[July 15, 2010]

Former President George W. Bush had little influence over the media and public opinion in regard to stem cell research, according to a recent study published in Newspaper Research Journal.

Researchers Shahira Fahmy, Wayne Wanta and Jeannine E. Relly found that despite repeated presidential criticism of stem cell research, most of the 200 newspaper articles they examined were positive. The study examines coverage from 2004 to 2006, before Bush’s veto of a bill that would have ended federal restrictions on stem cell research funding.

While Bush’s main argument against stem cell research was based on ethical issues, only 5.5 percent of articles focused on ethical concerns regarding stem cell research.

The authors concluded that the more Bush spoke out against stem cell research, the more sources were quoted in support of the issue in an attempt by news media to report both sides. Also, the more coverage of the issue, the more informed individuals became on the issue and more information resulted in more support for stem cell research.

Fahmy is an associate professor and Relly is an assistant professor in the School of Journalism at the University of Arizona. Wanta is the Welch-Bridgewater Chair in sports journalism in the School of Journalism and Broadcasting at Oklahoma State University.

The study was published in the summer 2010 issue of Newspaper Research Journal.

Contacts: Sandra H. Utt Cell: (901) 628-2553 e-mail: nrj@newspaperresearchjournal.org or
Elinor Kelley Grusin e-mail: egrusin@memphis.edu.

<<RYCU

[July 15, 2010]

Editorials and op-ed pages framed the debate over medical marijuana differently, using societal, legal and therapeutic frames to look at this highly-contested issue, according to a recent study published in Newspaper Research Journal.

Researcher Guy Golan conducted a content analysis of more than 100 editorial and op-ed articles and found that editorials tended to frame medical marijuana in terms of the social, political and legal implications of legalized medicinal marijuana, while op-ed pieces tended to look only at the medical implications of the debate.

Golan also found that the articles were missing opinions from prominent scientists and religious figures, as most of the articles were written by or included information from newspaper editors, academics or advocacy groups. While these results are consistent with past studies, this led to concern about the lack of balance in framing controversial public issues in newspaper editorials and op-ed pieces.

Golan is an assistant professor in the department of communication at Seton Hall University.

The study was published in the summer 2010 issue of Newspaper Research Journal.

Contacts: Sandra H. Utt Cell: (901) 628-2553 e-mail: nrj@newspaperresearchjournal.org or Elinor Kelley Grusin e-mail: egrusin@memphis.edu.

<<RYCU

[October 6, 2011]

Research from the Newspaper Research Journal suggests that big city local news is interesting to people hundreds and even thousands of miles away.

In fact, the Los Angeles-based Daily News website attracts readers far away than within Los Angeles.

For readers of the online version of the Daily News, the reader’s average distance from Los Angeles was 422.5 miles.

The research conducted by Hsiang Iris Chyi, an assistant professor at the University of Texas at Austin, included reader surveys at 28 local newspapers that suggest newspapers based in locales with larger populations, as well as those with higher print circulations, tend to have a more geographically dispersed online readership.

Local news stories from Los Angeles top the list, which included a Staten Island paper, in a geographic ranking of reach.

The top-10 list for geographic reach of newspapers’ websites included:

1. Los Angeles – DailyNews.com
2. Denver – DenverPost.com
3. Denver – RockyMountainNews.com
4. Pocatello – JournalNet.com
5. Waterloo – WCFCourier.com
6. St. Paul – TwinCities.com
7. Erie – GoErie.com
8. El Paso – ElPasoTimes.com
9. Whittier – WhittierDailyNews.com
10. Dubuque – THOnline.com

The study was published in the summer 2011 issue of Newspaper Research Journal.

Contacts: Sandra H. Utt Cell: (901) 628-2553 e-mail: nrj@newspaperresearchjournal.org or Elinor Kelley Grusin e-mail: egrusin@memphis.edu

<<RYCU

[October 6, 2011]

While the use of anonymous online forums is growing among newspapers, a majority of reporters say the online comments do not promote civil thoughtful discussion, according to a recent study published in Newspaper Research Journal. Researcher Arthur Santana concluded that many reporters are troubled by the anonymous content and express dismay over their newspaper’s “providing a forum for anonymous discussion, where emotions run high and mudslinging is the norm.”

According to Santana, although most newspapers have online forums, almost half of reporters “never” respond to readers’ comments on their own stories. Some 41.7 percent of reporters in Santana’s research said that they have not changed their approach to reporting based on reader comments.

In fact, 23.1 percent of reporters adapted their reporting practices to include more sources, and 22.9 percent of reporters changed their practices to include more facts. Hence, the online forum has become a medium for feedback to journalists.

Citizen comments also “have spurred reporters to re-examine the newsworthiness of a topic and have also helped them think of new and different stories to tell while nudging them toward new and different ways to tell them,” according to Santana, a doctoral student in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Oregon.

The study was published in the summer 2011 issue of Newspaper Research Journal.

Contacts: Sandra H. Utt Cell: (901) 628-2553 e-mail: nrj@newspaperresearchjournal.org or Elinor Kelley Grusin e-mail: egrusin@memphis.edu

<<RYCU

[February 16, 2010]

Government agencies have long distributed prepackaged “video news releases,” or VNRs, to media outlets, as part of their mission to keep the public informed about their policies and activities. The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) has said that distributing VNRs without clearly identifying the government as their source, as was done on at least two occasions by the Bush Administration, violates laws against covert propaganda. However, to date little has been known about the effects of attribution – or lack of attribution – of government VNRs on audiences.

A study by a team of researchers from Penn State University and the University of Hartford published in the current issue of the Journal of Public Relations Research indicates that the effects of attribution on audiences seems to depend more on who’s watching the VNR than on what the government agency is saying in it.

According to Colleen Connolly-Ahern, an Assistant Professor at Penn State University and the leader of the research team that included Susan Grantham of University of Hartford and Maria Cabrera-Baukus of Penn State, “The original reason for the legislation, and the premise upon which the GAO has operated, is that VNRs are somehow more credible when they appear to be independent news stories, and not identified as government communications. But our findings don’t indicate that at all.”

In fact, said Connolly-Ahern, the credibility of the communications seems to depend on your political affiliation. “Self-identified Republicans actually judged a VNR higher in expertise when they knew it was from a government agency, and not a traditional news story. For self-identified Democrats the effects were reversed, with Democrats finding the VNR less expert when it came from a governmental agency.” The data was collected during the last year of President Bush’s second term.

The role of government is to develop policies that support public interests and reduce risks for all citizens. But Connolly-Ahern, Grantham and Cabrera-Baukus’ findings indicate it’s important for administrators to understand that citizens may base the credibility of their communications on their relationship with the party in power.

The research was supported by a grant from the Arthur W. Page Center for Integrity in Public Communication at the Penn State College of Communications. The authors are now planning to repeat the study. “The change in administrations has given us the chance to see whether or not the findings are different under a Democratic administration,” said Connolly-Ahern.

Contacts: Colleen Connolly-Ahern, Assistant Professor, College of Communications, Penn State University, connolly-ahern@psu.edu or Susan Grantham, Associate Professor, School of Communication, University of Hartford, Grantham@hartford.edu.

<<RYCU