, “To in-
crease the number of heavy buyers of a brand, the brand must become
more popular in general. Conversely, it will be nearly impossible to in-
crease purchase of a brand among the most profitable ‘heavy buyer’
group without increasing the brand’s appeal to the ‘less profitable’
lighter buyers as well. Lighter and heavier buyers of a brand go together
as two sides of the same coin. The bottom line is that brand popularity
leads to brand volume from the full spectrum of buyers” (p. 64). He
plainly stated, “The only way to increase the number of frequent buy-
ers of a brand is to increase the brand’s overall popularity” (pp. 65–66).
One way of increasing the brand’s outreach to different audience seg-
ments is through brand extensions. Ultimately, an established brand can
create brand extensions, where a strong brand is leveraged to introduce
new products (e.g., Bellamy & Traudt, 2000). Bellamy and Traudt (2000)
explained that “brand extensions marry an established brand to a new
service as a means of establishing instant market credibility” (p. 157).
For example, NBC News can leverage its established brand to create a
news magazine such as Dateline NBC, ESPN can use its established
brand name to create ESPN the Magazine and ESPN Radio, and CBS can
capitalize on the brand name of one of its most successful programs
such as 60 Minutes to create 60 Minutes II. Park, Jun, and Shocker (1996)
also described a strategy of composite brand extensions, where two ex-
isting brand names combine, for example, MSNBC, which is a compos-
ite brand extension of Microsoft and NBC, or CNNSI, which is a
composite of CNN and Sports Illustrated. In speaking of brand exten-
sions, Davis (2002) pointed out that “more than 50 percent of consumers
believe a strong brand allows for more successful new product intro-
ductions and they are more willing to try a new product from a preferred
brand because of the implied endorsement” (p. 6).
Jeff Webber is the senior vice president and publisher for USA To-
day’s Internet site, usatoday.com. His responsibility is oversight of all
business aspects of the Internet site. He explained that as a business
manager he is not closely involved in specific editorial decisions as to
the newsworthiness of a story but rather strategic business decisions
for the newsroom. These business decisions could include targeting a
certain audience demographic, determining advertising rates and de-
veloping possible advertising offerings, and making any financial deci-
sions relating to resource allocation. Webber explained that the
Internet site is currently an extension and a way to increase the USA To-
day brand, but he cautioned that the future could be different, with the
Internet site having a status more equal to the print publication. In de-
veloping the usatoday.com brand, he stated, “News and information
organizations have to understand when, where, and how readers want
our information. They have to come to terms with it is about the audi-
ence and how they want to access our content” (personal communi-
cation, May 25, 2004).
In terms of consumer behavior, certain brands are considered lead-
ers in their respective industry. These brands have a large market
share, and whenever a certain product is desired, certain brands im-
mediately come to mind: soup (Campbells), soda (Coca-Cola, Pepsi),
sneakers (Nike, Reebok), fast food (McDonald’s). In differentiating
themselves and striving for the position of brand leadership, certain
mass media organizations have attained brand leadership in various
categories: Time for news magazines and Sports Illustrated for sports
magazines. Other examples include the dominance of HBO over other
movie channels and ESPN over other cable television sports channels.
84 CHAPTER 4
The difficulty of attaining brand leadership, even brand equality, is diffi-

cult for upstart competitors, as evidenced by WB and UPN in trying to
be considered on the same level as the more established networks of
ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC. CNN had a long hold on the news cable mar-
ket until the emergence of Fox News. When leadership within an in-
dustry such as this occurs, the brand is itself another critical asset (e.g.,
Davis, 2002). Anschuetz (1997b) simply explained, “With increased
brand popularity comes greater frequency of brand buying, a greater
number of heavier buyers in the brand’s franchise, a greater level of
brand loyalty as measured through repeat buying” (p. 51).
The differentiation between the brand and the content for a mass
media organization is, however, a tenuous balance. In speaking of tele-
vision specifically, Bellamy and Traudt (2000) described, “Networks
must walk a fine line between: (1) the need for differentiation in the
multichannel era, and (2) the need to maximize audiences in most
time periods in order to attract advertisers to pay the total bill” (p. 129).
They explained that despite trying to be different, “broadcast television
networks remain relatively homogenous as brands because of the
need to attract large audiences” (p. 129).
Other mass media organizations are more specialized and offer a
single type of content aimed at a niche audience, such as certain cable
television or radio stations and certain magazines or Internet sites that
only deal with one topic such as sports or music. Even a general topic
such as sports could be broken down further, as a magazine or a cable
television channel might only be about basketball or golf. Bellamy and
Traudt (2000) explained that cable television networks have become
niche oriented, which might attract smaller, but very loyal, audiences.
The reason cable television networks have been able to offer such spe-
cialized content that might not draw a large audience and still function
economically is because they receive money from subscriptions in
addition to advertising.
Through their basic or tier cable packages people pay for each
month, subscribers provide their cable operators with the revenue
they need to pass along to the actual networks for the right to include
that network as part of a package they can offer their viewers. Obvi-
ously, the more popular cable networks cost more per subscriber, but if
the cable operators did not offer these networks, they would certainly
lose subscribers (see Table 4.1).
Bellamy and Traudt (2000) pointed out another important distinc-
tion between a mass media brand and other industries in that “brand
and ‘purchase/choice’ location is the same. The source of the brand is
itself the brand” (p. 134). Customers do not have to go to a store to en-
gage with the brand in mass media selection. Bellamy and Traudt also
TABLE 4.1
Monthly Cable Channel Subscription Costs: New York Market
Network 1998 2003 2007 Estimate
A&E 0.15 0.19 0.19
ABC Family 0.15 0.20 0.26
BET 0.10 0.12 0.16
Bloomberg 0.04 0.10 0.11
Bravo 0.11 0.13 0.17
Cartoon 0.07 0.13 0.17
CNBC 0.14 0.23 0.23
CNN 0.33 0.38 0.38
Comedy Central 0.08 0.09 0.13
Court TV 0.09 0.11 0.12
Discovery 0.18 0.23 0.25
Disney 0.74 0.74 0.73
E! 0.11 0.18 0.22
ESPN 0.85 1.93 3.51
ESPN2 0.14 0.20 0.26
Food 0.05 0.05 0.08
Fox News 0.13 0.19 0.29
FOX Sports 0.55 1.16 1.69
Game Show 0.06 0.09 0.09
Golf 0.14 0.14 0.21
History Channel 0.09 0.15 0.18
Lifetime 0.12 0.17 0.24
MSNBC 0.11 0.13 0.15
MTV 0.16 0.23 0.28
Nickelodeon 0.25 0.34 0.41
SCI FI 0.11 0.13 0.14
SoapNet — 0.08 0.11
TBS 0.18 0.23 0.28
TCM 0.15 0.17 0.19
TLC 0.11 0.15 0.16
TNN 0.14 0.16 0.20
TNT 0.52 0.78 0.95
USA 0.35 0.40 0.39
VH1 0.08 0.11 0.13
YES — 2.11 2.58
Source: Futterman (2003) and Kagan World Media.
85
86 CHAPTER 4
pointed out that price, which is often the most important variable in
consumer choice behavior, is rarely a factor in the purchase of mass
media brands, with the possible exception of some pay services such
as HBO.
Certainly price can be a major factor in automobile purchases, as
some brands—Cadillac, Lexus, and Mercedes-Benz—are priced far
differently from other brands such as Ford or Chevrolet. Automobile
companies even further brand their type of cars within the larger cor-
porate brand name with different style and price ranges. So Ford offers
the Taurus family car, Explorer sport utility vehicle, and the Ranger
truck. For airlines, although price might be a contributing factor among
brands, location is also a critical factor. Several airlines have estab-
lished major cities as hubs and dominate that market by offering many
more flight options from that geographic region.
For behavior to occur the consumer still needs to be satisfied with
the brand they are using. To establish brand equity and loyalty over the
long term, corporations must emphasize their assets and distinguish
themselves from the competition offering a similar product. These cor-
porations also need to outperform the competition, especially in the
mass media industries where the competition is only the click of a but-
ton away. These distinct characteristics have to resonate with the con-
sumer and prompt behavior. The image distinction and what the brand
does for the consumer has to be formed in the mind of the consumer,
who ultimately decides about the brand.
BRAND COMMUNICATION AND PROMOTION
The final part of any branding strategy is that the characteristics of a

brand and the distinctions from the competition need to be effectively
communicated to potential consumers (e.g., Blackston, 2000;
Chan-Olmsted & Kim, 2001). Brand assets and features and the overall
reasons the consumer should purchase the brand all need to be ex-
plained to the audience, especially when initiating first-time use of the
brand. In this instance, branding initiatives by a company are analo-
gous to an agenda-setting function that the company is undertaking
and trying to achieve, getting the audience to be aware of the brand or,
if using agenda-setting terminology, using the mass media to transfer
the salience of the brand to the audience.
Brands are obviously best communicated through the performance
of their products or services, but performance can only be evaluated
after a purchase. Communication of the brand is where the relation-
ship with the mass media and a dependency for a content provider be-
come vital. Blackston (2000) pointed out that brand efforts need to be
made in “creating and communicating the correct attitudes and be-

haviors of our brands, because it is these which create meaning out of
the message” (p. 102).
The brand is communicated through slogans, logos, public appear-
ances by prominent people of the organization, marketing strategies,
public relations strategies, and other promotional advertising (e.g.,
Aaker, 1991; Bellamy & Traudt, 2000; Ridgway, 1998). Mass media orga-
nizations announce the brand of future content through promotion on
their own network, Internet site, or other print or broadcast locations.
Perse (2000) defined audience promotion as “the set of messages di-
rected toward the audience that is initiated by a station or a network”
(p. 19). Eastman (2000) explained that this promotion is needed to at-
tract an audience, maintain an audience, and create an image for the
mass media organization through communicating the availability of its
content. She stated, “At heart, promotion on-the-air, online, and in print
is the way that stations and networks announce the availability of their
programs” (p. 4).
For the mass media industry, the need for communicating brand
promotion is an important strategy. Bellamy and Traudt (2000) stated,
“Successful targeting is essential to television, and particularly broad-
cast television, because creation/generation of audiences for resale to
advertisers is the medium’s primary (or only) commodity” (p. 131).
Promotion is such a necessary strategy that mass media organizations
willingly forfeit time and space that could be used to sell advertising to
promote their future content (e.g., Eastman, 2000).
Promotion can be an instrumental strategy in facilitating the behav-
ior that the mass media organization is most interested in: media use.
If people are not made aware of the content that will be available in
the future and presented an opportunity to engage in purposeful in-
strumental mass media use, the only chance for use is in a ritualistic
context if the person happens to stumble across the content. The
highest quality content might not be noticed if the audience is not
aware of its existence. Creating that awareness is the function of pro-
motion, with the goal being an increase in audience size (e.g., East-
man, 2000; Perse, 2000).
Stephen Ulrich, director of talent and promotion for NBC Sports,
stated promotion is “one of the most important parts of television that
probably doesn’t get the justice it is due” (cited in Fortunato, 2001, p.
77). Ulrich provided a philosophical objective of promotions stating,
“You try to match up the audience that is watching as to what they
probably will watch in the future. My role is always trying to find that
swing audience. You have got to figure there is a core audience that is
going to watch no matter what. My job is to try to find those people who
88 CHAPTER 4
might watch if they knew and if they were compelled to watch and that
is pretty hard to do” (cited in Fortunato, 2001, p. 77).
Establishing the brand is a process that begins with the promotion of
the brand itself. The objective of this promotion through advertising
and other communication initiatives is to generate awareness, explain
the quality of the brand, and get the audience to sample the product of
the brand. Most companies believe in the quality of their product so
that if they can merely get the consumer to sample the product they are
confident that the performance of the brand will lead to future use.
Eastman (2000) explained that, “Program promotion’s main goals are
to achieve sampling (to get viewers to try an unfamiliar program), to
activate interest in upcoming episodes of ongoing programs, to an-
nounce changes in the program schedule, and to build viewer satisfac-
tion with the programming” (pp. 8–9). This satisfied use combined
with the additional advertising to reinforce the brand image and quality
will hopefully lead to brand loyalty.
Eastman (2000) pointed out that promotion can do much more than
merely announce when content will be available and that promotion
helps establish the mass media organization as a brand by communi-
cating its brand image. Again, the agenda-setting literature is analo-
gous to branding by emphasizing the brand features (framing) that will
be communicated to get the audience to think about and how to think
about the brand. The promotion helps frame the mass media organiza-
tion, its content, and how it might be perceived by the audience (e.g.,
Ferguson, Eastman, & Klein, 1999; Perse, 2000; Scheufele, 1999). East-
man (2000) identified two main types of promotion: (a) image promo-
tion, intended to enhance the brand name and create a positive brand
image for the mass media organization as a whole, and (b) program
promotion, intended to encourage participation in specific content or
induce viewing of a single program, and it may involve newspaper and
magazine ads, billboards, radio or television spots, or online an-
nouncements, but are primarily on-air promotions.
Image promotions could include a slogan or entire commercials
produced about an entire network. In an image promotion, for exam-
ple, CNN might produce a commercial that features all of its prominent
news personalities with its slogan, “The most trusted name in news.”
HBO produces promotions with all of the characteristics from its many
Sunday night original series, with its slogan, “It’s not TV, it’s HBO.” In a
program promotion, a promotional spot on CNN announces the con-
tent of a specific program, such as a guest that will be appearing on
Larry King Live. Many television programs also have daily e-mails that
are sent to their viewers indicating the guests and topics that will dis-
cussed on the show that evening. Bellamy and Traudt (2000) explained
that in television both networks and specific programs can be brands,

but they contended that the emphasis is largely on the network, which
has a longer tradition than certain programs that might only stay on the
air for a limited number of years.
Television branding has become necessary because of the media en-
vironment and the increased proliferation of the number of television
stations, the competitive media environment, and the large amounts of
clutter (e.g., Bellamy & Traudt, 2000; Kubey & Csikszentmihalyi, 1990).
Bellamy and Traudt (2000) pointed out that a strong brand identity is vital
in producing audiences in a highly competitive environment and in ex-
panding markets, either through growing the market for an existing
product or developing and distributing new products.
Because of the many choices and a scattered audience, one strategy
of promotion is to promote as much as possible within a program so as
not to take away from commercial time that can be sold to viewers. Tele-
vision networks routinely place graphics on the bottom of the screen
during one program to announce upcoming programming. This strategy
also reaches viewers when they are most apt to be watching rather than
changing channels (e.g., Ferguson, 1992; Fortunato, 2001).
With the number of viewers declining because of the mass media
environment, promotion has become more important. Self-promotion
cannot be the only mechanism for networks to get an audience to
learn about upcoming programming. Television networks are creative
in promoting their programming, including: TBS putting advertise-
ments for its college football schedule in the bathroom of bars in 12 cit-
ies, CBS gave away free interactive DVDs at Blockbuster (also owned
by Viacom) that show clips for its 2003 fall lineup, ABC had a premiere
weekend at its Disney’s California Adventure Park where fans could
meet the stars of ABC shows, and HBO bought a magazine insert in En-
tertainment Weekly to promote its latest original series, Carnivale (e.g.,
Elber, 2003).
Through media routines, branding, and promotion strategies, the
audiences can develop what essentially become their “go-to” chan-
nels, the channels they go-to first for whatever type of content they de-
sire. So the viewer might turn to ESPN for sports; Fox News for news;
HBO for movies; and one of the major networks for a dramatic series,
situation comedy, or reality show. Bellamy and Traudt (2000) added,
“Certain brand names in cable are now so well established that we can
assume that: (1) they have a high level of specific image recognition
and perception and (2) it is very difficult to compete against them” (pp.
137–138). A similar behavior could take place for magazine purchase if
a person is getting on a plane or going to the beach and looking for
something to read. Depending on the type of content desired, the
90 CHAPTER 4
prominent brand magazine of that genre might be the choice (Time for
news, Sports Illustrated for sports, People for entertainment, or Rolling
Stone for music). The established branding of these channels and pub-
lications and the communication of the brand are especially important
when people are engaged in ritualistic mass media use. Eastman
(2000) explained that “capturing high ratings is not just a function of
program scheduling and appeal, but is also a function of how the audi-
ence is told about the programs” (p. 3).
Just as the mass media are difficult to define because there are so
many different types and philosophies of media organizations, the
mass media routines are also difficult to define. These routines are as
varied as the mass media organizations themselves, even among
those that produce similar content. Mass media routines are different
for every mass media organization, but every mass media organization
has a general routine it follows.
Establishing media routines and developing branding strategies
help the mass media organization by simplifying the decision-making
process about the type of content to provide an audience. These rou-
tines also assist in clarifying the expectations of the audience, as peo-
ple have an idea of the type of content to expect from a certain mass
media organization. These routine and branding strategies are still de-
cisions about the overall direction of the mass media organization and
the types of content it aims to gather and distribute. These strategic de-
cisions, however, are only somewhat limiting, and content decisions
still need to be made within the routine. A closer look at the complex
relationships of the people within a mass media organization en-
trusted with making content decisions thus becomes necessary.
SUGGESTED READINGS
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York: Free Press.

Aaker, D. A., & Joachimsthaler, E. (2000). Brand leadership. New York: Free Press.
Bellamy, R. V., Jr., & Traudt, P. J. (2000). Television branding as promotion. In S. T.
Eastman (Ed.), Research in media promotion (pp. 127–159). Mahwah, NJ: Law-
Blackston, M. (2000). Observations: Building brand equity by managing the brand’s
relationships. Journal of Advertising Research, 40(6), 101–105.
Davis, S. M. (2002). Brand asset management: Driving profitable growth through
your brands. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Eastman, S. T. (2000). Orientation to promotion and research. In S. T. Eastman
(Ed.), Research in media promotion (pp. 3–18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Ettema, J. S., Whitney, D. C., & Wackman, D. B. (1987). Professional mass com-
municators. In C. H. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communica-
tion science (pp. 747–780). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based

brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1–22.
Keller, K. L. (1998). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and man-
aging brand equity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Perse, E. M. (2001). Media effects and society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influ-
ences on mass media content. New York: Longman.
CHAPTER
5
Ownership
What the mass media organization media routine and overall brand
image will be, and how the organization will promote itself are philo-
sophical decisions that can establish the reputation for the entire mass
media organization. These decisions are often made at the highest
levels of the corporation. Ownership establishes, or at the very least ap-
proves, the overall philosophy of the types of content the organization
desires and will attempt to acquire. Ownership also makes the critical
decisions about allocation of resources. It can be concluded that own-
ership is thus always affecting content decision making by dictating a
fundamental philosophy and controlling the budget resources. This
self-defining of the mass media organization itself helps limit the types
of content possible. Although facilitating and simplifying content deci-
sions, media routines do not dictate every decision. Even the gratifica-
tions and dependencies that can be attained are only formulated
based on the medium and content that is available.
The assumption of this book is that each of the constituency groups
involved in the process have the potential to influence content and
therefore it is important to examine the plausibility and extent of that in-
fluence. The relationship between ownership and content is that mass
media owners have the power to eliminate the term potential in influ-
encing content. The three major ways ownership can influence con-
tent decision making are: (a) setting the overall budget and the media
routines of the organization, as discussed in the previous chapter; (b)
directly ordering news story selection and framing; and (c) hiring and
firing employees. Gomery (2000) simply stated, “The ownership of the
mass media in the United States is of vital interest. These vast institu-
92
OWNERSHIP 93
tions influence what we know, the images of ourselves and the bulk of
the way we amuse and entertain” (p. 507).
The controversial question in the role of ownership is not in setting
an overall philosophy about the types of content desired but in estab-
lishing edicts about specific content decisions that are influenced by
ownership that may or may not be in the interests of the larger parent
corporation. The recent trends of corporate ownership and conglom-
eration of many forms of the media have raised concerns. The per-
spectives of the impact of this corporate conglomeration and the new
media environment are varied, but the pivotal question emerging from
the discussion raised in chapter 1 remains: Can a mass media organi-
zation be a profitable corporation and still serve the democratic citi-
zenry, or are those two positions mutually exclusive?
CONCERN OF CORPORATE OWNERSHIP

OF MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS
Mass media content gathering and distributing and access by the audi-
ence are very much a function of the mass media environment. The
mass media environment characteristic that cannot be disputed is that
media corporate conglomeration has occurred. The positives and neg-
atives of this development are what can be debated. What corpora-
tions are achieving by merging is obtaining access to every type of
media vehicle as well as every other aspect of mass communication
from content production to content distribution. One corporation’s
mass media ownership holdings could include: television networks,
cable television networks, cable television system carriers, publishing
(books, newspaper, and magazines), radio and recordings, film, televi-
sion and film production companies, and Internet sites. Substantial
media holdings for the larger mass media corporations include:
Disney—ABC (and 10 of its affiliate stations) and ESPN family of

television networks and their associated Internet sites; other cable
television networks: SoapNet, The History Channel, E! Entertain-
ment, and Lifetime Television; television and film production stu-
dios: Touchstone, Walt Disney, Miramax, and Buena Vista; several
radio stations and publishing.
Viacom—CBS and UPN television networks (and several affili-
ates), MTV, Nickelodeon, and Showtime; Simon & Schuster publish-
ing; Infinity Broadcasting radio stations; television and film
production studios: Spelling Television, Paramount Pictures, and
King World Productions; Blockbuster Video.
94 CHAPTER 5
General Electric—NBC television networks (and 13 affiliates); ca-

ble television networks CNBC, MSNBC, USA Network, and Bravo.
NewsCorp—Fox television stations (and more than 30 affili-
ates), Fox News Channel, Fox Sports regional networks;
HarperCollins Publishers, the New York Post and several newspa-
pers in Australia and the United Kingdom; Fox television studios
and 20th Century Fox.
Time Warner—CNN and its networks, TBS, TNT, HBO; high-circu-
lation magazines: Time, Sports Illustrated, People, Money, Entertain-
ment Weekly, and Fortune; television and film production studios:
Warner Brothers, Castle Rock Entertainment, New Line Cinema;
music recordings: Electra Records, Atlantic Records, Columbia Re-
cords; America Online.
It is interesting to note that Disney (ABC), General Electric (NBC),

Viacom (CBS), and Fox also own the affiliate television stations in the
top four television markets in the United States (New York, Los An-
geles, Chicago, and Philadelphia). This is important because it ensures
that their prime-time and other essential programming will be shown
on those affiliate networks and reach the larger audiences necessary
to attract major advertising dollars.
There is also corporate conglomeration within only one industry. In
the radio industry, Clear Channel Communications owns more than
1,200 radio stations nationwide. In the newspaper industry, Gannett is
the largest owner of newspapers in the United States, featuring USA To-
day, the newspaper with the largest circulation in the United States,
and more than 90 other newspapers in 40 states. Knight-Ridder owns
more than 30 daily newspapers and more than 20 nondaily newspa-
pers. Its daily newspapers include the major newspaper in cities such
as: Detroit (Detroit Free Press), Miami (Miami Herald), Kansas City
(Kansas City Star), and both major newspapers in Philadelphia (Phila-
delphia Daily News and Philadelphia Inquirer). The New York Times
Company owns more than 15 newspapers, including the New York
Times and the Boston Globe. Besides owning the newspaper of the
same name, The Washington Post Company also owns Newsweek
magazine. The Tribune Company has expanded beyond owning the
Chicago Tribune and owns the major newspaper in Los Angeles (Los
Angeles Times), Orlando (Orlando Sentinel), Baltimore (Baltimore
Sun), and Hartford (Hartford Courant).
The concern of media conglomeration among many scholars is that
journalistic principles geared toward the ideal of a better, more in-
formed democracy are secondary to the mass media organization’s de-
sire to earn a profit (e.g., Alger, 1998; Bagdikian, 2000; Gitlin, 1972, 1980,
OWNERSHIP 95
1982; Mazzocco, 1994; McChesney, 1997; McManus, 1994, 1995; Molotch

& Lester, 1974; Mosco, 1996; Underwood, 1993; Williams, 2002). Kellner
(1990) explained that “centralized corporate control gives these corpo-
rations enormous power to decide what people will read, see, and
experience” (p. 13). Therefore, according to these scholars the constitu-
ency groups with the most influence in the content decision-making
process are those that relate to the economics of the corporation,
namely, corporate owners, stockholders, and advertisers.
McManus (1994) argued that “investors, publishers/networks, and
parent corporations direct capital and shape policies in news organiza-
tions to generate profits and increase brand influence” (p. 23). He
claimed that media organizations compete for investors and try to con-
vince potential investors of the profitability of their programming and of
their relationships with advertisers. McManus concluded that “market
norms call for maximizing return to investors. Were purely economic
norms to prevail, coverage would center on the least expensively gath-
ered information likely to generate the largest audience advertisers
would pay to reach” (p. 35).
Williams (2002) raised another issue regarding large corporate con-
trol of the mass media—the size of the corporation owning the media
could be a factor in the amount of control exerted on the media portion
of the company. He stated, “If pressures come on a news division from
outside their walls, the pressure should change in size and scope as the
corporation grows. Greater absolute size means that the news division
is smaller and likely wields less institutional clout. Greater diversifica-
tion means that the news division is less and less important, vis-à-vis
the other divisions, to the firm’s survival” (p. 457). In a large corporate
structure, Williams commented, “Instead of the traditional fear of
alienating advertisers, an editor might now worry about alienating a
powerful executive in another branch of the organization or hurting
shareholder equity through inappropriate coverage or non-coverage of
a story relating to the corporation’s interests” (p. 456).
THE POLITICAL ECONOMY APPROACH

TO MASS COMMUNICATION
The political economy approach to understanding the media industry

and its organizational relationships is concerned with media owner-
ship conglomeration. The concern is exacerbated by having only a few
companies in this powerful position, which is almost immediately as-
signed to a corporation that has ownership of a major mass media en-
terprise. To establish and exert their power, communication industries
develop critical connections and linkages among their industries and
96 CHAPTER 5
the government and the larger global and national political economies
(e.g., Mosco, 1996). Mosco (1996) stated that a central goal of the politi-
cal economy tradition “is to understand the relationship of government
or the state to the communication business” (pp. 91–92). The concern
is essentially that having control over many major economic functions
and owning the means of communication quickly translate into con-
trol over political systems and the flow of information. The movement
and integration of capital between the communication industry and
the state become pivotal. Mosco explained, “The state has to promote
the interests of capital even as it appears to be the independent arbiter
of the wider social or political interest” (p. 92). He characterized power
as more than a resource, but rather a form of control used to preserve
the current status the powerful people and corporations have attained.
The political economy approach contends that in an effort to main-
tain relationships with other powerful economic and political entities,
the mass media will not aggressively pursue stories that could hinder
the economic status quo, including harsh criticism of the government
and its economic policies. In fact, mass media organizations can serve
as advocates for certain policies. Conversely, the government will not
overtly pursue policies that could hinder the economic standing and
growth opportunities of mass media organizations. Bagdikian (2000)
argued, “Media power is political power. Politicians hesitate to offend
the handful of media operators who control how those politicians will
be presented—or not presented—to the voters” (p. xv). By allowing for
media ownership conglomeration and with only a few large corpora-
tions involved in the industry, it becomes easier for both entities to
maintain the beneficial economic status quo.
A premise of the political economy approach to mass communica-
tion industries is that the powerful corporations, through their influence
on the government regulatory agencies that allow for corporate expan-
sion of media conglomerates and through their own mergers and acqui-
sitions, limit competition and thus monopolize the publicly owned
airwaves. This control hinders democracy by limiting the role of the av-
erage citizen (e.g., Mazzocco, 1994). With this control comes two very
important by-products of the system: First, there is little challenging of
the government, as the mass media organizations need the government
for favorable government regulatory policies that help provide an envi-
ronment suitable for corporate profits and expansion. For example, in
describing their coverage of the 1989 Panama invasion and the 1991 Per-
sian Gulf War, Mazzocco (1994) referred to the television networks cov-
erage as “cheerleading” and “glaring examples of how U.S. media
companies allow little independent criticism of government policies”
(pp. 27–28). Second, ownership control obviously dictates media con-
OWNERSHIP 97
tent decision making. Mazzocco commented, “When you work in

broadcasting, it is very hard not to become an agent for the political-eco-
nomic interests of those who employ you” (p. 27).
It is the drive for profits that turns a democratic process of informing
the citizenry into a business enterprise as information becomes a com-
modity. Commodification is a critical concept in the political economy
approach to communication (e.g., Mosco, 1996). As soon as commodi-
fication becomes a central idea for an organization, the goal becomes
to focus on producing a sellable commodity. In democracy, compel-
ling information might not be sellable. In a mass media organization,
the commodity becomes information or entertainment that is sellable
to an audience. The audience produced through the behavior of media
consumption is then the sellable commodity that the mass media orga-
nization has to offer advertisers (e.g., Jhally, 1990; Smythe, 1977). Once
content becomes sellable to a large audience, almost by definition it
becomes sellable to advertisers. The only messages that get produced
are those that are acceptable to the audience and advertisers and
nothing extreme that could offend a mass audience.
Theorists of the political economy approach also point out that there
is little reporting on the mergers of media companies, as the mass me-
dia often do not report on themselves. This behavior becomes prob-
lematic in that there is no other entity to report on the media that is not a
part of that same mass media system. Reporters do not have the au-
thority to report critically on a merger, especially when it is their mass
media organization involved in the merger or their mass media organi-
zation that could be the next company that is part of a merger. Citizens,
therefore have little knowledge of the system or of the implications of
media mergers, and they accept the practice as inevitable (e.g.,
Mazzocco, 1994).
With virtually no oversight of this economic government and mass
media relationship, the political economy approach is concerned that
this powerful relationship will exert some form of social control over
people and consumption patterns. Mazzocco (1994) stated, “Our per-
ception of the world is largely shaped and guided by the media. It is also
true that those who have access to, or control of, those media through
personal or corporate wealth have considerably more power than those
who do not. Our constitutional right to listen to others and to be heard by
enough of our neighbors to make a difference is, in large measure, sub-
ject to the desires of those who control the U.S. media” (p. 99).
There are a couple of assumptions about the political economy ap-
proach that have to be subscribed to that might be difficult to buy into.
Although Mazzocco (1994) contended that the perception of the world
is largely shaped by media, Mosco (1996) hedged on this more direct
98 CHAPTER 5
effects perspective stance, claiming, “The political economy approach

accepts polysemy and the multiple production of texts, recognizes the
need to analyze the full circuit of production, distribution, and con-
sumption, and sees these as central moments in the realization of
value and the construction of social life” (p. 261).
There are also major elements of control that are put forth in the po-
litical economy approach that are difficult to reconcile. For all mass
media organizations, relationships with constituency groups are nec-
essary, as indicated by dependency research. Forfeiting control of the
content decision-making process so as to not alienate any of these
constituency groups is not, however, necessary to perform their tasks
and not necessarily in the interests of the mass media organization. It is
a big assumption that media ownership controls every content deci-
sion being made. The scenario becomes difficult, as media owners, or
their top management employees, cannot be at every location where a
critical decision needs to made. Corporations are too big for that level
of strict control, and for that control to be implemented everyone in the
mass media organization must think in alignment with management
and ownership. With the size of the mass media organization, it is also
impossible for the top executives to be experts in every area of the in-
dustry. For example, the CEO of General Electric might have not have
the qualifications to make decisions at NBC overall, let alone all of
NBC’s divisions (sports, daytime, etc.). These people hire skilled pro-
fessionals to make decisions in the various media industries that con-
stitute the larger corporation.
NO CONCERN OF CORPORATE OWNERSHIP

OF MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS
Other theorists do not see the conflict of corporate ownership of mass

media organizations as problematic. Some have pointed out that there
is a professional standard among journalists (e.g., Phillips, 1977;
Schudson, 1978). Despite his being one of the best known critics of cor-
porate ownership of media, Bagdikian (2000) hedged on his stance by
claiming that if General Electric, parent corporation of NBC, experi-
enced a major criminal conviction that “NBC News would probably re-
port it in a straightforward way” (p. 210). He acknowledged that the
story would probably not have been covered 50 years ago when news-
papers and broadcasters did not publicize bad news about their
owner. Schudson (1995) even contended that the practices of fairness
and balance have risen over the last century.
In studying the corporate structure of newspapers, Demers (1996,
1998) found that corporate newspapers place much more emphasis
OWNERSHIP 99
on product quality and other nonprofit goals and less emphasis on

profits. He contended that “because corporate newspapers are as-
sumed to be profit-maximizers, many critics also believe they place
less emphasis on product quality. The assumption here follows a zero-
sum formula: If a newspaper maximizes profits, then it has less money
to spend on newsgathering, improving the product, or serving the pub-
lic” (p. 23). He claimed that although corporate newspapers are struc-
turally organized to maximize profits, less emphasis is placed on profits
because they: “(a) have a greater division of labor and role specializa-
tion, (b) are more financially stable and secure, and (c) are more likely
to be controlled by professional managers” (p. 19).
The complex division of labor includes a hierarchy of authority, a
staff of highly skilled workers, and a set of formal rules and procedures
that helps produce rationality in decision making. Role specialization is
described as being an advantageous characteristic of journalistic qual-
ity and is a pinnacle of Demers’ (1998) argument. He contended that
through role specialization journalists have greater autonomy in focus-
ing on gathering and reporting the news. Demers argued that journal-
ists are trying for their own advancement and trying to improve their
own monetary situation. He pointed out that journalists place empha-
sis on product quality, with the goals of winning awards and being in-
novative in newsgathering, as “these nonprofit goals are revered by
journalists, and they—not profits—are the factors that lead to a promo-
tion, an increase in pay, a better job, or greater prestige and power” (p.
26). He pointed out that “professional managers do not benefit as di-
rectly from profits as do owners. Managers obtain their primary com-
pensation through a fixed salary” (p. 27). Demers also claimed that
large corporate newspapers have many employees, which fosters in-
tense competition among reporters. He stated, “The goal of many re-
porters, for example, is to publish front-page stories. Such stories
enhance the social status of reporters and can indirectly contribute to
promotions or better job opportunities” (p. 27).
Demers and Merskin (2000) found that corporate newspapers were
also more editorially vigorous and emphasized product quality and in-
novation. Akhavan-Majid and Boudreau (1995) pointed out that corpo-
rate newspapers took a more activist stance toward social change.
They claimed that the large organizational size of a newspaper chain
may help editors be more activist in their editorial stance toward social
change. In a survey of approximately 1,200 daily newspaper journalists
from both independent papers and chain-owned papers, Coulson
(1994) found that most journalists did not perceive profit seeking as ad-
versely affecting news coverage. Coulson and Hansen (1995) found
that when Gannett took over the Louisville Courier-Journal, the overall
100 CHAPTER 5
news hole increased, but the stories became shorter and there was
less hard news and more wire stories.
One reason for the lack of concern over ownership influence is that
there are considerable layers between the corporate ownership and
the people who are actually at the scene of a news event. Corpora-
tions are so large with so many levels, it is impossible for the CEO and
the upper echelons of management to be aware of and consulted on
every decision. This is only heightened in the fast-paced decision
making necessary in the mass media industry. Westin, president of
ABC News, oversees its television news properties, World News To-
night, Nightline, 20/20, and Good Morning America, its Internet news
properties, and ABC news radio. As the president of the news division,
Westin has the final say in all content decisions and manages both the
editorial side and the business side of ABC News with the goal to
“make the two aspects work in tandem” (personal communication,
May 28, 2004). He explained that the perception of great conflict be-
tween these two areas is largely false. Westin claimed that it is impos-
sible for him to have a final say in every decision overseeing the
television, radio, and Internet vehicles.
Alter (1995) claimed, “It’s rare for a CEO to call down to a reporter
and tell him (or her) to go easy on one of his (or her) subsidiaries. If he
(or she) does, the lowly reporter may leak it, and the CEO will look stu-
pid. It sometimes takes a while for executives to figure out that the re-
porters they think of as little bugs to be squashed or spun can be more
powerful than they are” (p. 31). Several reporters and television per-
sonalities have become celebrities and are viewed credibly with the
American public. These reporters, such as Tom Brokaw, Ted Koppel,
Dan Rather, or Tim Russert, earn large salaries and commonly appear
on talk shows such as Imus in the Morning or even more entertain-
ment-oriented programming such as The Late Show with David Letter-
man. These people have developed a trust with the American people
far greater than the CEO of a parent corporation.
In fact, there could deliberately be little or no control coming from
the large corporate ownership structure, as the CEO might delegate
decisions to employees with more expertise in the mass media indus-
try. The only concern of the corporate ownership could be if that de-
partment is earning profits. In speaking about CBS executive Les
Moonves, Andrew Heyward, CBS News president, commented that
Moonves told him that “as long as you keep me informed, we’ll be
fine—I’m going to let you run your division,” and Heyward stated, “He
has totally lived up to that” (cited in Gay, 2003, p. 1). Westin, president
of ABC News, indicated that people from Disney do not call him about
editorial content; likewise, he does not have to call Disney if he wants
OWNERSHIP 101
to allocate resources in a certain manner. Westin contended that, if

anything, media consolidation has led to a lack of sufficient interest in
news content. This lack of concern gives the experienced news profes-
sional, such as Westin, more autonomy to run his news division. Over-
all, Westin summarized that the running of a news division in terms of
content decision making is more bottom-up than top-down.
Shoemaker and Reese (1996) did, however, point out that the orga-
nizational chart reveals that the people responsible for editorial control
of content eventually report to someone who is responsible for the eco-
nomics of the media organization. Lorraine Branham, director of the
School of Journalism at the University of Texas at Austin, commented
that large newspaper chains such as Knight-Ridder are not normally in-
volved in the day-to-day operations of the newspaper but are still con-
cerned with the bottom line, and if there is a conflict with an advertiser
they might inquire as to how it is going to be resolved (personal
communication, March 28, 2003).
Webber, senior vice president and publisher of usatoday.com, com-
mented that USA Today parent corporation, Gannett, is well managed
with its planning and budgeting, and he felt that he is provided the nec-
essary resources (personal communication, May 25, 2004). Webber
did contend that part of his responsibility is contributing to a reason-
able return for stockholders, but that responsibility does not translate
to Gannett’s controlling editorial or day-to-day business decisions.
Westin claimed that audience levels will determine the allocation of
resources, and it is his job to manage the budget prudently (personal
communication, May 28, 2004). Westin points out that news divisions
do not have to be thought of as loss leaders, as they have in the past,
and there is opportunity for profit from a news division.
Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric, commented, “People
would always say to me, ‘How can you own NBC? You don’t know any-
thing about dramas or comedies.’ That’s true, but I can’t build a jet en-
gine or a turbine, either. My job at GE was to deal with resources—
people and dollars. I offered as much (or as little) help to our aircraft
engine design engineers as I offered to the people picking shows in
Hollywood” (Welch & Byrne, 2001, p. 261). Welch spoke to some of the
advantages of a large corporate media structure. He stated, “Most of
the shows bomb. Something like one in ten that come out of develop-
ment make it on the air, and you’re lucky if one in five of those are suc-
cessful. The odds of getting a series that really clicks, like Seinfeld,
Frasier, or Friends, is something like 1 in 1,000” (Welch & Byrne, 2001,
p. 261). He added that taking chances on certain programming is an
advantage of having NBC be part of a larger corporation (General Elec-
tric). In talking about the $60 million loss that NBC took by putting the
102 CHAPTER 5
XFL, a football league partnership with World Wrestling Entertainment

and its CEO Vince McMahon, Welch pointed out that “taking those
swings is one of the big benefits of GE’s size. You don’t have to connect
all the time” (Welch & Byrne, 2001, p. 272).
To demonstrate their civic responsibility, Westin stated, “If we were
simply trying to profit, we would never cover Presidential elections be-
cause advertisers do not advertise and people do not watch. We are,
however, aware of our civic responsibility and that the news is different
and credibility is built up over time and in the long run that does impact
if people watch and enhance the value of the asset of ABC News” (per-
sonal communication, May 28, 2004). Broadcast networks preempt
their programming if there is a major news event, while losing millions
of dollars of advertising revenue in the meantime. Moonves, CBS chair-
man and CEO, commented on breaking news interruptions: “There
are tough economic questions every time we do that. Even if it’s eleven
in the morning and we’ve got to yank The Young and the Restless—we
lose x amount of dollars on that. We are trying to be good corporate citi-
zens, and we’ve got to be good public citizens. It’s always a tough call”
(cited in Gay, 2003, p. 1).
The concern of ownership influence on content decision making is
that ownership will directly kill or alter the framing of a story if it would
damage the parent corporation (e.g., Williams, 2002). In this instance
there is some direct communication, where the owner instructs and
pressures a reporter or producer what story to cover and what are the
relevant facts (framing) that should be presented or emphasized in
that story. In a survey of network news correspondents asking whether
they felt any story influence from ownership, Price (2003) found that
only 20% felt some pressure from ownership to report or censor stories.
Her survey results revealed that 79.4% of national news correspon-
dents from ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and PBS responded that they have
never felt pressure from ownership to report or not to report a story. In
addition, only one respondent claimed that he or she was frequently
pressured by ownership to report a story and only four respondents
claimed they felt occasional pressure to report a story because of fear
of ownership.
Ettema et al. (1987) stated, “News is the product of bureaucratically
structured organizations. The work of gathering, assembling, and se-
lecting news is left primarily to workers who are relatively low in the hi-
erarchy, but who, in Western industrialized countries, are considered
professionals and given substantial autonomy” (p. 765). Schudson
(1997) pointed out “the observable fact that reporters often initiate sto-
ries of their own, that editors rarely meet with publishers, and that most
working journalists have no idea who sits on the board of directors of
OWNERSHIP 103
the institutions they work for” (p. 10). In describing the newspaper in-
dustry, Dreier (1978) claimed that owners are not involved in the daily
activities of running the paper, and even in the most ideological areas
of the paper there is very little direct contact between ownership and
the working journalist. He claimed, “Owners delegate authority to pub-
lishers, editors, and managing editors. They, in turn, grant a
considerable degree of independence to the news staff” (p. 73).
Syndicated newspaper columnist Kathleen Parker (2003) wrote of
the “apparently growing misconception that we in journalism operate
as soldiers marching lock step in a sinister army directed by greedy cor-
porate czars” (p. A9). She stated in detail:
The editorial page of the paper may reflect the publisher’s preferences,
but not so on the Op-Ed page, where syndicated columns run. Thus, for
the record, the editorial content of my columns is my own and only my
own. I don’t give a rip who likes it, including my editor, publisher, the CEO,
Halliburton or Bush. If I cared, I couldn’t write. Moreover, my guess is that
some of the 300 or so editors who publish my column personally would
rather not. The fact that editors run columnists with whom they disagree
or don’t like is a testament to their professional integrity and their commit-
ment to the marketplace of ideas rather that the marketplace of rack
sales. (p. A9)
DIVERSITY OF MEDIA CONTENT
Another reason for the fear of corporate control is that in the market-
place of ideas, people may not be getting all of the information needed
to make a proper decision about an important issue when there is cor-
porate conglomeration. That is, in addition to concerns that media
organizations operate in the interests of only the economic factions of
ownership, stockholders, and advertisers, another prominent concern
of corporate conglomeration and subsequent control of the mass
media industry is the lack of diversity in the viewpoints provided (e.g.,
Albarran, 1996; Bagdikian, 2000; Mazzocco, 1994; Mosco, 1996). The
fear of consolidated corporate ownership is that much of the market is
controlled by only a few voices, which therefore limits the diversity of
choices and the diversity of content by blocking out voices from the
creative process.
The political economy approach is also concerned with the lack of
diversity being produced by mass media organizations because of
ownership conglomeration and owners’ critical relationships with the
government and other major economic industries. Where the relation-
ship between government and mass media industries and the issue of
diversity coincide and are considered a threat to democracy is how
104 CHAPTER 5
technology is managed (e.g., Hills, 1986; Hills & Papathanassopoulos,

1991; Mosco, 1996). Any social or technological change becomes im-
portant to the media industry, and trying to manage that development
is vital.
Garnham (1990) considered reorganizing technological advance-
ment merely to meet market demands and satisfy consumers rather
than citizens as a threat to democracy. The government and mass me-
dia relationship helps manage technological expansion and telecom-
munication policy in that by allowing large corporate ownership, only
the biggest can afford the best technology and take advantage of the
telecommunications laws that allow for even greater expansion. It
seems technology that allows for many voices and many channels
would be good for democracy and good for the marketplace of ideas.
From the political economy perspective, however, there is no equating
an increase in the number of channels with diversity, but rather simply
more of the same (e.g., Mosco, 1996, p. 261).
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) encourages
diversity in television programming and assumes competition would
create diversity in the marketplace of ideas, especially in media indus-
tries where there is little differentiation in price or location for retrieval
of the product, the content, as highlighted in chapter 4. Even though
there has been corporate conglomeration, there are still five different
corporations, six networks, presenting national news on television and
competing for market share: Disney (ABC), General Electric (NBC and
MSNBC), Viacom (CBS), Time Warner (CNN), and NewsCorp (Fox
News). There are few industries that have six brands viably competing
for market share.
Bae (2000) studied the content differences between the evening
newscasts of cable television and those of the major networks. He con-
cluded that “each network contributed significantly to adding unique
news to the daily television news pool and the topics of the unique sto-
ries were diverse” (p. 62). In examining similar genres, for example,
the nightly news, where the price system for costs and possible adver-
tising revenue are essentially the same, Bae argued that the differentia-
tion among the networks must come in the content they provide. He
claimed that this differentiation in turn will provide the diversity of
issues being covered.
Bae’s (2000) results were that when compared with the other net-
works, CNN covered more science/technology/computer stories, Fox
News covered more diplomacy/foreign relations and social conflict
stories, MSNBC reported more government/politics stories, ABC re-
ported more religion/ceremony and war/defense news, CBS reported
more crime/court stories, and NBC more health/welfare and educa-
OWNERSHIP 105
tion stories (p. 69). Bae pointed out that “the differences in the topics of
unique stories across networks also show that each additional net-
work contributed to the increased diversity of the topics of unique sto-
ries. Diversity in the topics of unique stories was not the result of a
single network’s effort, but the result of the efforts of all competing
networks” (p. 74). He added:
Product differentiation in newscasts may operate to the benefit of news

viewers by increasing the size of the prime-time television news pool.
More news items are in circulation among viewers and come to public at-
tention. In turn, this may affect the public agenda. The diversification of
television news sources, and the combined efforts of each competing
network to be differentiated from its competitors, has produced diversity,
as reflected in unique stories, in line with the FCC’s endeavor to facilitate
the dissemination of a broad spectrum of information. (p. 75)
Goodwin (1999) commented that online journalists could counter

the commercial and political pressures on the more traditional forms
of the news media. Although the Internet has provided an incredible
capacity for choice, some authors remain skeptical as to the impact of
the Internet on an informed citizenry (e.g., McChesney, 1997). The idea
is that the dominant corporate mass media organizations continue to
control the flow of information, and with the Internet they now simply
have a new communication mechanism with which to do it. The
Internet site is essentially a brand extension for the more established
television network, newspaper, or magazine.
McChesney (1997) pointed out that the large media organizations
“have the product and deep pockets to wait it out and establish them-
selves as the dominant players in cyberspace” (p. 31). He continued,
saying that large, established media organizations “can also use their
existing media to constantly promote their online ventures, and their
relationships with major advertisers to bring them aboard their
Internet ventures” (p. 31). Gerbner et al. (2002) argued that “there are
no popular Internet or Web-based programs that yet threaten the net-
work-cable alliance; on the contrary, networks and cable channels
are working feverishly to drive their viewers to their Web sites, to al-
low them to obtain more personal information from viewers, and to
create another platform for advertising exposures” (p. 62). They also
claimed that behavior toward the Internet might be similar to cable
television, stating “even with the expansion of cable and satellite
channels serving ever-narrower niche audiences, most television
programs are by commercial necessity designed to be watched by
large and heterogeneous audiences in a relatively nonselective fash-
ion” (p. 45).
106 CHAPTER 5
In terms of examining the future and the impact of the Internet, Co-
hen (2002) pointed out that “the online commercial news environ-
ment increases market pressures at all levels, because news
production occurs faster, competition is fiercer, the branding issues
are tougher to establish, and media consolidations are what have de-
fined the new media environment” (p. 537). She argued that the
Internet itself does little to alter the constraints on journalists pre-
sented by media organizations and audiences, stating that “the influ-
ence of media conglomerates on news production functions in much
the same way as in traditional media” (p. 544). Cohen pointed to the
reality that many of the diverse voices available on the Internet will
not have the status of the more established mass media brands who
are using their Internet site as an extension of their brand. She con-
cluded that the influence on the Internet is not different in the prob-
lem of corporate control over content, arguing that “investors,
owners, and parent corporations direct capital and shape policies at
the level of the media firm to generate profits and increase brand in-
fluence of online news” (p. 545). Mulgan (1991), however, claimed
that new technologies deconcentrate authority and provide opportu-
nities. More media options created through technology also relates to
diversity if one buys into the idea that no two observers report the
same (e.g., Roshco, 1975; White, 1950).
Columnist Robert J. Samuelson (2003) wrote on the subject of me-
dia ownership, claiming that any fears of media concentration imperil-
ing freedom of speech, diversity, or democracy are “misrepresenting
reality” (p. 17). He pointed out the dramatic increases in mass media
options as a major piece of evidence in comparing the current media
with the 1970s where today there are more major television networks,
an explosion in the number of cable channels, close to 6,000 FM radio
stations (an increase of more than 3,500 stations), and the Internet.
Samuelson stated:
The idea that “big media” have dangerously increased their control over
our choices is absurd. Yet large parts of the public, including journalists
and politicians, believe religiously in this myth. They confuse size with
power. It’s true that some gigantic media companies are getting even
bigger at the expense of other companies. But it’s not true that their
power is increasing at the public’s expense. (p. 17)
Samuleson (2003) argued that mass media organizations are simply

working within the economic system. He claimed, “It’s the tyranny of
the market: a triumph of popular tastes. Big media companies try to an-
ticipate, shape and profit from these tastes. But media diversity frus-
trates any one company from imposing its views and values on an
OWNERSHIP 107
unwilling audience. People just click to another channel or cancel their

subscription” (p. 17).
RECRUITMENT AND SOCIALIZATION
The potential for ownership to influence media content is constant, as

mass media owners could hypothetically call the newsroom and de-
mand a story be dropped or covered in a certain manner. This scenario
puts the person at the other end of the line at risk for his or her job if
there is failure to give in to the demand of the owner. Critical theorists
claim that ownership relations do not have to be direct, with the overt,
obvious situation of an owner calling a day-to-day decision maker to al-
ter or even kill a story. The argument is that if ownership does not con-
trol the content per se, they do control the people who will make the
decisions regarding content. Media owners, as owners and executives
do in any other industry, simply have the power to hire and fire the
day-to-day decision-makers responsible for producing the content.
A subtle process through recruitment and socialization in terms of
reward and promotion might get the journalists’ thinking aligned with
the philosophy of the mass media organization. The organization could
simply hire only people who philosophically think along with or are
willing to capitulate to the ideas and practices of the larger parent cor-
poration to fill the important decision-making positions. Gitlin (1983)
offered a seminal piece on the workings of prime-time network televi-
sion, including hiring practices. He contended that the big three net-
works, by repeatedly hiring the same type of individuals, reduce their
variety and diversity within the organization and do not capture the di-
versity of the audience. Lauzen and Dozier (2002) stated, “By stub-
bornly adhering to historically embedded employment practices,
older networks place less value on requisite variety, resulting in fewer
women on screen and behind the scenes” (p. 141).
Even after hiring a person, there can be further training to develop a
clear understanding of corporate goals. Breed (1955) indicated there
was a socialization process in the newsroom, where reporters learned
about editorial policy indirectly by seeing how stories were edited or
placed in the newspaper. He pointed out that these subordinate jour-
nalists learn to conform to the policies to succeed. Breed stated, “‘Pol-
icy’ may be defined as the more or less consistent orientation shown
by a paper, not only in its editorial but in its news columns and head-
lines as well, concerning selected issues and events” (p. 70). He added
that the slanting of a story “involves omission, differential selection and
preferential placement, such as ‘featuring’ a pro-policy item, ‘burying’
an anti-policy story in an inside page” (p. 70). More recently, McManus
108 CHAPTER 5
(1994) explained that journalistic recruitment, training, and socializa-

tion practices allow and urge the reporter to work in the interests of his
or her employer. Employees are a resource in relation to the overall
budget. The reduction of news budgets in the 1980s were highlighted
by mass firings at the major networks (e.g., Alger, 1998; Cohen, 1997).
Alger (1998) feared these layoffs may have made journalists more sen-
sitive about job security and more likely to work on stories that stress
the bottom line rather than those that fulfill pure journalistic functions.
Schudson (1997), however, posited, “If the organizational theorists
are generally correct, it does not matter who (the journalists) are or
where they come from; they will be socialized quickly into the values
and routines in the daily rituals of journalism” (p. 15). Individual judg-
ment is thus devalued, and socialization to the media routines that will
be in the interest of the power corporation occurs. In speaking on the
issue of socialization as the way that reporters are taught how to make
decisions, Soloski (1997) contended that the imposition of elaborate
rules and regulations would seem implausible as the rules could not
cover all of the possible situations that journalists encounter, the jour-
nalists ability for the unexpected would be limited, and it would be an
expensive and time-consuming effort to instruct the journalist as to
these rules.
Hollifield et al. (2001) studied news directors’ and newspaper edi-
tors’ hiring practices, questioning whether they seek employees with
characteristics valued by the organizational culture or those valued by
the professional culture of journalism. Although their findings showed
mixed support that the organizational culture is the dominant force
shaping hiring decisions, they did conclude there has been a trend to-
ward making organizational influences more important to news exec-
utives of all types in the past 20 years. Hollifield et al.’s major concern
was that this trend in hiring that emphasizes organization culture val-
ues would continue, suggesting that “organizational culture is a grow-
ing influence in shaping newsroom decisions as compared to the
professional journalistic culture. News executives today appear to fo-
cus on finding job candidates who will make good employees and
who, secondarily, bring with them traditional journalism competen-
cies” (pp. 112–113). They also pointed out that local television news di-
rectors are more focused than newspaper executives on hiring people
more capable of meeting standards of quality journalism.
Branham commented that the hiring process at a newspaper is not
based on overly philosophical thoughts about the newspaper industry
on the part of a reporter, but instead deals more with the necessary
skills a reporter will need and his or her ability to develop story ideas
and cover a beat (personal communication, March 28, 2003). She did,
OWNERSHIP 109
however, point out that when editors are hired, the types of stories they
are going to pursue is a consideration in the hiring process.
OWNERSHIP AND PROMOTION
Ownership of many mass media outlets helps provide more locations

for promotions to run and increases the chances of reaching an audi-
ence that might be interested in that content. Promotion could be an
area where ownership and corporate interests are exercised. This
strategy of owning all of the aspects from production to distribution and
owning a vehicle in each medium type gives owners tremendous
cross-promotional opportunities. This cross-promotion is a major rea-
son for ownership of many forms of media and many distribution
points within one medium. For example, it is not uncommon for ESPN
to air promotions of ABC prime-time programming or MSNBC to pro-
mote NBC programming.
The Internet has become another media distribution and promo-
tional vehicle. At the end of a story, news networks often instruct view-
ers to visit their Internet site for more information about the issue.
Webster and Lin (2002) pointed out that “the Internet does not have the
same structural characteristics as radio and television, but it does have
latent structures. Perhaps the most important are domains. These are
families of Web sites, often under common ownership. Because mem-
bers of the family are typically linked to one another, it seems likely that
movement within domains is slightly easier than movement across
domains” (pp. 4–5). Bellamy and Traudt (2000) commented that “the
continuing consolidation of media companies both domestically and
internationally is a reaction to the audience choice, with the rationale
being that if the viewer is going to graze, let her/him graze to other
channels or, at least, programming controlled by the same company”
(p. 130).
The cross-promotional opportunities extend beyond promotion of
other media properties to ancillary aspects of the corporation’s brand
extension businesses, including retail industries. For example, Disney
can use ABC to promote its Disney films and theme parks and use its
theme parks, to promote its films, musical artists, and ABC program-
ming. ESPN can promote the ESPN Zone restaurants, and the restau-
rants can promote the networks of ESPN. ESPN television, radio, and
magazine all promote the ESPN brand. This cross-promotion occurs in
every aspect of the mass media through using the other properties of
the corporation. Essentially, one corporation can put the audience
member in a box that is surrounded by all of the media vehicles that are
owned by the parent corporation, with the promotion leading the audi-
110 CHAPTER 5
ence from one wall to the next, but the audience member never leaves
the corporate entity box. A person simply goes from one television sta-
tion by a certain corporation to a radio station or an Internet site owned
by the same corporation (see Fig. 5.1).
Theorists fear that increased corporate conglomeration leads to ex-
cessive promotion or “plugola” of corporate properties (e.g., Eastman,
2000; McAllister, 2002). As articulated in chapter 4, promotion is a criti-
cal communication strategy for a mass media organization in attract-
ing and maintaining an audience and communication of a brand. Thus,
if many media vehicles are owned by one corporation, that corpora-
tion constantly promotes its other properties to drive the audience
member, and the other media content options will not be in the fore-
front of people’s minds. McAllister (2002) defined plugola as “self-inter-
ested news stories that promote entertainment events” (p. 383). He
cautioned, “With the increased growth of media conglomerates
plugola would also include newscasts featuring stories about a pro-
gram on a sibling cable or broadcast network owned by the same par-
ent corporation. In addition, news divisions engage in plugola when
they create stories promoting movies, CD’s, books, and other media
products owned by the their parent company” (p. 384).
There are many examples of promotion of programming that is of in-
terest to the parent company. Buchman (2000) pointed out that it is
FIG. 5.1. Media ownership promotion and desired audience movement.

OWNERSHIP 111
common for a news program to indicate the stories appearing on that

network’s news magazine show that evening during the broadcast of
the news itself (i.e., Dan Rather stating on the CBS Evening News what
will be on 60 Minutes II later that night). Buchman explained, “Promo-
tion within a newscast is likely to be perceived as more credible than
promotion offered within entertainment programming” (p. 266).
Other examples of promotion of one’s own network occur for
prime-time programming. Every Friday after a contestant has been
voted off Survivor, he or she appears on the CBS morning program The
Early Show, and that same person also makes an appearance the next
week on The Late Show with David Letterman. A similar tactic has
been employed for every person who is fired by Donald Trump on The
Apprentice. That person will also be on NBC’s The Today Show the fol-
lowing morning. In the spring of 2004, Dateline NBC also devoted entire
programs to the season finale of The Apprentice, and the series finales
of Friends and Frasier. These interviews or specials are, however, also
good “gets” for their respective programs, and those guests would not
be appearing if there was not a desire on the part of the audience to see
and hear those guests. The desire on the part of the audience is evident
in the ratings that these shows consistently receive.
In studying the final episode of Seinfeld, McAllister (2002) demon-
strated that news organizations with connections to Seinfeld, particu-
larly NBC and Castle Rock Entertainment, covered the program’s last
episode more extensively than those without such connections. It
must, however, still be noted that other rival news organizations did
do stories on Seinfeld’s last episode. It seems that if ownership was in
such control, other networks would not do any story promoting a
show that would air on another network. McAllister reported that CBS
did 7 stories on its morning show the 6 months before the final epi-
sode of Seinfeld (NBC did 14). He also reported that on their evening
news programs during the same period, both ABC and CBS ran one
story on Seinfeld, with NBC only doing two stories. The coverage of
Seinfeld is more similar than different, as McAllister pointed out that
on December 26, 1997, the day after NBC announced it would be
Seinfeld’s last season, all three evening newscasts devoted a story to
the show, teased the story at the beginning of their newcasts, showed
clips from the program, and alluded to the program’s success. The
differences in length of the respective stories were nominal with
NBC’s story running for 2:50, whereas ABC’s and CBS’s stories ran for
2:20 and 2:10, respectively (pp. 389–390).
Williams (2002) studied the influence of parent companies on
mass media content, questioning whether this relationship might
provide an increase in the quantity and quality of company-related
112 CHAPTER 5
materials mentioned in the news. In using the parent corporation

within its nightly news programs for ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN Head-
line News, Williams concluded that “none of the four corporations
showed a systematic tendency to promote their own products over
others’ in all fields” (p. 466). He actually reported it was consistent
that a network would mention its own product after a competitor’s.
For example, Disney (ABC World News Tonight) mentioned General
Electric’s (parent company of NBC) products, on average, in the
fourth story in its broadcast and its own products in the eighth story.
Williams offered a plausible solution, claiming that “it could be that
the editors are more aware of who owns what than anyone else, and
wish to avoid the appearance of impropriety in this most obvious
fashion” (p. 467). Meyer (1987) contended that the market and com-
petition are adequate safeguards against any potential abuse. The au-
dience will recognize that the mass media organization is acting as a
shill for the parent company, will not view the report as credible, and
will turn elsewhere.
There are numerous other examples where a network has put on
programming that in essence promotes the competition and seems to
benefit its competition. Again, if ownership were in complete control,
this promotional behavior would not be regularly occurring. Consider
the following:
• Late night talk shows routinely have guests on who work for a ri-
val network. On January 13, 2003, David Letterman had Jimmy
Kimmel on as one of his guests, even though part of Kimmel’s
show, Jimmy Kimmel Live, was about to premiere in the same
time slot directly opposite Letterman on ABC in many cities.
• The Imus in the Morning radio program is broadcast out of its
home station WFAN, which is owned by Viacom. The radio
program is, however, also simulcast live on MSNBC, owned by
General Electric. In addition to guests from CBS (owned by
Viacom) and NBC, Imus also routinely has several guests from
ABC, CNN, and Fox News on the program.
• On Monday April 7, 2003, CBS chairman and chief executive
Moonves, appeared as himself on an episode of ABC’s The
Practice. The show appeared opposite the championship
game of the NCAA college basketball tournament, an event
CBS has paid $6 billion for the broadcasting rights to over an
11-year period.
• ESPN every Sunday broadcasts a 2-hour NFL pregame show
that promotes the weekend games, of which all but one will be
broadcast on its own network and only one other on Disney-
OWNERSHIP 113
owned ABC, essentially inviting customers to watch other net-

works for the next 6 hours.
• On Friday March 21, 2003, as war was going on in the Middle
East, CBS decided to continue its war coverage and preempt
the broadcasting of the NCAA basketball tournament. The in-
teresting aspect of this decision was not to shift the games to
another station owned by its parent company but to ESPN,
owned by Disney. During the broadcasting of games on ESPN,
the crawl on the bottom of the screen indicated for more infor-
mation about the war, turn to ABC news. The games on ESPN
also featured CBS announcers doing promotions for upcoming
ESPN programming.
• WABC-TV, the ABC affiliate in New York and one of the ABC sta-
tions owned by Disney, televised repeat episodes of ER in syn-
dication, even though that program currently is on NBC.
WCBS-TV, the CBS affiliate in New York and one of the CBS sta-
tions owned by Viacom, televised repeat episodes of The West
Wing, even though that program currently is on NBC.
• Disney bought commercial time at a cost of approximately $2.3
million for a 30-second spot during the 2004 Super Bowl on CBS
to promote its movie Miracle about the 1980 U.S. Olympic
hockey team.
• In addition to showing same-day episodes of all of its ABC soap
operas, The Soap Network, also owned by Disney, features
same-day episodes of Days of Our Lives, currently an NBC soap
opera.
• Tim Russert, moderator of NBC’s Meet the Press, appeared on
rival networks CNN as a guest of the Larry King Live program
on May 10, 2004; on the Fox News Channel’s Hannity & Colmes
on May 11 and June 14, 2004; and The O’Reilly Factor on May 20,
2004, to promote his book.
Guests go on a program of a competitor’s network because they

want to reach the large audience that some of those programs attain.
The point in all of these examples is that each network and each pro-
gram are trying to put on their best program to attract an audience. The
producers for each program need to put the best program they can on
the air because if the ratings are not good in that time slot they will be
replaced. Therefore, if people will watch Debra Messing, star of NBC’s
Will & Grace, when she appears on David Letterman, the Letterman
show has to schedule her as a guest to protect its own rating, even
though in having her appear they might also be promoting a prominent
actress on a prominent program of a rival network.
114 CHAPTER 5
SUGGESTED READINGS
Bae, H. (2000). Product differentiation in national TV newscasts: A comparison of

the cable all-news networks and the broadcast networks. Journal of Broadcast-
ing & Electronic Media, 44, 62–77.
Bagdikian, B. H. (2000). The media monopoly (6th ed.). Boston: Beacon Press.
Breed, W. (1955). Social control in the newsroom: A functional analysis. Social
Forces, 33, 326–355.
Demers, D. (1998). Revisiting corporate newspaper structure and profit making.
Journal of Media Economics, 11(2), 19–45.
Gomery, D. (2000). Interpreting media ownership. In B. M. Compaine & D. Gomery
(Eds.), Who owns the media? (pp. 507–535). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Mazzocco, D. W. (1994). Networks of power: Corporate TV’s threat to democracy.
Boston: South End Press.
McChesney, R. (1997). Corporate media and the threat to democracy. New York:
Seven Stories Press.
McManus, J. H. (1994). Market-driven journalism: Let the citizen beware? Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McManus, J. (1995). A market-based model of news production. Communication
Theory, 5, 301–338.
Price, C. J. (2003). Interfering owners or meddling advertisers: How network televi-
sion news correspondents feel about ownership and advertiser influence on
news stories. Journal of Media Economics, 16(3), 175–188.
Williams, D. (2002). Synergy bias: Conglomerates and promotion in the news.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46, 453–472.
CHAPTER
6
Day-to-Day
Decision Makers
Through an acknowledgment that decisions are made within the pa-

rameters of a media routine and that items such as budgets and the
allocation of resources are a function of the routine, the ownership
that sets these major policies could emerge as the pivotal constitu-
ency group in the determination of the content decision-making pro-
cess. If after setting budgets, establishing the mass media routine,
and perhaps conducting any larger philosophical standards of prac-
tice, that is the extent of ownership influence, albeit still very substan-
tial, the day-to-day decision makers become powerful regarding
specific content decisions. Often after allocating resources and set-
ting the overall organizing philosophy, the media routine does not dic-
tate all content decisions and there are still many to be made within
the parameters of the routine. An argument can be made that rou-
tines constrain, but they also enable in that the remaining time and
space available for selection and framing of content is open to a multi-
tude of story options and perspectives.
The day-to-day decision makers are in the eye of the storm when it
comes to content decision making. The relationship between day-to-
day decision makers and content is that they are constantly evaluating
all of the items being sent to them and constantly have to make deci-
sions regarding the selection and framing of content. An argument can
be made that any time a decision is made some form of agenda setting
or framing is taking place. Therefore, anyone who is making a decision
about a story, regardless of his or her status within the organization, is
performing an agenda-setting function. The hierarchical system of de-
115
116 CHAPTER 6
cision making allows for certain agenda-setting decisions to be dis-

missed or overruled by more powerful editors or producers.
The day-to-day decision makers are the producers, directors, writ-
ers, reporters, editors, announcers, and camera and other technologi-
cal personnel employed by the mass media organization. At some
point the people in any one of these capacities could have a say in what
does and what does not become content. It can be simply argued that
the day-to-day decision makers are the most powerful people in the
process, as they always have the responsibility and ability to make de-
cisions regarding the selection and framing (both exposure and por-
trayal) of content by their job title.
The day-to-day decision makers get paid for their eye and ear, their
skills to write and communicate about events in a comprehensive
manner, and their ability to make proper judgments in selecting and
framing content. Certain reporters and columnists get paid for their
analysis of news events. There is complexity simply within the mass
media organization among the day-to-day decision makers, who might
have varied opinions about whether a story should be selected and if
selected what the relevant facts or highlights are that need to be em-
phasized.
Every person within the mass media organization assigned to cover
a certain story at some point has to make selection and framing deci-
sions, from a senior editor or producer selecting which stories to cover
to the reporter who is at the scene deciding whom to interview, to a
camera person or a photographer who is getting the pictures of the
event that are critical in framing an issue. All of these people, at differ-
ent stages of the decision-making process, can drastically influence
the outcome of a story’s presentation. Sometimes there is agreement
within the mass media organization among all personnel about how a
story should be handled, but in other instances there is intense dis-
agreement.
Although opinions are brought forth as to in whose interest the mass
media should be operating, it is the day-to-day decision makers that
are confronted with this dilemma on a daily basis. These media em-
ployees might have varying things occupying their minds as they go
through the process of their job and try to determine who is the group
they should be trying to please. As previously examined in chapter 1,
there are some scholars who think the thought process of the mass
media employees in selection and framing should simply be what is
best for the people and to hold up social democratic ideals of an in-
formed citizenry. Many of these same scholars, however, strongly be-
lieve the decision-making philosophy is only about how to please the
economic factions of the mass media organization.
DAY-TO-DAY DECISION MAKERS 117
There is another possibility that the focus and the thought process
regarding content decisions are on the practical application of their
task. This relates to the primary function of the mass media organiza-
tion—making sure it has enough content to fill its time and space re-
quirements. Within the type of content desired emerges questions of
what content is possible to gather and distribute. Because content can
only become what information is possible to obtain, and in some cases
instantaneously transmit to the mass audience through communica-
tion technology, media decision makers have to address practical
questions: What is the deadline? Is there access to a camera crew or a
photographer? Will there be enough time to obtain footage or pictures
and return to the studio to write and edit the story before its airing or
going to print?
Another way to determine in whose interest the day-to-day decision
makers are operating might be to consider the human element; that is,
mass media employees are people with everyday problems. These are
people making important content decisions, but they are also people
with bills to pay, families to take care of, children to put through college,
and any other financial obligations. Their primary allegiance is probably
to themselves and their families, and perhaps the first responsibility of a
media professional is to keep his or her job. The media professional is no
different from any other employee who at times capitulates to his or her
boss or any other constituency group to keep a job. Williams (2002) sim-
ply commented, “Self-censorship may be a stronger force than direct in-
fluence—the danger would not be so much in a corporate head exerting
influence, but in reporters and editors anticipating reprisals on their ca-
reers for not being team players” (p. 457).
With all of the potential influences from the various constituency
groups, there is still the filter of the mass media organization. Kosicki
(1993) claimed that “media organizations have considerable auton-
omy over how a story is constructed, at least at certain points of an is-
sue’s evolution” (p. 109). Jamieson and Campbell (2001) explained
that “news is gathered, written, edited, produced, and disseminated by
human beings who are members of organizations and who have be-
liefs and values. Organizations such as networks have functions and
goals as well as relationships to government, to regulatory agencies, to
advertisers, to their parent companies, and to the vast audiences they
seek to attract. These beliefs, values, functions, and interests are
bound to influence the messages these networks publish and broad-
cast” (p. 40). Decisions rely on judgment, and judgment has to come
from or be influenced by something.
No matter what process went into the decision regarding content, it
is the mass media organization and its credibility that are evaluated
118 CHAPTER 6
and receive either the credit or the criticism for how a story is pre-
sented. Kim (2002) commented that “although television news is the
product of multi-layered decisions, journalists and their news organi-
zations are responsible for the final news product” (p. 431). Account-
ability rests with the mass media organization. Saying it was influenced
by a spokesperson or another constituency group does not become an
acceptable defense for a false story that the mass media organization
printed, aired, or hastily posted on its Internet site.
GATEKEEPING
With people dependent on information to make decisions about

whom to vote for or any other story that could affect their lives where
interpersonal contacts are insufficient, decisions made by a news me-
dia organization are critical. Molotch and Lester (1974) stated, “Every-
one needs news. In everyday life the news tells us what we do not
experience directly and thus renders otherwise remote happenings
observable and meaningful” (p. 101). They added that the power of
needed information and the importance of the process is in the desires
and behavior of the audience. They claimed, “News is thus the result of
this invariant need for accounts of the unobserved, this capacity for
filling-in others, and the production work of those in the media” (p.
101). Molotch and Lester offered a complete definition in that the need
for the unobserved and the capacity to fill in others relating to the inter-
personal satisfaction represents the audience, whereas the production
work of the media incorporates the mass media content decision-
making processes.
Some authors have offered a simplistic characterization of news as
being essentially what the journalist decides news is (e.g., Cohen &
Young, 1973; Fishman, 1980; Gieber, 1964). This perspective is perhaps
a little myopic in not recognizing the need for quality content and the
acquiescence to cover stories and perspectives the audience desires.
Lee (1997) viewed the audience as the group determining what news
is, explaining that “news is that which is interesting to the public today,”
and “news is that which the people are willing to pay to have brought to
their attention” (p. 4). In this view, when the mass media present an is-
sue, the audience will determine its importance and whether the issue
or a particular perspective remains prominently in the public dialogue.
Although audience selection and evaluation certainly occur, this per-
spective is too incomplete, as the audience behavior can only be based
on the content made available to them. Berkowitz (1997) claimed,
“News becomes the product of the practicalities and constraints of the
process by which it is created. It becomes the product of economic sys-
tems and political systems, and the press systems that result from
them. And it becomes the product of unspoken cultural values and
beliefs by which people manage their daily lives” (p. xii).
The nature of day-to-day content decision making was referred to
metaphorically as gatekeeping by Lewin (1947). In a famous essay
examining the gatekeeping process, White (1950) described how an
editor (White referred to him as Mr. Gates) selects the news by reject-
ing almost nine tenths of the wire copy in search for the one tenth of
news for which there is space in the newspaper. In this study by
White, the editing process simply refers to which stories are selected
and to which the audience will be exposed. It does not focus on char-
acteristics of framing, other than the important placement frame of
where the story is located in the newspaper. White demonstrated
that the editing process is highly subjective and reliant on value judg-
ments based on the gatekeeper’s own set of experiences, attitudes,
and expectations as to what the communication of news really is. He
concluded that “theoretically all of the wire editor’s standards of taste
should refer back to an audience who must be served and pleased”
(p. 390). White did point out that there are several gates in the chain of
command—from reporter to editor—and the story could have ended
at any gate.
White’s (1950) essay reveals the individual nature and individual de-
cision-making responsibility at some point of the process for all of the
media employees that is such a prominent characteristic of the indus-
try. In that there are many individuals making decisions at many stages
of the process, Shoemaker (1991) commented, “One day’s news rep-
resents the effects of many gatekeepers at many gates” (p. 1). She sum-
marized the gatekeeping process is complex, where “the individual
gatekeeper has likes and dislikes, ideas about the nature of his or her
job, ways of thinking about a problem, preferred decision-making
strategies, and values that all impinge on the decision to reject or select
(and shape) a message. But the gatekeeper is not totally free to follow a
personal whim; he or she must operate within the constraints of
communication routines to do things this way” (p. 75).
At the time of White’s (1950) essay, news cycle decision making was
a little easier in that there was some time to deliberate whether to in-
clude a story and where it should be placed. In the new media environ-
ment, issues of when to release information have to be addressed. In
this environment where speed and increased competition now con-
stantly have to be dealt with, it is important to point out that there is not
always lengthy debate regarding certain mass media content deci-
sions because of time constraints and deadlines. In this rush to be first,
sacrificing accuracy could be a consequence.
120 CHAPTER 6
Kinsey Wilson is the vice president and editor in chief for

usatoday.com. In the new media environment and the question of
speed versus accuracy, Wilson commented, “The Internet has un-
questionably upped the ante in terms of pressures and demands in try-
ing to deal with the pressure and keep pace with the competition, most
notably the Internet sites for cnn.com and msnbc.com” (personal
communication, June, 14, 2004). With increased competition, Wilson
stressed that it is important to be candid about where information is
coming from. This is especially important because information from
another source is only a click away.
In terms of the 24-hour, 7-day-a-week news cycle, Wilson con-
tended that the mass media organization has to deal in information
that the audience knows and be careful not to overreach in terms of of-
fering information too soon. Wilson explained that his philosophy is “to
get it right first, get it first second” (personal communication, June, 14,
2004). He commented that you layer or provide additional information
as it becomes available and that information is subject to change, and
he said you should indicate that what the reader or viewer is seeing
might not be the entire or final picture. Wilson explained that what he
referred to as “contingent journalism” is an implicit understanding be-
tween the journalist and the reader and that what is being reported is
the best at this moment and subject to change. He also pointed out that
viewers have different expectations for the Internet, as they think of an
Internet story as evolving and more information as forthcoming, unlike
print media, where a newspaper is labeled as a final edition.
It is becoming evident that several factors combine to influence con-
tent and that not merely one single entity dominates the decision-mak-
ing process even within the mass media organization. The point here is
the complexity of the content decision-making process even within the
mass media organization on a newsroom level. There are multiple
gates and multiple people making decisions throughout the process.
The number of individuals within the process raises questions about
each individual’s autonomy and the convergence or reconciliation be-
tween mass media routines and reporter autonomy. Media routines
might dictate the types of content on a story-selection level, but the in-
dividual reporters create the specific content and select the frames
within the story.
Price (2003) pointed out that autonomy is important for reporters
and editors to perform their job, but he did not dismiss the business
factors that can create a conflict. She explained that “executives are re-
sponsible for seeing that the output of the news divisions meet the
specified budgets and expectations of the network; producers are re-
sponsible for seeing that their own programs conform to budget, qual-
ity, and policy guidelines; correspondents are only responsible for the
individual stories they create” (p. 177).
With there being several gates within a singular mass media organi-
zation, before examining influences from outside the organization it is
critical to examine the hierarchy relationships within the mass media
organization. These relationships can impact content decision making
and question the autonomy of the reporter to make decisions. The re-
porters are the people at the scene and, although they might have been
directed to go cover that story on that day by someone higher in the
mass media organization, once at the location the individual reporter
uses his or her own judgment and engages in critical aspects of selec-
tion and framing of the story by deciding whom to interview, what
questions to ask, and what the accompanying camera person shoots.
Of all the information gathered, the reporter must decide what to in-
clude in the story, which is presented to his or her boss for the next
round of decision making. It is critical to point out that the boss can only
make decisions based on the material brought back by the reporter at
the scene.
Although at the scene there is always some subjectivity in reporting,
in that instant decisions have to be made without seeking approval
from a supervisor. Perhaps not all reporters would make the same de-
cision. Trying to determine a journalistic philosophy of what is news is
as varied as the number of journalists. Although there is consistency
across many national mass media organizations of the perceived value
of a story (all organizations reporting on the war on terror) or of a fram-
ing perspective within that story (i.e., a quote from a senior govern-
ment official), the story could be reported differently in every news
report. This difference and the multitude of mass media organizations
providing some form of news help speak to the issue of diversity.
On the topic of diversity in reporting, White (1950) pointed out that
the same event “is reported by two reporters in two different percep-
tual frameworks and that the two men [or women] bring to the ‘story’
different sets of experiences, attitudes, and expectations” (p. 384). As
Cohen (1963) simply stated, the reporter is “a reporter of the passing
scene, yet he [or she] is also part of that scene” (p. 19). Each reporter
has his or her own interpretation of events, even though various report-
ers will all be seeing the same event or covering the same story. Objec-
tivity does not reside in the event, but rather the behavior of the
journalist does (e.g., Roscho, 1975, p. 55).
The idea of journalistic interpretation raises another important is-
sue: Is the role of the journalist as independent, objective dispenser of
facts or is there also a duty to act as an analyst? In speaking of foreign
policy, Cohen (1963) contended that the primary role of the press
122 CHAPTER 6
should be to provide factual information so that people could make

their own judgments about the issue. Cohen cautioned that “the mean-
ing of particular events is a necessary adjunct of the news about those
events and a justifiable function of the news columns of the newspa-
per, so long as the reporter refrains from expressing his [or her] own
judgments about whether those events were good or bad, should have
taken place, and so forth” (p. 26). This could be the case for all stories.
Cohen added that “there are some important judgments to be made by
the reporter about the relative priorities of secrecy as against the
public’s ‘need to know’ ” (p. 22).
Johnstone, Slawski, and Bowman (1976) identified two types of
journalists: (a) neutral journalists who viewed their role as transmitters
of information about the real world to the public or (b) participant jour-
nalists who provide background information and interpretation to give
facts meaning. Weaver and Wilhoit (1996) claimed that reporters with
more notoriety are more likely to be a participant type of journalist.
Some prominent media people such as Tom Brokaw or Dan Rather
have the ability to dictate the coverage of a story, but again, similar to
any other occupation, it takes a certain amount of credibility and lon-
gevity to attain that type of power. More notoriety brings longevity, cred-
ibility, and trust. It simply becomes easier for these reporters to take
some chances in story selection.
The utopian concept of the mass media might be service to readers
or viewers, with the mass media using their expertise and experience
in acting as the filter for the information available. As soon as the mass
media act as gatekeepers selecting and framing of information, there is
an opening for criticism, and the imperfections of the media system
become apparent. Austin and Pinkleton (1999) contended that citi-
zens’ cynicism is heightened by the thought that the media hold back
information and that there is more to a story than what a reporter is pro-
viding. Pinkleton and Austin (2002) argued that “because skepticism
motivates information seeking, citizens who do not receive the depth
of coverage they desire from traditional media sources may seek infor-
mation from alternative information sources” (p. 46). Seeking informa-
tion from various sources and in various forms should be the norm as
the audience performs its responsibility in a democracy, as part of
becoming an informed citizenry is the citizenry proactively becoming
informed.
For all of the similarities discussed between the mass media indus-
try and other industries (i.e., profit-oriented industries whose gover-
nance is applicable to the market of audience supply and demand, the
necessity for branding and promotional strategies to acquire and main-
tain an audience), the biggest difference for a mass media organization
is the nature of the product itself: content. The acquisition of news con-
tent is not static in location or cost. Mass media organizations cannot
predict where news is going to occur. Because of this unpredictable
nature, there is no cost certainty.
Soloski (1997) offered a comprehensive description of the unpre-
dictable nature of the mass media industry:
The news department as a subsystem of a news organization must deal

with a highly unpredictable environment—news. Decisions about news
coverage must be reached rapidly, with little time for discussion or group
decision-making. Thus the structure of the news department must be
fluid enough to deal with a constantly changing news environment.
Reporters and editors must have considerable autonomy in the selection
and processing of the news. Controlling the behavior of its journalists
could be a difficult problem for management of a news organization,
especially since reporters spend most of their time outside the newsroom
and out of sight of supervisors. (p. 139)
THE HIERARCHY OF THE GATEKEEPING

PROCESS: PRACTITIONER PERSPECTIVE
Trying to learn the philosophies and standard practices of every mass

media organization with the responsibility of producing news content
is impossible. Some perspective from the people within these organi-
zations can, however, provide insight into the process.
Westin, president of ABC News, explained that the hierarchy of con-
tent decisions occurs from two independent routes. The direct route is
where executive producers who act as CEOs of each television pro-
gram or their respective ABC radio and Internet divisions make deci-
sions. The second route is outside of the decision making of an
executive producer and is that each employee of ABC News has a copy
of written standards and practices of how news will be gathered,
vetted, and edited to make sure it is fair. These standards and practices
are available on ABC’s internal computer system, and seminars are
often held to discuss these procedures.
Branham is the director of the School of Journalism at the University
of Texas at Austin. In 25 years of newspaper experience, her roles in-
cluded assistant to the publisher at the Pittsburgh Post Gazette; senior
vice president and executive editor of the Tallahassee Democrat,
where she oversaw the newsroom and editorial board operations; and
a variety of top editor positions at the Philadelphia Inquirer including
associate managing editor for features, associate editorial page editor,
and New Jersey editor. Branham commented that reporters can bring
124 CHAPTER 6
stories to the table of which they are aware; even if they are covering an
assigned beat they have much autonomy and freedom within the beat.
She continued that individual reporters bring their own interests and
skills to a story and that there is a certain amount of trust given to the re-
porter once he or she is assigned a story. Webber, senior vice president
and publisher of usatoday.com, explained that the usatoday.com re-
porting staff works for the newspaper and is largely organized through
assignment editors and reporters who are given a specific beat to cover
on a daily basis.
Giving some trust and autonomy to the reporter is inherent in the
task. An executive producer or senior editor cannot be with every re-
porter on every story. The on-the-scene reporter is thus a vital first
stage of selection and framing of content. Control of the story be-
comes difficult for managers, as they are not at the scene, and once
they make the original decision of where to send the reporters they
are reliant on what that reporter brings back from the scene. There is,
however, a check on whether the reporter is acquiring the best infor-
mation: the competition. Mass media organizations regularly monitor
the content of their competition as one method of evaluating their
own decision making. With so many media outlets, not reporting a
story could result in embarrassment if it is reported by all competi-
tors. If other mass media outlets are getting information that the re-
porter is not, that is a critical evaluation of that reporter. By the same
token, if the reporter is getting information that competitors are not,
that reflects well on the reporter.
Wilson, vice president and editor in chief for usatoday.com, ex-
plained that many content decisions and ideas originate from the re-
porter within a given area of responsibility, generally, a specific beat.
These reporters are to stay current with the beat and develop what Wil-
son referred to as “enterprise pieces”—stories that provide a deeper in-
sight into an area being focused on, either a personality or a trend.
Enterprise pieces are pitched ideas from reporters to editors, who eval-
uate the story ideas. These story ideas are often the preference of the
reporter, and Wilson pointed out that reporters generally have more
story ideas than there is room or time to write them.
Once the story idea is agreed on and written, it must go through an
editing process at multiple levels, with higher level executives getting
more involved if it is an important story with a potentially large im-
pact. Wilson described his editorial involvement as “not a second
guessing, but the editor is ultimately accountable” for the content
posted on the usatoday.com Internet site and therefore wants to re-
view any potentially questionable material himself (personal com-
munication, June 14, 2004).
Wilson explained that a newspaper’s content is a mix of both

what people want and what the newspaper staff deems important.
He explained that a news organization must apply its best judgment
to stories that will have the greatest impact on a community. He
stressed that for a newspaper, or in this case an Internet site, the two
types of stories can live with each other. Both the newspaper and the
Internet site can feature important stories and showcase items of in-
terest (i.e., sports, popular culture). People expect both types of sto-
ries (established through the media routine) and know where to
look for both. Wilson explained that for the usatoday.com Internet
site, page views measure audience behavior and the top of the news
pages are the most heavily viewed. He indicated that the number of
visitors can be equaled for a popular culture event (i.e., the finale of
American Idol), but the numbers are equal and not disproportionate
to those viewing news.
Learning about the process of how content decisions are made can
best be accomplished by identifying where day-to-day decision mak-
ers originated their stories and the types of stories they initially desire.
Peter King is a senior writer for Sports Illustrated, covering the National
Football League (NFL) beat. He explained that Sports Illustrated makes
its decisions about what stories to cover as a collaborative effort be-
tween the writers and the editors, with story ideas originating from ei-
ther party. There is, however, a main criterion for a story of which all
employees of the magazine are aware. King explained that the main
criterion for a Sports Illustrated football story is “a story that will be ap-
pealing to readers and something that is going to illustrate colorfully”
(personal communication, July 23, 2003). Therefore, when King sug-
gested to his Sports Illustrated editors that the first article about the
2003 NFL preseason training camps should be about Emmitt Smith, the
editors agreed. For this article there was a compelling story about how
the NFL’s all-time leading rusher left one of the league’s most storied
franchises, the Dallas Cowboys, and signed with the Arizona Cardinals.
The article that appeared in the August 4, 2003, issue also “illustrated
colorfully” with a full-page picture of Smith his new white Cardinal jer-
sey and another insert picture in the red uniform of the Cardinals after
spending 13 years in the silver helmet and the white-and-blue uniform
of the Cowboys.
Once King writes his article, it then goes through an extensive edit-
ing process, which includes one of the three executive editors at Sports
Illustrated, the managing editor, and fact checkers. Again, it is impor-
tant to emphasize that these editors can only work on the information
included in King’s original draft. They relied on King’s hustle in talking
to many people and gathering all of the relevant information needed
126 CHAPTER 6
for a complete, insightful, and accurate story. They would not want to
print the story and then have other relevant facts emerge through the
reporting of another mass media outlet that would make the
magazine’s story irrelevant.
Mike Bevans is one of three executive editors for Sports Illustrated
whose responsibility is to manage all components of a story, from the
writing of the story to the photography that will accompany the article.
He is also responsible for distributing the workload for the magazine
and ensuring that the entire magazine is completed on time. The
Sports Illustrated week runs Tuesday through Monday, with late Mon-
day evening being the last opportunity to include or adjust a story, as
advance copies of the magazine are available Wednesday and sub-
scribers generally receive their issue in the mail Thursday. With most
major sports typically occurring on the weekend, short deadlines
make for an intense process to complete the magazine on time. Early
in the week the editing staff meets to plan that week’s magazine as
well as to scope out issues for the next 3 or 4 weeks.
Bevans is one of the people who reads and edits a story, but he ex-
plained that a senior editor will do the initial edit as well as write the
headline and photo captions for the article (personal communication,
August 13, 2003). He pointed out that he is merely one step of the edit-
ing process for the entire magazine. The managing editor is the highest
ranking day-to-day person involved in the decision-making process
and oversees all of the content of the magazine. It is the managing edi-
tor who ultimately determines what goes into the magazine and bud-
gets the amount of pages for individual stories. The managing editor
also has the important task of selecting the Sports Illustrated cover.
Bevans explained that there are certain media routines that dictate
the content of a Sports Illustrated issue. He described that the front and
back of the magazine are standard, with the back including a weekly
feature, “The Week Inside Sports” (short sections that provide quick
storyline updates about three or four sports), and “The Life of Reilly”
(the weekly column by Rick Reilly, which is the last page of the maga-
zine). The front portion of the magazine features letters to the editor,
“Catching up With” (a profile of an athlete who once appeared on the
cover of an issue of Sports Illustrated), and “Scorecard” (which fea-
tures many one-page stories about an athlete or event). Bevans ex-
plained that the editors compete for the rest of the space, as the
magazine tries to create a good mix of timely sports news and compel-
ling features. These features are the part of the magazine that can be
planned in advance. For example, editors know that in 2 weeks a cer-
tain number of pages of the magazine are already allocated for a
certain feature.
Alain Sanders was a senior reporter with Time magazine, where he

worked for 21 years covering everything from the Supreme Court to
elections to the Congress, and he worked on Time’s international is-
sues distributed in Asia, Latin America, the South Pacific, and Canada.
Each of the international issues has specific stories and advertisements
for its markets. Sanders said stories originate for Time in a manner sim-
ilar to King’s description for Sports Illustrated, coming from either the
reporter or someone in a higher management position (personal com-
munication, August 8, 2003). Both Sanders and King stressed that se-
niority and reputation of the reporter in making story suggestions carry
tremendous weight.
With Time coming out on Monday, Sanders explained that the
managing editors and senior editors meet on Monday to begin pre-
paring the magazine for the following week’s issue. Senior editors
then meet with their staffs to discuss potential stories, paying atten-
tion to the news cycle and to whether there are any major political
speeches or congressional hearings scheduled for that week. This is
an early indication that the role of content providers and their events
influence coverage and the need for quality, compelling content. If it
is congressional hearings that need to be covered, perhaps inter-
views with the congressional representatives on the committee or
people testifying need to be arranged. Comments and reactions from
other members of the government might also be needed to provide a
complete context for the story.
After these initial meetings, the general theme of a story is estab-
lished, and once the reporter gets the assignment, he or she has the
freedom to call whomever he or she wants and research whatever in-
formation desired. The writer assigned to a story then works with field
correspondents as well as does some of his or her own reporting and
examines other press clippings in the newspaper to come up with all of
the information that might be contained in the story. Sanders stressed
that the size of the story is a factor in determining the amount of infor-
mation that needs to be obtained.
The writer then sends a “polished draft” to the senior editor Friday
night. The senior editor and one of the top editors both read the article
and make corrections and suggestions in a different print font so that the
writer knows which person is making the comment. The story then goes
back to the writer, who then works with the editors to correct any dis-
crepancies before returning the story to a senior editor for a final review.
In the editing process researchers also provide input and check for accu-
racy, and correspondents receive an edited version to check for accu-
racy and any omissions. Near the end of the editing process, lawyers
from Time read the story to check for potentially libelous material.
128 CHAPTER 6
Karen Blumenthal is the Dallas bureau chief for the Wall Street Jour-
nal and is responsible for the content output of the bureau, overseeing
reporters in eight states. She described that most of the story ideas
come from the reporters who are out in the field, but there are in-
stances where the direction of stories does come from the main New
York office (personal communication, September 5, 2003). This exam-
ple depicts the layers of a mass media organization between manage-
ment and the reporters who are at various locations covering stories.
Blumenthal explained that the Wall Street Journal has a steady stream
of news within its routine, as the scope of its newspaper is that when-
ever there are financial filings it is in essence a news story.
Mike Emanuel is a correspondent for the Fox News Channel and has
reported on the White House, the Pentagon, and other areas of govern-
ment. In this capacity as a national television reporter, he does both
taped segments and live appearances to provide an update on a story.
Emanuel stated that his goal as a journalist is to “talk to people on all
sides of an issue and to present the story from all sides to provide a well
balanced report and let the viewers decide their opinion” (personal
communication, January 14, 2004). Although Emanuel described his
reports as a collaborative effort with producers, he contended that it is
a positive collaborative effort where he maintains a great deal of auton-
omy and a great amount of input into what gets on the air.
DAVE ANDERSON AND THE NEW YORK TIMES
There are, of course, instances when a reporter and upper manage-

ment disagree over a position on an issue, and the content provided
to an audience is compromised. One notable situation was a contro-
versy over the New York Times, when it initially rejected two sports
columns: one by Pulitzer Prize winning–columnist Dave Anderson
and the other by Harvey Araton. The columns by Anderson and Araton
opposed the New York Times editorial page on the issue of women
being admitted to membership of the Augusta National Golf Club,
host of the prestigious Masters golf tournament every April. The New
York Times editorial page had repeatedly criticized the Augusta Na-
tional Golf Club for having a male-only membership policy and called
for Tiger Woods not to play in the 2003 tournament as a form of protest
to the policy. The column by Anderson held that the Masters contro-
versy was not the responsibility of Woods and that Woods should play
without criticism. Anderson began his article with, “Please, let Tiger
Woods just play golf. That’s what he does, and does better than any-
body else. He’s not a social activist. He never has been. And it’s un-
likely he ever will be. It’s not his style. All he wants to do is win golf
tournaments, especially the Masters and the other three major tour-
naments” (Anderson, 2002, p. 1).
The alleged reason the columns did not run, according to Anderson,
was the disagreement with the editorial page. Anderson stated, “It was
decided by the editors that we should not argue with the editorial
page” (cited in Colford, 2002a, p. 50). He commented, “I didn’t con-
sider what I wrote an attack on the editorial page, just a difference of
opinion” (cited in Singhania, 2002). Anderson also stated, “I was disap-
pointed that they felt that way, but the editorial page is sacrosanct
there. I always thought you could still disagree with it. But in this case I
couldn’t” (cited in Kurtz, 2002, p. C1).
The position of the New York Times editors on why the articles did
not appear was not that they differed from the editorial page but that
they “failed to meet newsroom standards” (cited in Singhania, 2002).
The New York Times had released a staff memo in which Gerald
Boyd, New York Times managing editor, stated, “We were not con-
cerned with which ‘side’ the writers were on. A well-reported,
well-reasoned column can come down on any side, with our wel-
come. One of the columns focused centrally on disputing The Times’s
editorials about Augusta. Part of our strict separation between the
news and editorial pages entails not attacking each other. Intramural
quarreling of that kind is unseemly and self-absorbed” (cited in
Singhania, 2002). Boyd also stated, “It’s not whether he (Anderson)
had a different view from the editorial. It’s how he [Anderson] exe-
cutes it” (cited in Kurtz, 2002, p. C1). He added, “I have no problem
with columns saying something different than the [Times’] editorial
stance” (cited in Colford, 2002b, p. 1).
A critical aspect of this story is that the person with the most notori-
ety in this situation was Anderson and not the executives at the New
York Times. Other sports columnists demonstrated support for Ander-
son in their own columns, on sports radio, and on television programs
such as ESPN’s The Sports Reporters. After receiving national criticism
for not printing the columns, on Sunday, December 8, 2002, the New
York Times decided to run both the Anderson and Araton columns be-
ginning at the bottom of the front page of the sports section with the fol-
lowing disclaimer: “The two columns appearing here are revisions of
versions withheld by The Times about two weeks ago. The columnists
have agreed to revisions requested by the editors” (New York Times,
December 8, 2002, section 8, p. 1). As for the controversy as a whole,
Anderson commented, “I’ve always thought a newspaper should have
various opinions. That’s what the columns are for, and that’s what the
editorial page is for. You should be certainly allowed to disagree with
editorials. It makes for a better paper” (cited in Singhania, 2002). An-
130 CHAPTER 6
derson added, “When these columns don’t appear, they cause more
commotion” (cited in Singhania, 2002).
INTERNAL MASS MEDIA SUMMARY
The gatekeeping process is difficult to generalize across all mass me-

dia organizations, but there are some commonalities. From a business
perspective, all mass media organizations desire quality content that
can attract an audience and subsequent advertisers. From a functional
performance perspective, all mass media organizations have the abil-
ity and responsibility to select and frame messages. Although the selec-
tion and framing decisions are simplified through the implementation
of routines and an overall philosophy of the type of content desired,
several individuals within the mass media organization at some point
in the process can influence the content exposed to the audience. Kim
(2002) summarized the gatekeeping concept where stories “are ac-
cepted or rejected based on various factors, such as journalists’ per-
ceptions of a news event, daily working norms, the written and
unwritten rules of television news organizations, and extra media pres-
sures as well as societal and cultural influences” (p. 433).
The content decision-making process within the mass media orga-
nization can be described through a complex hierarchical progression,
where the higher level always has the ability to overrule any lower
level, but does not necessarily do so. The selection process begins
from within a certain type of story that is established by the overall
mass media organization philosophy and media routine of the content
desired. This larger philosophical mandate could come from the own-
ership or the highest executive levels of the mass media organization.
The media routines do not account for all decisions, and decisions
need to be made within the routine.
Stories are then selected within genre type by the higher ranking
day-to-day decision makers who then assign the reporters to cover that
story. Certain areas or stories are organized into beats where news gen-
erally emerges (i.e., government agencies, sports teams) so that the re-
porter can learn the area or group and form critical relationships with
sources (the media employee and source relationship is explained in
more detail in chap. 7). The reporter and photojournalists at the scene
then collect the content specific to that story. The evaluation of and deci-
sions about that story are made only from what has been brought back
from the scene, giving a tremendous amount of trust and autonomy to
the reporters who were assigned to the story (see Table 6.1).
If the day-to-day decision makers are in the eye of the storm, they are
surrounded by content providers who are trying to influence content se-
TABLE 6.1
Mass Media Internal Decision Making
Ownership and upper management Budgets
Media routines
Brand image
Hiring and firing of employees
High-ranking day-to-day executive Media routine implementation
Selection of overall content type
Final edit of stories
Mid-level day-to-day management Assignment of stories
Assignment of beats
Editing of stories
Reporters and photographers at the Selection of content within that
scene assigned story; framing of elements
lection and framing. The power day-to-day decision makers have in se-
lecting and framing content is, however, devalued, as these mass media
organizations also need content providers so that they can file a story
with all of the necessary perspectives for a complete, accurate report
that will appeal to the audience. The interdependent relationship be-
tween the mass media organization and content providers is at the core
in the evaluation of the complex content decision-making process.
SUGGESTED READINGS
Berkowitz, D. (Ed.). (1997). Social meaning of news: A text-reader. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.
Kim, H. S. (2002). Gatekeeping international news: An attitudinal profile of U.S.
television journalists. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46, 431–452.
Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Problems and opportunities in agenda-setting research.
Journal of Communication, 43(2), 100–127.
Shoemaker, P. J. (1999). Media gatekeeping. In M. B. Salwen & D. W. Stacks (Eds.),
An integrated approach to communication theory and research (pp. 79–91).
Soloski, J. (1997). News reporting and professionalism: Some constraints on the re-
porting of the news. In D. Berkowitz (Ed.), Social meaning of news: A text-reader
(pp. 138–154). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
III
The External Mass
Media Organization:
Constituency Groups
CHAPTER
7
Mass Media
Organization Interaction
With Content Providers
Although there is much to be considered regarding the complex opera-

tions within a mass media organization and the structure of its hierar-
chy on content decision making, the process becomes even more
complicated once the potential influence from outside constituency
groups is factored into the content decision-making process. Many
content providers complicate the process by simultaneously trying to
exert their influence on mass media employees. Therefore, the rela-
tionship between content providers and the mass media is critical in
any evaluation of the decision-making process (e.g., McQuail, 2000).
The major premise of this book is that there are several constituency
groups trying to influence, and in some instances are successful in dic-
tating, the content decision making of a mass media organization. De-
pendency research explains that relationships between the mass media
and constituency groups are interdependent, with all entities needing
each other. The day-to-day decision makers are always being pulled by
people or groups (content providers, advertisers) who are implement-
ing multiple strategies to obtain media coverage. McManus (1994, 1995)
pointed out that investors, advertisers, sources, and consumers drive the
news production processes at different junctures. Weaver and Wilhoit
(1996) found that 34% of journalists thought that forces outside their or-
ganization, such as government, a hostile public, or powerful advertis-
ers, were great hindrances to their autonomy. People in different jobs for
different organizations all perform their own responsibilities, the efforts
135
136 CHAPTER 7
of which culminate in the media content the public can see, hear, read,
or click onto (e.g., Shaw & Martin, 1992). Some issues or stories receive
exposure and become the news and others are never heard, as indi-
cated in the agenda-setting theoretical model.
Content providers are broadly defined as any person or group with a
message that needs to be exposed to an audience. They include: enter-
tainment production companies, politicians, companies making
news, artists, musical performers, and authors. The content providers
are prominent because they are constantly providing news, being
asked by the mass media to provide news, or providing comment on
news events that have occurred. Content providers try to get exposure
for their content because these mass media messages have the poten-
tial to influence the audience to behave in a manner that the content
provider desires (i.e., purchase, vote).
In trying to achieve these desired behavioral outcomes by the audi-
ence, content providers are often represented by professional public
relations employees. It is the public relations professionals who have
skill and training in crafting messages, carefully selecting their distribu-
tion vehicle, and developing relationships with the mass media. Exter-
nal constituency groups, in addition to whatever industry their
business is in, need to have communication professionals that deal
with the mass media and communicate with any other stakeholder
groups with which the organization interacts. Baron (2003) pointed out
that other businesses are not in the business of producing news but are
experts in their respective industries. He stated, “The public relations
industry exists, in part, because companies and organizations that de-
pend on public perception and understanding do not and cannot con-
trol the means to gain those perceptions” (p. 39). Although the specific
strategies might differ based on the industry or the company, the over-
all public relations philosophies of representing the employer or client
in the most positive light and being proactive on their behalf transcend
any industry. Gamson and Modigliani (1989) explained that communi-
cation professionals “breed sophistication about the news needs of the
media and the norms and habits of working journalists” (p. 6).
THE PUBLIC RELATIONS FUNCTION
The philosophical public relations function begins with the premise

that practitioners act as advocates for the clients and organizations
they represent. These public relations professionals are entrusted with
presenting the person or group they represent in the most positive light
to the mass media and audience. Another key public relations philo-
sophical concept is to be proactive in providing information to the
MASS MEDIA ORGANIZATION INTERACTION 137
mass media before they learn it through other channels. Being

proactive is vital, as the alternative is having to explain why the organi-
zation or client was not forthcoming with the information, a situation
that could create another public relations problem. Public relations is
thus essentially about developing and implementing a series of
proactive strategic initiatives designed to obtain and frame media cov-
erage on behalf of clients. By presenting the perspective of the client in
the news story, public relations professionals hope the audience will
learn from that perspective and will be influenced by it.
In explaining the concept of advocacy and client representation, it is
important to point out that public relations employees are not under
oath and not mandated to provide the truth, the whole truth, and noth-
ing but the truth. This is the most distinct characteristic in separating
the public relations professional from the journalist, who is expected to
bring a high level of objectivity to the selection and framing of a story.
The public relations professional and the journalist perform very differ-
ent functions in the process. The public relations professionals’ objec-
tive is in providing honest facts, but their interpretation of facts and
events and what they choose to highlight or frame are highly subjective
and in their own interests. The journalist must understand that he or
she is merely obtaining only one perspective when speaking to a public
relations practitioner.
Berger and Park (2003) offered a detailed summary of the public re-
lations function:
Very broadly, public relations professionals serve organizations by help-

ing them to achieve business goals. Organizations compete with other
groups and organizations for attention, sales, markets, employees, fa-
vorable policy decisions, and so forth. The goal of such competition may
not be to achieve consensus, but rather to survive and win conflicts.
Thus, the public relations programs are carried out to attempt to influ-
ence stakeholder attitudes, opinions, perceptions, interpretations, ideol-
ogies, and choices to achieve outcomes favorable to the organization.
(p. 79)
If they are trying to influence opinion with business objectives (i.e.,

sales) in mind, it becomes incumbent on public relations professionals
to do everything within their power to influence the content that could
potentially influence public opinion and behavior. A central part of the
question as to if and how public relations personnel influence the mass
media is to define the goals of public relations strategies. These goals
include the managerial function of public relations to help achieve
two-way communications with key publics and to balance the inter-
ests of the organization and those publics through dialogue, compro-
138 CHAPTER 7
mise, and conflict strategies (e.g., Berger & Park, 2003; Cutlip, Center, &
Broom, 1994; Grunig, 1990; Seitel, 1998).
Although their responsibility is to their employer, the most interest-
ing relationship for public relations practitioners is with the mass me-
dia, as their job is to build and capitalize on these relationships to
influence content. Bernays (1955) provided a seminal view of public
relations, defining it as “the attempt, by information, persuasion, and
adjustment, to engineer public support for an activity, cause, move-
ment, or institution” (pp. 3–4). It is more than public support that is nec-
essary or desired; that support needs to turn into a tangible behavior of
purchasing, voting, or some other activity that clearly provides a benefit
to the content provider. Support becomes too ambiguous a term to
identify as the sole achievement desired. To support a candidate for an
election does not matter unless the person’s tangible behavior of vot-
ing for the candidate, or telling and persuading others to vote, or mak-
ing a campaign donation is performed. Support without engaging in
any behavior is almost tantamount to offering no support. At some
point behavior needs to occur, and if the desired behavior does not oc-
cur the public relations person needs to reevaluate and readjust the
message of the communication strategy, either through placement of
the message or framing of the message, that might resonate with the
audience. The spiral of opportunity perspective of Miller and Riechert
(2001) articulated the critical evaluation of media messages necessary
by the public relations department to capitalize on the opportunity to
craft further messages.
Any power of the public relations practitioner in the content process
stems from access to information and people that mass media organi-
zations and their audiences desire. The public relations power ema-
nates from the dependency characteristics inherent in the mass media
organization that needs to obtain quality content. If the work of public
relations practitioners did not matter and the mass media ignored their
tactics, the mass media organizations would become enormously
powerful in the relationship. However, that is not often the case, and if
public relations practitioners have information or a commodity, in
terms of a client the mass media would like to interview, perhaps the
pendulum of power in the relationship swings in the direction of public
relations.
Public relations people understand their clients’ assets in dealing
with the mass media and understand the various mass media organi-
zations and which types of stories those organizations desire. They un-
derstand that different types of stories will work in different mass
media vehicles. First, there are many media outlets, each with different
content desires and each with different audiences. For example, for
the same issue within the same genre of television, the type of content
desired by the evening news, a short sound bite with video, is different
from that network’s morning show, a sit-down or live interview, and
different from that network’s prime-time news magazine, a lengthy
feature interview that will be heavily produced and edited. For each
content provider, knowing which mass media outlet to target with a
particular message is important, as it can be a waste of time and effort
to target the wrong mass media outlet. One key factor in understanding
the media vehicle is for the public relations department to understand
the type and size of the audience that mass media organizations and
their various forms of content attract.
The changing mass media environment has had an impact on pub-
lic relations practices, as there are more options for content providers
to get their message out into the news. The number of news media out-
lets, particularly cable television all-news networks and the Internet,
have greatly changed the amount of news content that gets into the
public discourse. The Internet has reduced the necessity on the mass
media to some extent, as now content providers from corporations to
music performers can have their own Internet site where people can
directly go to learn about them. This is a major advantage for the con-
tent provider as it eliminates concerns about whether the content is
even selected and how it will be framed. By circumventing the mass
media organization, organizations can provide unfiltered content to
their audience.
Berger and Park (2003) stated that public relations “practitioners in-
vest in new technologies to gain efficiency, relationship, and control
benefits. Practitioners use new technology channels especially to in-
crease the speed and reach of communication. However, they also
seek to strengthen and extend stakeholder relationships and increase
control over message content and distribution” (p. 77). E-mail has cre-
ated a new method for public relations practitioners to communicate
with members of the mass media and even some select, important au-
diences (e.g., Henninger, 2001). Mark Beal, executive vice president for
Alan Taylor Communications public relations firm, pointed out that the
changing media environment, with more media inventory to work
with and more people looking for content, is better for his clients be-
cause there is more opportunity for exposure (personal communica-
tion, January 23, 2004).
Baron (2003) made clear distinctions between the old mass media
environment and the new media environment created by communi-
cation technologies. He explained that for all of the groups to be suc-
cessful in the new media environment they must understand the
changes that have taken place. Baron offered nine rules for content
140 CHAPTER 7
providers to understand if they are to be successful in creating and dis-

seminating messages (see Table 7.1).
In addition to understanding the philosophical approach and func-
tion of public relations, all of the characteristics of fostering relation-
ships with media members—knowledge of client assets, knowledge
of the mass media environment, and knowledge of the mass media
organizations and their needs—have to be understood in developing,
implementing, and executing an effective public relations communi-
cation strategy.
PUBLIC RELATIONS PRACTITIONER

PERSPECTIVE
Bob Sommer is an executive vice president with The MWW Group, one
of the largest public relations and public affairs firms in the United
States. The MWW Group, started in 1986, is headquartered in East
TABLE 7.1
Baron’s (2003) Public Relations Rules for the New Media Environment
Rule 1: Old: Meet the demands of the media.
New: Meet demands of a wide variety of stakeholders who expect
immediate and direct information.
Rule 2: Old: Follow news cycles.
New: There is a new cycle every minute.
Rule 3: Old: Bad news usually goes away quickly.
New: Bad news can be controlled by opponents and politicians
and frequently has a long life.
Rule 4: Old: Accuracy above all.
New: Speed above all.
Rule 5: Old: Legal review optional.
New: Legal review required.
Rule 6: Old: Provide the minimum needed.
New: Provide what the most detail-hungry audience requires.
Rule 7: Old: Assume some level of news balance.
New: Someone is going to be wearing the black hat.
Rule 8: Old: Wait for them to call.
New: Credibility depends on getting to them first.
Rule 9: Old: Let the media tell your story.
New: Tell the story yourself.
Rutherford, New Jersey and has seven national offices located in Chi-
cago, Los Angeles, New York, Seattle, Trenton, and Washington, D.C.
Some of the clients for The MWW Group include: Avis, Continental Air-
lines, Hard Rock Cafe, McDonald’s, Nike, Nikon, and Verizon. The val-
ues of The MWW Group are, “We are committed to delivering strategic
solutions that drive client success” (MWW Group). The public rela-
tions mission of The MWW Group is:
To create smart, strategic and creative communications programs that

provide tangible results to help clients achieve their most important
business objectives, offer the highest value and ensure clients’ return
on their public relations investment. To work harder and smarter to en-
sure that no one has higher expectations to us that we have of ourselves
and the work we produce for clients. To constantly set higher standards
for our industry—in our strategic approach to public relations, in the in-
novative programs and campaigns we create for our clients and
through the dynamic, energetic and stimulating environment that we
provide for our employees. (www.mwwgroup.com)
In his executive role, Sommer manages the public affairs and acts as
a liaison to the mass media and to the government for The MWW
Group’s corporate clients. The responsibilities include helping clients
formulate the right message and assisting in getting placement of these
messages into the proper media. Sommer stressed that the power in
the relationship between himself and his clients (content providers)
and the mass media is often only in pitching a story (personal commu-
nication, August 7, 2003). His knowledge of the mass media industry
and the desires of the various media outlets are critical functions of the
job and become apparent in certain circumstances. For example,
Sommer conceded that there are times when he can shop around a
story on a prominent CEO to the mass media outlet that will provide the
best exposure. In this instance, if he can provide an exclusive with a top
executive, and one newspaper will only put the story on the front page
of the business section but another will put it on the front page of the
entire newspaper, the paper providing exposure on the front page of
the entire newspaper will get the exclusive story.
Sommer pointed out that it is in times of a crisis for a client when the
dynamics of the relationship between the public relations office and
the mass media greatly changes. In a crisis, his firm operates within a
crisis management plan where the firm and the client operate accord-
ing to certain protocols. He stressed that during a crisis often he or ex-
ecutives from the client have to talk to the media and merely have to
work to get the client’s message out, as there is no time to shop around
for the best media exposure. In this instance it is important to get a
142 CHAPTER 7
message out on behalf of the client so that the client’s perspective is at

least part of the dialogue. The alternative is simply having other groups
define the news story. Sommer concluded that so much of his tactical
strategy and the overall content decision-making process at the inter-
action level depends on two critical components coming together:“the
fostering of relationships with the mass media and the nature of the
story that is being dealt with” (personal communication, August 7,
2003). Any variations of these components can vastly alter the nature of
the mass media coverage and the tactics used by the public relations
department.
Terry Hemeyer is a former communications executive for Pennzoil,
handling all of its public relations for 16 years and serving in manage-
ment in his final 6 years with the corporation. Hemeyer was also a for-
mer spokesperson for the U.S. Air Force Academy. He claimed that
public relations and the mass media should be a professional relation-
ship, but stressed that underlying all strategies it is important to under-
stand that reporters and public relations practitioners are not doing the
same job and do not have common goals. Although the reporter’s
goals are to be objective, as a public relations person, Hemeyer
pointed out that he is there to serve the client and to provide facts that
are the most positive, emphasizing on certain facts to assist in the fram-
ing of the story. In dealing with the media, Hemeyer explained that his
basic philosophy is to not expect favors from members of the mass
media but rather to have a simple goal in terms of influencing content
by getting his clients’ perspective of the story into the article or broad-
cast. Hemeyer stated, “I’m not looking for egregious breaks, but give
me my say in the article. That is all I ask, it could be the last paragraph,
but give me my say” (personal communication, August 29, 2003).
In trying to get a perspective into a story, Hemeyer suggested that it is
important for public relations professionals to understand the mass me-
dia news industry and work to build long-term credibility with the media
by knowing their deadlines; being reliable and returning telephone
calls; and, if not able to provide comment about a story, telling the re-
porter why. In establishing relationships with the media, Hemeyer
claimed that it is better to “error on the side of being cooperative with the
press” (personal communication, August 29, 2003). Similar to Sommer,
Hemeyer commented that long-term credibility is helpful when pitching
stories, and this credibility can be powerful in helping a client’s perspec-
tive become part of the story. Providing reliable information in the past
helps attain coverage, whereas providing unreliable information will
eliminate any trust and hinder future coverage.
Clint Woods is an account supervisor for Pierpont Communications,
a public relations firm that assists clients with their public relations, in-
vestor relations, and marketing communications. The assistance that

Pierpont Communications provides its clients is to help establish an
image and help them determine the type of stories they have that are
newsworthy to obtain media exposure. Woods explained that his re-
sponsibility is to know the clients, their assets, and the mass media out-
let possibilities. Matching the interests of both of these groups can
result in success and a favorable media placement.
Woods contended that he has little influence over the mass media
and although he will pitch stories, he stressed that there has to be a
story to tell and he has to be creative in how that story is positioned or
the mass media will not cover the story. He importantly stressed that
the story has to be of interest to the audience the mass media organiza-
tion is trying to or has already reached. Although public relations de-
partments pitch ideas, people within the mass media organization
develop their own story ideas and simply contact the public relations
department to obtain information needed for a story they are already
covering. With intense competition for time and space, not assisting or
facilitating the press in acquiring all of the necessary elements for a
story could ensure a lack of coverage. Woods concluded, “You have to
respect the job of the press and work with them. You can’t play hard-
ball with reporters and often good public relations involves being good
facilitators” (personal communication, September 12, 2003).
Beal, executive vice president with Alan Taylor Communications, a
leading sports and fitness public relations agency, defined his responsi-
bility as to generate media coverage for events and initiatives of Alan
Taylor’s clients, which have included: Adidas, AT&T, Chevrolet,
MasterCard, Microsoft, Nabisco, Reebok, Texaco, and the U.S. Postal
Service. In terms of generating media coverage, these responsibilities
include developing the programs and strategies for client initiatives
and calling media and pitching these stories to the media.
Beal also emphasized the common theme critical for the public re-
lations professional to learn not only of the clients’ assets but also to
learn of the various media outlets and the types of content they desire.
He explained that “it is important to identify the right outlet for the right
content” and that it is his job to “leverage the assets of our clients and
generate media coverage using their assets” (personal communica-
tion, January 23, 2004). He provided an example where CNN’s Finan-
cial Network has a program where everyday it features a CEO of a
company. Beal’s knowledge of this need on the part of this media orga-
nization helps so that if one of his client corporations is about to break
news, such as introducing a new product or announcing a strong finan-
cial quarter, he can go directly to this media outlet and get the CEO of
that company on the air.
144 CHAPTER 7
Beal explained that stories need to be pitched in a compelling man-

ner to the media, and one effective way to accomplish this is to demon-
strate an interest to the audience of that mass media organization. He
pointed out that the media are looking for stories too, so the idea is to
“create angles and storylines that work for the media in that it will be
interesting to their readers, listeners, or viewers” (personal communi-
cation, January 23, 2004). He stated there needs to be an explanation to
the media professionals of the “strength of what is being pitched to the
audience of that mass media organization” (personal communication,
January 23, 2004).
Beal claimed that the key is to build relationships with the people at
the various mass media organizations. He pointed out that “you can’t
be lazy” and that “public relations is not about writing a press release or
sending a press kit, but getting on the telephone and building a one on
one relationship” (personal communication, January 23, 2004). In
building relationships, he contended that he will offer exclusives to a
particular mass media organization if he has a story that is compelling.
Beal explained that they might work hard to give an exclusive to a
newspaper such as USA Today, noting that broadcast media often take
stories from what appears in the newspaper.
Beal explained that another critical factor in pitching a story is the
availability of the people from a client. He pointed out the public rela-
tions practitioner has to be aware of the timing and understand that ap-
pearances on television programs are booked well in advance, and
even newspapers or magazines are blocked with stories in advance. If
there is ample time for a person to speak with or appear with several
media outlets, he will take advantage of the client’s time. A more care-
ful selection of the mass media outlet has to occur if the client does not
have unlimited time to cater to a variety of mass media outlets. In these
situations of limited availability, Beal claimed that generally the pitch
will be made to the media outlet that will achieve the highest number
of viewers or readers.
Another important aspect that Hemeyer emphasized in the public
relations and mass media relationship deals more with the issue of
managing internal public relations (personal communication, August
29, 2003). Public relations professionals are cognizant of the workings
of the mass media and their desire to obtain a major story. It is the pub-
lic relations people who have the expertise in answering questions and
phrasing responses to assist a desired framing of the story. There are,
however, instances where comments from a professional spokesper-
son are not enough for the situation and the mass media will not put
the comments from that person on the air or in a prominent location of
a print story. In these instances it is an executive, whose expertise is in
running the corporation of that industry and not in media relations,
who has to speak to the media.
Hemeyer stressed that when a corporate executive is about to be in-

terviewed, it is imperative that the public relations department learns
or estimates what the reporter is going to ask, to prepare the executive
as to those questions, and assist in the formulation and delivery of re-
sponses. This preparation and training, which could include conduct-
ing mock interview sessions, can be vital in what actually becomes
part of the public dialogue and influences the perception of the story.
An executive saying the wrong thing only creates a further crisis and an-
other element of the story that now has to be addressed by the public
relations department. In echoing the sentiments of Sommer, Hemeyer
pointed out that this is especially important when dealing with crisis
management, as in those cases the story is going to be written (so the
issue is not selection) and you have to try to get your message into that
story (to try to influence its framing). The public relations people know
what the story might look like (how it is going to play in the press), and
the internal training of executives is essential.
Hemeyer stated that during a crisis, communication within the cor-
poration is important, and training employees to know and be pre-
pared to execute their roles in a crisis-management situation must be
conducted. One important component is for employees not to speak to
reporters and allow only one spokesperson to address any mass media
inquiries. Achieving this requires great discipline on the part of the em-
ployees during the crisis, as it is conceivable they too have relation-
ships with members of the media and have previously been used as
sources. It is in this situation that their philosophical understanding of
advocacy on behalf of their client must be executed.
To assist the important internal aspects of a crisis, Hemeyer gave all
of the key people within the corporation a small card that fits in their
wallet and provides instructions about how to handle telephone calls
from a media member. Generally, this card instructs the employee to
tell the reporter to call the proper spokesperson responsible for talking
to the media. The person within the corporation who received the call
is then instructed to call Hemeyer, who then returns the reporter’s call.
The importance of this crisis-management strategy is so there is con-
sistency in the message and various people within the corporation are
not providing different viewpoints or damaging statements to the me-
dia. Hemeyer claimed that overall “public relations work is more on
the defensive rather than the offensive (i.e., pitching stories)”
(personal communication, August 29, 2003).
THE NATURE OF THE INTERACTION
Understanding the general public relations philosophies of advocacy

on behalf of their clients in presenting them in the most positive light,
146 CHAPTER 7
being honest with the press, and being proactive are essential in the
complex interaction between content providers and the mass media.
With so many different mass media organizations, examining the rela-
tionship between mass media personnel and content providers and
establishing general principles are difficult tasks. There are an infinite
number of relationships, each with specific organizations, specific
people, and a specific set of circumstances (the nature of the story) in-
volved. Inherent in examining the process of interaction between con-
tent providers and mass media personnel is to establish that they do
need to interact. As described in the media dependency theoretical
model, the relationship between content providers and media person-
nel is interdependent, as the mass media organizations need these
content providers to fill their broadcast, Internet site, or publication
with quality content that will attract an audience and, subsequently,
advertisers.
Curran, Gurevitch, and Woollacott (1982) described that mass me-
dia organizations “exist in a symbiotic relationship with their environ-
ment, drawing on it not only for their economic sustenance but also for
the ‘raw materials’ of which their contents are made” (p. 20). Content
becomes a product of what other people provide and what is accessi-
ble. Bagdikian (2000) claimed, “The national news has a major impact
on the national political agenda. What the main media emphasize is
what politicians attend to. Whatever is not given steady emphasis in
the news is more safely forgotten by those who make laws and regula-
tions” (p. xxvii). Content can only be determined from what the mass
media organization can acquire. Loevinger (1968) argued in his reflec-
tive-projective theory that the media cannot create or project an image
that does not reflect something that already exists.
Through all of the public relations initiatives employed in the hopes
of obtaining and framing coverage, public relations personnel are, in
essence, making the job of the reporter easier by providing them with a
viable story, and, at the same time, providing a tremendous benefit to
their employer or client by obtaining free, positive publicity. Molotch
and Lester (1974) demonstrated that news could be dictated by those
in a position to manage publicity about events. They contended that
news stories are often promoted as news by the planners of the event.
Cameron, Sallot, and Curtin (1997) spoke to the value of public re-
lations, claiming “public relations efforts increase the probability that
an event or issue will be covered, thereby achieving communication
objectives for the organization” (p. 112). There is skill to public rela-
tions, and certain communities and interest groups are not covered
well because they are not good advocates and do not know how to
get covered (e.g., Sandman, Rubin, & Sachsman, 1976). Ryan et al.
(2001) pointed out that not all content providers have the same ca-
pacity to get their issues or their perspectives about issues into the
content of the mass media. They explained, “The lack of resources
available to marginalized groups represents an enduring problem in
efforts to advance their definitions of political issues through the
news media. In contrast, the considerable resources available to
those who hold institutional power contribute to their sponsorship of
frames and to their ability to have these frames influence public dis-
course” (p. 179). Ryan et al. added that journalists are often favoring
official sources or those holding institutional power or “relying on
credentialed experts to provide an analytical understanding of the
forces that shape this world” (p. 180).
In examining the New York Times and Washington Post over a 20-
year period, Sigal (1973) found that nearly half of their news stories
were based on press releases and other direct information from a con-
tent provider. Morton (1992/1993) pointed out that only 3% to 8% of all
press releases are published, with some publishers having publication
rates as high as 30%. Blyskal and Blyskal (1985) estimated that as much
as 50% of the business news in the Wall Street Journal originates from
press releases or story suggestions by public relations professionals.
More recent estimates vary, indicating that news releases influence as
little as 25% or as much as 80% of news coverage (e.g., Cameron et al.,
1997). Callison (2002) found that out of all the Fortune 500 company
Internet sites, those with the more elaborate media press rooms on the
web were ranked higher on the Fortune list in terms of revenues.
Carroll and McCombs (2003) suggested that the findings of Callison in-
dicate “many companies are quite attune to the influence the media
have and make significant efforts to cater to the information needs of
the media” (p. 14).
Morton (1992/1993) spoke to the necessity of the public relations
practitioner having a clear understanding of the mass media industry,
knowing the assets of a client in pitching stories to appreciating the
desires and needs of the mass media organization and the readers,
viewers, or listeners of that media organization’s content. Morton
stated, “Practitioners who have higher rates for their press releases:
(1) write in a simpler style, (2) select different types of information
and package information differently than the rest of us. Most impor-
tantly, (3) they make their releases relevant to the readers of their tar-
geted newspapers” (p. 9). Shoemaker and Reese (1996) pointed to
the negative aspects of simply copying and pasting press releases into
the newspaper, claiming “the rise of the press release and press con-
ference reduced the ability of reporters to get scoops and inside sto-
ries. At the same time, it made journalists more easily manipulable
148 CHAPTER 7
due to their dependence on the news flow of public relations-gener-

ated information” (p. 127).
The mass media can still exert their power by rejecting stories or not
accepting interpretations of stories being provided by public relations
practitioners. Simply because a story or perspective is provided does
not, and should not, mean it has to be printed or broadcast. The mass
media employee as the final arbiter is an important factor in giving a
sense of freedom of the public relations professional in that he or she is
not making the ultimate determination as to what is included in the
story’s content. Ethically, public relations professionals can be more
comfortable with the mandate of their job as there are the mass media
gatekeepers with the responsibility to do their job objectively. As
Schudson (1997) stated, “Journalists write the words that turn up in the
papers or on the screen as stories. Not government officials, not cul-
tural forces, not ‘reality’ magically transforming itself into alphabetic
signs, but flesh-and-blood journalists literally compose the stories we
call news” (p. 8).
Bevans, executive editor of Sports Illustrated, noted that the maga-
zine constantly receives calls from public relations professionals, not
so much to influence a story that is being done but mainly to suggest
stories and try to get into the magazine. The editorial staff at Sports Il-
lustrated has the ability simply to reject these advances. Pitching sto-
ries would largely be for the feature portions of the magazine, as
different from news, sports stories are dictated by the sports calendar
and the sports audience is aware of what the main sports stories will
be. The sports media and sports fans know that late in January is the
Super Bowl, March is dominated by the college basketball tourna-
ment, the first Saturday in May is the Kentucky Derby, and October
brings the World Series. In news, events from the world of politics,
business, health, technology, or any other industry can be a major
story at any time.
THE NATURE OF THE INTERACTION:

SOURCES
Therefore, proficient public relations professionals can assist in obtain-
ing and framing coverage. They understand the audience they desire
and the mass media outlets that can reach that audience. Talented
public relations professionals understand the mass media organiza-
tion and the individual reporter as to the types of stories they desire.
The interaction between these two groups is based on relationships.
From the mass media perspective, this is where the system of beat re-
porting depends on familiarity, with both the location the reporters are
covering and the sources who are providing information. Events hap-
pen, and the media employees know whom to reach out to, and as
events happen, public relations professionals know whom to reach out
to. People within several organizations become valuable sources for
media members.
The relationship with sources is where the characteristics of interde-
pendency emerge. Gandy (1982) pointed out that the relationship be-
tween a media news organization and its sources is one of mutual
need. McQuail (2000) stated that “media of all kinds depend on having
a readily available supply of source material” and that “relations with
news sources are essential to news media and they often constitute a
very active two-way process. The news media are always looking for
suitable content, and content (not always suitable) is always looking
for an outlet in the news” (p. 287). Bagdikian (2000) claimed that it
should be more than a desire on the part of the media to use expert
sources but necessary to have experts that challenge the powerful es-
tablishment. He stated, “It is a necessary function of the news media to
report what the government is doing. But it is equally essential to report
reputable authorities who express views and realities that are contrary
to the rhetoric of Congress, and to make clear the best known reliable
information from independent authorities” (p. xxviii).
It is the need for quality content and access to the organizations that
people care about and the sources within these organizations (i.e.,
government departments, sports teams) that reveals that not all
sources are equal. The inequality stems from a couple of factors: the
audience’s desire to hear about a particular organization (the audi-
ence wants to hear officials from within the White House and the presi-
dential administration the same way they want to hear from players on
the New York Yankees) and the resources (time, money, and person-
nel) that these prominent organizations put into getting their message
out. The mass media therefore do not and cannot treat each organiza-
tion they cover and each source within any one organization in the
same manner. Simply stated, news is made by the nature of the organi-
zation or the person making news (e.g., Schultz, Mouritsen, &
Gabrielsen, 2001; Shaw & Martin, 1992).
Gans (1979) defined sources as “the actors whom journalists ob-
serve or interview, including interviewees who appear on the air or
who are quoted in … articles, and those who only supply background
information or story suggestions” (p. 80). He identified four factors that
indicate the performance of a source: (a) the ability of the source to
provide a useful and steady flow of information, (b) the media incen-
tive to use the source as the source is eager to provide information or
create media events and is credible, (c) source reputation and power,
150 CHAPTER 7
and (d) source geographic location. Sources understand the media

function. Sigal (1973) stated that public relations practitioners adjust
“their thinking to newsmen’s conventions. They talk the same lan-
guage” (p. 75). Gamson and Modigliani (1989) added, “Smart sources
are well aware of the journalist’s fancy for the apt catchphrase and
provide suitable ones to suggest the frame they want” (p. 7).
Sources must be reliable and credible, as Morton (1992/1993) ex-
plained that a successful source will provide information at the right
time and in a format geared for that medium. Mass media organiza-
tions also look to sources who have provided credible information in
the past (e.g., Berkowitz, 1991; Weaver & Elliot, 1986). Gandy (1991) ex-
amined how the source of mass media content performs a gate-
keeping function. He stated, “Whereas the journalist selects from an
array of sources and events on the basis of perceived utility in produc-
ing news that will meet organizational requirements, sources select
from an even larger array of techniques on the basis of their relative ef-
ficiency in the production of influence over the knowledge, attitudes,
and behavior of others” (p. 273).
In studying a radio station, Burns (1998) found that of all the material
delivered to the station by sources, only 19% of the items collected
were used in the broadcast and 20% of the items sent by sources were
never opened. Burns indicated that this finding suggests that the credi-
bility of the source is more important than the actual information con-
tained in the item sent. He pointed out that if the package is not
opened, what is inside is immaterial and “what is inside appears to not
be as important as who, or what organization, sent it” (p. 98). Burns
concluded that “what is discarded may be a better indication of the
gatekeeper thought process than what is used” (p. 99).
It is the role of public relations personnel and sources influencing
media content that raises the question of who sets the agenda. Salwen
(1988) claimed that the media agenda is not created within media
news organizations as much as it is shaped by the sources that provide
them with information. Kanervo and Kanervo (1989) pointed out that
when a source succeeds in having its information used in a newscast, it
is not only a victory for the source but essentially a loss for others, as
time and space have been taken away. The relationship with news
sources can be best summed up as the press always wanting to get
more information and the content provider always wanting to give only
the information favorable to the client.
The role of public relations and the releasing of information are
complicated if the issue also has legal ramifications. Conflicts are
fought in the court of law and the court of public opinion, and lawyers
and public relations professionals might want to approach the situa-
tion far differently. The legal perspective might not want to have the cli-
ent say anything that could be used in court and damage any
impending lawsuit. The public relations department might not be as
guarded and encourage communication in getting the perspective of
the client out to the public to try to sway public opinion.
By not providing the mass media with a story, or as it has been com-
monly referred, “feeding the beast,” journalists are left finding other
perspectives to fill their stories. By giving the mass media something to
write or broadcast, the public relations department of the content pro-
vider can control, or at the very least help manage, the story. Control-
ling the story and the flow of information is important in any story as a
means of swaying public opinion. If the press is not receiving informa-
tion, a sense of skepticism that the content provider is concealing
something can emerge.
The one situation where controlling information and trying to man-
age public opinion are the most important is military conflict. (The
topic of military and press relations is worthy of an entire volume, but a
brief comment is introduced here.) Englehardt (1994) depicted how
military personnel controlled the information in the Persian Gulf War of
1991 through their daily briefings and press conferences so to act as the
final source and always provide the mass media with a story rather
than have the media “create” their own stories. He concluded, “The
military seemed to have won an adversarial war against the media by
marginalizing the hundreds of reporters on the spot and appealing di-
rectly to the American public” (p. 82). Although censorship was volun-
tary, Jacobs (1992) pointed out that field commanders had latitude in
controlling the flow of information, and some imposed harsh restric-
tions (p. 682). In a military situation, Cooper (1996) claimed that many
journalists thought the Gulf War restrictions imposed on the press were
“a thinly disguised public relations strategy to keep the home front sup-
portive of the war effort” (p. 15). He pointed out that “conflicts are inevi-
table between the obligation of the press to inform the general public,
and the obligation of the military to successfully conduct war” (p. 3).
Military conflict raises the questions of journalistic objectivity.
Heyward, president CBS News, commented on the question of jour-
nalistic objectivity during a war before the U.S. campaign to liberate
Iraq in 2003, stating:
We are American citizens also. We’re rooting for the U.S. to win, with no
apology and with as few casualties as possible. That doesn’t mean that
we are going to distort our reporting, but it’s possible to be a citizen and a
patriot and also an objective reporter. So this notion that we’re indifferent
as to the outcome of the war is absurd, and only an idiot would think that.
(cited in Bednarski & Higgins, 2003, p. 55)
152 CHAPTER 7
Heyward added, “We are going to present the facts in a fair way. We’re
not advocates. The fact that we want the outcome favorable to the U.S.
is obvious to anybody.” He also stated, “I think the whole notion of ob-
jectivity needs to be understood for what it is. It is a function of fairness
and open-mindedness to the facts. It means you don’t distort what you
find out” (cited in Bednarski & Higgins, 2003, p. 55).
Conflict could easily arise in the relationship between content pro-
viders, especially major newsmakers, and a mass media organization.
Questions are raised of how much a mass media organization should
capitulate to a newsmaker to obtain a story or to land a highly sought-
after interview. Controversy came to CBS News after obtaining an in-
terview with Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein before the war with the
United States in 2003. Veteran CBS anchor Dan Rather conducted the
interview that he and the CBS News staff had worked for more than a
year to arrange. CBS News did have to give in on certain conditions to
obtain the interview: CBS News was not allowed to use its own cam-
eras and had to wait more than half a day for a copy of the tape while
the Iraqis edited the interview (e.g., Carter, 2003b).
The interview received criticism from the White House, who
wanted to have a rebuttal of Hussein during the Hussein interview
broadcast on 60 Minutes II on February 26, 2003. The White House of-
fered either Ari Fleischer, (then) White House press secretary, or Dan
Bartlett, communications director, to present the administration per-
spective to appear on the 60 Minutes II broadcast. CBS, however,
balked at that option and would only offer the White House a response
if President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, or Secretary
of State Colin Powell, would appear.
GOVERNMENT SOURCES
The importance in the interaction between sources or public relations
professionals and the mass media organization is always heightened
in dealing with operations of the government. Shaw and Martin (1992)
pointed out that “in totalitarian systems, official agendas may be simply
delivered to the press,” but that in the United States, “the process is
more dynamic and pluralistic, with many players from reporters and
public relations specialists to government officials to many other insti-
tutions and/or key individuals” (p. 905).
Shoemaker and Reese (1996) explained, “The government provides
a convenient and regular flow of authoritative information, which re-
porters find efficient compared with more labor-intensive research”
(p. 130). Although this statement is true, the desire of the people to hear
from government officials cannot be overlooked in the mass media’s
always wanting to obtain their perspective.
Fishman (1980) described that the news organization is centered

around beats and that reporters get the largest share of their news from
official government agencies, as these agencies provide a steady
stream of news. Reporters have a beat assignment to cover the hap-
penings at a particular location or agency (i.e., city hall). The White
House holds daily press briefings to express its perspective on the
events of the day because it knows that that perspective will be cov-
ered by many if not all of the mass media organizations that cover the
president. The White House’s perspective, therefore, gets to become
part of the public dialogue. Often news stories contain remarks from
the government officials or organization press spokespersons, even
when their comments are predictable. Fishman (1997) stated, “Since
reporters mainly ‘see’ events during city council meetings, at White
House press conferences, in arrest reports, and through the announce-
ments of public relations officers, news as a form of knowledge is
shaped by the contexts in which agencies present and package
occurrences for journalists” (p. 226).
Government press secretaries are critical liaisons with mass media
personnel, as they provide access to the officials within their organiza-
tions who provide content. Press secretaries are vital not only in obtain-
ing coverage for their organization but in providing the interpretations
of events and framing content on behalf of their departments. Assisting
the framing of coverage is especially important for government organi-
zations that receive coverage on a regular basis.
Rachel Sunbarger is a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security and is one of the people responsible for developing
communication strategies for both long-term department policy initia-
tives and daily dealings with the press. These communication strate-
gies, similar to public relations departments not involved in the
government, could include selecting and pitching stories to the right
mass media organization or pitching an exclusive story. In dealing with
the press responsible for covering the Department of Homeland Secu-
rity on a daily basis, she could either get calls from reporters for infor-
mation or perhaps even for a comment from Tom Ridge, (then)
Department of Homeland Security director, for a story they are working
on. Other beat reporters simply call and ask what is happening on that
day within the department. A call of this nature gives a spokesperson a
tremendous opportunity to pitch and provide a story that could reflect
well on the organization.
One factor that Sunbarger emphasized in terms of the long-term
communication strategy is to be aware of the news cycle (personal
communication, January 28, 2004). Even all of the public relations
strategies to attain media coverage can become victim to other factors
in determining what becomes news. Most notably, what else is occur-
154 CHAPTER 7
ring in the world at that time (e.g., Behr & Iyengar, 1985)? Stories com-
pete for exposure, as selection is a necessary part of the media
process. All of the skill of the most talented public relations profession-
als in trying to obtain coverage will fail if a bigger story occurs. Even the
most meticulous handling of the news cycle and arranging for a media
event at a certain place and time can find a story trumped by a major
event that news media organizations have to cover. Henninger (2001)
commented, “Those in media relations don’t like to admit it, but they
are often forced to follow the rules set forth by members of the press,
who frequently are scrambling around to meet deadlines” (p. 12).
Sunbarger commented that she must be aware of the other stories
that other government departments might be announcing at a certain
time so that any major policy announcement coming out of the Depart-
ment of Homeland Security will receive the amount of coverage de-
sired. The news cycle in this instance relates more to competing
groups and ideas trying to obtain coverage than it does to getting the
story to the press to comply with a deadline. She explained that the
public relations department is responsible for assisting the communi-
cations of Department of Homeland Security Director, Ridge, and her
job as an advocate is to “craft a message that shines best on the depart-
ment” (personal communication, January 28, 2004). Sunbarger also
highlighted another interesting variable in working for the Department
of Homeland Security in that it is part of the president’s Cabinet and it
works for the administration and therefore has to work in concert with
the White House press office to keep everyone on the same message.
David Wald is the director of communications for New Jersey Sena-
tor Jon Corzine and was a reporter for the Newark Star-Ledger for more
than 20 years. Wald described his responsibility as disseminating and
explaining Senator Corzine’s perspective on issues to the many media
outlets. In knowing that obtaining television coverage is difficult for
Senator Corzine because of the competition with the New York news
market in the northern part of the state and with the Philadelphia news
market in the south, Wald explained that the Corzine communications
team still relies heavily on newspapers to reach the audience
(personal communication, May 28, 2003).
Wald did, however, concede that in the end it is still the decision of
the mass media whether the content he sends them will make the
broadcast or the newspaper. He commented that as a former veteran
reporter for the Newark Star-Ledger, the media do need contacts and
there is on occasions pressure to get a story with an elected official. In
his role as director of communications, Wald, however, believes he is
not in a position to negotiate access to the senator for favorable media
coverage. Wald stated, “The worst thing I can do is play games with the
relationship [with the press] and hold grudges” (personal communi-

cation, May 28, 2003).
Presenting all sides of an issue is important for the viewer to develop
the best informed opinion of a story. Wilson, vice president and editor
in chief for usatoday.com, claimed that USA Today is conscious of the
language that could be used in a story and tries to be neutral and objec-
tive (personal communication, June 14, 2004). He explained that deci-
sions about language are part of the everyday decision-making
process, with higher executive editors providing guidance or dictating
phrasing as necessary. Emanuel, Fox News correspondent, pointed
out that “everyone in Washington has an agenda so it is critical to bal-
ance the voices and give a correct account and a fair representation of
the issue” (personal communication, January 14, 2004). He explained
that it is a challenge to reach for all perspectives but indicated the im-
portance of this approach in that “a good source has a reason for talk-
ing to you and often is very loyal to the cause or the person they are
working for. It is the journalist responsibility to determine what is legiti-
mate as you are trusted to report the story fairly” (personal communi-
cation, January 14, 2004). Emanuel explained that his philosophy is a
reflection of the brand for which he works and that the “fair and bal-
anced” approach of the Fox News Channel “works in a practical way as
you think twice to ensure that you examine the other side of an issue
and are comprehensive in your reporting” (personal communication,
January 14, 2004).
THE OFFICE OF GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS
The importance of trying to shape the public discourse and influence

the news content, which might in turn influence the attitude and be-
havior of people, is most evident in politics. Politicians always try to
make their perspective on an issue part of the dialogue. The White
House communications initiatives include daily press briefings, ar-
ranging for spokespersons or top Cabinet officials to appear on televi-
sion news programs or radio programs, and if necessary, the
president will hold a prime-time press conference that will certainly
be covered. There is an obvious hierarchy in terms of the desire for
coverage. If statements from a press official do not guarantee cover-
age, a Cabinet member might be made available for an exclusive in-
terview. If that does not work and the administration finds the
message important and exposure necessary, the vice president or
president will make public remarks.
All of these communication strategies have the objective of expos-
ing the administration’s perspective to the public. Live speeches cov-
156 CHAPTER 7
ered on television or radio give the president an opportunity to speak

directly to the American people and the world without the filter of the
mass media. The government, in this instance using the medium as a
distribution mechanism, is circumventing the mass media organiza-
tions’ gatekeeping function instead of having them select only certain
quotes from the speech. At this government level of being a content
provider, attaining media coverage is easy, as the White House has its
own press corps from the respective mass media organizations who
cover the White House beat everyday. It is this dependence, as the
mass media organizations will always desire and use a quote from the
president or a high-ranking official at the White House, that gives tre-
mendous power to any presidential administration and government
official in shaping public opinion.
To illustrate the importance of public relations communication strat-
egies in helping explain why certain decisions are made or provide
comment on events that are occurring, on January 21, 2002, President
George W. Bush signed an executive order establishing the Office of
Global Communications. The office was designed to “coordinate stra-
tegic communications overseas that integrate the President’s themes
and truthfully depict America and Administration policies” (Office of
Global Communications). The office also “assists in the development
of communications that disseminate truthful, accurate, and effective
messages about the American people and their government” (http://
www.whitehouse.gov/ogc/aboutogc.html). The goal of this communi-
cation initiative is stated as “these messages are intended to prevent
misunderstanding and conflict, build support for and among United
States coalition partners, and better inform international audiences”
(White House News Releases).
Section 2 of the executive order provides the mission of the Office of
Global Communications stating:
The Office shall be to advise the President, the heads of appropriate of-
fices within the Executive Office of the President, and the heads of execu-
tive departments and agencies on utilization of the most effective means
for the United States Government to ensure consistency in messages
that will promote the interests of the United States abroad, prevent misun-
derstanding, build support for and among coalition partners of the United
States, and inform international audiences. The Office shall provide such
advice on activities in which the role of the United States Government is
apparent or publicly acknowledged. (White House News Releases)
In fulfilling this mission, the duties of the Office of Global Communi-

cations duties focus on: (a) daily messages, (b) communications plan-
ning, and (c) long-term strategy. The office produces a one-page fact
sheet, The Global Messenger, which is sent worldwide and dissemi-

nates key points and daily activities on global issues.
The Office of Global Communications is supported by public affairs
offices at many government departments, including the State, Justice,
and Defense departments. For example, the State Department has the
U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. The bipartisan panel
was created by Congress and appointed by the president to “provide
oversight of U.S.-government activities intended to understand, in-
form, and influence foreign publics” (www.state.gov/r/adcompd/).
THE INTERACTION SUMMARY
Ivy Ledbetter Lee is considered to be the father of modern public rela-

tions. Lee (1997) offered perspective of public relations and the critical
relationship with the mass media, stating, “Nothing is more ridiculous
than the idea that anybody can get the papers to print what he [or she]
wants them to print” (p. 3). He claimed that “if you want a subject to get
on the first page of the newspapers, you must have the news in your
statement sufficient to warrant it getting on the first page” (p. 3). Lee
summarized:
Editors of newspapers print what they do print because they have been
taught by long experience that certain things, which are said to have
news value, are the items which the public will be interested to read. Their
estimate of the news value of an article is entirely with reference to the
probability of its being read by a substantial number of the leaders of that
publication. Now if the trained judgment of these men [and women] does
not make them feel that a particular item will be read, what is the use of
getting it printed. (p. 4)
All of these public relations strategies have to emanate from a larger

philosophy that the work done in public relations can make a differ-
ence in the content decision-making process and positively influence
the public perception of the organization or client. If people in public
relations did not think they could make a difference in the decision-
making process, their showing up for work would be pointless.
Fortunato (2000) claimed that “public relations practitioners have
the ability to assist the production of mass media content through vari-
ous proactive public relations strategies that are designed to promote
and present the organization they represent in the most positive man-
ner” (p. 481). He added, “Public relations practitioners must operate
from an assumption that they have the power to influence mass media
content, acting as an advocate on behalf of the organization they repre-
158 CHAPTER 7
sent through the public relations strategies they implement” (p. 482).
The idea is that these strategies will help the media select stories that
favor the client or frame the content so that it will favorably influence
the opinion and behavior of the audience. Fortunato summarized:
Although many public relations initiatives involve utilizing the mass me-
dia to reach the audience, it is imperative for the public relations practi-
tioner to understand that they are very much a power broker in the
public relations, mass media, and audience relationship. It behooves
the public relations practitioner to assist in the gatekeeping processes
of selecting and framing mass media content and not simply rely on a
mass media interpretation of events. It is the responsibility of the public
relations practitioner to develop and implement strategies which do
proactively advocate the organization they represent in the most posi-
tive manner. (p. 497)
McQuail (2000) pointed out that there is “little doubt of the potency
of media influence on the ‘masses,’ when effectively managed and di-
rected” (p. 36). Skillful public relations personnel have the ability and
skill to generate and frame coverage. Regardless of the industry, there
is a public relations communication component to every decision that
could provide an explanation for the tactics that a corporation or client
has undertaken, and getting that explanation to the people through the
mass media becomes important. The questions surrounding the na-
ture of the interaction are the degree of influence exerted by the con-
tent provider and the degree of objectivity maintained by the mass
media. Cohen (1963) stated, “The pressure on the correspondent to re-
port ‘obvious’ news seems more compelling to him [or her] than the
fear of being ‘used’ by policy makers to serve their official or personal
ends” (p. 30).
Are the mass media merely the distribution vehicle, the interchange,
where the powerful organizations always get to have relatively unfet-
tered exposure of their messages? Megwa and Brenner (1988) pointed
out that “it is possible that the media may be acting as a channel for the
transmission of the priorities of actors and social institutions” (p. 46).
Shaw and Martin (1992), however, raised the question: “Why should
journalists give away nearly all news space to other news sources?” (p.
920). They argued, “If newspaper journalists aggressively enter the
news arena on behalf of the entire community they might revive audi-
ence interest in a declining industry. Journalists are professionals, not
conduits” (p. 920).
On the relationship between public relations practitioners and re-
porters, Branham indicated that although public relations can be a ma-
jor player in determining content, some in the public relations field
want coverage but hate that they cannot always dictate coverage. She
commented, “It is ultimately the journalist responsibility in the relation-
ship to learn who they can trust to provide them with good information
and is the journalist responsibility to verify that information” (personal
communication, March 28, 2003).
Sanders, former senior reporter for Time magazine, commented,
“Public relations people never wrote a Sanders story” (personal com-
munication, August 8, 2003). He indicated he was often flooded with
calls, which he largely did not return, and mail, which he merely kept in
a file for use in case he was to do a story on that topic in the future.
Howard Kurtz, media reporter for the Washington Post, wrote exten-
sively about the relationship between the Clinton administration and
the press. In his book Spin Cycle, Kurtz (1998) stated:
Clinton’s performance had helped create the sense that the country
was doing fine on his watch. But it was a carefully honed media strat-
egy—alternately seducing, misleading, and sometimes intimidating the
press—that maintained this aura of success. No day went by without the
president and his coterie laboring mightily to generate favorable head-
lines and deflect damaging ones, to project their preferred image on the
vast screen of the media establishment. (p. xvii)
The revelation of Kurtz’s (1998) book is that the public relations

communications staff is going to act in a loyal, advocate, and proactive
manner to represent their client in the most positive light. Understand-
ing the reporter and source relationship is crucial, as this is where con-
tent is being formulated at its earliest stages. Not putting out the
message of their client or not trying to attain favorable mass media cov-
erage would be a dereliction of public relations professionals’ duties.
However, if the mass media simply accepted the messages of the pub-
lic relations personnel without questioning those statements, that
would be a dereliction of their duties. Public relations professionals
will always pitch ideas, but the people within the mass media have to
sort through these messages and independently evaluate their veracity
before passing them on to the public.
SUGGESTED READINGS
Berger, B. K., & Park, D. J. (2003). Public relation(ship)s or private controls? Practi-
tioner perspectives on the uses and benefits of new technologies. New Jersey
Bernays, E. L. (1955). The engineering of consent. Norman: University of Oklahoma
Press.
160 CHAPTER 7
Burns, J. E. (1998). Information subsidies and agenda building: A study of local ra-
dio news. New Jersey Journal of Communication, 6(1), 90–100.
Burson, H. (1997). Beyond “PR”: Redefining the role of public relations. In G. R.
Carter (Ed.), Perspectives: Public relations (pp. 16–22). St. Paul, MN: Coursewise
Publishing.
Cameron, G. T., Sallot, L., & Curtin, P. A. (1997). Public relations and the production
of news: A critical review and a theoretical framework. In B. Burleson (Ed.),
Communication yearbook 20 (pp. 111–115). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fishman, M. (1997). News and nonevents: Making the visible invisible. In D.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Social meaning of news: A text-reader (pp. 210–229). Thou-
Fortunato, J. A. (2000). Public relations strategies for creating mass media content:
A case study of the National Basketball Association. Public Relations Review, 26,
481–497.
Lee, I. L. (1997). Publicity and propaganda. In G. R. Carter (Ed.), Perspectives: Pub-
lic relations (pp. 3–7). St. Paul, MN: Coursewise Publishing.
CHAPTER
8
Advertisers
Content providers can also be advertisers who use commercials as

part of an integrated communication strategy. The integrated mass
media approach is one of targeted communications that could include
public relations, advertising, and marketing strategies that feature one
consistent message from the content provider being told through a va-
riety of mass media outlets. The integrated communication approach
could include circumventing any media through the maintenance of
an Internet site or direct mail initiatives to certain audiences. Woods,
account supervisor for the Pierpont Communications public relations
firm, stressed that in the current mass media environment the strategy
is for a more integrated approach. Therefore, advertising is essentially
another communication strategy of the content provider, often work-
ing in conjunction with public relations strategies to convey messages
to their audiences.
Even in the context of news, political advertising is a major commu-
nication strategy used to influence audience thinking and behavior. For
example, in a presidential campaign a candidate will travel to different
important battleground states with the hope of obtaining extra free me-
dia time in the local newspaper or on the local television news. That
strategy is coordinated with and supported by the purchase of advertis-
ing time in that geographic area. To complete the integrated communi-
cation strategy, direct advertising mailers, phone calls, or e-mail
messages might be sent to critical groups, and an Internet site will be
developed where people can go to learn about the candidate.
At its core, any attempt to influence media content by advertisers is
similar to that of public relations. The ultimate goal of many public rela-
161
162 CHAPTER 8
tions campaigns is to influence public behavior (i.e., sales, voting). This

goal is no different from advertising and offers the greatest similarities
between the two fields. Although the communication strategies might
be different, the idea of improving the image of a corporation or an indi-
vidual client to influence audience behavior is the goal of both advertis-
ers and public relations. Perhaps the corporation will implement
public relations strategies that improve its image and make people feel
good about their purchase and the corporation or person they are sup-
porting, but the goal is still to try to persuade a purchase.
In public relations, the potential to influence the mass media is de-
batable and different for every set of circumstances. In public relations,
efforts need to be made to gain attention, as stories need to be pitched
in a manner that mass media organizations and their audience will find
desirable. The public relations objective is in essence to influence the
media to obtain coverage and have that coverage be framed in a favor-
able light to the corporation or client. The advantages of these public
relations strategies are that the content provider does not have to pur-
chase broadcast time or space and that the story might appear more
credible having passed through the mass media gatekeeping filter. The
disadvantage is that the media gatekeeper could choose not to use
content or use it in a poor location within the broadcast or publication
that has little opportunity of reaching the desired target audience. The
framing of the coverage could also include elements of a story not fa-
vorable or fail to place an emphasis on the facts desired by the corpora-
tion or client.
In advertising, the deal is somewhat cut and dry; the corporation
pays a certain dollar amount for a certain media placement location,
giving it access to the audience that participates in that mass media or-
ganization’s content. Advertisers pay large amounts of money be-
cause, unlike public relations strategies, their investment guarantees
them placement at the time and place desired in the media outlet, giv-
ing them the best opportunity to reach the desired target audience. The
financial investment for the commercial time or space gives the adver-
tiser control of the content within that time or space. The corporation
gets to emphasize the features of its brand that it wants the audience to
be most aware of. The disadvantage of advertising is that it is a costly in-
vestment and the audience has become fractured with many mass
media choices. The audience might not be available for the actual 30
seconds that the commercial broadcast on television or radio, or the
audience may have skipped the advertisement in the newspaper or
magazine and did not notice it when on an Internet site.
Advertising is an important corporate communication function be-
cause the audience gets the idea that advertised products are better
ADVERTISERS 163
(e.g., Carrick, 1959; Sutherland & Galloway, 1981). Much the way and
with the same goals that content providers and public relations person-
nel try to be agenda setters, so too do advertisers. Sutherland and
Galloway (1981) stated, “Products that are advertised heavily have a
status conferred upon them—that is, they are felt by customers to be
‘the more popular’ products. The media are assumed to carry that
which is more important, more in demand, more notorious. Just as ‘the
ordinary person’ does not appear on TV, neither does ‘the ordinary
product’ ” (p. 27). This is especially important for the first time making
a decision about which brand to select in a product category. For ex-
ample, if a person needed to rent a car, having never done so before, he
or she might immediately think of Hertz or Avis, as those brands are
easily recalled because of their repeated advertisements.
Through the mass media and advertising, people learn what these
products are and learn which are the reliable brands. There are a cou-
ple of caveats to advertising. It is important to note that advertising is
not the only message people receive in their evaluation of a brand. In-
terpersonal communication with others who have used a certain
brand can be a major factor in influencing a purchase decision (e.g.,
Hunt & Ruben, 1993). People can then experience the brands, and their
experience will validate or negate the previously received message. If
people have a bad experience with a brand, it will probably negate any
advertising that a company might engage in with that customer. Adver-
tising can possibly only “fool” the people one time. A bad experience
with a brand will cause people not to use that brand in the future, re-
gardless of any further advertising attempts. For example, advertising
cannot solve an unsatisfactory stay at a hotel, persuading the people
who had a bad experience to return to that hotel because they saw a
commercial. From all of this information the public makes a determi-
nation about which brands to support.
THE ADVERTISING FUNCTION
There are many points between a corporation with a product or service

and the final goal of actually putting that product or service in the hands
of the consumer and achieving a sale. The initial necessary condition is
exposure, getting the audience to learn about the product or service.
McAllister (1996) claimed that “advertisers know that the first neces-
sary (but not sufficient) condition for persuading a potential customer
to buy a product is to force the consumer to notice the message. If the
consumer does not see the ad or ignores the ad, then the advertiser’s
message is wasted” (p. 18). The corporation then provides the cus-
tomer with the opportunity to purchase. The location of where the
164 CHAPTER 8
product or service can be obtained is another feature that can be ex-

plained in the advertisement. For example, an advertisement for
Maytag appliances might include the line “available at Sears.” Although
the opportunity to purchase might fall equally on product distribution
and availability in terms of the ease with which customers can retrieve
the product, achieving recognition or product brand recall is an essen-
tial function of the advertising department. Overall, each advertising
message, whether it is a television commercial, print advertisement,
Internet pop-up advertisement, or billboard has three goals: (a) expo-
sure to the desired target audience, (b) increased product brand recall,
and (c) increased sales (e.g. Fortunato & Dunnam, 2004).
The strategic advertising function operates on two main criteria to
achieve these goals. The first criterion is the proper exposure of the ad-
vertisement. Proper media placement relates directly to the initial goal
of exposure of the message and getting it noticed by the desired target
audience. The second criterion is to put together a creative campaign,
which might use humor, feature a celebrity, display a logo, or provide a
slogan that could assist in product brand recall. The creative aspect of
the advertisement might also feature what the product looks like so
that customers can easily recognize it on a store shelf. The optimum
condition for the corporation in terms of achieving the ultimate goal of
a sale is for its advertisement to be good on both the placement and
creative criteria (See Fig. 8.1).
To be successful on only one criterion is to miss out on a critical ele-
ment that could lead to product brand recall and potential sales. A bad
creative advertisement placed in a bad media location might have no
chance to achieve the advertising goals, and any purchase made by a
customer is due to some other random factor. A good, creative adver-
FIG. 8.1. Objectives of an advertising strategy.

ADVERTISERS 165
tisement might have brand recall, but placed in the wrong media loca-
tion, it might not obtain exposure to the correct target audience.
Conversely, placement in a good media location might gain exposure
to the target audience, but if it is not effective creatively the brand might
not be recalled. All of these scenarios could hinder achievement of ad-
vertising goals.
Tom Breedlove is the managing director of the Ruff, Coffin, and
Breedlove advertising agency, overseeing the strategic media and re-
search components of the agency. Breedlove explained that media
placement begins with looking at audience numbers from monitoring
services and that where the target audience is serves as a starting point
for placement decisions. He stressed that he is looking for some asso-
ciation through a media environment or time link to the product that is
being advertised. One example of the placement and time link is that
movies often buy commercial time on network television on Thursday
evening, right before the peak movie viewing period of the weekend.
The environment link is more complete if it is an action movie being
advertised during an action drama program, trying to match up the au-
dience that is watching the television program with the audience that
might be interested in purchasing the product, or in this example, go-
ing to see the movie. Breedlove commented, “You need a strong pro-
file of the audience and when and how the message is going to have an
impact” (personal communication, August 27, 2003). Breedlove
pointed out that the creative elements of the advertisement need to be
in sync with the placement. He stated in advertising “you need a sharp
that nail [creative] with a big hammer [media placement] to make it
work” (personal communication, August 27, 2003).
Sally Brooks is the vice president and associate media director for
GSD&M advertising agency, whose client is MasterCard. Her responsi-
bilities include developing marketing strategies and goals, and na-
tional media buying for MasterCard. Brooks indicated that any national
media buys can be supported with buying time in a specific geographic
region (personal communication, May 11, 2004). These purchases in
the specific markets might have different creative components, as the
advertisement is tailored to the different geographic audiences.
Mandy Bogan, broadcast buying director at GSD&M advertising,
oversees all local media purchasing for clients such as Wal-Mart and
Macaroni Grill. Her responsibility is to work with clients in establishing
overall advertising buying budgets, purchasing media time, and mak-
ing sure the commercial contract was executed as promised. Bogan
works within her clients parameters about how they want their media
time purchased, including buying time during certain periods of the
day or buying time based on a guideline of a minimum ratings. Bogan
166 CHAPTER 8
stressed that the purchase decision might begin with the audience de-
sired, but she also emphasized that the association between the brand
and the media content is something she always takes into consider-
ation in purchasing media time. She offered an example that compa-
nies like to purchase time during the news because there is an
association where the audience “finds the advertisement more
credible” (personal communication, May 11, 2004).
SPONSORSHIP AND PRODUCT PLACEMENT
As the media environment changes and how people experience me-

dia changes, so too will the advertising environment. Advertising
placement has to be where their potential customers participate to be
exposed to the message. Advertisers are always reacting to the audi-
ence, and as the audiences move to different media locations, adver-
tisers must recognize this and move with them. The entire sales
process breaks down without exposure and consumer knowledge
that the brand exists. Thus, with television not producing the large au-
diences it once did, advertisers have had to implement strategies other
than a straight commercial buy.
Mass media organizations have to work with advertisers to create an
environment beneficial to both the mass media organization and the
advertiser. Meehan (1993) claimed that “media firms and their agents
must also develop increasingly sophisticated techniques of selling
advertising-desirable audiences” (p. 387). This coordination between
advertisers and media organizations is not difficult, as it is in the inter-
est of both entities to create a system and establish relationships that
would be successful for both. Advertisers need the mass media for ex-
posure of their products to the audience. Mass media organizations
need advertisers for revenue. Ball-Rokeach and DeFleur (1986)
pointed out that “the economic system could not operate effectively if
the media did not provide massive advertising links between
producers, distributors, and consumers” (p. 82).
Grant, Guthrie, and Ball-Rokeach (1991) summarized the relation-
ship among broadcasters, merchandisers, and the public, stating:
Commercial broadcasting in the United States has been built on de-

pendency relationships between broadcasters and merchandisers. In
this system television programs are produced to attract large audi-
ences, with merchandisers buying access to those audiences so they
can air advertisements designed to entice viewers into buying their
products. Broadcasters depend on the proceeds from the advertising
sales to produce their shows. Merchandisers depend on television to
reach consumers. (p. 773)
ADVERTISERS 167
With the difficulty corporations have in getting their brand products

exposed to a large number of people, one strategy being implemented
is to engage in a sponsorship agreement with a mass media property.
McAllister (1998) distinguished between sponsorship and spot ad-
vertising, or buying a single commercial within a program. He defined
sponsorship as “the funding of an entire event, group, broadcast or
place by one commercial interest in exchange for large amounts and
special types of promotion connected with the sponsored activity” (p.
358). He claimed that “from the sponsors’ point of view, advertisers
have been continually frustrated with the viewer’s ability to ‘zap’ ads,
with the fragmentation of the media audience, and with the high cost
of spot advertising in different media, and they have turned to sponsor-
ship as a corrective to these problems” (p. 359).
With corporations needing to be in various places to reach all of their
demographic groups, Farrelly, Quester, and Burton (1997) pointed out
that it is not uncommon for corporations to engage in multiple sponsor-
ship relationships over a given year. This is especially important for cor-
porations whose products have a wide audience. Corporations such as
MasterCard, McDonald’s, or Coca-Cola that transcend many demo-
graphic lines of income, race, gender, or geography need to advertise
and sponsor in a variety of locations to reach the many different target
audiences that might use their products.
Even for companies with a large general audience, the creative
components of the advertisements might be different, in addition to
the various placement strategies. For example, a McDonald’s commer-
cial on a Saturday morning might feature the Ronald McDonald charac-
ter, but a commercial in prime time might feature a family or have older
people in the commercial. Meanwhile, for corporations with a more
narrow target audience, such as Mercedes-Benz or Lexus, sponsorship
at golf or tennis, the theater, or any other mass media outlet where the
audience participating might be more affluent provides an opportunity
to reach that desired niche.
The key advantageous characteristic for a corporation in using spon-
sorship as a communication strategy to reach its audience is the ability
to negotiate with the mass media organization and leverage the agree-
ment to benefit both the media property and the sponsoring corpora-
tion (e.g., Fortunato & Dunnam, 2004). The concept of leveraging is
taking an already established relationship and expanding on it with
new ideas for exposure of the brand. If negotiation takes place
between a corporation and a mass media organization, there are un-
limited possibilities as to what the agreement might look like and spon-
sorship thus becomes difficult to define. No two sponsorship
agreements are alike, as the negotiated details define the difference.
168 CHAPTER 8
Meenaghan (1991) did, however, offer one of the more accepted defi-
nitions of sponsorship, describing it as “an investment, in cash or in
kind, in an activity, in return for access to the exploitable commercial
potential associated with that activity” (p. 36).
One of the positive benefits of a sponsorship agreement is the poten-
tial for control over the media and advertising environment. Competi-
tion for attention is fierce, and corporations need to have their brand
exposed at a time and place when their target audience is available.
Corporations must present their brand in a fashion that will almost en-
sure being noticed. Sponsorship advertising through negotiation helps
a corporation achieve exclusivity of a particular product genre.
McAllister (1998) described exclusivity as a promotional incentive for
sponsors, where unlike spot advertisers on commercials, sponsors can
now be the exclusive voice of an event. Exclusivity eliminates competi-
tion a corporation might receive from a rival for a sponsored event.
Therefore, if Coca-Cola sponsors an event or a mass media property
and it negotiates for exclusivity with that property, Pepsi will not be
allowed to place its brand name in that same location.
Through strategic sponsorship negotiation, in addition to the all-im-
portant exclusivity that eliminates product competition, the corpora-
tion might also be able to control advertising clutter. McAllister (1996)
defined advertising clutter as “the amount of time devoted to nonpro-
gram content on television, including product commercials, program
promotions and public service announcements” (p. 24). He pointed
out that “advertisers believe that the effectiveness of their messages
decreases if their competitors’ messages are too close or if too many
other promotional messages swallow up their message” (p. 15). Sim-
ply, the more corporations that are sponsors of the same property, the
more difficult it is to have consumers notice one brand from all of the
others. Differentiation of the brand is important but becomes difficult
when many other corporations are in the same location and perhaps
not possible if other brands from the same product category are con-
sistently mentioned. People might remember that it was a beer com-
pany that was being advertised but not be able to recall if it was
Budweiser, Coors, or Miller. Being in the right location gives the oppor-
tunity for exposure to a desired target audience, but controlling the ex-
posure environment and how brands can be communicated to the
audience must also be strongly considered in trying to obtain brand
recall.
In addition to the type of audience, choosing commercial media
placement and evaluating sponsorship opportunities are about choos-
ing brand associations. Many authors have indicated that brand aware-
ness and brand image through association with a media property are
ADVERTISERS 169
the major sponsorship objectives (e.g., Dean, 2002; Gwinner, 1997;

Gwinner & Eaton, 1999). Roy and Cornwell (1999) noted that enhanc-
ing corporate or brand image, breaking free from media advertising
clutter, and increasing brand awareness rank as the top three objec-
tives of a sponsorship agreement with a media property. Gwinner and
Eaton (1999) added that this image transfer would be stronger be-
tween brands and properties that had an image-based similarity. Cor-
porations would have their media placement associated with certain
types of content. For example, corporations might use placement on a
situation comedy or other more family-oriented content but not
choose placement and the association with a crime drama. Stipp and
Schiavone (1996) pointed out that sponsorship goals assume that the
target audience for the sponsorship will transfer from the sponsored
property to the sponsor itself.
Although these definitions acknowledge an investment, any desired
return should be more than brand association; the desired return
should be an increase in sales. Brand awareness and recall are obvi-
ously important but are merely a step toward sales. Brand awareness is
not an ambitious enough business objective for a sponsoring corpora-
tion that needs the consumer to purchase their products. Cornwell and
Maignan (1998) correctly described the objectives of sponsorship as in-
cluding development of goodwill, image, awareness, and increased
sales. Dean (2002) claimed that “management objectives for sponsor-
ship may be both economic (increased revenues and profits, in-
creased brand awareness, increased channel member interest in the
brand) and noneconomic (creation of goodwill with the community,
improvement of corporate image, boosting employee morale,
recruiting new employees, pure altruism)” (p. 78).
Research has indicated that achieving brand image transfer through
advertising strategies, leading to an increase in sales, is a plausible re-
sult. Harvey (2001) argued that “sponsorship changes the consumer’s
perception of a specific sponsor—which can rub off positively on
brands of that sponsor in terms of willingness to purchase those
brands” (p. 64). In examining college football fans, Madrigal (2000)
pointed out that fan identification can extend from support of a team to
support of companies that sponsor and are associated with that team.
He stated, “Loyalty toward a preferred team may have beneficial con-
sequences for corporate sponsors. Consistent with the idea of in-group
favoritism, higher levels of team identification among attendees of a
sporting event appear to be positively related to intentions to purchase
a sponsor’s products” (p. 21). Trusdell (1997) lent support for this
claim, describing one survey that found that more than 70% of NASCAR
fans purchase the products of NASCAR sponsors. In this light, sponsor-
170 CHAPTER 8
ship is not different in its business objectives from any other advertis-
ing, marketing, or public relations communication strategy.
Corporations that sponsor media content have a tremendous oppor-
tunity for exposure through the way their brand name is communi-
cated to the audience on television. One programming genre that
takes advantage of this characteristic is sports (e.g., Fortunato, 2001). In
addition to commercial time, sports programming offers the opportu-
nity for a television network to generate advertising revenue within the
framework of the program content itself. Unlike sports television, most
other programming—prime-time dramas, movies, news magazine
shows, or situation comedies—can only offer commercial time to ad-
vertisers. The sports format allows for networks to sell advertisers’ bill-
boards, still shots when coming out of commercial of a company logo,
with a voice-over announcing the company name and slogan against
the backdrop of the live event, sponsored pregame or halftime shows,
scoreboards, starting lineups, player of the game, and halftime statis-
tics all serving as extra forms of advertising revenue within the context
of the program itself. Other prime-time programming, notably, real-
ity-based programs, use this type of sponsorship and product place-
ment, as Ford Motor Company and Coca-Cola have paid millions to
have their logos appear in a prominent location on American Idol (e.g.,
Carter, 2003a).
Sponsorship of a media property, such as sports, reality program-
ming, or perhaps a major event like the Academy Awards, also nor-
mally comes with purchased commercial time within that television
broadcast. For example, to become a sponsor of major league baseball
a company has to make a commitment to buy commercial time during
games and buy commercial time during prime-time programming that
might help promote the game. Forcing sponsors to buy commercial
time helps the television network sell a substantial portion of the com-
mercial inventory for that broadcast and allows it to increase the price
of the remaining commercial spots, as the supply has been limited for a
media location that might have strong demand.
This sponsorship within the program is more closely aligned with
product placement strategies. Much like sponsorship strategies, nego-
tiation is pivotal in product placement. It can be negotiated how the
brand is seen or whether the brands get mentioned by any of the char-
acters. Moonves, chairman and CEO of CBS, described product place-
ment initiatives as the future, stating, “There’s going to be much more
product placement. We did it with Survivor, obviously. They’re doing it
with American Idol. I saw Minority Report, Steven Spielberg’s movie—
that had more product placement than any TV show I’ve ever seen”
(cited in Gay, 2003, p. 1). Moonves added, “You’re going to see cars in-
ADVERTISERS 171
corporated into shows, and instead of Ray Romano, sitting there with a
can of nondescript soda, he’ll be drinking a Diet Pepsi. That is going to
happen” (cited in Gay, 2003, p. 1).
In speaking of product placement, Hemeyer, former communication
executive at Pennzoil, added that Pennzoil had people who worked in
Hollywood who were out on studio production lots and going to events
to get to know producers and look for opportunities to get the Pennzoil
brand name and product into television programs and movies (personal
communication, August 9, 2004). One product placement strategy of
Pennzoil was to sponsor a car on the NASCAR racing circuit that was
painted a bright yellow that would be easily noticed by television cam-
eras and the crowd. The Pennzoil car also did not have many other ad-
vertisements to eliminate any advertising clutter.
People might change channels during commercials, but if they tuned
in to watch a game or any television program they virtually cannot es-
cape certain brand name exposure. Thus, advertisers simply move to
sponsorship and product placement to put their brand name in a posi-
tion where it is virtually impossible to be ignored. Breedlove pointed out
that the goal is to develop a strategy that will break through and be no-
ticed by the consumer, but that being noticed is becoming increasingly
difficult to achieve (personal communication, August 27, 2004). He con-
tended that movement of sponsorship and product placement on the
part of advertisers is thus prevalent in trying to get noticed.
Corporations invest in sponsorship and product placement just like
traditional advertising strategies because there is a perceived and ex-
pected return on the investment. With the increase of media diversifi-
cation and multiple media options available to the audience, all
indications are that in the future sponsorship will continue to be part of
the strategic communication plan of many corporations (e.g., Miyazaki
& Morgan, 2001; Parmar, 2002).
Moves toward sponsorship and product placement do not, how-
ever, mean the end of the broadcast commercial spot or print media
purchase. Although having the advantage of brand product exposure
within the program, there are potentially two major disadvantages to
these sponsorship and product placement strategies. The first disad-
vantage is that the brand may not be noticed, as people could be so en-
grossed in the plot of the program that they do not notice it was a
Coca-Cola Ray Romano was drinking. This problem could be solved by
having the character repeatedly state the name of the brand so it is no-
ticed. The film Castaway with Tom Hanks is one example where Fed-
eral Express and Wilson made their brand names such a prominent
part of the movie that it was virtually impossible for the audience not to
notice the product placement and recall the brand.
172 CHAPTER 8
The second disadvantage is that the corporation often cannot talk

about the features of the product through product placement or spon-
sorship. People could see the Lexus automobile in a movie but learn
nothing about the product. The 30-second commercial or magazine
advertisement explains the features of the Lexus brand. Sponsorship
and product placement are thus not often the only advertising strate-
gies implemented, but rather are another tactic of an integrated
communication strategy.
There is another danger to any brand association in that the media
property or person with which a relationship was fostered could be-
come involved in a scandal and come under public scrutiny. In con-
ducting research on celebrities, Till and Shimp (1998) stated that
marketers “hope their target audience’s positive feelings toward a cho-
sen celebrity will transfer to the endorsed brand or will otherwise en-
hance the brand’s standing” (p. 67). They, however, cautioned that
“activation of negative information about a celebrity can have an ad-
verse effect—through lowered brand evaluations—on the endorsed
brand with which that celebrity is associated” (p. 72). Such was the
case when National Basketball Association (NBA) superstar Kobe
Bryant from the Los Angeles Lakers was arrested for felony sexual as-
sault in 2003. In addition to his $13.5 million dollar salary from the
Lakers, Bryant had lucrative sponsorship agreements with Nike, Upper
Deck, Sprite, Spalding, Nutella, and McDonald’s, totaling more than
$10 million (e.g., Reilly & Futterman, 2003). The Ferraro U.S.A. Com-
pany that manufactures Nutella decided it would phase out any Bryant
promotions despite another 5 months remaining on his endorsement
contract. Sprite decided not to renew its association with Bryant, opt-
ing instead to sign and feature Lebron James. Nike, too, has made
James the focal point of its basketball advertising campaigns.
In speaking on the difficulty of a brand association with a celebrity,
T. J. Nelligan, founder of sports marketing company Nelligan Sports
Marketing, commented, “There is high risk and high reward with do-
ing endorsements with professional athletes. If they get in trouble, it’s
going to hurt your product. Any major company is taking a huge risk
by having any athlete or celebrity endorse their products or services”
(cited in Reilly & Futterman, 2003, p. 42). The Bryant case and many
others speak to the importance for a corporation to select wisely the
media properties and people they want to associate with their brands
before making a major financial investment. The negative public re-
action might not only be toward the person or program involved in the
scandal but also toward the corporation that continues to support that
person or program, with people deciding not to purchase that corpor-
ation’s products.
ADVERTISERS 173
ADVERTISER INFLUENCE ON CONTENT
The relationship between advertisers and media content is economic

in that advertisers provide mass media organizations with their largest
source of revenue, and they are the only source of revenue for broad-
cast. Although advertisers may use direct mail, the mass media are of-
ten the necessary source for any national or wide-ranging exposure to
the audience. The exchange is simple: The mass media organization
offers an audience and the advertisers pay for exposure of their brand
to that audience. Advertisers constantly make decisions about where
to put their monetary resources and sponsor media content perhaps
not necessarily because of the content but because of the audience
who watches, reads, or listens to that content. Wenner (1989) pointed
out that “the content per se is not what is being sold; rather it is the audi-
ence for that content that is being sold to advertisers” (p. 22). In addi-
tion to reaching an audience, advertisers implicitly express support for
certain content through the purchase of time or space, but questions
remain: Do advertisers desire to influence content? If there is a desire,
can advertisers influence content? If advertisers can, to what extent do
they influence content? Do advertisers simply desire access to the
audience that is watching, reading, listening, or clicking onto that con-
tent? The pivotal question is whether the achievement of the advertis-
ing goals—(a) exposure to the desired target audience, (b) increase
product brand recall, and (c) increase sales—necessitate a control of
the media content. Do advertisers desire or need to influence content
or mainly need access for exposure of their brand.
Some believe that because advertising pays the mass media organi-
zations, the organizations might be more willing to capitulate to the de-
mands of advertisers. Altschull (1995) found that media content is
often directly correlated with the interests of those who finance it and
that influence is exerted by advertisers’ demands for a suitable envi-
ronment for their commercial messages. Cohen (2002) claimed that as
“advertisements are placed in a newscast, magazine, or newspaper,
advertisers can negotiate a commercial environment supportive of
their interests” (p. 535). From an advertising perspective, a suitable en-
vironment could simply mean acquiring a large amount of viewers, lis-
teners, or readers to participate in the content. Shoemaker and Reese
(1996) raised another issue in that mass media organizations only pro-
duce content that is “safe” in drawing a large audience or that will not
offend a large number of viewers and therefore scare off advertisers
who would not want to be associated with the controversial content.
They stated, “Television networks react to their perceptions of what
advertisers will tolerate” (p. 197).
174 CHAPTER 8
Richards and Murphy (1996) described the potential problem: “The

inherent danger is that advertisers might use their economic influence
to set as unofficial censors of ‘the press,’ thereby barring media from
publishing or broadcasting certain material” (p. 21). In a survey of 147
daily newspapers, Soley and Craig (1992) found that more than 90% of
editors were pressured by advertisers and that more than 33% claimed
advertising had succeeded in influencing news at their papers. In these
ideas, advertisers have the power to prevent certain voices and certain
content from being heard.
Schiller (1989) wrote extensively about the emergence and contin-
ued dominance of American corporations and their influence in the so-
cietal culture. The influence goes beyond that of simple economic
support, but this economic support translates into support for ideas
and images and, more importantly, for who controls these ideas and
images. Schiller contended that there are only two main choices for
control of ideas and images—either big government or big business—
and that corporations have emerged as the proliferators of culture and
images, largely through advertising and the media. Schiller stated that
“the private corporate sector in the American economy has widened
its economic, political, and cultural role in domestic and international
activities” (p. 3). He also claimed that corporate speech, advertising, is
the “loudest in the land” (p. 4).
Schiller (1989) explained that economic activity produces symbolic
as well as material goods, and together they represent the totality of a
culture. Corporations must find a way to influence or control the cul-
ture, and this is achieved through advertising and supporting what
Schiller referred to as the culture industries such as publishing, the
press, film, television, radio, recordings, photography, and sports. To a
large extent, according to Schiller, economic support becomes tanta-
mount to support for that entity and its existence within the culture. The
corporate power as a cultural influence is in validating certain perform-
ers, or even entire industries, through economic support—advertising.
Validation occurs not solely through talent but, perhaps more impor-
tant, through marketability. Schiller stated that “if a creative project, no
matter what its inherent quality, cannot be viewed as a potential
money-maker, salable in a large enough market, its production is prob-
lematic at best” (p. 43). Without receiving economic support, individ-
ual expression and creativity are only available to those who can afford
it and have the means to put out their messages on their own. With this
expression limited to people or groups with monetary resources, other
individuals need the support of corporations to get out their messages
and then, eventually, the support of the market through its behavior to
maintain their status.
ADVERTISERS 175
The influence of corporations goes beyond that of financial support

to the individual or industry, extending to the public as a whole who see
their advertising as a degree of validation in that there will be continued
exposure of those ideas and images. Schiller (1989) operated from a
“strong assumption that social imperatives channel individual
expression” (p. 6). He explained:
Individual expression occurs each time a person dresses, goes out for
a walk, meets friends, converses, or does any of a thousand routine
exercises. Expression is an inseparable part of life. It is ludicrous to
imagine that individual expression can be completely managed and
controlled. Yet, no matter how integral to the person, it is ultimately
subject to social boundaries that are themselves changeable but
always present. These limits have been created by the power forma-
tions in society, past and present. I have tried to trace how some of
these defining conditions have been established or reinforced in re-
cent decades and what impact they have. The growth of private corpo-
rate power is seen as the prime contractor in the construction of
contemporary boundaries to expression. (p. 6)
In acting as a validation for cultural ideas and images, personalities,

and industries, Schiller (1989) explained that “the corporate history ma-
chine has at its disposal the means by which it becomes the national
narrator of record. Television, which takes its screening orders from cor-
porate marketing furnishes the history (such as it is) that is seen by mil-
lions, be it through the news, drama, sports, or historical narratives” (pp.
7–8). He also claimed that “television is now one of the most influential,
largely unacknowledged educators in the country. One reason why televi-
sion is heavily discounted as a powerful educational force is the distinc-
tion made between ‘educational’ and ‘entertainment’ programming. This
artificial separation seems to mesmerize many into believing that enter-
tainment shows are not educational” (p. 106).
For broadcast networks, the recruitment of advertisers, and there-
fore validation of their programming content, is a never-ending en-
deavor, as it remains their only revenue source. In this regard, it
appears that corporations have all of the power and that there is a one-
way dependency from the media to advertisers. However, advertisers
also depend on the media to reach their potential customers, in partic-
ular, their target market, and to gain exposure for their products and
services available. In this regard, broadcast networks regain some
power in the relationship, as they ask for a higher price for commer-
cials during their better programming.
Mass media organizations, however, do not want to hurt relations
with any advertiser they might need in the future and will often work
176 CHAPTER 8
with them in a manner suitable to both entities. The interdependent

nature of this relationship between advertisers and mass media orga-
nizations becomes evident in how they deal with one another. Once it
is realized by both the mass media and corporations that their relation-
ship depends on one another, mutual support and relationships are
fostered to make the advertising endeavors in the media successful.
There is a willingness to develop strategies so that advertisers’
products get noticed (i.e., sponsorship, product placement).
Another perspective is that advertisers simply follow the behavior of
the audience and are merely responding to their desires. Advertising,
or any marketing or public relations communication strategy, is de-
signed to influence behavior (i.e., sales, vote). The extent to which ad-
vertisers are going to attempt to influence content is only in relation to
an increase in sales for their brand. The key element is thus the audi-
ence, and what the advertiser most desires is not necessarily to influ-
ence content but simply to reach the largest possible numbers of its
desired target audience as often as possible to increase sales. As the
desire to influence content relates to sales, it would then seem that the
influence largely extends to increasing chances for exposure—offering
initiatives such as sponsorship of entire segments of a broadcast,
newspaper, or magazine, or product placement strategies in television
or film. In this philosophy, control or influence of media content is not a
necessary condition for achievement of advertisement goals.
Sutherland and Galloway (1981) claimed that “advertising does
not create needs; it merely reflects those needs that are already exis-
tent in society at the time” (p. 25). They stressed the desire for product
brand recall, stating “the major goal of advertising may be to focus
consumers’ attention on what values, products, brands, or attributes
to think about rather than to try to persuade consumers what to think
about” (p. 26). In his study of CBS, NBC, Time, and Newsweek, Gans
(1979) did not find evidence of pressure from advertisers at the na-
tional level to run or kill a story. In addition to studying the influence of
ownership, Price (2003) asked network news correspondents to de-
termine whether they felt any story influence from advertisers. Price
found that only 7% reported some advertiser pressure. Her survey re-
sults revealed that 93.1%of national news correspondents from ABC,
CBS, CNN, NBC, and PBS responded that they have never felt pressure
from advertisers to report or not report a story. No correspondents re-
sponded that they were frequently pressured by advertisers to report
or not report a story, and only one respondent reported occasional
pressure from advertisers.
For mass media organizations there would not be fear from advertis-
ers if they produce quality content that draws an audience. If the media
ADVERTISERS 177
content produces an audience that advertisers need and cannot attain

through other methods, chances are they will have to return to that me-
dia location to reach that audience. Any fear from advertising dimin-
ishes if mass media organizations produce content that attracts a large
audience the advertisers covet in that another advertiser will gladly fill
that location. There is intense competition for advertising locations,
and the mass media do not have to capitulate to advertisers if another
corporation is available with its dollars. This is particularly the case on a
local level where businesses might not have many other advertising
placement options. For example, many communities only have one
newspaper, and classified, real estate, or automobile dealerships in
the area, all of whose advertising dollars are big money makers, simply
do not have many media options other than the local newspaper.
Breedlove, managing director of Ruff, Coffin, and Breedlove adver-
tising agency, stated that smaller advertisers are relatively helpless in
trying to influence content and must simply look for the content that is
going to capture the advertiser’s target audience and then try to build a
connection between the content and the product that helps achieve
the advertising goals. This speaks to what advertisers most desire—not
controlling the editorial content of the mass media organization with
which they are advertising, but exposing their message to the audience
that the content of a particular mass media organization provides.
Breedlove claimed that trying to become part of programming is “as far
as most advertisers are willing to take an influence into content” (per-
sonal communication, August 27, 2003). Breedlove also pointed out
that he has “never seen a situation where a journalist was so biased we
wouldn’t advertise there” (personal communication, August 27, 2003).
He explained it can be shortsighted not to continue advertising with
that media outlet if that is where your audience is.
Sanders described instances when Time magazine would do a spe-
cial issue where a corporation would pay for the entire publication of
the magazine to place an advertising circular in the middle of the mag-
azine. Often this was done when the corporation was trying to intro-
duce a new product. Even in these circumstances where the
corporation was paying the entire bill for producing the special issue,
the desire was not editorial control but access to the readers of Time
magazine and its demographic. The special issues of Time that were
produced would also be about a topic of no relevance to the advertiser.
For example, a special issue on a foreign country might be funded by a
motor vehicle corporation. Sanders stated, “There was no advertiser
pressure whatsoever” and “no one ever told me to change a story, a
point or an angle based on advertisers—to be kind to an advertiser”
178 CHAPTER 8
Other employees for mass media organizations agree with Sanders’

assessment of the lack of advertiser influence. King, senior writer for
Sports Illustrated, added that when taking on an assignment he has no
idea who the advertisers are going to be in the magazine (personal
communication, July 23, 2003). Blumental, Dallas bureau chief for the
Wall Street Journal, commented that there is no advertising influence
on the newspaper and that “even the advertising people understand
the separation (between the editorial and advertising departments)”
(personal communication, September 5, 2003). Emanuel, correspon-
dent for the Fox News Channel, pointed out that he has no contact with
advertising people and is “proud that he has never been asked by any-
one at the Fox News Channel to give a little favorable light to a story so
we can get an advertising contract” (personal communication, Janu-
ary 14, 2004). He claimed that he is thankfully far removed from the
business side and that if he is doing a report for a particular program he
has no clue who is advertising on that program. He also pointed out he
has no idea who is advertising on the local level during Fox News Chan-
nel programming.
Westin, president of ABC News, explained there are instances
where advertisers sponsor entire segments on a particular broadcast.
For example, Sears is the official sponsor of the 2004 summer concert
series on Good Morning America. Westin offered his philosophy for al-
lowing this type of sponsorship as “would we have editorially done this
story anyway, and the advertiser has no editorial control over the con-
tent” (personal communication, May 28, 2004). In the Good Morning
America example, the summer concert series is something ABC was
going to do regardless of corporate sponsorship and Sears does not
pick the musical guests.
Regarding overall influence, the argument is that advertisers could
apply pressure to the mass media organizations to have coverage
framed in a manner that helps the sponsoring corporation. There are
many examples of advertisers pulling out of shows (e.g., Richards &
Murphy, 1996). It is important to note that often it is not a complete
pull-out and cancellation of the advertising contract with a mass media
organization. Often, the result of a conflict regarding content is to shift
the location of the advertisement. If there is a conflict, an arrangement
is made where there is a location or time shift and the advertiser will
merely move its commercial to another segment of the program or
possibly to the next week. Brooks, vice president and associate media
director for the GSD&M advertising agency, offered an example of the
location-shifting process by describing that when purchasing time on a
television news magazine, the content of the program can be an issue
for an advertiser as there is certain content with which advertisers do
ADVERTISERS 179
not want to be associated (personal communication, May 11, 2004).

For example, if a news program was doing a story on airline safety, any
airline that might have had a scheduled commercial will move its com-
mercial to the next week or another segment of the program. Most air-
lines also have a standard rule where if there was a plane crash, they
immediately pull all of their advertisements and run them at another
time when the crisis is receiving less attention.
Brooks pointed out that because there is some unpredictability
about what the content will be on a television news magazine, where-
as there is generally some predictability on scripted television, some
clients avoid media placement in these locations altogether. With the
purchase of time as much as 1-year in advance for national network
television, it is impossible even for the clients who bought time to know
the topical content of that television news magazine on that night. This
also makes it difficult, if not impossible, for day-to-day decision makers
to tailor a story to fit the needs of an advertiser who they probably do
not know has commercials planning to air during the segments they
are producing.
Television news magazines are screened by the advertising agen-
cies and their clients, and if there is a controversial topic that the adver-
tiser does not want to be associated with, arrangements are made
between the network and the advertiser. If there is a possibility that ad-
vertisers would not want to be associated with certain content, the net-
works might even call ahead to alert the advertiser. The fact that the
financial commitment does not change, only the placement of the ad-
vertisement, is an important point when evaluating the influence that
advertisers have or even desire to have on the content decision-mak-
ing process. There was a reason the advertiser bought time on the pro-
gram in the first place: primarily its the audience in both numbers and
demographics, and secondarily the association of the brand with that
media content.
Time shifting is also common in the print industry, echoing the idea
that what advertisers frequently desire to control is the placement of
their advertisement within the magazine, not the editorial content.
Sanders provided an example that if there was a story in Time about to-
bacco litigation, a cigarette company who bought an advertisement in
that issue would probably not want it placed near that story and would
have it shifted to another part of the magazine (personal communica-
tion, August 8, 2003). Similar to television, with the advertisements sold
well in advance of knowing what the content of the magazine would
be in terms of the exact stories, this shifting of the advertisement within
the magazine or even the shifting of a story is a minor violation, and the
editorial content of the magazine is not affected at all.
180 CHAPTER 8
The advertisers at Sports Illustrated pay more for a full-page color

advertisement than any other magazine. Bevans, executive editor of
Sports Illustrated, contended that advertisers do not dictate the edito-
rial content of Sports Illustrated, stating, “Nobody tells us how to write a
story” (personal communication, August 13, 2003). He stressed that
the editorial personnel of the magazine are aware of any possible per-
ceptions of advertiser influence and work even harder to avoid even
the slightest hint of improper behavior and maintain the credibility of
the magazine.
Bevans also contended that advertisers’ influence is more an issue
of placement, as some corporations might not want to be associated
with certain articles that deal with criminal or controversial issues. Cor-
porations that do not want to be associated with a certain story have
their advertisements shifted within the magazine. One characteristic
of time shifting that advertisers desire and that magazines try to ac-
commodate is page separation between brands of the same product
type. For example, there will at least be a six- or eight-page separation
between automobile advertisements.
Some corporations desire to be part of certain popular sections of
Sports Illustrated, such as opposite Reilly’s article, or adjacent to the
“Catching up With” feature at the beginning of the magazine. Sports Il-
lustrated also features special sections that do not go to all subscribers.
One example is the “Golf Plus” section, which Bevans described as an
advertising-driven part of the magazine that provides an opportunity for
the niche golf advertiser to reach a specific targeted audience. This
provides a great source of revenue for the magazine even though the
advertisers for this special section pay a lower rate because it does not
go to all subscribers. The advertisers reach their core niche audience,
and it becomes a great combination of matching up a niche audience
with a niche advertiser.
Kelley Gott is a sales managing director for Time magazine for the
southwest region of the United States. She is the liaison between Time
and the clients and their representative advertising agencies in that
geographic region, including Dell Computers, Shell Oil, and Southwest
Airlines. Her responsibility is to sell the advertising space in the maga-
zine by calling on existing clients and prospecting new clients. In pros-
pecting new clients Gott explained that she has to convince them of the
benefits of using the print medium, as well as describe the benefits of
advertising with Time, which includes 22 million readers and a 44%
market share of all news magazines sold (personal communication,
May 20, 2004).
Time is very accommodating to its advertisers by creating specific
programs to meet their many needs. There are more than 400 ways to
ADVERTISERS 181
buy advertising space in Time: “Time specializes in customizing pro-

grams for the unique needs of each advertiser.” And, “nearly every is-
sue includes targeted editorial to a specific demographic of Time’s
audience” (Time Magazine Online). By having a large subscriber base,
Time can segment its audience through many demographic variables.
In addition to the national edition of Time, the magazine has different
editions based on subscriber interest and geographic region. The spe-
cial editions based on interest are: Time Business/Inside Business,
Time Global Business, Time Women/Connections, Time Gold/Genera-
tions, and Time Luxury/Style & Design. Certain consumers can receive
a version of the magazine that has extra or different editorial content
and advertisers. Gott stated, “It is possible that a person can receive a
different Time magazine from their neighbor” (personal communica-
tion, May 20, 2004).
Advertising rates are determined by the size of the audience. The ad-
vertising system that Time sets up allows for efficiency of advertising
dollars, which helps strengthen the relationship between Time and its
advertisers. Through this system advertisers are not paying to get expo-
sure to audiences outside of their target (see Tables 8.1 and 8.2).
USA Today has the largest circulation of any newspaper in the United
States, with a weekly national circulation of more than 2.2 million and a
daily readership of 5.4 million readers. Pricing for the newspaper’s ad-
vertisers is based on whether it is a weekday or weekend edition that is
available every Friday (the weekend edition of USA Today sells approx-
imately 500,000 more copies), the size of the advertisement, whether
the advertisement is in black and white or color, and whether place-
ment is guaranteed (see Table 8.3).
Gott explained that it is her job to keep the advertisements of her cli-
ents where they are editorially comfortable with the content. She
stated, “All advertisers want to be in the front of the magazine on the
right hand of the page” (personal communication, May 20, 2004). This
location strategy makes sense for the advertiser, as the stories that ap-
TABLE 8.1
Advertising Rate in Time Magazine: Interest Editions
Black and White Color
Full Page Full Page
Time National Edition $167,250 $223,000
Time Business/Inside Business $103,500 $138,000
Time Global Business $73,500 $105,000
Time Gold/Generations $54,000 $72,000
Time Luxury/Style & Design $47,250 $72,000
TABLE 8.2
Advertising Rate in Time Magazine: Geographic Editions
City Black and White Full Page Color Full Page
Boston $16,958 $22,611
Chicago $16,958 $22,611
Detroit $16,958 $22,611
Los Angeles $20,862 $27,816
Miami $16,958 $22,611
New York $27,692 $36,923
Philadelphia $16,958 $22,611
San Francisco $16,958 $22,611
Washington DC $16,958 $22,611
Source: www.timemediakit.com
TABLE 8.3
USA Today Advertising Rates
Monday– Monday–
Ad Size Thursday Thursday Friday Friday
Black and Black and
White Color White Color
Flexible Placement: Day/Section
Spread $166,020 $262,750 $200,790 $317,830
Half spread $107,740 $171,000 $130,420 $206,860
Full page $82,900 $125,100 $100,290 $152,600
1/2 page $53,870 $85,500 $65,210 $103,430
1/4 page $33,230 $51,480 $40,140 $62,280
1/8 page $19,190 $29,710 $23,170 $35,970
1/16 page $11,110 $17,240 $13,490 $20,800
Guaranteed Placement: Day/Section
Spread 189,730 $300,280 $229,730 $363,630
Half spread $123,120 $195,440 $149,220 $236,680
Full page $94,740 $143,900 $114,740 $175,50
1/2 page $61,560 $97,720 $74,610 $118,340
1/4 page $37,970 $58,840 $45,920 $71,260
1/8 page $21,900 $33,960 $26,500 $41,160
1/16 page $12,700 $19,700 $15,430 $23,800
Source: www.usatoday.com
182
ADVERTISERS 183
pear earlier in Time magazine have a connotation of being more im-

portant. Gott described that advertisements are sold as packages, and
placements generally operate on a split where six of the advertise-
ments are placed in the front of the magazine and three are placed to-
ward the back. She explained that because of the close editing time no
advertisement placement is guaranteed for any issue aside from the ta-
ble of contents and cover advertisements. Only a general location in
the front or back of Time can be promised.
People who are responsible for laying out the magazine have specifi-
cations of where advertisers desire to be. Gott explained that the peo-
ple responsible for laying out the magazine understand the location
parameters that advertisers desire. She contended that they are sensi-
tive to location shifting to another part of the magazine or another issue
altogether, and they attempt to satisfy advertiser desires for page sepa-
ration for brands of the same product type. To complete the magazine
and make up for any missing space due to location shifting, Time sells
what are referred to as remnant advertisements. The structure of a
remnant advertising agreement is that Time agrees to run the adver-
tisement of a company at a reduced rate, but Time runs the advertise-
ment at its discretion within a 3- or 4-week window with no location
guarantee provided to the advertiser.
Gott explained that even though advertisers provide Time with reve-
nue, being sensitive to advertisers “does not affect the editorial process
in the slightest” (personal communication, May 20, 2004). With Time
selling its advertising space more than 6 months in advance of when
the actual issue will appear on the newsstand, Gott claimed, “Advertis-
ers have no idea what is going to be in the magazine and the buy is
based on Time’s demographic, the Time brand, and Time’s relation-
ship with its readers” (personal communication, May 20, 2004).
Westin, president of ABC News, said that advertising is much less in-
volved than many people perceive it to be. He explained that at ABC,
the selling of advertising time is a networkwide function and no sales-
people report to him and no salespeople meet with any of the execu-
tive producers out of concern that any type of ongoing dialogue
between these two entities could lapse into stories that advertisers do
and do not like. Westin explained that there are situations where, after
a story is completed, ABC might call an advertiser and offer them the
option of shifting to another placement location. He commented that
“you do not want to embarrass the advertiser” (personal communica-
tion, May 28, 2004).
There is a big leap from not wanting to offend or embarrass a business
partner, an advertiser, to turning over decision-making control of your
product, the content, to them. Much as influencing editorial content is
184 CHAPTER 8
not a necessary condition for achievement of advertising goals, accom-

modating measures by a mass media organization toward an advertiser
do not lead to their influencing editorial content. Both Brooks and Bogan
from GSD&M advertising pointed out that mass media organizations do
not want their editorial practices compromised but do not want to lose
advertising dollars so it is in their best interest to alert the advertisers, and
it is in the advertisers’ best interest not to be associated with that content
so arrangements in time shifting are not difficult, as it is in both groups’
interest. Brooks stated, “The last thing networks want to do is offend the
advertisers” (personal communication, May 11, 2004).
Webber, senior vice president and publisher of usatoday.com, com-
mented on any potential conflict with advertisers, stating “you have to
maintain editorial integrity with the audience. The audience is smart
and they can tell if you are writing for the advertiser. It is critical to pres-
ent the news in a totally unbiased way” (personal communication,
May 25, 2004). Webber added that losing integrity merely erodes the
audience and credibility as a trusted news and information Internet
site is lost. Webber contended that advertisers do not try to influence
content because if the audience does not view the publication as credi-
ble the audience is going to go to another location, particularly in an en-
vironment with many options. The advertisers then do not get the
exposure to the large audience that they desired. Webber stated that
even if advertisers ask for special treatment, his philosophy is the
same: “We report good or bad on companies.” He added, “You have to
be respectful of the First Amendment privilege and the news organiza-
tions special place and obligation to the government and the
audience” (personal communication, May 25, 2004).
Time shifting is one example where mass media organizations work
with advertisers. More often than not, the mass media organization and
the advertiser work together to rectify any conflict. The relationship be-
tween these two groups is often not adversarial, as both entities under-
stand the others’ needs. It is a give and take by both groups, where at
times both ask for favors and both are accommodating.
In purchasing television time, especially when buying in the upfront
period, which could be several months in advance, networks provide
audience guarantees where if a program does not obtain the expected
audience rating, the network will provide the advertiser with “make-
goods,” or extra commercial time to make up for its underdelivery of
an audience. Audience guarantees are part of the negotiation process.
Although television ratings might be difficult to predict, magazine and
newspaper circulation can be easier to discern. To increase subscrip-
tions, magazines offer incentives to subscribe such as a price lower
than the newsstand cover price or a free gift. The increase in subscrib-
ADVERTISERS 185
ers is needed so that the magazine can say a larger, guaranteed num-
ber of readers receive the magazine. This guaranteed audience can
then be offered to advertisers and increase the advertising rate, which
easily offsets any subscription incentives of a lower price.
When offering advertising time, mass media organizations often
provide something extra, referred to as added value. Buying commer-
cial time might come with the added value of sponsoring that night’s
closed caption or weather segment of the broadcast. Added value is an
incentive to advertisers and has become a standard part of doing busi-
ness, as media vendors know to make added value part of the advertis-
ing negotiation process. Bogan offered an example that added value
for advertising in print might be a banner headline on the newspaper’s
accompanying Internet site (personal communication, May 11, 2004).
Although time shifting, audience guarantees, and added value are
things mass media organizations do to accommodate advertisers,
there are instances when advertisers accommodate mass media orga-
nizations. For example, television networks often package different
programs in selling advertising time. In knowing that it would be hard
to sell commercial time during low-rated programming and that adver-
tisers want to be on the network’s most popular and highest rated pro-
gram, the network will package a commercial spot during the highest
rated program with commercial spots on programs not as popular.
This common practice is an accepted part of the industry, and advertis-
ers simply try to match the popular program with a similar type of pro-
gramming. For example, the advertiser might desire to be on a highly
rated situation comedy, and the network might package that purchase
with time on another situation comedy rather than forcing the
advertiser to buy time on a drama or a reality show.
THE ADVERTISING SUMMARY
The role of advertising in the mass media industry is clear from an eco-
nomic standpoint, as advertisers provide the revenue that allows the
mass media organizations to earn a profit. For many scholars, this ar-
rangement allows for a clear connection between advertisers and in-
fluence over content decisions. Evaluating advertisers’ influence on
the content decision-making process, however, is more complicated.
If advertisers are most interested in selling a product, what they most
desire is exposure of their brand to the audience, not control of the con-
tent. The relationship between mass media organizations and adver-
tisers is not contentious, and often these groups work closely together
to help each other achieve the goals of their respective industries. This
close relationship does not, however, necessitate interference into the
186 CHAPTER 8
editorial aspects of content decision making, as that level of influence

is not a prerequisite to advertisers’ achieving their goals of: (a) expo-
sure to the desired target audience, (b) increased product brand recall,
and (c) increased sales. The tactic of time shifting, rather than com-
pletely pulling out of a program, is evidence that advertisers are not
necessarily trying to intrude on the editorial process but are merely try-
ing to use that media vehicle to reach the audience and obtain a posi-
tive association for their brand. Influence occurs more in time shifting
because this arrangement does not conflict with the advertisers’ need
of exposure and does not conflict with the editorial decision making
and the mass media organizations’ need for revenue.
The desire for exposure to a target audience points to the audience
as the pivotal constituency group in the content decision-making pro-
cess. Advertisers will follow the behavior of the audience in developing
their communication strategies in terms of placing ads where the audi-
ence is participating and developing a creative strategy that enhances
brand recall.
SUGGESTED READINGS
Fortunato, J. A., & Dunnam, A. E. (2004). The negotiation philosophy for corporate
sponsorship of sports properties. In B. G. Pitts (Ed.), Sharing best practices in
sports marketing: The Sports Marketing Association’s inaugural book of papers
(pp. 73–86). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Gwinner, K. P., & Eaton, J. (1999). Building brand image through event sponsorship:
The role of image transfer. Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 47–58.
Meenaghan, T. (1991). The role of sponsorship in the marketing communications
mix. International Journal of Advertising, 10(1), 35–47.
Richards, J. I., & Murphy, J. H. (1996). Economic censorship and free speech: The
circle of communication between advertisers, media, and consumers. Journal
of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 18(1), 21–34.
Schiller, H. I. (1989). Culture, Inc.: The corporate takeover of public expression.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Sutherland, M., & Galloway, J. (1981). Role of advertising: Persuasion or agenda-
setting? Journal of Advertising Research 21(5), 25–29.
CHAPTER
9
Audience
In each chapter of this book, the behavior of the audience has been re-
ferred to in some capacity. The theoretical foundations of uses and
gratifications and media dependency speak to the desires of the audi-
ence and their needing certain mass media systems to satisfy multiple
needs. It is this consistent satisfaction of needs by media sources that
leads to the conclusion that although participation in the mass media is
voluntary, there will always be volunteers. It has also become clear that
mass media organizations align their content decision making with the
expectations, desires, and ultimately the behavior of an active audi-
ence seeking certain media outlets.
Agenda setting and framing deal with content providers and media
relationships using the many communication vehicles to reach an au-
dience and in many instances, persuade an audience. Transfer of sa-
lience is at the core of agenda-setting research, but messages need to
be in certain locations and presented or framed in a certain manner to
resonate with an audience. The audience has the ability to reject any
agenda-setting efforts being made toward them.
At every point of the decision-making process the audience is a fac-
tor and is potentially influenced by the relationships and decisions of
others, but likewise, the behavior of the audience influences future
content decision making. For example, if a film does well at the box of-
fice or in video rentals, there is a good chance that movie will have a se-
quel. If a musical artist has a compact disc sell, there will surely be
more recordings from that person or band. The behavior of the audi-
ence, both in terms of simple medium use and specific content, is
187
188 CHAPTER 9
monitored by mass media organizations and other critical constitu-

ency groups such as content providers and advertisers.
The initial audience behavior evaluated is mere use in terms of the
different mediums in which they are participating. The quantity of
mass media use is easy to ascertain as television and radio ratings,
newspaper and magazine subscriptions, movie attendance and rent-
als, Internet sign-ups, and Internet site visits indicate behavior patterns.
Once the type of medium use is learned the challenge for people in
mass media industries is to get the audience to engage in the specific
content they are offering. Medium use and the specific types of content
people are participating in are common knowledge for mass media or-
ganizations, content providers, and advertisers.
For a television network, the audience feedback measure is ratings.
Webster and Lichty (1991) defined ratings as “estimated percentages
of the population that see a program or listen to a station” (p. 3). The
rating estimation is based on the number of television households in
comparison with any other activity in which people might be involved.
Ratings data provide the network with the number of people who
watch the program and their demographic characteristics, such as
geographic location, income, race, and gender. With so many mass
media options, television ratings have been on the decline compared
with previous generations. For example, the number one prime-time
entertainment show for the 2003–2004 season, CSI, had an average rat-
ing of 15.9, whereas the top program in 1983–1984, Dallas, had an aver-
age rating of 25.7, and the top show in 1963–1964, The Beverly
Hillbillies, had an average rating of 39.1.
Atkin and Litman (1986) pointed out that “the broadcast industry is
unique in that there is a ‘short circuiting’ of the program market: con-
sumers express their preference through ratings rather than explicit pa-
tronage of market products” (p. 33). They noted that the “ratings game is
worthy of academic study because, for better or worse, it subsumes im-
portant elements of the public interest in broadcasting” (p. 34). Ratings
data are vital because these numbers have such a tremendous impact
on the economics of a television network. Webster and Lichty (1991) de-
scribed ratings as “a fact of life for virtually everyone connected with the
electronic media. They are the tools used by advertisers and broadcast-
ers to buy and sell audiences” (p. 3). Whether correctly or not, network
personnel and advertisers treat ratings as the ultimate audience feed-
back measure. These ratings numbers are so accepted in the practical
industry that they are often the basis for content decision making on the
part of a television network and advertisers.
As much as learning how content is produced, understanding the
mass communication process entails knowledge of how, when, and
AUDIENCE 189
where the audience experiences content. The emerging communica-

tion technologies have had a huge impact on audience behavior and
have created the capability to access multiple forms of media and in-
formation at various times in various locations. The technological
change has been in the practical usage and expectations of the audi-
ence. People now expect and demand news instantly. They no longer
have to wait until the evening news or the next day’s newspaper. Some
people prefer to go to the Internet and retrieve the information desired
at a time convenient to them. Others still prefer to receive their infor-
mation through traditional media in the packaged, linear fashion that it
is presented.
Baron (2003) emphasized that news can now be direct, personal-
ized, and essentially at a person’s hip through text pagers. He did point
out that people still demand credible information and in a communica-
tion environment that is dictated by speed, maintaining accuracy and
credibility remains important. The audience expectation of both speed
and accuracy puts pressure on the mass media organization and con-
tent providers in developing and distributing messages. Baron stated,
“In an age of extremely high-speed expectations, those providing infor-
mation need to understand that there is considerable tolerance for er-
ror, providing the errors are acknowledged and explained, and it is
clear that there is a strong desire and intention to provide the best and
most accurate information then available” (pp. 57–58).
Westin (2004), president of ABC News, wrote an editorial about the
changing technological media environment and its impact on the
news industry, stating:
The days are largely gone when the three broadcast networks could de-
cide what the American people watch—and then get them to watch it.
With the advent and expansion of cable and, more recently, the Internet—
including streaming video that looks a lot like television—there are just
too many alternatives available to the audience at all times. Now you’ll
attract an audience only if what you have to offer is seen to be better than
hundreds of alternatives. We’ve moved from a media oligarchy to a
media democracy. We’ve gone from a few programmers in New York and
Los Angeles deciding what people will watch to the people themselves
voting with their remote controls every night. This changes fundamentally
the decision a news division makes about what it covers. (p. 15)
THE AUDIENCE FUNCTION IN RELATION

TO CONTENT PROVIDERS AND ADVERTISERS
As audience media behavior shifts, content providers and advertisers

must recognize this movement and strategize to receive exposure for
190 CHAPTER 9
their brand and their message in those locations. Content providers

and advertisers simply need to be where the audience is. Through their
monitoring of media use, both have a strong idea where their content
might receive maximum exposure to the audience. Advertisers, mar-
keters, public relations practitioners, and all content providers know
there is going to be mass media use in many diverse forms, and there-
fore they implement multiple, integrated strategies to get their mes-
sage exposed to an audience. It is more than just location, as the
interpretive behavior of the audience causes content providers and ad-
vertisers to evaluate their message and readjust their messages if nec-
essary to one that resonates with the audience.
The mass media organization closely monitors the behavior of the au-
dience, as they are essentially the revenue source. Although advertisers
actually pay the bill, they are only going to be in media locations that at-
tract an audience. As is being argued here, more than trying to control
editorial content, if advertisers are only seeking exposure of their brand
products to a desired demographic to establish brand recall and even-
tual sales, the relationship between audiences and their participation in
content becomes the most crucial. The audience, therefore, becomes
the most influential constituency group in the process.
Schiller’s (1989) argument claimed that advertising serves as the ul-
timate validation that allows for messages to exist in society. Validation,
in the form of advertising, might guarantee a continuing presence (ex-
posure) of that industry. However, validation does not guarantee, or
equate to, public acceptance of the endorsed industry. An audience
member can express his or her opinion through media participation in
certain content. Audience behavior through watching a television pro-
gram, listening to a radio broadcast, purchasing a print periodical, or
signing up for an Internet service acts as the ultimate validation and ac-
ceptance. Schiller made valid points that advertisers act as the validat-
ing agent in supporting content and that advertisers try to associate
with certain content. A question can be raised if validation and support
of content by an advertiser will continue if that content cannot draw an
audience. It seems that any validation on the part of advertisers will
quickly dissipate without an audience, and what the advertisers ulti-
mately want is the audience in terms of demographics and size they
were promised when they agreed to buy the time or space.
Richards and Murphy (1996) stated, “Most contemporary media
have chosen to finance their businesses by selling ad space or time.
And that space or time is worthless without readers, listeners, or view-
ers, which means these businesses serve two groups of customers: ad-
vertisers and consumers” (p. 29). For many scholars, however, those
two constituencies are not equal and the advertisers are always the
AUDIENCE 191
group being catered to (e.g., Baker, 1992; Croteau & Hoynes, 2001;
McChesney, 1997; McManus, 1994). Baker (1992) argued, “Of course,
the medium’s attempt to obtain advertising revenue leads it to tilt me-
dia content toward what advertisers, not readers or viewers, want” (p.
2180). Croteau and Hoynes (2001) claimed, “The consumers that me-
dia companies are responding to are the advertisers, not the people
who read, watch, or listen to the media” (p. 27). This thinking seems
flawed in that how does a mass media organization operate in the in-
terests of the advertiser to the detriment of the audience if choosing
content that advertisers desire would not draw an audience? It seems
that advertisers would want content produced that is in the interest of
the audience and attracts a large audience. Richards and Murphy
stated that “a medium is only beneficial to advertisers if consumers use
it, and consumers will not use a medium if they are unhappy with its
content. Consequently, a smart advertiser will never make demands of
a medium that will reduce audience satisfaction” (p. 30).
Buying the products of advertisers who support, or validate, that
content can also be construed as approval of that content. Richards
and Murphy (1996) pointed out audiences engage in advertiser boy-
cotts. They cautioned: “Advertisers, like politicians, want to alienate no
one. Where they suspect consumers will be offended by media con-
tent, advertisers will avoid placing their ads in that context, even if no
one threatens a boycott” (p. 28). They also contended that “an effective
boycott of the medium or program would reduce ratings and therefore
make the medium less attractive to advertisers” (p. 29). Although peo-
ple can choose simply to change the channel or not buy a publication,
Fahey (1991) claimed, “Boycotters are not trying to change the media
they use, but rather restrict what other people see and hear in the me-
dia” (p. 654). This form of protest is on an individual level and it requires
similar behavior from large aggregates of the essential targeted demo-
graphic to have a major impact.
Although some advertisers clearly would not want to be associated
with certain content, it seems highly doubtful that there would be
some form of media content, no matter how controversial, that would
receive a large audience that some sponsors would not support with
their advertising dollars. Conversely, media content, no matter how
much it should be in the public interest, that does not receive large
amounts of audience participation will probably not attract many ad-
vertisers. If there are problems with certain content, this is when time-
shifting arrangements for advertisers are made.
The movements to include strategies of sponsorship and product
placement are simply movements to locations where the audience is
and where the brands exposed hope to be noticed and recalled. The
192 CHAPTER 9
challenges of the mass media environment and advertising clutter are to

get the message into the location where the audience is, and for some of
these locations, competition between content providers can become
very intense. Bernays (1955) commented, “Competition for attention of
the public has been continually broadened and intensified because the
public decides whether an enterprise is to succeed or fail” (p. 5).
At this point the content is being governed by the laws of supply and
demand and the similarity between the mass media and other indus-
tries is the strongest. Gordon and Kittross (1999) contended that the
business influences of the mass media are irrelevant, as the market
will determine what customers want. The caveat is that for any type of
content, majority participation on the part of the audience is not neces-
sary and often a majority is not achieved. Therefore, content that ob-
tains largely recognized cultural status is not supported by the majority
of the population. There simply needs to be enough participation on
the part of the audience to sustain the place of that content within the
market. There is not one single media entity, television program or
Internet site, in which half the country participates, although the Super
Bowl comes the closest in gathering the largest share of the television
audience each year.
In not obtaining a majority, each mass media organization and the
content it produces (i.e., each television program or magazine) have
“their” audience, as all of this media content comes with its own set of
audience demographic variables. An audience can be segmented
based on common behavior, interest, and occupation, and common
demographic characteristics of age, gender, or income. The objective
is to get these specific audiences to continue to behave in a certain
manner (e.g., Hunt & Ruben, 1993). The concept of a common pattern
of consumption indicates that an audience is not the entirety of the
public, and getting all of the public to react a certain way is not neces-
sarily the communication objective, although trying to attract as large
of an audience as possible is a goal. Hunt and Ruben (1993) broke
down the audience into those who have access (individuals to whom
the information products and services were available) and those who
are exposed (individuals who actually saw, heard, or read particular
information about products and services). They stated, “Specific mea-
sures of exposure are critical from a marketing and advertising per-
spective for the purpose of targeting advertising and public messages
for particular audiences” (p. 62).
In terms of audience behavior dictating future content, Shaw and
Martin (1992) commented that audiences respond to the content they
are provided and “perhaps even influence it as the news media try to
match audience interests” (p. 906). Dennis (1994) argued, “News orga-
AUDIENCE 193
nizations that are a part of big business are governed by market forces,
and market research is said to determine what America (and the rest of
the world) reads, hears, and watches” (p. 32). In studying a large daily
newspaper, Sumpter (2000) found that editors often selected stories
based on trying to “forecast the reactions of various audiences to sto-
ries, the audience appeal to a collection of stories, and a story’s ability
to compete with other non-print sources” (p. 343).
Branham commented that even the media routine is very much dic-
tated by the expectations of the readers (personal communication,
March 28, 2003). She cited that when working as the senior vice presi-
dent and executive editor of the Tallahassee Democrat, hometown
newspaper of Florida State University, she could expect calls from
readers if scores and stories about Florida State University football
were not in the next day’s newspaper. She also pointed out that news-
papers look to market research to learn what readers want, and they
allocate resources on those types of stories. Branham indicated that
this type of research could serve as an indication to audiences that are
perhaps being neglected, and if more stories were geared toward that
audience it could lead to an increase in readership and a group of ad-
vertisers trying to reach that demographic. For example, there could be
an emphasis to do more stories about a certain demographic to try to
attract that group as readers.
The aspect of the argument that the audience is the driving force be-
hind content decision making that becomes somewhat faulty is that
the choice that any audience member can make in his or her media us-
age is only made from the content options provided. Success is deter-
mined by the audience, but trying to predict what the audience will like
and continue to participate in is difficult (e.g., Buchman, 2000). This
could lead to a system where mass media organizations produce con-
tent that is safe, has worked in the past, and will not offend a large por-
tion of the audience. This certainly speaks to the concerns of diversity
and large corporate conglomeration ownership.
McQuail (2000) commented that “media organizations tend to re-
produce selectively according to criteria that suit their own goals and
interests. These may sometimes be professional and craft criteria, but
more weight is usually given to what sells most or gets higher ratings”
(p. 295). Although some would find McQuail’s statement problematic
in terms of weight being given to what sells and implying that mass me-
dia organizations should be held to a different standard from other in-
dustries, the fact that mass media organizations are after all a business
and should have the right to earn a profit and continue to provide prod-
ucts that inform and entertain people should not be construed as a
negative. Concerns about a lack of diversity and producing only safe
194 CHAPTER 9
content might be exaggerated. With the number of cable television

channels available, the Internet, and the more traditional media forms
of print and broadcast, it is hard to find a large aggregate of people with-
out some content aimed at them and an advertiser looking to expose
its brand to that niche group.
It was not easy to predict the success of 24-hour all-news channel,
24-hour all-sports television, political talk radio, a newspaper focused
only on business, magazines that present more of a conservative or lib-
eral perspective, or any of the various Internet sites before some entre-
preneur took a chance and financed the industry. Now all of these are
vital parts the culture’s mass media experience and components es-
sential to the public discourse of the nation. With predictability of audi-
ence use being difficult to determine, other than what has worked in
the past, content tends to repeat itself with similar stories, movies, tele-
vision shows, and actors and actresses. Sandy Grushow, chairmen of
Fox Entertainment Group, simply stated, “The audience is never
wrong” (cited in Carter, 2003a, p. A20).
SUGGESTED READINGS
Buchman, J. G. (2000). Television newscast promotion and marketing. In S. T.

Eastman (Ed.), Research in media promotion (pp. 265–296). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hunt, T., & Ruben, B. D. (1993). Mass communication: Producers and consumers.
New York: HarperCollins.
Webster, J. G., & Lin, S. F. (2002). The Internet audience: Web use as mass behav-
ior. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46(1), 1–12.
Webster, J. G., Phalen, P. F., & Lichty, L. W. (2000). Ratings analysis: The theory and
practice of audience research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Conclusion
The multiple complex practices and detailed standard operating pro-

cedures of any industry are difficult to chronicle, yet easy to criticize.
Such is the case with the mass media industry. Not only are the prac-
tices within the mass media organization complex, but so many con-
stituency groups that have agendas, desires, and a stake in what
messages are exposed and how those messages are presented to the
audience complicate the process. The importance of learning about
this process is that the audience constantly uses the mass media to sat-
isfy a variety of needs. There is also the potential impact that these mes-
sages can have on the audience.
This book began with a few premises—the first being that although
the responsibility of the mass media is to produce content, the mass
media organization is simply not the sole entity involved in the content
decision-making process. Media employees do not make decisions
unilaterally, as several different people and constituency groups con-
stantly and simultaneously try to influence the mass media organiza-
tions and their decisions regarding the content they select to make
available to the audience. In addition to mere exposure and getting sto-
ries selected, these constituency groups are equally focused on how
that content is framed, the facts and perspectives that will be high-
lighted in the story.
The interactions between the mass media organization and the vari-
ous constituency groups are complex relationships that always have
the potential to influence the content decision-making process. The
constituency groups of content providers, advertisers, and the audi-
ence all use the mass media organization as the vehicle to expose their
195
196 CONCLUSION
message or brand name to the audience. These constituency groups,

in essence, depend on the mass media organization to be the exposure
vehicle necessary to get noticed by the audience. These groups try to
influence the content decision-making process because they know
the audience depends and uses the mass media to satisfy many needs
such as information, entertainment, and social desires.
Another major premise of this book is that the business of the media
is to produce content that will attract an audience. The audience of this
content is then offered to advertisers, giving the mass media organiza-
tion its opportunity for economic profit. The business objective of the
decision-making process of a mass media organization is to produce
content that will attract audience participation, which in turn will at-
tract advertiser support and eventual profit to the mass media organi-
zation. A relationship of interdependency emerges between the mass
media organization and content providers through the recognition that
the mass media organizations also depend on many of these content
providers to obtain the quality content needed to attract an audience
and subsequent advertisers.
Complicating the mass media organization decision-making pro-
cess is that selection and framing of content are a necessary condition
of the process because of time and space restrictions. The agenda-set-
ting theoretical model indicates that not all of the stories can be se-
lected and that even the stories that are covered cannot be done so
with the same standard. This selection and framing can signify the im-
portance of the topic. Although behavioral effects based on mass me-
dia messages can be debated, the ability to select and frame messages
is a power that the mass media organization always possesses.
It is these necessary conditions of decisions of selection and framing
that begin to set up a logical conclusion: The mass media system is not,
and can never be perfect. All of the stories cannot be covered, and
once there is selection and framing inevitably there will be complaints:
Why was this story covered? Why wasn’t that story covered? Why was
the story covered from this angle? Why wasn’t more time spent on this
story? It becomes virtually impossible to please everyone from both the
distribution and retrieval perspectives.
How “should” the mass media operate and how “do” the mass me-
dia operate thus become two entirely different questions. How should
they operate invites as many opinions and answers as there are people.
When questions of how the mass media should operate are posed, is-
sues of ideology and bias are raised. Because selection and framing
are necessary conditions, inevitably there are many stories not cov-
ered and therefore there is ample opportunity for people to complain
about what is and is not covered. This critique, however, is rarely, if
CONCLUSION 197
ever, objective and is often, if not always, examined through the ideo-
logical prism of the receiver. Republicans complain that stories are be-
ing shaded to favor Democrats, and vice versa. Interest groups
complain that their organization or cause is not getting enough cover-
age. Complaints come from the people trying to influence content and
from the audience receiving the content. Even national sports an-
nouncers get criticized for being biased against a favorite team if the
announcer makes an analysis with which the viewer does not agree.
Add the fact that mass media organization employees are human
beings making critical content decisions while dealing with human
problems of family and trying to maintain or improve their job status,
and the system gets even more complicated (or in some ways simpli-
fied if taking the position that the individual employee is only acting on
his or her own behalf). For all of these reasons the mass media become
an easy target for criticism. Therefore, the system of mass media con-
tent decision making can best be categorized as human and imperfect.
The characteristics of constant audience media use and dependence
make it an imperfect system with potentially large consequences.
BASIC GENERALIZATIONS OF THE MASS MEDIA

CONTENT DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
In trying to explain the mass media content decision-making process

there are some general conclusions that can be drawn. The process
demonstrates that several successful interdependent relationships oc-
cur at the same time. Constituency groups compete simultaneously for
exposure, and the people of the mass media organization have to sort
them out. The sorting-out process also has to be done quickly, and de-
cisions regarding content might not receive the deliberation the vari-
ous constituency groups might hope or even the personnel of the mass
media organization desire.
These relationships are successful because all of the entities under-
stand what the other groups need and try to make the relationships
work in a way that is beneficial to all entities. Advertisers know what
mass media organizations need, and mass media organizations know
how to be accommodating to fulfill advertisers’ needs. Mass media or-
ganizations know what content providers desire and content providers
know what mass media organizations desire. All of these organizations
hope to know what the audience desires by providing content that
produces a positive behavior response.
The audience emerges as a powerful entity factored into every stage
of the process. Even at the earliest stages of establishing media rou-
tines, not all of the content that is possible is considered when making
198 CONCLUSION
decisions. The philosophical establishing of media routines and devel-

oping the mass media organization as a brand help journalists simplify
the complex process and begin to organize decision making. The rou-
tines also create a set of expectations on the part of the audience, and
these expectations can help predict future audience behavior. The
mass media routine does not account for every decision, and
decisions need to be made within the routine.
Therefore, the strategic communication of what each mass media or-
ganization and each constituency group is doing is made with the expec-
tations of the audience in mind. The content decision-making process is
dictated by the expectations, desires, dependencies, and ultimately the
behavior of the audience. The arguments of many theorists that the mass
media organizations are only trying to please advertisers and stockhold-
ers are a little misleading in that advertisers most want an audience, par-
ticularly a desired target audience, that might buy their product.
Advertisers pay the mass media organizations and invest in commercials
and other communication strategies only if that content delivers an audi-
ence. If the mass media organization only does stories to please stock-
holders and advertisers and if these groups are only satisfied if a profit is
being made, the item advertisers most desire is not control of content but
instead stories or content that deliver a large audience. A large audience
generates advertising revenue and profit for the mass media organization.
If the mass media organizations are all about profits, they have to attract
an audience—no audience, no advertisers, no profits.
How the process works is very much a function of whom the pro-
cess is intended for—the audience. Sanders pointed out that at Time
magazine there is certainly a sense of duty to the readers in providing
them with stories that the staff at Time deem important, but there is
also a realization that the magazine has to appeal to the audience and
has to sell. One situation that Sanders explained is that when he was
covering the Supreme Court he was not to write using extensive legal
jargon but was to write the story so that it is more understandable. Ac-
cording to Sanders, the reporter should “always write for the masses”
In his article about being a Nielsen family, Susswein (2003) ex-
plained that he found himself watching more television, but claimed, “I
watched for the same reasons I’ve always watched: to connect to the
world, to escape and to have some familiar background noise in my
life” (p. E8). He concluded, “In the television-viewing world, there are
two groups that decide the fate of programs. One is the network execu-
tives. The other consists of ordinary viewers” (p. E8).
There are a couple of caveats to the idea that the audience drives the
process that need to be addressed. The first is that audiences can only
CONCLUSION 199
select from the content that is provided to them. Mass media organiza-
tions make an initial choice as to what content to show, although even
that is often based on what has been successful with the audience in
the past. After that initial choice, it does not take long for the organiza-
tions to receive the feedback of the audience’s behavior and make
decisions whether to continue with that content. Mass media organiza-
tions as profit entities can either give the people what they want and
follow the behavior of the audience or convince the audience that
what is being shown is important and should be watched. By doing the
latter, the chances of gaining an audience that is in essence being lec-
tured to by media elites is problematic. Therefore, the trend in media is
always to provide a form of content and, if the audience responds well,
continue to provide more of the same.
On the idea of giving people what they will watch or read or provid-
ing them with stories they should know about, Webber, senior vice
president and publisher of usatoday.com, pointed out that news judg-
ments have to be made, and it is important to reflect the fullness of the
readers’ life. He stated, “Our mission is to provide information on a vari-
ety of topics” (personal communication, May 25, 2004).
Westin, president of ABC News, commented that you want to lead
the audience but not by too much so that you are speaking past them.
However, if you simply follow the audience you do not add anything for
them. He stated that you try to “find information that is interesting, im-
portant, and get the audience to understand why it is important” (per-
sonal communication, May 28, 2004). Westin explained that the
mission of ABC News is to “do the best broadcast journalism for the
most people and the challenge is to do both” (personal communica-
tion, May 28, 2004). He contended that it is easy to accomplish one of
these mission objectives, as you could do a great journalistic story that
people are not interested in and conversely do a shallow story that
many people might watch but does not have any journalistic value.
Westin added, “We try to help the American people live their lives and
provide information on all of the things that are important for the over
200 million people that experience ABC News content in some
capacity in a given week” (personal communication, May 28, 2004).
The second important caveat for the importance of the audience in
the content decision-making process is there does not have to be par-
ticipation by the majority of the audience, just enough to sustain the
business and maintain its place in the market. The system places a tre-
mendous amount of trust in the audience. The notion that the audi-
ence most dictates the decision-making process is not a bad thing. It is
not a perfect system; it is a market similar to every other industry. The
mass media are essentially operating under the primary business
200 CONCLUSION
model governed by the laws of supply and demand where the market
decides which content (products) stays and which goes.
Having the laws of supply and demand govern the mass media in-
dustry is problematic for some. McManus (1994) devalued the role of
the audience, claiming they do not understand how to evaluate news
quality. He said, “It is difficult for consumers to gain the knowledge
necessary to critically evaluate news coverage outside of news depart-
ments’ self-promotion and advertising campaigns” (p. 64). Zelizer
(1993) contended, “Journalistic power burgeons largely due to the
public’s general acquiescence and its reluctance to question journal-
ism’s parameters and fundamental legitimacy” (p. 80). Critical theo-
rists see the mass media as the essential agent for the continuance of
the capitalist system. The story they are most complaining about not
being told is their perceived shortcomings of the capitalist system. In
their view it is the market system that has led to media conglomeration,
a lack of diversity, and ultimately a hindering of democracy. They
would also call for more state control of the media industry, but it
seems the state would have even more control over messages and the
flow of information if the media were state run. At least the current sys-
tem has some form of independence and an allowance for the
audience to make some determinations about the success or failure of
media content.
Is having a market system for an industry as far reaching in its impact
as the mass media the best system, with mass media organizations giv-
ing the people only what they want? Perhaps not. Are there some sto-
ries or issues that people should know and learn of, but are not being
covered because they will not deliver a larger audience? Possibly. The
criticism about the media system as currently constructed is: What sto-
ries are we not learning about?
PROCESS SUGGESTIONS
In an imperfect system, concerns are often raised, but viable alterna-

tives to the current system might not be practical. This does not make
any of these concerns any less justifiable, but asking the mass media
organization to operate in a different economic system from other in-
dustries is not realistic. It costs money to produce quality news. Even if
the economic variables were removed and the mass media had unlim-
ited resources of money and personnel and did not care about ratings
or circulations and attracting advertisers, the responsibility to select
and frame remains, and there would be just as much criticism of their
content decision making from the people and the constituency groups
with a vested interest in the content. Once the necessary selection and
CONCLUSION 201
framing had been done, complaints would emerge and an imperfect

system would be exposed.
It is too simplistic to say that the media should be more democratic
as a final solution, as articulated by some (e.g., Mazzocco, 1994). That
ideal sounds terrific in theory, but how does this work in practice? Even
if the “ideal” network was created, how do you guarantee people will
watch? You cannot force people to participate in messages they do not
want to waste their time watching or listening to. Certain brands in
each product category are better, and these businesses that risked the
investment are rewarded through consumer behavior. News and infor-
mation industries are no different.
The system has strengths and flaws and perhaps the best that can be
done is to provide suggestions of how to cope with a flawed system. Sug-
gestions have been made to improve the mass media organization itself.
In terms of news coverage, Dennis (1994) saw a need for a commitment
from news organizations to engage in quality news. Again, quality is a
very ambiguous, subjective term and often in the eye of the beholder in
terms of the perspectives that are emphasized. He offered a plausible
solution, requesting editors and broadcast executives to indicate how
their news organization guides itself; what resources it devotes to news
gathering; how the public should access and evaluate news organiza-
tions; how individuals might provide feedback to news organizations;
and what the goals, purposes, and measures of quality are. This book
tried to point out some of these objectives as put forth by Dennis.
Gomery (2000), too, provided suggestions for the mass media orga-
nization by offering six media performance norms that could serve as a
guide for how mass media organizations should operate: (a) not to
waste resources and be efficient; (b) facilitate free speech and political
discourse; (c) facilitate public order; (d) to protect and maintain cul-
tural quality, offering some role of media diversity; (e) bring to the mar-
ketplace new technologies as quickly as possible; and (f) be equitable
and not shut out members of society as media employees and
managers (p. 523).
Although all are laudable goals, can they all be achieved simulta-
neously? The answer to the question of being able to serve democracy
and be a profit-oriented company is also subjective. Critics point to a
mass media company earning a profit and argue that they should be
doing more for democracy. Berkowitz (1993) offered a realistic de-
scription of the situation in that there are “tradeoffs between journalis-
tic judgment and the imperatives from the business side of a media
organization” (p. 67).
With all of the criticisms of the mass media system, Miller (1986) still
contended that “they [the media] are designed to fulfill consensually
202 CONCLUSION
agreed upon societal functions and they generally accomplish this goal
admirably” (p. 138). Baron (2003) argued that “the news media’s diver-
sity, ubiquity, and competitive instincts have, for the most part, served
America exceedingly well, and not only America, because CNN and
other major news outlets have become world brands, delivering news
and information around the clock to audiences around the globe” (p.
67). Gardner (1990) offered an overall perspective on the performance
of the mass media, arguing that “it is easy to indict the media. But for
anyone who has observed the devastating consequences of a con-
trolled press, the bottom line is clear. Throughout our history our free
press has made an overwhelmingly positive contribution” (p. 87).
Westin pointed out that the evaluation of the news media tends to
overlook the people and that a news division is only as smart and cre-
ative as its people. He contended that “many in journalism are deeply
committed to bring information to people and more than business rea-
sons or political reasons content decisions are made by people who re-
ally believed they thought it was important to put that information on
the air” (personal communication, May 28, 2004).
Price (2003) offered another important group where suggestions to
improve the system can occur, the audience. She stated that “people
may have to watch more than one news program to get the objectivity
that they desire or the definition of news itself may need to be
changed” (p. 187). The idea of an informed democracy does not place
all of the responsibility on the mass media organization or content pro-
viders, but also on the audience who has to become engaged in the is-
sues and learn the variety of perspectives that are available. Part of the
responsibility of an informed citizenry is on the citizenry to become
actively informed.
The current mass media system through communication technolo-
gies is at unprecedented “mass” for delivering a diversity of ideas. This
communication environment creates challenges and opportunities for
both the mass media organizations and their constituency groups, in-
cluding the audience. Westin (2004) wrote in an editorial:
The challenge we face is how to take this new world of media and make it
a new world for great journalism. We’re being given an opportunity. There
are no assurances of success. The splintering of the media has not, in the
past, always led to stronger journalism. With intelligence, daring and a bit
of luck, maybe we can earn the audience’s attention through the strength
of our reporting and presentation, even when there are virtually unlimited
choices. (p. 15)
As far as the audience is concerned, with all of the different mass

media organizations distributing important content in many conve-
CONCLUSION 203
nient forms and mediums, there is little excuse for people not to be
aware of the happenings of the world or where candidates stand on
certain issues so long as they put in a little time and effort to learn of the
issues. So people might have to watch the CBS Evening News, but also
Special Report with Brit Hume on the Fox News Channel. People might
have to read columns by George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Thomas
Friedman, and David Broder or visit a few different Internet sites to col-
lect various opinions and make an informed decision about an issue.
In the descriptions of how the process operates hopefully what be-
comes inevitable is that the audience is the major constituency group
driving the process, and the feeling here is that having the market de-
cide, despite some flaws, is the best possible scenario. The audience
has the power through its behavior to change the process and not ac-
cept mediocrity from mass media organizations.
If the audience is one of the major constituency groups that can in-
fluence the content decision-making process, it is incumbent on the
audience to learn about the process and all of its intricacies. The audi-
ence should be aware that the comment they are seeing is by the pub-
lic relations person for that organization and his or her comments are
being made in the best interests of that client. The audience should be
aware that advertisers are always trying to persuade them to purchase
their product and their message is only from the perspective of the ad-
vertiser. By learning about the content decision-making process, peo-
ple can better understand the mass media industry and learn about
how and why certain decisions are made and certain content appears
on their television sets, in their newspapers, or on the Internet. The au-
dience is then in a better position to evaluate these messages and pro-
vide meaningful feedback to content providers, advertisers, and mass
media organizations, thus raising the quality and efficiency of the
content decision-making process at every stage.
References
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York: Free Press.

Aaker, D. A., & Joachimsthaler, E. (2000). Brand leadership. New York: Free Press.
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research,
34(3), 347–356.
Adamic, L. A., & Huberman, B. A. (1999). The nature of markets in the World Wide
Web. Palo Alto, CA: Xerox Palo Alto Research Center.
Akhavan-Majid, R., & Boudreau, T. (1995). Chain ownership, organizational size,
and editorial role perceptions. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly,
72, 863–873.
Albarran, A. (1996). Media economics: Understanding markets, industries and con-
cepts. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Alger, D. (1998). Megamedia: How giant corporations dominate mass media, dis-
tort competition, and endanger democracy. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Alter, J. (1995, August 14). A call for Chinese walls. Newsweek, p. 31.
Altschull, J. H. (1995). Agents of power (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Anderson, C. A. (1997). Effects of violent movies and trait hostility on hostile feel-
ings and aggressive thoughts. Aggressive Behavior, 23, 161–178.
Anderson, D. (2002, December 8). Woods is not obliged to boycott. The New York
Times, Section 8, pp. 1, 15.
Ang, I. (1990). Culture & communication. European Journal of Communication, 5,
239–261.
Anschuetz, N. (1997a). Point of view: Building brand popularity: The myth of seg-
menting to brand success. Journal of Advertising Research, 37, 63–66.
Anschuetz, N. (1997b). Profiting from the “80–20 rule of thumb.” Journal of Adver-
tising Research, 37, 51–56.
Arant, M. D., & Anderson, J. Q. (2001). Newspaper online editors support traditional
standards. Newspaper Research Journal, 22, 57–69.
Ashley, L., & Olson, B. (1998). Constructing reality: Print media’s framing of the
women’s movement, 1966 to 1986. Journalism & Mass Communication Quar-
terly, 75, 63–277.
205
206 REFERENCES
Atkin, D. J., & Jeffres, L. W. (1998). Understanding Internet adoption as telecom-

munications behavior. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(4),
475–490.
Atkin, D., & Litman, B. (1986). Network TV programming: Economics, audiences,
and the ratings game, 1971–1986. Journal of Communication, 36(3), 32–50.
Austin, E. W., & Pinkleton, B. E. (1999). The relation between media content eval-
uations and political disaffection. Mass Communication & Society, 2, 105–122.
Bae, H. (2000). Product differentiation in national TV newscasts: A comparison of
the cable all-news networks and the broadcast networks. Journal of Broadcast-
ing & Electronic Media, 44, 62–77.
Bagdikian, B. H. (2000). The media monopoly (6th ed.). Boston: Beacon.
Baker, C. E. (1992). Advertising and a democratic press. University of Pennsylvania
Law Review, 140, 2097–2243.
Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (1985). The origins of individual media-system dependency: A
sociological framework. Communication Research, 12, 485–510.
Ball-Rokeach, S. J., & Cantor, M. G. (Eds.). (1986). Media, audience, and social
structure. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ball-Rokeach, S. J., & DeFleur, M. L. (1976). A dependency model of mass-media
effects. Communication Research, 3, 3–21.
Ball-Rokeach, S. J., & DeFleur, M. L. (1986). The interdependence of the media and
other social systems. In G. Gumpert & R. Cathcart (Eds.), Inter/media: Interper-
sonal communication in a media world (3rd ed., pp. 81–96). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Ball-Rokeach, S. J., Hale, M., Schaffer, A., Porras, L., Harris, P., & Drayton, M. (1999).
Changing the media production process: From aggressive to injury-sensitive
traffic crash stories. In D. Demers & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Mass media, social
control, and social change: A macrosocial perspective (pp. 229–262). Ames:
Iowa State University Press.
Ball-Rokeach, S. J., Rokeach, M., & Grube, J. W. (1986). Changing and stabilizing
political behavior and beliefs. In S. J. Ball-Rokeach & M. G. Cantor (Eds.), Media,
audience, and social structure (pp. 280–290). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Baron, G. R. (2003). Now is too late: Survival in an era of instant news. Upper Sad-
dle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Becker, L. B., & Kosicki, G. M. (1995). Understanding the message-producer/mes-
sage receiver transaction. Research in Political Sociology, 7, 33–62.
Bednarski, P. J., & Higgins, J. M. (2003, March 24). Heyward: Objectivity a function of
fairness. Broadcasting & Cable, p. 55.
Behr, R. L., & Iyengar, S. (1985). Television news, real-world cues, and changes in
the public agenda. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49, 38–57.
Bellamy, R. V., Jr., & Traudt, P. J. (2000). Television branding as promotion. In S. T.
Eastman (Ed.), Research in media promotion (pp. 127–159). Mahwah, NJ: Law-
Bennett, W. L. (2000). Introduction: Communication and civic engagement in
comparative perspective. Political Communication, 17, 307–312.
Berger, B. K., & Park, D. J. (2003). Public relation(ship)s or private controls? Practi-
tioner perspectives on the uses and benefits of new technologies. New Jersey
Journal of Communication, 11, 76–99.
Berkowitz, D. (1991). Assessing forces in the selection of local television news.
REFERENCES 207
Berkowitz, D. (1993). Work roles and news selection in local TV: Examining the
business-journalism dialectic. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media,
37, 67–81.
Berkowitz, D. (1997). Social meaning of news: A text-reader. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Bernays, E. L. (1955). The engineering of consent. Norman: University of Oklahoma
Press.
Berry, S. T., & Biel, A. L. (1992). How brand image drives brand equity. Journal of
Advertising Research, 32(6), RC6–RC12.
Binder, A. (1993). Media depictions of harm in heavy metal and rap music. Ameri-
can Sociological Review, 58, 753–767.
Black, J., Steele, B., & Barney, R. (1993). Doing ethics in journalism: A handbook
with case studies. Greencastle, IN: The Sigma Delta Chi Foundation and the So-
ciety of Professional Journalists.
Blackston, M. (2000). Observations: Building brand equity by managing the brand’s
relationships. Journal of Advertising Research, 40(6), 101–105.
Blumler, J. G. (1979). The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Commu-
nication Research, 6, 9–36.
Blumler, J. G., Gurevitch, M., & Katz, E. (1985). Reaching out: A future of gratifications
research. In K. E. Rosengren, L. A. Wenner, & P. Palmgreen (Eds.), Media gratifica-
tions research: Current perspectives (pp. 255–273). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Blumler, J. G., & Katz, E. (Eds). (1974). The uses of mass communication: Current
perspectives on gratifications research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Blyskal, J., & Blyskal, M. (1985). PR: How the public relations industry writes the
news. New York: Morrow.
Breed, W. (1955). Social control in the newsroom: A functional analysis. Social
Forces, 33, 326–355.
Brill, A. M. (2001). Online journalists embrace new marketing function. Newspaper
Research Journal, 22, 28–40.
Bryant, J., & Zillmann, D. (Eds.). (2002). Media effects: Advances in theory & re-
search (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Buchman, J. G. (2000). Television newscast promotion and marketing. In S. T. East-
man (Ed.), Research in media promotion (pp. 265–296). Mahwah, NJ: Law-
Budd, M., Entman, R. M., & Steinman, C. (1990). The affirmative character of U.S.
cultural studies. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 7, 169–184.
Burns, J. E. (1998). Information subsidies and agenda building: A study of local ra-
dio news. New Jersey Journal of Communication, 6, 90–100.
Burson, H. (1997). Beyond “PR”: Redefining the role of public relations. In G. R.
Carter (Ed.), Perspectives: Public relations (pp. 16–22). St. Paul, MN: Coursewise.
Callison, C. (2002). Media relations and the Internet: How Fortune 500 company Web
sites assist journalists in news gathering. Public Relations Review, 29, 13–28.
Cameron, G. T., Sallot, L., & Curtin, P. A. (1997). Public relations and the production
of news: A critical review and a theoretical framework. In B. Burleson (Ed.),
Communication yearbook 20 (pp. 111–115). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Carey, J. W., & Kreiling, A. L. (1974). Popular culture and uses and gratifications:
Notes toward an accommodation. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of
mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research (Vol. 3,
pp. 225–248). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
208 REFERENCES
Carragee, K., Rosenblatt, M., & Michaud, G. (1987). Agenda-setting research: A

critique and theoretical alternative. In S. Thomas (Ed.), Studies in communica-
tion (Vol. 3, pp. 35–49). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Carrick, P. M. (1959). Why continued advertising is necessary. Journal of Marketing,
23, 386–98.
Carroll, C. E., & McCombs, M. E. (2003). Agenda-setting effects of business news on
the publics images and opinions about major corporations. Corporate Reputa-
tion Review, 16, 1–24.
Carter, B. (2003a, January 25). Viewer shift will write new reality for TV, executives
say. Austin American-Statesman, pp. A1, A20.
Carter, B. (2003b, February 28). CBS and White House quarrel over Saddam. The
International Herald Tribune, p. 3.
Centerwall, B. (1989). Exposure to television as a risk factor for violence. American
Journal of Epidemiology, 129, 643–652.
Chaffee, S. H. (1986). Mass media and interpersonal channels: Competitive, con-
vergent, or complementary? In G. Gumpert & R. Cathcart (Eds.), Inter/media:
Interpersonal communication in a media world (3rd ed., pp. 62–80). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Chan-Olmsted, S. M., & Kim, Y. (2001). Perceptions of branding among television
station managers: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media, 45, 75–91.
Chan-Olmsted, S. M., & Kim, Y. (2002). The PBS brand versus cable brands: Assess-
ing the brand image of public television in a multichannel environment. Journal
of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46, 300–320.
Chang, T. K., & Lee, J. W. (1992). Factors affecting gatekeepers’ selection of foreign
news: A national survey of newspaper editors. Journalism Quarterly, 69, 554–561.
Cohen, B. C. (1963). The press and foreign policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer-
sity Press.
Cohen, E. C. (2002). Online journalism as market-driven journalism. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46, 532–548.
Cohen, R. M. (1997). The corporate takeover of news: Blunting the sword. In E.
Barnouw, P. Auderhide, R. M. Cohen, T. Frank, T. Gitlin, D. Lieberman, M. C.
Miller, G. Roberts, & T. Schatz (Eds.), Conglomerates and the media (pp. 31–60).
New York: New Press.
Cohen, S., & Young, J. (Eds.). (1973). The manufacture of news: A reader. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Colford, P. D. (2002a, December 4). Times editors kill 2 columns in Augusta rift.
New York Daily News, p. 50.
Colford, P. D. (2002b, December 6). Anderson says he’ll still cover The Masters for
New York Times. New York Daily News, p. x.
Compaine, B. M. (2000). Distinguishing between concentration and competition.
In B. M. Compaine & D. Gomery (Eds.), Who owns the media? Competition and
concentration in the mass media industry (3rd ed., pp. 537–581). Mahwah, NJ:
Compaine, B. M., & Gomery, D. (Eds.). (2000). Who owns the media? Competition
and concentration in the mass media industry (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Law-
Cooper, S. (1996). Military control over war news: The implications of the Persian
Gulf. New Jersey Journal of Communication, 4, 3–20.
REFERENCES 209
Cornwell, T. B., & Maignan, I. (1998). An international review of sponsorship re-

search. Journal of Advertising, 27(1), 1–21.
Coulson, D. C. (1994). Impact of ownership on newspaper quality. ournalism Quar-
terly, 71, 403–410.
Coulson, D. C., & Hansen, A. (1995). The Louisville Courier-Journal’s news content
after purchase by Gannett. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 72,
205–215.
Croteau, D., & Hoynes, W. (2001). The business of media: Corporate media and the
public interest. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Curran, J., Gurevitch, M., & Woollacott, J. (1982). The study of the media: Theoreti-
cal approaches. In M. Gurevitch, T. Bennett, J. Curran, & J. Woollacott (Eds.),
Culture, society and the media (pp. 11–29). London: Methuen.
Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (1994). Effective public relations (7th ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Danielian, L. H., & Reese, S. D. (1989). A closer look at intermedia influences on
agenda-setting: The cocaine issue of 1986. In P. J. Shoemaker (Ed.), Communi-
cation campaigns about drugs: Government, media and the public (pp. 47–66).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Davis, S. M. (2002). Brand asset management: Driving profitable growth through
your brands. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dean, D. H. (2002). Associating the corporation with a charitable event through
sponsorship: Measuring the effects on corporate community relations. Journal
of Advertising, 31(4), 77–88.
Demers, D. (1996). Corporate newspaper structure, profits and organizational
goals. Journal of Media Economics, 9(2), 1–23.
Demers, D. (1998). Revisiting corporate newspaper structure and profit making.
Journal of Media Economics, 11(2), 19–45.
Demers, D., & Merskin, D. (2000). Corporate news structure and the managerial
revolution. Journal of Media Economics, 13(2), 103–121.
Dennis, E. E. (1994) News ethics and split-personality journalism. Television Quar-
terly, 27, 29–35.
De Vany, A. S., & Walls, W. D. (1999). Uncertainty in the movie industry: Does star
power reduce the terror of the box office? Journal of Cultural Economics, 23,
285–318.
Dreier, P. (1978). Newsroom democracy and media monopoly: The dilemmas of
workplace reform among professional journalists. The Insurgent Sociologist,
8(2/3), 70–86.
Eastman, S. T. (2000). Orientation to promotion and research. In S. T. Eastman
Erlbaum Associates.
Ehrlich, M. C. (1995). The ethical dilemma of television news sweeps. Journal of
Mass Media Ethics, 10, 37–47.
Elber, L. (2003, August 25). TV gets aggressive in going after viewers. Austin American-
Statesman, p. E7.
Engelhardt, T. (1994). The Gulf War as total television. In S. Jeffords & L. Rabinowitz
(Eds.), Seeing through the media (pp. 81–95). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Uni-
versity Press.
Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal
of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.
210 REFERENCES
Ettema, J. S., Whitney, D. C., & Wackman, D. B. (1987). Professional mass commu-
nicators. In C. H. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication sci-
ence (pp. 747–780). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Evans, W. A. (1990). The interpretive turn in media research: Innovation, iterations,
or illusion. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 7, 147–168.
Fahey, P. M. (1991). Advocacy group boycotting of network television advertisers
and its effects on programming content. University of Pennsylvania Law Re-
view, 140, 647–709.
Fallows, J. M. (1996). Breaking the news: How the media undermine American de-
mocracy. New York: Pantheon.
Farrelly, F. J., Quester, P. C., & Burton, R. (1997). Integrating sports sponsorship into
the corporate marketing function: An international comparative study. Interna-
tional Marketing Review, 14, 170–182.
Ferguson, D. A. (1992). Channel repertoire in the presence of remote control devices,
VCR’s and cable television. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 38, 83–91.
Ferguson, D. A., Eastman, S. T., & Klein, R. A. (1999). Marketing the media: Scope
and goals. In S. T. Eastman, D. A. Ferguson, & R. A. Klein (Eds.), Promotion and
marketing for broadcasting and cable (3rd ed., pp. 1–28). Boston: Focal Press.
First, A. (1997). Television and the construction of social reality: An Israeli case
study. In M. E. McCombs, D. L. Shaw, & D. Weaver (Eds.), Communication and
democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory (pp.
41–50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fishman, M. (1980). Manufacturing the news. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Fishman, M. (1997). News and nonevents: Making the visible invisible. In D.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Social meaning of news: A text-reader (pp. 210–229). Thou-
Fortunato, J. A. (2000). Public relations strategies for creating mass media content:
A case study of the National Basketball Association. Public Relations Review, 26,
481–497.
Fortunato, J. A. (2001). The ultimate assist: The relationship and broadcast strate-
gies of the NBA and television networks. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Fortunato, J. A., & Dunnam, A. E. (2004). The negotiation philosophy for corporate
sponsorship of sports properties. In B. G. Pitts (Ed.), Sharing best practices in
sports marketing: The Sports Marketing Association’s inaugural book of papers
(pp. 73–86). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Franklin, M. (1987). Mass media law: Cases and materials (3rd ed.). New York: The
Foundation Press.
Futterman, M. (2003, December 21). Cable games: Soaring sports-programming
costs drive monthly television bills higher. Newark Star-Ledger, Section 3, pp. 1, 2.
Gamson, W. A. (2001). Foreword. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, & A. E. Grant (Eds.),
Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social
world (pp. ix–xi). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action.
In R. G. Braungart & M. M. Braungart (Eds.), Research in political sociology (3rd
ed., pp. 137–177). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nu-
clear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1–37.
Gandy, O. H. (1982). Beyond agenda-setting: Information subsidies and public pol-
icy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
REFERENCES 211
Gandy, O. H. (1991). Beyond agenda-setting. In D. L. Protess & M. E. McCombs

(Eds.), Agenda-setting: Readings on media, public opinion, and policymaking
(pp. 263–275). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gandy, O. H. (2001). Epilogue—Framing at the horizon: A retrospective assess-
ment. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Per-
Gans, H. J. (1979). Deciding what’s news: A study of CBS Evening News, NBC
Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time. New York: Pantheon.
Gantz, W., & Zohoori, A. R. (1982). The impact of television schedule changes on
audience behavior. Journalism Quarterly, 59, 265–272.
Garcia, M., & Stark, P. (1991). Eyes on the news. St. Petersburg, FL: Poynter Institute.
Gardner, J. W. (1990). On Leadership. New York: Free Press.
Garnham, N. (1990). Capitalism and communication: Global culture and the eco-
nomics of information. London: Sage.
Gay, J. (2003, May 19). At CBS, Les is more. New York Observer, p. 1.
Gerbner, G. (1972). Violence in television drama: Trends in symbolic functions. In
G. A. Comstock & E. A. Rubinstein (Eds.), Television and social behavior: Vol. 1.
Media content and control (pp. 28–187).
Gerbner, G. (1998). Cultivation analysis: An overview. Mass Communication &
Society, 1, 175–194.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Grow-
ing up with television: Cultivation processes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann
(Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 43–67).
Ghanem, S. (1997). Filling in the tapestry: The second level of agenda-setting. In M.
E. McCombs, D. L. Shaw, & D. Weaver (Eds.), Communication and democracy:
Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory (pp. 3–14). Mahwah,
Gieber, W. (1964). News is what newspapermen make it. In L. A. Dexter & D. M.
White (Eds.), People, society and mass communication (pp. 173–182). New
York: Free Press.
Gitlin, T. (1972). Sixteen notes on television and the movement. In G. White & C.
Neuman (Eds.), Literature in revolution (pp. 335–366). New York: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston.
Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and un-
making of the new left. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gitlin, T. (1982). Prime time ideology: The hegemonic process in television enter-
tainment. In H. Newcomb (Ed.), Television: The critical view (3rd ed., pp.
426–454). New York: Oxford University Press.
Gitlin, T. (1983). Inside prime time. New York: Pantheon.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of the experi-
ence. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Gomery, D. (1989). Media economics: Terms of analysis. Critical Studies in Mass
Communication, 6, 43–60.
Gomery, D. (2000). Interpreting media ownership. In B. M. Compaine & D.
Gomery (Eds.), Who Owns the Media? Competition and concentration in the
mass media industry (3rd ed., pp. 507–535). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
212 REFERENCES
Goodwin, M. (1999). Who’s a journalist?: Welcome the new journalists on the

Internet. Media Studies Journal, 13(2), 38–42.
Gordon, A. D., & Kittross, J. M. (1999). Controversies in media ethics (2nd ed.). New
York: Longman.
Graber, D. A. (1984). Media power in politics. Washington, DC: Congressional Quar-
terly Press.
Graber, D. A. (1997). Mass media and American politics. Washington, DC: Congres-
sional Quarterly Press.
Grant, A. E., Guthrie, K. K., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (1991). Television shopping: A me-
dia system dependency perspective. Communication Research, 18, 773–798.
Grunig, J. E. (1990). Theory and practice of interactive media relations. Public Rela-
tions Quarterly, 35(3), 18–23.
Gwinner, K. P. (1997). A model of image creation and image transfer in event spon-
sorship. International Marketing Review, 14(3), 145–158.
Gwinner, K. P., & Eaton, J. (1999). Building brand image through event sponsorship:
The role of image transfer. Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 47–58.
Hallberg, G. (1995). All consumers are not created equal. New York: Wiley.
Halpern, P. (1994). Media dependency and political perceptions in an authoritarian
political system. Journal of Communication, 44(4), 39–52.
Harvey, B. (2001). Measuring the effects of sponsorship. Journal of Advertising Re-
search, 41(1), 59–65.
Henninger, W. (2001, December 17–23). Reporters haven’t grown attached to
e-mail attachments and links. Street & Smith’s Sports Business Journal, p. 12.
Hills, J. (1986). Deregulating telecoms: Competition and control in the United
States, Japan, and Britain. London: Pinter.
Hills, J., & Papathanassopoulos, S. (1991). The democracy gap: The politics of infor-
mation and communication technologies in the United States and Europe. New
York: Greenwood.
Hollifield, C. A., Kosicki, G. M., & Becker, L. B. (2001). Organizational vs. professional
culture in the newsroom: Television news directors’ and newspaper editors’ hir-
ing decisions. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45(1), 92–117.
Huesmann, L. R., & Eron, L. D. (Eds.). (1986). Television and the aggressive child: A
cross-national comparison. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hunt, T., & Ruben, B. D. (1993). Mass communication: Producers and consumers.
New York: HarperCollins.
Husselbee, L. P. (1994). Respecting privacy in an information society: A journalist’s
dilemma. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 9(3), 145–156.
Jacobs, M. T. (1992). Assessing the constitutionality of press restrictions in the Per-
sian Gulf War. Stanford Law Review, 44, 675–726.
Jamieson, K. H., & Campbell, K. K. (2001). The interplay of influence: News, adver-
tising, politics, and the mass media (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Jamieson, K. H., & Waldman, P. (2003). The press effect: Politicians, journalists, and
the stories that shape the political world. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jason, L. A., Kennedy, H. L., & Brackshaw, E. (1999). Television violence and chil-
dren: Problems and solutions. In T. P. Gullota & S. J. McElhaney (Eds.), Violence
in homes and communities: Prevention, intervention, and treatment: Vol. 11. Is-
sues in children’s and families’ lives (pp. 133–156). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jhally, S. (1990). The codes of advertising: fetishism and the political economy of
meaning in the consumer society. New York: Routledge.
REFERENCES 213
Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2000). Democracy’s rebirth or demise? The influence
of the Internet on political attitude. In D. Schultz (Ed.), It’s show time! Media, pol-
itics, and popular culture (pp. 209–228). New York: Lang.
Johnson, T. J., & Kelly, J. D. (2003). Have new media editors abandoned the old me-
dia ideals? The journalistic values of online newspaper editors. New Jersey
Johnstone, J. W. C., Slawski, E. J., & Bowman, W. W. (1976). The news people: A so-
ciological portrait of American journalists and their world. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press.
Kanervo, E. W., & Kanervo, D. W. (1989). How town administrator’s view relates to
agenda building in community press. Journalism Quarterly, 66, 308–315.
Kaneva, N., & Lenert, E. (2003). Who wants to be a millionaire? How the press
framed the role of the public in the dispute between Time Warner Cable and
Disney’s ABC Network in May 2000.New Jersey Journal of Communication,
11(2), 149–163.
Kapferer, J. N. (1992). Strategic brand management and new approaches to creat-
ing and evaluating brand equity. New York: Free Press.
Katz, E. (1959). Mass communication research and the study of popular culture:
An editorial note on the possible future for this journal. Studies in Public Com-
munication, 2, 1–6.
Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilization of mass communication
by the individual. In J. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communica-
tion (pp. 19–32). Beverly, CA: Hills: Sage.
Kaye, B. K., & Johnson, T. J. (2002). Online and in the know: Uses and gratifications
of the Web for political information. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,
46, 54–71.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based
brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.
Keller, K. L. (1998). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and man-
aging brand equity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kellner, D. (1990). Television and the Crisis of Democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Kim, H. S. (2002). Gatekeeping international news: An attitudinal profile of U.S.
television journalists. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46, 431–452.
Klapper, J. T. (1960). The effects of mass communication. New York: Free Press.
Kline, F. G., Miller, P. V., & Morrison, A. J. (1974). Adolescents and family planning in-
formation: An exploration of audience needs and media effects. In J. Blumler &
E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communication (pp. 113–136). Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Problems and opportunities in agenda-setting research. Jour-
nal of Communication, 43(2), 100–127.
Kubey, R., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Television and the quality of life: How view-
ing shape everyday experiences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kubey, R., & Larson, R. (1990). The use and experience of the new video media
among children and young adolescents. Communication Research, 17,
107–130.
Kurtz, H. (1998). Spin cycle: Inside the Clinton propaganda machine. New York:
Free Press.
Kurtz, H. (2002, December 5). N.Y. Times’s golf handicap; columns on Augusta
killed for being out of line with paper’s. The Washington Post, p. C1.
214 REFERENCES
Lacy, S., & Niebauer, W. E., Jr. (1995). Developing and using theory for media eco-
nomics. Journal of Media Economics, 8(2), 3–13.
Lacy, S., & Vermeer, J. P. (1995). Theoretical and practical considerations in
operationalizing newspaper and television competition. Journal of Media Eco-
nomics, 8(1), 49–61.
Lasorsa, D. L. (1997). Media agenda-setting and press performance: A social sys-
tem approach for building theory. In M. E. McCombs, D. L. Shaw, & D. Weaver
(Eds.), Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in
agenda-setting theory (pp. 155–167). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Lauzen, M. M., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Equal time in prime time? Scheduling favorit-
ism and gender on the broadcast networks. Journal of Broadcasting & Elec-
tronic Media, 46(1), 137–153.
Lee, I. L. (1997). Publicity and propaganda. In G. R. Carter (Ed.), Perspectives: Pub-
lic relations (pp. 3–7). St. Paul, MN: Coursewise.
Lee, M., & Solomon, N. (1990). Unreliable sources. New York: Carol.
Levy, M. R., & Windahl, S. (1985). The concept of audience. In K. E. Rosengren, L. A.
Wenner, & P. Palmgreen (Eds.), Media gratifications research: Current perspec-
tives (pp. 109–122). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: II. Channels of group life; social
planning and action research. Human Relations, 1, 143–153.
Lichter, S. R., & Noyes, R. E. (1996). Good intentions make bad news: Why Ameri-
cans hate campaign journalism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Lin, C. A. (1993). Modeling the gratification-seeking process of television viewing.
Human Communication Research, 20, 224–244.
Lin, C. A., & Jeffres, L. (1998). Predicting adoption of multimedia cable service.
Journalism Quarterly, 75, 251–275.
Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Macmillan.
Livingstone, S. M. (1990). Making sense of TV: The psychology of audience interpre-
tation. Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Livingstone, S. M. (1993). The rise and fall of audience research: An old story with a
new ending. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 5–12.
Loevinger, L. (1968). The ambiguous mirror: The reflective-projective theory of
broadcasting and mass communication. Journal of Broadcasting, 12(2), 97–116.
Loges, W. E. (1994). Canaries in the coal mine: Perceptions of threat and media sys-
tem dependency relations. Communication Research, 21(1), 5–23.
Luna, A. (1995). An economic philosophy for mass media ethics. Journal of Mass
Media Ethics, 10(3), 154–166.
Madrigal, R. (2000). The influence of social alliances with sports teams on inten-
tions to purchase corporate sponsors’ products. Journal of Advertising, 29(4),
13–24.
Maher, T. M. (2001). Framing: An emerging paradigm or a phase of agenda setting.
In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives
on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 83–94). Mahwah, NJ:
Mazzocco, D. W. (1994). Networks of power: Corporate TV’s threat to democracy.
Boston: South End Press.
McAllister, M. P. (1996). The commercialization of American culture: New advertis-
ing, control and democracy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
REFERENCES 215
McAllister, M. P. (1998). College bowl sponsorship and the increased commercial-

ization of amateur sports. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 15, 357–381.
McAllister, M. P. (2002). Television news plugola and the last episode of Seinfeld.
McChesney, R. (1997). Corporate media and the threat to democracy. New York:
Seven Stories Press.
McCombs, M. E. (1976). Agenda-setting research: A bibliographic essay. Political
Communication Review, 1, 1–7.
McCombs, M. E. (1997, August). New frontiers in agenda-setting: Agendas of attrib-
utes and frames. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association
for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Chicago.
McCombs, M. E., & Ghanem, S. I. (2001). The convergence of agenda-setting and
framing. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Per-
McCombs, M. E., & Mauro, J. (1977). Predicting newspaper readership from con-
tent characteristics. Journalism Quarterly, 54, 3–7, 49.
McCombs, M. E., & Reynolds, A. (2002). News influence on our pictures of the
world. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and
research (2nd ed., pp. 1–18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of the mass me-
dia. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176–187.
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1993). The evolution of agenda-setting research:
Twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Communication,
43(2), 58–67.
McCombs, M. E., Shaw, D. L., & Weaver, D. (Eds.). (1997). Communication and de-
mocracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory. Mahwah,
McCombs, M. E., & Weaver, D. H. (1985). Toward a merger of gratifications and
agenda-setting research. In K. E. Rosengren, L. A. Wenner, & P. Palmgreen
(Eds.), Media gratifications research: Current perspectives (pp. 95–108). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
McLeod, D. M., Kosicki, G. M., & McLeod, J. M. (2002). Resurveying the boundaries
of political communication effects. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media ef-
fects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 215–267). Mahwah, NJ:
McLeod, J. M., & Becker, L. B. (1974). Testing the validity of gratification measures
through political effects analysis. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of
mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research (Vol. 3,
pp. 137–164). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
McLeod, J. M., & Becker, L. B. (1981). The uses and gratifications approach. In D. D.
Nimmo & K. R. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of political communication (pp.
67–99). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media. New York: McGraw-Hill.
McManus, J. H. (1994). Market-driven journalism: Let the citizen beware? Thou-
McManus, J. (1995). A market-based model of news production. Communication
Theory, 5, 301–338.
McQuail, D. (2000). Mass communication theory (4th ed.). London: Sage.
216 REFERENCES
Meehan, E. R. (1993). Commodity audience, actual audience: The blindspot de-

bate. In J. Wasko, V. Mosko, & M. Pendakur (Eds.), Illuminating the blindspots:
Essays honoring Dallas W. Smythe (pp. 378–397). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Meenaghan, T. (1991). The role of sponsorship in the marketing communications
mix. International Journal of Advertising, 10(1), 35–47.
Megwa, E. R., & Brenner, D. J. (1988). Toward a paradigm of media agenda-setting ef-
fect: Agenda-setting as a process. Howard Journal of Communication, 1(1), 39–55.
Mendelson, A., & Thorson, E. (2003). The impact of role-congruency and photo
presence on the processing of news stories about Hillary Clinton. The New Jer-
sey Journal of Communication, 11, 135–148.
Meyer, P. (1987). Ethical journalism. New York: Longman.
Mill, J. S. (1956). On liberty. Baltimore: Penguin. (Original work published 1859)
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on
our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.
Miller, G. R. (1986). A neglected connection. Mass media exposure and interper-
sonal communicative competency. In G. Gumpert & R. Cathcart (Eds.),
Inter/media: Interpersonal communication in a media world (3rd ed., pp.
132–139). New York: Oxford University Press.
Miller, M. M., & Riechert, B. P. (2001). The spiral of opportunity and frame resonance:
Mapping the issue cycle in news and public discourse. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy,
& A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our under-
standing of the social world (pp. 107–121). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Miyazaki, A. D., & Morgan, A. G. (2001). Assessing market value of event sponsoring:
Corporate Olympic sponsorship. Journal of Advertising Research, 41(1), 9–15.
Molotch, H., & Lester, M. (1974). News as purposive behavior: On the strategic use
of routine events, accidents, and scandals. American Sociologist Review, 39(1),
101–112.
Moore, R. L. (1999). Mass communication law and ethics (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Morton, L. P. (1992/1993). Producing publishable press releases. A research per-
spective. Public Relations Quarterly, 37(4), 9–11.
Mosco, V. (1996). The political economy of communication. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Mulgan, G. (1991). Communication and control: Networks and the new economics
of communication. New York: Guilford Press.
MWW Group. mwwpr.com
Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties
conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91,
567–583.
Office of Global Communications. http://www.whitehouse.gov/ogc/aboutogc.html
Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. M. (2000). Predictors of Internet use. Journal of Broad-
Park, C. S., & Srinivasan, V. (1994). A survey-based method for measuring and un-
derstanding brand equity and its extendibility. Journal of Marketing Research,
31, 271–288.
Park, C. W., Jun, S. Y., & Shocker, A. D. (1996). Composite branding alliances: An in-
vestigation of extension and feedback effects. Journal of Marketing Research,
32, 453–466.
REFERENCES 217
Parker, K. (2003, April 28). Corporate media aren’t necessarily a conspiracy. Austin
Amercian-Statesman, p. A9.
Parmar, A. (2002). Sponsorship. Marketing News, 37(1), 13.
Perse, E. M. (2000). Applying theory to the practice of promotion. In S. T. Eastman
Erlbaum Associates.
Perse, E. M. (2001). Media effects and society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Perse, E. M., & Dunn, D. G. (1998). The utility of home computers and media use.
Implications of multimedia and connectivity. Journal of Broadcasting & Elec-
tronic Media, 42, 435–456.
Phillips, E. B. (1977). Approaches to objectivity: Journalistic vs. social science per-
spectives. In P. M. Hirsch, P. V. Miller, & F. G. Kline (Eds.), Strategies for communi-
cation research (pp. 63–77). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Pinkleton, B. E., & Austin, E. W. (2002). Exploring relationships among media use
frequency, perceived media importance, and media satisfaction in political dis-
affection and efficacy. Mass Communication & Society, 5, 141–163.
Pinkleton, B. E., Reagan, J., Aaronson, D., & Chen, C. (1997). The role of individual
motivations in information source use and knowledge concerning divergent
topics. Communication Research Reports, 14, 291–301.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and
competitors. New York: Free Press.
Protess, D. L., & McCombs, M. E. (1991). The public agenda. In D. L. Protess & M. E.
McCombs (Eds.), Agenda setting: Readings on media, public opinion, and pol-
icymaking (pp. 1–4). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rachlin, A. (1988). News as hegemonic reality: American political culture and the
framing of news accounts. New York: Praeger.
Reagan, J. (1995). The “repertoire” of information sources. Journal of Broadcast-
ing and Electronic Media, 42, 34–49.
Redmond, J., & Trager, R. (1998). Balancing the wire: The art of managing media
organizations. Boulder, CO: Coursewise.
Reese, S. D. (2001). Prologue—Framing public life: A bridging model for media re-
search. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Per-
Reese, S. D., Gandy, O. H., & Grant, A. E. (Eds.). (2001). Framing public life: Per-
spectives on media and our understanding of the social world. Mahwah, NJ:
Reilly, M., & Futterman, M. (2003, August 5). Benching Kobe: Lakers star has
lost one endorsement. Will others follow? The Newark Star-Ledger, pp.
39, 42.
Richards, J. I., & Murphy, J. H. (1996). Economic censorship and free speech: The
circle of communication between advertisers, media, and consumers. Jour-
nal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 18(1), 21–34.
Rideout, C. R. (1993). News coverage and talks shows in the 1992 presidential cam-
paign. PS: Political Science & Politics, 26, 712–716.
218 REFERENCES
Ridgway, J. (1998, April 20). Name of the game is branding. Electronic Media, 16, 37.
Ries, A., & Trout, J. (1997). Marketing warfare. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Roberts, M. (1997). Political advertising’s influence on news, the public and their
behavior. In M. E. McCombs, D. L. Shaw, & D. Weaver (Eds.), Communication
and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory (pp.
Rogers, E. M., Dearing, J. W., & Bregman, D. (1993). The anatomy of agenda-setting
research. Journal of Communication, 43(2), 68–84.
Rosengren, K. E., Wenner, L. A., & Palmgreen, P. (Eds.). (1985). Media gratifications
research: Current perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Roshco, B. (1975). Newsmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Roy, D. P., & Cornwell, T. B. (1999). Managers’ use of sponsorship in building brands:
Service and product firms contrasted. International Journal of Sports Marketing
and Sponsorship, 1(6), 345–360.
Rubin, A. M. (1983). Television uses and gratifications: The interactions of viewing
patterns and motivations. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 27,
37–51.
Rubin, A. M. (1984). Ritualized and instrumental television viewing. Journal of Com-
munication, 34(3), 67–77.
Rubin, A. M. (1993). Audience activity and media use. Communication Monographs,
8, 141–165.
Rubin, A. M. (2002). The uses-and-gratifications perspective of media effects. In J.
Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research
(2nd ed., pp. 525–548). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rubin, A. M., & Perse, E. M. (1987). Audience activity and television news gratifica-
tions. Communication Research, 14(1), 58–84.
Rubin, A. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1985). Interface of personal and mediated communi-
cation: A research agenda. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 2(1), 36–53.
Ryan, C., Carragee, K. M., & Meinhofer, W. (2001). Framing, the news media, and
collective action. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45(1), 175–182.
Salwen, M. B. (1988). Effect of accumulation of coverage on issue salience in
agenda setting. Journalism Quarterly, 65, 100–106.
Samuelson, R. J. (2003, August 7). The myth of the almighty big media. The Newark
Star-Ledger, p. 17.
Sandman, P. M., Rubin, D. M., & Sachsman, D. B. (Eds.). (1976). Media: An introduc-
tory analysis of American mass communications (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communi-
cation, 49(1), 103–122.
Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another
look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication &
Society, 3, 297–316.
Schiller, H. I. (1989). Culture, Inc.: The corporate takeover of public expression.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Schoenbach, K., & Semetko, H. A. (1992). Agenda-setting, agenda-reinforcing or
agenda-deflating? A study of the 1990 German national election. Journalism
Quarterly, 69, 837–846.
Schramm, W. (1949). The nature of news. In W. Schramm (Ed.), Mass communica-
tions. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
REFERENCES 219
Schramm, W., Lyle, J., & Parker, E. (1961). Television in the lives of our children.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Schudson, M. (1978). Discovering the news. New York: Basic Books.
Schudson, M. (1995). The power of news. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schudson, M. (1997). The sociology of news production. In D. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Social meaning of news: A text-reader (pp. 7–22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schultz, M., Mouritsen, J., & Gabrielsen, G. (2001). Sticky reputation: Analyzing a
reputation system. Corporate Reputation Review, 4(1), 24–41.
Seitel, F. P. (1998). The practice of public relations (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Semetko, H. A., & Mandelli, A. (1997). Setting the agenda for cross-national re-
search: Bringing values into the concept. In M. E. McCombs, D. L. Shaw, & D.
Weaver (Eds.), Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual
frontiers in agenda-setting theory (pp. 195–207). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). Framing European politics: A content
analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 93–107.
Shaw, D. L., & Martin, S. E. (1992). The function of mass media agenda setting. Jour-
nalism Quarterly, 69, 902–920.
Shaw, D. L., & McCombs, M. E. (Eds.). (1977). The emergence of American political
issues: The agenda setting function of the press. St. Paul, MN: West.
Shocker, A. D., Srivastava, R. K., & Ruekert, R. W. (1994). Challenges and opportuni-
ties facing brand management: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of
Marketing Research, 31(2), 149–158.
Shoemaker, P. J. (1991). Gatekeeping. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Shoemaker, P. J. (1999). Media gatekeeping. In M. B. Salwen & D. W. Stacks (Eds.),
An integrated approach to communication theory and research (pp. 79–91).
Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influ-
ences on mass media content. New York: Longman.
Siebert, F., Peterson, T., & Schramm, W. (1974). Four theories of the press. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press.
Sigal, L. (1973). Reporters and officials: The organization and politics of news-
making. Lexington, MA: Heath.
Singhania, L. (2002, December 4). Times cites editorial standards in refusal to run
two sports columns. Associated Press.
Slattery, K., Doremus, M., & Marcus, L. (2001). Shifts in public affairs reporting on
the network evening news: A move toward the sensational. Journal of Broad-
Smyth, D. W. (1977). Communications: Blindspot of western Marxism. Canadian
Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1(3), 1–27.
Soley, L. C., & Craig, R. L. (1992). Advertising pressures on newspapers: A survey.
Journal of Advertising, 21(4), 1–10.
Soloski, J. (1997). News reporting and professionalism: Some constraints on the re-
porting of the news. In D. Berkowitz (Ed.), Social meaning of news: A text-reader
(pp. 138–154). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sparks, G. G., & Sparks, C. W. (2002). Effects of media violence. In J. Bryant & D.
Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp.
220 REFERENCES
Stewart, D. W., Pavlou, P., & Ward, S. (2002). Media influences on marketing com-
munications. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory
and research (2nd ed., pp. 353–396). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Stipp, H., & Schiavone, N. P. (1996). Modeling the impact of Olympic sponsorship
on corporate image. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(4), 22–28.
Sumpter, R. S. (2000). Daily newspaper editors’ audience construction routines: A
case study. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 17, 334–346.
Susswein, G. (2003, February 24). Confessions of a Nielsen family. Austin Ameri-
can-Statesman, pp. E1, E8.
Sutherland, M., & Galloway, J. (1981). Role of advertising: Persuasion or agenda-
setting? Journal of Advertising Research, 21(5), 25–29.
Swanson, D. L. (1987). Gratification seeking, media exposure, and audience inter-
pretations: Some directions for research. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media, 31(3), 237–254.
Tan, A. S. (1980). Mass media use, issue knowledge, and political involvement.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 241–248.
Thayer, L. (1986). On the mass media and mass communication: Notes toward a
theory. In G. Gumpert & R. Cathcart (Eds.), Inter/media: Interpersonal commu-
nication in a media world (3rd ed., pp. 41–61). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Till, B. D., & Shimp, T. A. (1998). Endorsers in advertising: The case of negative ce-
lebrity information. Journal of Advertising, 27(1), 67–82.
Time Magazine Online. www.timemediakit.com
Trusdell, B. (1997). Life in the fast lane. Sales & Marketing Management, 149(2),
66–71.
Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York:
Free Press.
Underwood, D. (1993). When MBA’s rule the newsroom. New York: Columbia Uni-
versity Press.
Wanta, W. (1988). The effects of dominant photographs: An agenda-setting experi-
ment. Journalism Quarterly, 65, 107–111.
Wanta, W., & Wu, Y. (1992). Interpersonal communication and the agenda-setting
process. Journalism Quarterly, 69, 847–855.
Weaver, D. H., & Elliott, S. N. (1986). Who sets the agenda for the media? A study of
local agenda building. Journalism Quarterly, 62, 87–94.
Weaver, D. H., Graber, D. A., McCombs, M. E., & Eyal, C. H. (1981). Media agenda-set-
ting in a presidential election: Issues, images, and interest. New York: Praeger.
Weaver, D. H., & Wilhoit, G. C. (1996). The American journalist: A portrait of U.S.
news people and their work. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Webster, J. G., & Lichty, L. W. (1991). Ratings analysis: Theory and practice. Hillsdale,
Webster, J. G., & Lin, S. F. (2002). The Internet audience: Web use as mass behav-
ior. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46(1), 1–12.
Webster, J. G., Phalen, P. F., & Lichty, L. W. (2000). Ratings analysis: The theory and
practice of audience research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Welch, J., & Byrne, J. A. (2001). Jack: Straight from the gut. New York: Warner
Business.
Wenner, L. A. (1989). Media, sports, and society. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
REFERENCES 221
Westin, D. (2004, August 2). So many media, so many decisions. The Newark
Star-Ledger, p. 15.
White, D. M. (1950). The gate-keeper: A case study in the selection of news. Jour-
nalism Quarterly, 27, 383–390.
White House News Releases. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/re-
leases/2003/01/20030121-3.html
Williams, D. (2002). Synergy bias: Conglomerates and promotion in the news.
Willnat, L. (1997). Agenda-setting and priming: Conceptual links and differences.
In M. E. McCombs, D. L. Shaw, & D. Weaver (Eds.), Communication and democ-
racy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory (pp. 51–66).
Wright, C. R. (1986). Mass communication: A sociological perspective (3rd ed.).
New York: Random House.
Yioutas, J., & Segvic, I. (2003). Revisiting the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal: The con-
vergence of agenda setting and framing. Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly, 80, 567–582.
Zelizer, B. (1993). Has communication explained journalism? Journal of Commu-
nication, 43(4), 80–88.
Zillmann, D., Bryant, J., & Huston, A. (Eds.). (1994). Media, children, and the family:
Social scientific, psycho-dynamic, and clinical perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Law-
Zillmann, D., Gibson, R., & Sargent, S. (1999). Effects of photographs in news-mag-
azine reports on issue perception. Media Psychology, 1, 207–228.
Author Index
A Becker, L. B., 27, 32, 42, 44, 79, 206,

212, 215
Aaker, D. A., 78, 79, 80, 81, 87, 90, 205 Bednarski, P. J., 151, 152, 206
Aaker, J. L., 80, 205 Behr, R. L., 154, 206
Aaronson, D., 39, 217 Bellamy, R. V. Jr., 78, 79, 83, 84, 87, 88,
Adamic, L. A., 82, 205 89, 90, 109, 206
Akhavan-Majid, R., 99, 205 Bennett, W. L., 32, 206
Albarran, A., 103, 205 Berger, B. K., 137, 138, 139, 159, 206
Alger, D., 16, 94, 108, 205 Berkowitz, D., 11, 131, 150, 201, 206,
Alter, J., 100, 205 207
Altschull, J. H., 173, 205 Bernays, E. L., 138, 159, 192, 207
Anderson, C. A., 32, 205 Berry, S. T., 82, 207
Anderson, D., 128, 129, 205 Biel, A. L., 82, 207
Anderson, J. Q., 75, 205 Binder, A., 62, 207
Ang, I., 46, 205 Black, J., 18, 207
Anschuetz, N., 82, 84, 205 Blackston, M., 80, 81, 86, 90, 207
Arant, M. D., 75, 205 Blumler, J. G., 26, 32, 44, 62, 207, 213
Ashley, L., 54, 205 Blyskal, J., 147, 207
Atkin, D. J., 31, 188, 206 Blyskal, M., 147, 207
Austin, E. W., 39, 122, 206, 217 Boudreau, T., 99, 205
Bowman, W. W., 122, 213
Brackshaw, E., 32, 212
B Breed, W., 107, 114, 207
Bregman, D., 57, 218
Bae, H., 77, 104, 105, 114, 206 Brenner, D. J., 158, 216
Bagdikian, B. H., 16, 94, 96, 98, 103, Brill, A. M., 76, 207
114, 146, 149, 206 Broom, G. M., 138, 209
Baker, C. E., 17, 24, 191, 206 Bryant, J., 32, 44, 207, 221
Ball-Rokeach, S. J., 12, 35, 36, 37, 44, Buchman, J. G., 110, 193, 194, 207
47, 166, 206, 212 Budd, M., 34, 209
Barney, R., 18, 207 Burns, J. E., 150, 160, 207
Baron, G. R., 17, 21, 136, 139, 140, 189, Burson, H., 22, 23, 160, 207
202, 206 Burton, R., 167, 210
223
224 AUTHOR INDEX
Byrne, J. A., 101, 102, 220 Dunn, D. G., 31, 217

Dunnam, A. E., 164, 167, 186, 210
C
E
Callison, C., 147, 207
Cameron, G. T., 146, 160, 207 Eastman, S. T., 87, 88, 90, 209, 210
Campbell, K. K., 7, 16, 24, 117, 212 Eaton, J., 169, 186, 212
Cantor, M. G., 47, 206 Ehrlich, M. C., 16, 24, 209
Carey, J. W., 26, 207 Elber, L., 89, 209
Carragee, K. M., 57, 59, 67, 208, 218 Elliott, S. N., 150, 220
Carrick, P. M., 163, 208 Engelhardt, T., 151, 209
Carroll, C. E., 51, 147, 208 Entman, R. M., 34, 50, 61, 62, 66, 102,
Carter, B., 152, 170, 208 110, 207, 209
Center, A. H., 138, 209 Eron, L. D., 32, 212
Centerwall, B., 32, 208 Ettema, J. S., 48, 74, 90, 210
Chaffee, S. H., 21, 208 Evans, W. A., 34, 210
Chan-Olmsted, S. M., 80, 81, 86, 208 Eyal, C. H., 32, 220
Chang, T. K., 77, 208
Chen, C., 39, 217
Clawson, R. A., 53, 216 F
Cohen, B. C., 54, 121, 122, 158, 208
Cohen, E. C., 51, 75, 106, 173, 208 Fahey, P. M., 191, 210
Cohen, R. M., 108, 208 Fallows, J. M., 18, 210
Cohen, S., 118, 208 Farrelly, F. J., 167, 210
Colford, P. D., 129, 208 Ferguson, D. A., 88, 89, 210
Compaine, B. M., 16, 82, 208 First, A., 38, 210
Cooper, S., 151, 208 Fishman, M., 49, 118, 153, 160, 210
Cornwell, T. B., 169, 209, 218 Fortunato, J. A., 38, 57, 58, 87, 88, 89,
Coulson, D. C., 99, 209 157, 158, 160, 164, 167, 170,
Craig, R. L., 174, 219 186, 210
Croteau, D., 16, 17, 24 Franklin, M., 19, 210
Csikszentmihalyi, M., 89, 213 Futterman, M., 85, 172, 210, 217
Curran, J., 146, 219
Curtin, P. A., 146, 160, 207 G
Cutlip, S. M., 138, 209
Gabrielsen, G., 149, 219
Galloway, J., 163, 176, 186, 220
D Gamson, W. A., 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63,
66, 136, 150, 210
Danielian, L. H., 57, 209 Gandy, O. H., 53, 60, 67, 149, 150, 210,
Davis, S. M., 78, 82, 83, 84, 90, 209 211, 217
Dean, D. H., 169, 209 Gans, H. J., 16, 77, 149, 176, 211
Dearing, J. W., 57, 218 Gantz, W., 29, 211
DeFleur, M. L., 35, 36, 44, 166, 206 Garcia, M., 52, 211
Demers, D., 98, 99, 114, 209 Gardner, J. W., 202, 211
Dennis, E. E., 192, 201, 209 Garnham, N., 104, 211
De Vany, A. S., 82, 209 Gay, J., 100, 102, 170, 171, 211
Doremus, M., 16, 24, 219 Gerbner, G., 32, 33, 105, 211
Dozier, D. M., 107, 214 Ghanem, S. I., 56, 57, 58, 211, 215
Drayton, M., 206 Gibson, R., 52, 221
Dreier, P., 103, 209 Gieber, W., 118, 211
AUTHOR INDEX 225
Gitlin, T., 16, 18, 54, 60, 66, 94, 107, 211 Johnstone, J. W. C., 122, 213
Goffman, E., 62, 211 Jun, S. Y., 83, 216
Gomery, D., 19, 79, 82, 92, 114, 201,
208, 211 K
Goodwin, M., 105, 212
Gordon, A. D., 192, 212
Kanervo, E. W., 150, 213
Graber, D. A., 32, 77, 212, 220
Kanervo, D. W., 150, 213
Grant, A. E., 67, 166, 212, 217
Kaneva, N., 53, 58, 59, 213
Gross, L., 32, 211
Kapferer, J. N., 79, 213
Grube, J. W., 36, 206
Katz, E., 26, 32, 44, 62, 207, 213
Grunig, J. E., 138, 212
Kaye, B. K., 21, 22, 31, 44, 213
Gurevitch, M., 26, 44, 62, 146, 207, 209,
Keller, K. L., 78, 80, 81, 91, 213
213
Kellner, D., 16, 95, 213
Guthrie, K. K., 166, 212
Kelly, J. D., 76, 213
Gwinner, K. P., 169, 186, 212
Kennedy, H. L., 32, 212
Kim, H. S., 54, 76, 77, 118, 130, 131, 213
Kim, Y., 80, 81, 86, 208
H
Kittross, J. M., 192, 212
Klapper, J. T., 34, 213
Hale, M., 206 Klein, R. A., 88, 210
Hallberg, G., 82, 212 Kline, F. G., 33, 213
Halpern, P., 38, 212 Kosicki, G. M., 32, 44, 57, 79, 117, 131,
Hansen, A., 99, 209 206, 212, 213, 215
Harris, P., 206 Kreiling, A. L., 26, 207
Harvey, B., 169, 212 Kubey, R., 32, 89, 213
Henninger, W., 139, 154, 212 Kurtz, H., 129, 159, 213
Higgins, J. M., 151, 152, 206
Hills, J., 104, 212
L
Hollifield, C. A., 79, 108, 212
Hoynes, W., 16, 17, 24, 191, 209 Lacy, S., 75, 79, 214
Huberman, B. A., 82, 205 Larson, R., 32, 213
Huesmann, L. R., 32, 212 Lasorsa, D. L., 53, 55, 214
Hunt, T., 27, 36, 55, 163, 192, 194, 212 Lauzen, M. M., 107, 214
Husselbee, L. P., 16, 212 Lee, I. L., 118, 157, 160, 214
Huston, A., 32, 221 Lee, J. W., 77, 208
Lee, M., 16, 214
I Lenert, E., 53, 58, 59, 213
Lester, M., 50, 95, 118, 146, 216
Iyengar, S., 154, 206 Levy, M. R., 27, 214
Lewin, K., 119, 214
Lichter, S. R., 18, 214
J Lichty, L. W., 30, 188, 194, 220
Lin, C. A., 27, 31, 214
Jacobs, M. T., 151, 212 Lin, S. F., 30, 31, 82, 109, 194, 220
Jamieson, K. H., 7, 16, 24, 50, 54, 59, Lippmann, W., 49, 214
60, 61, 117, 212 Litman, B., 188, 206
Jason, L. A., 32, 212 Livingstone, S. M., 34, 214
Jeffres, L. W., 31, 206, 214 Loevinger, L., 146, 214
Jhally, S., 97, 212 Loges, W. E., 39, 214
Joachimsthaler, E., 78, 80, 81, 90 Luna, A., 48, 79, 214
Johnson, T. J., 21, 22, 31, 44, 76, 213 Lyle, J., 32, 219
226 AUTHOR INDEX
M Mulgan, G., 106, 216

Murphy, J. H., 174, 178, 186, 190, 191,
Madrigal, R., 169, 214 217
Maher, T. M., 56, 58, 214
Maignan, I., 169, 209 N
Mandelli, A., 56, 219
Marcus, L., 16, 24, 219 Nelson, T. E., 53, 216
Martin, S. E., 55, 136, 149, 152, 158, Niebauer, W. E. Jr., 75, 214
192, 219 Noyes, R. E., 18, 214
Mauro, J., 51, 215
Mazzocco, D. W., 16, 17, 95, 96, 97,
103, 114, 201, 214 O
McAllister, M. P., 110, 111, 163, 167,
168, 214, 215 Olson, B., 54, 205
McChesney, R., 95, 105, 114, 191, 215 Oxley, Z. M., 53, 216
McCombs, M. E., 28, 32, 37, 39, 51, 53,
54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 67, 72, 147, P
208, 215, 217, 219, 220
McLeod, D. M., 32, 215 Palmgreen, P., 30, 44, 218
McLeod, J. M., 27, 32, 24, 215 Papacharissi, Z., 31, 216
McLuhan, M., 25, 26, 215 Papathanassopoulos, S., 104, 212
McManus, J. H., 16, 95, 107, 114, 135, Park, D. J., 137, 138, 139, 159, 206
191, 200, 215 Park, C. S., 81, 216
McQuail, D., 42, 65, 71, 72, 135, 149, Park, C. W., 83, 216
158, 193, 215 Parker, E., 32, 219
Meehan, E. R., 166, 216 Parker, K., 103, 219
Meenaghan, T., 168, 186, 216 Parmar, A., 171, 217
Megwa, E. R., 158, 216 Pavlou, P., 32, 220
Meinhofer, W., 59, 67, 218 Perse, E. M., 27, 28, 31, 32, 87, 88, 91,
Mendelson, A., 52, 216 217, 218
Merskin, D., 99, 209 Peterson, T., 16, 219
Meyer, P., 112, 216 Phalen, P. F., 30, 194, 220
Michaud, G., 57, 208 Phillips, E. B., 98, 217
Mill, J. S., 19, 24, 216 Pinkleton, B. E., 39, 122, 206, 217
Miller, G. A., 55, 216 Porras, L., 206
Miller, G. R., 201, 216 Porter, M. E., 79, 217
Miller, M. M., 59, 60, 63, 64, 138, 216 Price, C. J., 102, 114, 120, 176, 186, 202,
Miller, P. V., 33, 213 217
Milton, J., 19, 24 Protess, D. L., 56, 57, 217
Miyazaki, A. D., 171, 216
Modigliani, A., 59, 60, 62, 63, 66, 136,
Q
150, 210
Molotch, H., 50, 95, 118, 146, 216
Moore, R. L., 48, 216 Quester, P. C., 167, 210
Morgan, A. G., 171, 216
Morgan, M., 32, 211
Morrison, A. J., 33, 213
R
Morton, L. P., 147, 150, 216
Mosco, V., 16, 17, 95, 96, 97, 103, 104, Rachlin, A., 15, 16, 217
216 Reagan, J., 39, 217
Mouritsen, J., 149, 219 Redmond, J., 79, 217
AUTHOR INDEX 227
Reese, S. D., 3, 7, 43, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, Shocker, A. D., 78, 83, 216, 219
67, 72, 73, 74, 76, 91, 101, 147, Shoemaker, P. J., 3, 7, 43, 64, 72, 73, 74,
152, 173, 209, 217, 219 76, 77, 91, 101, 119, 131, 147,
Reilly, M., 172, 217 152, 173, 219
Reynolds, A., 37, 39, 53, 55, 67, 72, 215 Siebert, F., 16, 219
Richards, J. I., 174, 178, 186, 190, 191, Sigal, L., 147, 150, 219
217 Signorielli, N., 32, 211
Rideout, C. R., 16, 217 Singhania, L., 129, 130, 219
Ridgway, J., 87, 218 Slattery, K., 16, 24, 219
Riechert, B. P., 59, 60, 63, 64, 138, 216 Slawski, E. J., 122, 213
Ries, A., 78, 218 Smyth, D. W., 97, 219
Roberts, M., 32, 57, 218 Soley, L. C., 174, 219
Rogers, E. M., 57, 218 Solomon, N., 16, 214
Rokeach, M., 36, 218 Soloski, J., 108, 123, 131, 219
Rosenblatt, M., 57, 208 Sparks, C. W., 32, 219
Rosengren, K. E., 30, 44, 218 Sparks, G. G., 32, 219
Roshco, B., 106, 121, 218 Srinivasan, V., 81, 216
Roy, D. P., 169, 218 Srivastava, R. K., 78, 219
Ruben, B. D., 27, 36, 55, 163, 192, 194, Stark, P., 52, 211
212 Steele, B., 18, 207
Rubin, A. M., 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 38, Steinman, C., 34, 207
44, 216, 218 Stewart, D. W., 32, 220
Rubin, D. M., 146, 218 Stipp, H., 169, 220
Rubin, R. B., 31, 38, 218 Sumpter, R. S., 193, 220
Ruekert, R. W., 78, 219 Susswein, G., 198, 220
Ryan, C., 59, 63, 67, 146, 147, 218 Sutherland, M., 163, 176, 186, 220
Swanson, D. L., 32, 62, 220
S
T
Sallot, L., 146, 160, 207
Salwen, M. B., 150, 218 Tan, A. S., 39, 220
Samuelson, R. J., 106, 218 Thayer, L., 25, 26, 220
Sachsman, D. B., 146, 218 Thorson, E., 52, 216
Sandman, P. M., 146, 218 Till, B. D., 172, 220
Sargent, S., 52, 221 Trager, R., 79, 217
Schaffer, A., 206 Traudt, P. J., 78, 79, 83, 84, 87, 88, 89,
Scheufele, D. A., 52, 88, 218 90, 109, 206
Schiavone, N. P., 169, 220 Trout, J., 78, 218
Schiller, H. I., 174, 175, 186, 190, 218 Trusdell, B., 169, 220
Schoenbach, K., 56, 218 Tuchman, G., 53, 220
Schramm, W., 16, 32, 63, 218, 219
Schudson, M., 18, 24, 98, 102, 108, 148, U
219
Schultz, M., 149, 219
Underwood, D., 95, 220
Segvic, I., 52, 56, 221
Seitel, F. P., 138, 219
Semetko, H. A., 56, 218, 219 V
Shanahan, J., 32, 211
Shaw, D. L., 32, 54, 55, 56, 57, 67, 136,
149, 152, 158, 192, 215, 219 Valkenburg, P. M., 56, 219
Shimp, T. A., 172, 220 Vermeer, J. P., 79, 214
228 AUTHOR INDEX
W Willnat, L., 34, 221

Windahl, S., 27, 214
Wackman, D. B., 48, 90, 210 Woollacott, J., 146, 209
Waldman, P., 50, 54, 59, 60, 61, 212 Wright, C. R., 55, 221
Walls, W. D., 82, 209 Wu, Y., 55, 220
Wanta, W., 52, 55, 220
Ward, S., 32, 220
Weaver, D. H., 28, 32, 54, 67, 122, 135, Y
150, 215, 220
Webster, J. G., 30, 31, 82, 109, 188, 194, Yioutas, J., 52, 56, 221
220 Young, J., 118, 208
Welch, J., 101, 102, 220
Wenner, L. A., 30, 44, 173, 218, 220
Westin, D., 189, 202, 221 Z
White, D. M., 106, 119, 121, 221
Whitney, D. C., 48, 90, 210 Zelizer, B., 200, 221
Wilhoit, G. C., 122, 135, 220 Zillmann, D., 32, 44, 52, 207, 221
Williams, D., 95, 102, 111, 112, 114, Zohoori, A. R., 29, 211
117, 221
Subject Index
A Branham, Lorraine, 12, 101, 108, 123,

193
ABC, 5, 12, 81, 84, 89, 93, 100, 102, 104, Breedlove, Tom, 12, 165, 171, 177
109, 112–113, 123, 176, 178, Broder, David, 203
183, 189, 199 Brokaw, Tom, 100, 122
ABC World News Tonight, 81, 100 Brooks, Sally, 12, 165, 178–179, 184
20/20, 81, 100 Bryant, Kobe, 172
Adidas, 80, 143 Budweiser, 168
Agenda-setting, 8–9, 11, 54–58, 64–66, Bush, George W., 152, 156
86, 88, 187
America Online, 82, 94 C
American Idol, 39, 125, 170
Anderson, Dave, 128–129 Cadillac, 86
Apprentice, 111 Campbells, 83
Araton, Harvey, 128–129 Carnivale, 89
AT&T, 143 Castaway, 171
Avis, 141, 163 CBS, 42, 83–84, 89, 93, 100, 102, 104,
111–113, 151–152, 170, 176,
203
B CBS Evening News, 111, 203
60 Minutes, 83
Baltimore Sun, 94 60 Minutes II, 83, 111, 152
Bartlett, Dan, 152 Cheney, Dick, 152
Beal, Mark, 12, 139, 143–144 Chevrolet, 80, 86
Bevans, Mike, 12, 126, 148, 180 Chicago Tribune, 94
Beverly Hillbillies, 188 Clear Channel, 94
Blumenthal, Karen, 12, 128, 178 Clinton, Bill, 52, 159
Bogan, Mandy, 12, 165–166, 184–185 Clinton, Hillary, 52
Boston Globe, 94 CNBC, 2
Branding, 6, 78–84, 86–90, 164, CNN, 83–84, 88, 94, 102, 104, 112–113,
167–170, 173, 186, 190 120, 143, 176, 202
Brand equity, 81–82 Coca-Cola, 17, 83, 167–168, 170–171
Brand extensions, 82–83, 109 Communication Act of 1934, 15
229
230 SUBJECT INDEX
Continental Airlines, 17, 80, 141 G

Coors, 168
Corzine, Jon, 154
Gannett, 94, 99, 101
Countdown with Keith Olberman, 2
Gatekeeping, 8, 118–119, 121, 123, 130,
CSI, 188
158, 162
Cultivation, 33
General Electric, 3, 94, 98, 101–102,
Curb your Enthusiasm, 76
104, 112
General Motors, 17
D Good Morning America, 81, 100, 178
Gott, Kelley, 12, 180–181, 183
Dallas, 188 Grushow, Sandy, 194
Dateline NBC, 2, 83
Days of Our Lives, 113
Dell Computers, 180 H
Department of Homeland Security,
153–154 Hanks, Tom, 171
Detroit Free Press, 94 Hannity & Colmes, 113
Disney, 17, 85, 93, 100, 104, 109, Hard Rock Café, 141
112–113 Hardball with Chris Matthews, 2
Hartford Courant, 94
E HBO, 76, 83, 86, 88–89
Hemeyer, Terry, 12, 142, 144–145, 171
Early Show, 111 Hertz, 163
Emanuel, Mike, 12, 128, 155, 178 Heyward, Andrew, 100, 151–152
Entertainment Weekly, 89, 94 Hume, Brit, 203
ER, 28 Hussein, Saddam, 152
ESPN, 83, 85, 89, 93, 109, 112–113, 129
ESPN the Magazine, 83
ESPN Radio, 83 I
ESPN’s The Sports Reporters, 129
Imus in the Morning, 2, 100, 112
Instrumental media use, 28–29, 36
F Internet, 1–2, 6, 30, 48–49, 51, 75, 87,
105–106, 120, 123, 139, 188
Federal Communications Commis-
sion, 104–105 J
Federal Express, 171
First Amendment, 19, 22, 184 James, Lebron, 172
Fleischer, Ari, 152 Jennings, Peter, 81
Ford, 80, 86, 170 Jimmy Kimmel Live, 112
Fortune, 94, 147
Fox News, 5, 12, 84–85, 89, 94, 104,
113, 128, 155, 178, 203 K
Framing, 3–4, 8, 11, 43–44, 46–48,
50–66, 71–72, 75, 92, 119, Kagan World Media, 85
130–131, 137–138, 146, 148, Kansas City Star, 94
153, 187, 196, 201 King, Peter, 12, 125, 127, 178
Frasier, 101 Knight-Ridder, 94, 101
Friedman, Thomas, 203 Koppel, Ted, 81, 100
Friends, 101 Krauthammer, Charles, 203
SUBJECT INDEX 231
L New York Newsday, 80

New York Post, 80
New York Times, 5, 49, 80–81, 94,
Larry King Live, 88, 113
128–129, 147
Letterman, David, 42, 100, 111–113
Newark Star-Ledger, 154
Lexus, 86, 167, 172
News cycle, 21, 119–120, 140, 154
Los Angeles Times, 94
NewsCorp, 94, 104
Louisville Courier-Journal, 99
Newsweek, 2, 94, 176
Nightline, 81, 100
Nike, 80, 83, 141, 172
M
Nikon, 141
Nutella, 172
Macaroni Grill, 165
Marketplace of ideas, 19–24, 104, O
199–200
MasterCard, 143, 165, 167 Office of Global Communications,
Masters golf tournament, 128–129 155–157
Maytag, 164 O’Reilly Factor, 113
McDonald’s, 40, 83, 141, 167, 172 Orlando Sentinel, 94
McMahon, Vince, 102 Ownership, 5–6, 92–95, 98–103,
Media dependency, 8–9, 11, 35, 44, 106–107, 109–110, 115, 131,
46–47, 64–66, 92, 149, 166, 193
187, 196
Individual media dependency, 35, P
41, 44, 66
PBS, 102, 176
Organizational media dependency,
People, 90, 94
35, 40–42, 44, 47, 66
Pepsi, 83, 168, 171
Media effects, 32–35, 42–43, 46–47,
Persian Gulf war of 1991, 96, 151
64–65, 98
Philadelphia Daily News, 94
Media promotion, 80–89, 92, 109–113
Philadelphia Inquirer, 94, 123
Media routines, 72–78, 90, 92, 115, 120,
Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 123
130, 197–198
Political economy approach to mass
Meet the Press, 2, 42, 81, 113
communication, 17, 95–98
Mercedes-Benz, 86, 167
Powell, Colin, 152
Messing, Debra, 113
Practice, 112
Miami Herald, 94
Product placement, 166, 170–172, 176,
Microsoft, 81, 143
191
Miller, 168
Public relations, 136–153, 157–159,
Minority Report, 170
161–162, 203
Moonves, Les, 100, 102, 112, 170
MSNBC, 2, 85, 104, 109, 120
R
Rather, Dan, 100, 122, 152
N Ratings, 31, 184–185, 188, 191
Reebok, 80, 83, 143
Nabisco, 143 Reilly, Rick, 126
NBC, 2, 3, 5, 28, 41, 83–84, 87, 94, 98, Ridge, Tom, 153–154
101–102, 104, 109, 111–113, Ritualized media use, 28–29, 36, 90
176 Rolling Stone, 90
Nelligan, T.J., 172 Romano, Ray, 171
New York Daily News, 80 Russert, Tim, 42, 81, 100, 113
232 SUBJECT INDEX
S U
Sanders, Alain, 12, 127, 177–179, 198 Ulrich, Stephen, 87

Scarborough Country, 2 UPN, 84, 93
Sears, 40, 164, 178 Upper Deck, 172
Seinfeld, 101, 111 USA Today, 12, 81, 83, 94, 101, 120,
Sex and the City, 76 124, 144, 155, 181–182, 199
Shell Oil, 180 Uses and Gratfications, 8–9, 11, 26–27,
Six Feet Under, 76 29–34, 43, 64–66, 78, 92, 187
Smith, Emmitt, 125
Sommer, Bob, 12, 140–142, 145 V
Sopranos, 76
Southwest Airlines, 80, 180 Viacom, 93, 104, 112
Spalding, 172 Verizon, 141
Spielberg, Steven, 170
Spin Cycle, 159 W
Spiral of opportunity, 63–64, 138
Sponsorship, 166–172, 176, 191
Sports Illustrated, 5, 12, 83, 90, 94, Wal-Mart, 40, 165
125–127, 148, 178, 180 Wald, David, 12, 154
Sprite, 172 Wall Street Journal, 128, 147, 178
Sunbarger, Rachel, 12, 153–154 Walters, Barbara, 81
Super Bowl, 36, 113, 148, 192 Washington Post, 81, 94, 147
Supreme Court, 198 WB, 84, 94
Survivor, 111, 170 Webber, Jeff, 12, 83, 101, 124, 184, 199
West Wing, 113
T Westin, David, 12, 81, 100–102, 178,
183, 189, 199, 202
Tallahassee Democrat, 123, 193 White House, 149, 152–156
TBS, 85, 89, 94 Will & Grace, 113
Telecommunications Act of 1996, 15 Wilson, 171
Texaco, 143 Wilson, Kinsey, 12, 120, 124–125, 155
Time, 12, 41, 90, 94, 127, 159, 176–177, Woods, Clint, 12, 142–143, 161
179–183, 198 Woods, Tiger, 128
Time shifting of advertisements,
178–180, 183–184, 186 Y
Time Warner, 94, 104
Today Show, 2, 111 Young and the Restless, 102

2005-John A. Fortunato - Making Media Content.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2005-John A. Fortunato - Making Media Content.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2005-John A. Fortunato - Making Media Content.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Making Media Content

Selected titles include:

Berger • Planning Strategic Interaction: Attaining Goals Through

For a complete list of titles in LEA’s Communication Series, please

LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, PUBLISHERS

Copyright © 2005 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers

Cover design by Sean Sciarrone

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN 1-4106-1384-4 Master e-book ISBN

The most fortunate thing is something I had

Thank You for Everything.

About the Author xv

1 The Mass Media Responsibility 15

2 Mass Media Use 25

3 Mass Media Selecting and Framing 46

II: The Internal Mass Media Organization

4 Establishing the Mass Media Organization: Routines, 71

6 Day-to-Day Decision Makers 115

III: The External Mass Media Organization:

7 Mass Media Organization Interaction With Content 135

Author Index 223

Subject Index 229

College communication and English departments were very helpful.

John A. Fortunato, PhD is an assistant professor at the University of

As an industry with such a profound impact on society, it seems the

(b) delivery mechanism of the message: print, audio, video, and

• NBC Nightly News

Each of these television programs (therefore, a similar delivery mecha-

importance of understanding the process of content decision making

of the audience is important in that there are a variety of reasons that

FIG. I.1. The process of mass media content decision making.

media organization, which can fulfill or deny these requests. The

of media choices. Among all of these choices, mass media organiza-

ronment is described in this chapter to explain the possibilities of

To explain better the content decision-making process of a mass

distributing information take enormous amounts of money in terms of

volved in these relationships have crucial decisions that are made at

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

public. The marketplace of ideas concept begins to bestow a great

the current technological environment to get some information about

ideas concept becomes problematic, and the critique of the mass

munication. Evaluating the audience is difficult because the audience

Baker, C. E. (1992). Advertising and a democratic press. University of Pennsylvania

The media use behavior of the audience in relation to the marketplace

(1964). Through his saying that “the medium is the message,”

USES AND GRATIFICATIONS

With the most recognizable characteristic that establishes the power

communication media and their content before interacting with the

Gantz and Zohoori (1982) claimed that accommodation to televi-

The likelihood of accommodation for television is maximized when it in-

Accommodation of media use to the other activities people need to

media in that there is still a business component and a need to attract an

In addition to suggesting the audience is active in choosing media con-

dience is active in interpreting messages (e.g., Katz et al., 1974).

is grounded, contends that mass media messages are not an over-

Although the mass media message is selected and framed, a key to

tions of the individual audience members. Klapper (1960) questioned

If we see the media or life events as all-powerful creators of meaning, we

interaction of texts and readers is a struggle, a site of negotiation between