Assessing news quality: A comparison between community and student daily newspapers

Journalism and Mass Communication Quaterly

Volumn 73, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 672-686

  Bodle, John V ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0007266632     PISSN: 10776990     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/107769909607300313     Document Type: Article

References (94)

1. Guido H. Stempel III, "Where People Really Get Most of Their News," Newspaper Research Journal 12 (fall 1991): 2-9.
2. Rudolf Flesch, The Art of Readable Writing (NY: Harper and Row, 1949). Also see Robert Gunning, The Technique of Clear Writing (NY: McGraw-Hill, 1952); and Edgar Dale and Jeanne S. Chall, "A Formula for Predicting Readability," Education Research Bulletin 27 (February 1948): 45-55; and Wilson L. Taylor, "Cloze Procedure: A New Tool for Measuring Readability," Journalism Quarterly 30 (fall 1953): 415-33.
3. Rudolf Flesch, The Art of Readable Writing (NY: Harper and Row, 1949). Also see Robert Gunning, The Technique of Clear Writing (NY: McGraw-Hill, 1952); and Edgar Dale and Jeanne S. Chall, "A Formula for Predicting Readability," Education Research Bulletin 27 (February 1948): 45-55; and Wilson L. Taylor, "Cloze Procedure: A New Tool for Measuring Readability," Journalism Quarterly 30 (fall 1953): 415-33.
4. Rudolf Flesch, The Art of Readable Writing (NY: Harper and Row, 1949). Also see Robert Gunning, The Technique of Clear Writing (NY: McGraw-Hill, 1952); and Edgar Dale and Jeanne S. Chall, "A Formula for Predicting Readability," Education Research Bulletin 27 (February 1948): 45-55; and Wilson L. Taylor, "Cloze Procedure: A New Tool for Measuring Readability," Journalism Quarterly 30 (fall 1953): 415-33.
5. Rudolf Flesch, The Art of Readable Writing (NY: Harper and Row, 1949). Also see Robert Gunning, The Technique of Clear Writing (NY: McGraw-Hill, 1952); and Edgar Dale and Jeanne S. Chall, "A Formula for Predicting Readability," Education Research Bulletin 27 (February 1948): 45-55; and Wilson L. Taylor, "Cloze Procedure: A New Tool for Measuring Readability," Journalism Quarterly 30 (fall 1953): 415-33.
6. Flesch, The Art of Readable Writing.
7. See S.I. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action (NY: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1949); and Dennis T. Lowry, " Agnew and the Network T.V. News: a Before / After Content Analysis," Journalism Quarterly 48 (summer 1971): 205-10; and Tilden M. Counts Jr., "The Influence of Message and Source on Selection of Statements by Reporters," Journalism Quarterly 52 (autumn 1975): 443-49; and Michael Ryan, "Reports, Inferences and Judgments in News Coverage of Social Issues," Journalism Quarterly 56 (autumn 1979): 497-503; and Richard A. Pride and Daniel H. Clarke, "Race Relations in Television News: A Content Analysis of the Networks," Journalism Quarterly 50 (summer 1973): 319-28.
8. See S.I. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action (NY: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1949); and Dennis T. Lowry, " Agnew and the Network T.V. News: a Before / After Content Analysis," Journalism Quarterly 48 (summer 1971): 205-10; and Tilden M. Counts Jr., "The Influence of Message and Source on Selection of Statements by Reporters," Journalism Quarterly 52 (autumn 1975): 443-49; and Michael Ryan, "Reports, Inferences and Judgments in News Coverage of Social Issues," Journalism Quarterly 56 (autumn 1979): 497-503; and Richard A. Pride and Daniel H. Clarke, "Race Relations in Television News: A Content Analysis of the Networks," Journalism Quarterly 50 (summer 1973): 319-28.
9. See S.I. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action (NY: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1949); and Dennis T. Lowry, " Agnew and the Network T.V. News: a Before / After Content Analysis," Journalism Quarterly 48 (summer 1971): 205-10; and Tilden M. Counts Jr., "The Influence of Message and Source on Selection of Statements by Reporters," Journalism Quarterly 52 (autumn 1975): 443-49; and Michael Ryan, "Reports, Inferences and Judgments in News Coverage of Social Issues," Journalism Quarterly 56 (autumn 1979): 497-503; and Richard A. Pride and Daniel H. Clarke, "Race Relations in Television News: A Content Analysis of the Networks," Journalism Quarterly 50 (summer 1973): 319-28.
10. See S.I. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action (NY: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1949); and Dennis T. Lowry, " Agnew and the Network T.V. News: a Before / After Content Analysis," Journalism Quarterly 48 (summer 1971): 205-10; and Tilden M. Counts Jr., "The Influence of Message and Source on Selection of Statements by Reporters," Journalism Quarterly 52 (autumn 1975): 443-49; and Michael Ryan, "Reports, Inferences and Judgments in News Coverage of Social Issues," Journalism Quarterly 56 (autumn 1979): 497-503; and Richard A. Pride and Daniel H. Clarke, "Race Relations in Television News: A Content Analysis of the Networks," Journalism Quarterly 50 (summer 1973): 319-28.
11. See S.I. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action (NY: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1949); and Dennis T. Lowry, " Agnew and the Network T.V. News: a Before / After Content Analysis," Journalism Quarterly 48 (summer 1971): 205-10; and Tilden M. Counts Jr., "The Influence of Message and Source on Selection of Statements by Reporters," Journalism Quarterly 52 (autumn 1975): 443-49; and Michael Ryan, "Reports, Inferences and Judgments in News Coverage of Social Issues," Journalism Quarterly 56 (autumn 1979): 497-503; and Richard A. Pride and Daniel H. Clarke, "Race Relations in Television News: A Content Analysis of the Networks," Journalism Quarterly 50 (summer 1973): 319-28.
12. Among those pertaining to attribution are Lowry, "Agnew and the Network," 205-10; and Ryan, "Reports, Inferences and Judgments," 497-503; and Pride and Clarke, "Race Relations in Television News," 319-28.
13. Among those pertaining to attribution are Lowry, "Agnew and the Network," 205-10; and Ryan, "Reports, Inferences and Judgments," 497-503; and Pride and Clarke, "Race Relations in Television News," 319-28.
14. Among those pertaining to attribution are Lowry, "Agnew and the Network," 205-10; and Ryan, "Reports, Inferences and Judgments," 497-503; and Pride and Clarke, "Race Relations in Television News," 319-28.
15. Story length was among the variables considered by many earlier researchers, including Stephen Lacy and Frederick Fico, "Newspaper Quality and Ownership: Rating the Groups," Newspaper Research Journal 11 (spring 1990): 42-56; and John Demote, "'Interpretative' News Stories Compared with 'Spot' News," Journalism Quarterly 50 (spring 1973): 102-108.
16. Story length was among the variables considered by many earlier researchers, including Stephen Lacy and Frederick Fico, "Newspaper Quality and Ownership: Rating the Groups," Newspaper Research Journal 11 (spring 1990): 42-56; and John Demote, "'Interpretative' News Stories Compared with 'Spot' News," Journalism Quarterly 50 (spring 1973): 102-108.
17. Some student dailies circulate beyond the campus boundaries, attempting to reach readers and advertisers within the community itself. Therefore, some advisers and business managers at student newspapers perceive that they too are community dailies. Throughout this study "private-sector" is used to distinguish nonstudent-owned newspapers from those produced by students.
18. Gerald L. Grotta, Ernest F. Larkin, and Barbara De Plois, "How Readers Perceive and Use a Small Daily Newspaper," Journalism Quarterly 52 (winter 1975): 711-15.
19. Maxwell E. McCombs and James P. Winter, "Defining Local News," Newspaper Research Journal 3 (fall 1981): 16-21.
20. See Westly F. Willoughby, "Are Two Competing Dailies Necessarily Better Than One?" Journalism Quarterly 32 (spring 1955): 197-204; and Raymond B. Nixon and Robert L. Jones, "The Content of Non-Competitive vs. Competitive Newspapers," Journalism Quarterly 33(summer 1956): 299-314; and John C. Schweitzer and Elaine Goldman, "Does Newspaper Competition Make a Difference to Readers?" Journalism Quarterly 52 (winter 1975)): 706-10; and David H. Weaver and L.E. Mullins, "Content and Format Characteristics of Competing Daily Newspapers," Journalism Quarterly 52 (summer 1975): 257-64; and Galen Rarick and Barrie Hartman, "The Effects of Competition on One Daily Newspaper's Content," Journalism Quarterly 43 (autumn 1966): 459-63; and Guido H. Stempel III, Effects on Performance of a Cross-Media Monopoly, Journalism Monographs, no. 29 (Columbia, SC: AEJMC, 1973); and Ronald G. Hicks and James S. Featherston, "Duplication of Newspaper Content in Contrasting Ownership Situations," Journalism Quarterly 55 (autumn 1978): 549-53; and Stephen Lacy, "The Effects of Intracity Competition on Daily Newspaper Content, Journalism Quarterly 64 (summer-autumn 1987): 281; and Stephen Lacy, "A Model of Demand for News: Impact of Competition on Newspaper Content," Journalism Quarterly 66 (spring 1989): 40-48. Since this study compares news content and writing characteristics found in private-sector and student newspapers within the same community, discussions must first consider whether vast differences are to be expected. Most early researchers indicated that the content of noncompetitive and competitive newspapers does not differ greatly. Willoughby found that there were "no essential content differences" when he studied two competing dailies in an Indiana city. Nixon and Jones determined in 1956 that in cities of less than 400,000 population there are no significant differences between the two groups, except for the size of the "news hole." Similarly, Schweitzer and Goldman found little change in local news content during and after periods of competition. Weaver and Mullins concluded in 1975 that news content differed little between economically "leading" and "trailing" publications when they studied forty-six competing daily newspapers in twenty-three U.S. cities. Standing alone among these early studies was research by Rarick and Hartman, who concluded in 1966 that differences in news content between competing newspapers could be determined by analyzing content in the same newspaper over a longer, nonstatic period of years. Their conclusions received support in 1973, when Stempel found that residents served by a cross-media monopoly (where local print and broadcast outlets are owned by the same entity) were less well informed than those with a diversity of ownership. More than a decade after Rarick's and Hartman's study, Hicks and Featherston called for a reconsideration of Nixon's conclusions on news diversity after they found relatively little news content duplication between competing newspapers in the same city. A 1987 study by Lacy determined that readers receive more news hole through local newspaper competition, in agreement with a portion of Nixon's research. Lacy also found that newspapers in competition serve readers with more reporters and buy more wire services. Two years later he implied that intense competition should more strongly satisfy readers than those receiving their news from newspapers with less competition. Competition, he argued, should more fully meet the information needs and wants of these readers more than readers within a monopoly market.
21. See Westly F. Willoughby, "Are Two Competing Dailies Necessarily Better Than One?" Journalism Quarterly 32 (spring 1955): 197-204; and Raymond B. Nixon and Robert L. Jones, "The Content of Non-Competitive vs. Competitive Newspapers," Journalism Quarterly 33(summer 1956): 299-314; and John C. Schweitzer and Elaine Goldman, "Does Newspaper Competition Make a Difference to Readers?" Journalism Quarterly 52 (winter 1975)): 706-10; and David H. Weaver and L.E. Mullins, "Content and Format Characteristics of Competing Daily Newspapers," Journalism Quarterly 52 (summer 1975): 257-64; and Galen Rarick and Barrie Hartman, "The Effects of Competition on One Daily Newspaper's Content," Journalism Quarterly 43 (autumn 1966): 459-63; and Guido H. Stempel III, Effects on Performance of a Cross-Media Monopoly, Journalism Monographs, no. 29 (Columbia, SC: AEJMC, 1973); and Ronald G. Hicks and James S. Featherston, "Duplication of Newspaper Content in Contrasting Ownership Situations," Journalism Quarterly 55 (autumn 1978): 549-53; and Stephen Lacy, "The Effects of Intracity Competition on Daily Newspaper Content, Journalism Quarterly 64 (summer-autumn 1987): 281; and Stephen Lacy, "A Model of Demand for News: Impact of Competition on Newspaper Content," Journalism Quarterly 66 (spring 1989): 40-48. Since this study compares news content and writing characteristics found in private-sector and student newspapers within the same community, discussions must first consider whether vast differences are to be expected. Most early researchers indicated that the content of noncompetitive and competitive newspapers does not differ greatly. Willoughby found that there were "no essential content differences" when he studied two competing dailies in an Indiana city. Nixon and Jones determined in 1956 that in cities of less than 400,000 population there are no significant differences between the two groups, except for the size of the "news hole." Similarly, Schweitzer and Goldman found little change in local news content during and after periods of competition. Weaver and Mullins concluded in 1975 that news content differed little between economically "leading" and "trailing" publications when they studied forty-six competing daily newspapers in twenty-three U.S. cities. Standing alone among these early studies was research by Rarick and Hartman, who concluded in 1966 that differences in news content between competing newspapers could be determined by analyzing content in the same newspaper over a longer, nonstatic period of years. Their conclusions received support in 1973, when Stempel found that residents served by a cross-media monopoly (where local print and broadcast outlets are owned by the same entity) were less well informed than those with a diversity of ownership. More than a decade after Rarick's and Hartman's study, Hicks and Featherston called for a reconsideration of Nixon's conclusions on news diversity after they found relatively little news content duplication between competing newspapers in the same city. A 1987 study by Lacy determined that readers receive more news hole through local newspaper competition, in agreement with a portion of Nixon's research. Lacy also found that newspapers in competition serve readers with more reporters and buy more wire services. Two years later he implied that intense competition should more strongly satisfy readers than those receiving their news from newspapers with less competition. Competition, he argued, should more fully meet the information needs and wants of these readers more than readers within a monopoly market.
22. See Westly F. Willoughby, "Are Two Competing Dailies Necessarily Better Than One?" Journalism Quarterly 32 (spring 1955): 197-204; and Raymond B. Nixon and Robert L. Jones, "The Content of Non-Competitive vs. Competitive Newspapers," Journalism Quarterly 33(summer 1956): 299-314; and John C. Schweitzer and Elaine Goldman, "Does Newspaper Competition Make a Difference to Readers?" Journalism Quarterly 52 (winter 1975)): 706-10; and David H. Weaver and L.E. Mullins, "Content and Format Characteristics of Competing Daily Newspapers," Journalism Quarterly 52 (summer 1975): 257-64; and Galen Rarick and Barrie Hartman, "The Effects of Competition on One Daily Newspaper's Content," Journalism Quarterly 43 (autumn 1966): 459-63; and Guido H. Stempel III, Effects on Performance of a Cross-Media Monopoly, Journalism Monographs, no. 29 (Columbia, SC: AEJMC, 1973); and Ronald G. Hicks and James S. Featherston, "Duplication of Newspaper Content in Contrasting Ownership Situations," Journalism Quarterly 55 (autumn 1978): 549-53; and Stephen Lacy, "The Effects of Intracity Competition on Daily Newspaper Content, Journalism Quarterly 64 (summer-autumn 1987): 281; and Stephen Lacy, "A Model of Demand for News: Impact of Competition on Newspaper Content," Journalism Quarterly 66 (spring 1989): 40-48. Since this study compares news content and writing characteristics found in private-sector and student newspapers within the same community, discussions must first consider whether vast differences are to be expected. Most early researchers indicated that the content of noncompetitive and competitive newspapers does not differ greatly. Willoughby found that there were "no essential content differences" when he studied two competing dailies in an Indiana city. Nixon and Jones determined in 1956 that in cities of less than 400,000 population there are no significant differences between the two groups, except for the size of the "news hole." Similarly, Schweitzer and Goldman found little change in local news content during and after periods of competition. Weaver and Mullins concluded in 1975 that news content differed little between economically "leading" and "trailing" publications when they studied forty-six competing daily newspapers in twenty-three U.S. cities. Standing alone among these early studies was research by Rarick and Hartman, who concluded in 1966 that differences in news content between competing newspapers could be determined by analyzing content in the same newspaper over a longer, nonstatic period of years. Their conclusions received support in 1973, when Stempel found that residents served by a cross-media monopoly (where local print and broadcast outlets are owned by the same entity) were less well informed than those with a diversity of ownership. More than a decade after Rarick's and Hartman's study, Hicks and Featherston called for a reconsideration of Nixon's conclusions on news diversity after they found relatively little news content duplication between competing newspapers in the same city. A 1987 study by Lacy determined that readers receive more news hole through local newspaper competition, in agreement with a portion of Nixon's research. Lacy also found that newspapers in competition serve readers with more reporters and buy more wire services. Two years later he implied that intense competition should more strongly satisfy readers than those receiving their news from newspapers with less competition. Competition, he argued, should more fully meet the information needs and wants of these readers more than readers within a monopoly market.
23. See Westly F. Willoughby, "Are Two Competing Dailies Necessarily Better Than One?" Journalism Quarterly 32 (spring 1955): 197-204; and Raymond B. Nixon and Robert L. Jones, "The Content of Non-Competitive vs. Competitive Newspapers," Journalism Quarterly 33(summer 1956): 299-314; and John C. Schweitzer and Elaine Goldman, "Does Newspaper Competition Make a Difference to Readers?" Journalism Quarterly 52 (winter 1975)): 706-10; and David H. Weaver and L.E. Mullins, "Content and Format Characteristics of Competing Daily Newspapers," Journalism Quarterly 52 (summer 1975): 257-64; and Galen Rarick and Barrie Hartman, "The Effects of Competition on One Daily Newspaper's Content," Journalism Quarterly 43 (autumn 1966): 459-63; and Guido H. Stempel III, Effects on Performance of a Cross-Media Monopoly, Journalism Monographs, no. 29 (Columbia, SC: AEJMC, 1973); and Ronald G. Hicks and James S. Featherston, "Duplication of Newspaper Content in Contrasting Ownership Situations," Journalism Quarterly 55 (autumn 1978): 549-53; and Stephen Lacy, "The Effects of Intracity Competition on Daily Newspaper Content, Journalism Quarterly 64 (summer-autumn 1987): 281; and Stephen Lacy, "A Model of Demand for News: Impact of Competition on Newspaper Content," Journalism Quarterly 66 (spring 1989): 40-48. Since this study compares news content and writing characteristics found in private-sector and student newspapers within the same community, discussions must first consider whether vast differences are to be expected. Most early researchers indicated that the content of noncompetitive and competitive newspapers does not differ greatly. Willoughby found that there were "no essential content differences" when he studied two competing dailies in an Indiana city. Nixon and Jones determined in 1956 that in cities of less than 400,000 population there are no significant differences between the two groups, except for the size of the "news hole." Similarly, Schweitzer and Goldman found little change in local news content during and after periods of competition. Weaver and Mullins concluded in 1975 that news content differed little between economically "leading" and "trailing" publications when they studied forty-six competing daily newspapers in twenty-three U.S. cities. Standing alone among these early studies was research by Rarick and Hartman, who concluded in 1966 that differences in news content between competing newspapers could be determined by analyzing content in the same newspaper over a longer, nonstatic period of years. Their conclusions received support in 1973, when Stempel found that residents served by a cross-media monopoly (where local print and broadcast outlets are owned by the same entity) were less well informed than those with a diversity of ownership. More than a decade after Rarick's and Hartman's study, Hicks and Featherston called for a reconsideration of Nixon's conclusions on news diversity after they found relatively little news content duplication between competing newspapers in the same city. A 1987 study by Lacy determined that readers receive more news hole through local newspaper competition, in agreement with a portion of Nixon's research. Lacy also found that newspapers in competition serve readers with more reporters and buy more wire services. Two years later he implied that intense competition should more strongly satisfy readers than those receiving their news from newspapers with less competition. Competition, he argued, should more fully meet the information needs and wants of these readers more than readers within a monopoly market.
24. See Westly F. Willoughby, "Are Two Competing Dailies Necessarily Better Than One?" Journalism Quarterly 32 (spring 1955): 197-204; and Raymond B. Nixon and Robert L. Jones, "The Content of Non-Competitive vs. Competitive Newspapers," Journalism Quarterly 33(summer 1956): 299-314; and John C. Schweitzer and Elaine Goldman, "Does Newspaper Competition Make a Difference to Readers?" Journalism Quarterly 52 (winter 1975)): 706-10; and David H. Weaver and L.E. Mullins, "Content and Format Characteristics of Competing Daily Newspapers," Journalism Quarterly 52 (summer 1975): 257-64; and Galen Rarick and Barrie Hartman, "The Effects of Competition on One Daily Newspaper's Content," Journalism Quarterly 43 (autumn 1966): 459-63; and Guido H. Stempel III, Effects on Performance of a Cross-Media Monopoly, Journalism Monographs, no. 29 (Columbia, SC: AEJMC, 1973); and Ronald G. Hicks and James S. Featherston, "Duplication of Newspaper Content in Contrasting Ownership Situations," Journalism Quarterly 55 (autumn 1978): 549-53; and Stephen Lacy, "The Effects of Intracity Competition on Daily Newspaper Content, Journalism Quarterly 64 (summer-autumn 1987): 281; and Stephen Lacy, "A Model of Demand for News: Impact of Competition on Newspaper Content," Journalism Quarterly 66 (spring 1989): 40-48. Since this study compares news content and writing characteristics found in private-sector and student newspapers within the same community, discussions must first consider whether vast differences are to be expected. Most early researchers indicated that the content of noncompetitive and competitive newspapers does not differ greatly. Willoughby found that there were "no essential content differences" when he studied two competing dailies in an Indiana city. Nixon and Jones determined in 1956 that in cities of less than 400,000 population there are no significant differences between the two groups, except for the size of the "news hole." Similarly, Schweitzer and Goldman found little change in local news content during and after periods of competition. Weaver and Mullins concluded in 1975 that news content differed little between economically "leading" and "trailing" publications when they studied forty-six competing daily newspapers in twenty-three U.S. cities. Standing alone among these early studies was research by Rarick and Hartman, who concluded in 1966 that differences in news content between competing newspapers could be determined by analyzing content in the same newspaper over a longer, nonstatic period of years. Their conclusions received support in 1973, when Stempel found that residents served by a cross-media monopoly (where local print and broadcast outlets are owned by the same entity) were less well informed than those with a diversity of ownership. More than a decade after Rarick's and Hartman's study, Hicks and Featherston called for a reconsideration of Nixon's conclusions on news diversity after they found relatively little news content duplication between competing newspapers in the same city. A 1987 study by Lacy determined that readers receive more news hole through local newspaper competition, in agreement with a portion of Nixon's research. Lacy also found that newspapers in competition serve readers with more reporters and buy more wire services. Two years later he implied that intense competition should more strongly satisfy readers than those receiving their news from newspapers with less competition. Competition, he argued, should more fully meet the information needs and wants of these readers more than readers within a monopoly market.
25. See Westly F. Willoughby, "Are Two Competing Dailies Necessarily Better Than One?" Journalism Quarterly 32 (spring 1955): 197-204; and Raymond B. Nixon and Robert L. Jones, "The Content of Non-Competitive vs. Competitive Newspapers," Journalism Quarterly 33(summer 1956): 299-314; and John C. Schweitzer and Elaine Goldman, "Does Newspaper Competition Make a Difference to Readers?" Journalism Quarterly 52 (winter 1975)): 706-10; and David H. Weaver and L.E. Mullins, "Content and Format Characteristics of Competing Daily Newspapers," Journalism Quarterly 52 (summer 1975): 257-64; and Galen Rarick and Barrie Hartman, "The Effects of Competition on One Daily Newspaper's Content," Journalism Quarterly 43 (autumn 1966): 459-63; and Guido H. Stempel III, Effects on Performance of a Cross-Media Monopoly, Journalism Monographs, no. 29 (Columbia, SC: AEJMC, 1973); and Ronald G. Hicks and James S. Featherston, "Duplication of Newspaper Content in Contrasting Ownership Situations," Journalism Quarterly 55 (autumn 1978): 549-53; and Stephen Lacy, "The Effects of Intracity Competition on Daily Newspaper Content, Journalism Quarterly 64 (summer-autumn 1987): 281; and Stephen Lacy, "A Model of Demand for News: Impact of Competition on Newspaper Content," Journalism Quarterly 66 (spring 1989): 40-48. Since this study compares news content and writing characteristics found in private-sector and student newspapers within the same community, discussions must first consider whether vast differences are to be expected. Most early researchers indicated that the content of noncompetitive and competitive newspapers does not differ greatly. Willoughby found that there were "no essential content differences" when he studied two competing dailies in an Indiana city. Nixon and Jones determined in 1956 that in cities of less than 400,000 population there are no significant differences between the two groups, except for the size of the "news hole." Similarly, Schweitzer and Goldman found little change in local news content during and after periods of competition. Weaver and Mullins concluded in 1975 that news content differed little between economically "leading" and "trailing" publications when they studied forty-six competing daily newspapers in twenty-three U.S. cities. Standing alone among these early studies was research by Rarick and Hartman, who concluded in 1966 that differences in news content between competing newspapers could be determined by analyzing content in the same newspaper over a longer, nonstatic period of years. Their conclusions received support in 1973, when Stempel found that residents served by a cross-media monopoly (where local print and broadcast outlets are owned by the same entity) were less well informed than those with a diversity of ownership. More than a decade after Rarick's and Hartman's study, Hicks and Featherston called for a reconsideration of Nixon's conclusions on news diversity after they found relatively little news content duplication between competing newspapers in the same city. A 1987 study by Lacy determined that readers receive more news hole through local newspaper competition, in agreement with a portion of Nixon's research. Lacy also found that newspapers in competition serve readers with more reporters and buy more wire services. Two years later he implied that intense competition should more strongly satisfy readers than those receiving their news from newspapers with less competition. Competition, he argued, should more fully meet the information needs and wants of these readers more than readers within a monopoly market.
26. See Westly F. Willoughby, "Are Two Competing Dailies Necessarily Better Than One?" Journalism Quarterly 32 (spring 1955): 197-204; and Raymond B. Nixon and Robert L. Jones, "The Content of Non-Competitive vs. Competitive Newspapers," Journalism Quarterly 33(summer 1956): 299-314; and John C. Schweitzer and Elaine Goldman, "Does Newspaper Competition Make a Difference to Readers?" Journalism Quarterly 52 (winter 1975)): 706-10; and David H. Weaver and L.E. Mullins, "Content and Format Characteristics of Competing Daily Newspapers," Journalism Quarterly 52 (summer 1975): 257-64; and Galen Rarick and Barrie Hartman, "The Effects of Competition on One Daily Newspaper's Content," Journalism Quarterly 43 (autumn 1966): 459-63; and Guido H. Stempel III, Effects on Performance of a Cross-Media Monopoly, Journalism Monographs, no. 29 (Columbia, SC: AEJMC, 1973); and Ronald G. Hicks and James S. Featherston, "Duplication of Newspaper Content in Contrasting Ownership Situations," Journalism Quarterly 55 (autumn 1978): 549-53; and Stephen Lacy, "The Effects of Intracity Competition on Daily Newspaper Content, Journalism Quarterly 64 (summer-autumn 1987): 281; and Stephen Lacy, "A Model of Demand for News: Impact of Competition on Newspaper Content," Journalism Quarterly 66 (spring 1989): 40-48. Since this study compares news content and writing characteristics found in private-sector and student newspapers within the same community, discussions must first consider whether vast differences are to be expected. Most early researchers indicated that the content of noncompetitive and competitive newspapers does not differ greatly. Willoughby found that there were "no essential content differences" when he studied two competing dailies in an Indiana city. Nixon and Jones determined in 1956 that in cities of less than 400,000 population there are no significant differences between the two groups, except for the size of the "news hole." Similarly, Schweitzer and Goldman found little change in local news content during and after periods of competition. Weaver and Mullins concluded in 1975 that news content differed little between economically "leading" and "trailing" publications when they studied forty-six competing daily newspapers in twenty-three U.S. cities. Standing alone among these early studies was research by Rarick and Hartman, who concluded in 1966 that differences in news content between competing newspapers could be determined by analyzing content in the same newspaper over a longer, nonstatic period of years. Their conclusions received support in 1973, when Stempel found that residents served by a cross-media monopoly (where local print and broadcast outlets are owned by the same entity) were less well informed than those with a diversity of ownership. More than a decade after Rarick's and Hartman's study, Hicks and Featherston called for a reconsideration of Nixon's conclusions on news diversity after they found relatively little news content duplication between competing newspapers in the same city. A 1987 study by Lacy determined that readers receive more news hole through local newspaper competition, in agreement with a portion of Nixon's research. Lacy also found that newspapers in competition serve readers with more reporters and buy more wire services. Two years later he implied that intense competition should more strongly satisfy readers than those receiving their news from newspapers with less competition. Competition, he argued, should more fully meet the information needs and wants of these readers more than readers within a monopoly market.
27. See Westly F. Willoughby, "Are Two Competing Dailies Necessarily Better Than One?" Journalism Quarterly 32 (spring 1955): 197-204; and Raymond B. Nixon and Robert L. Jones, "The Content of Non-Competitive vs. Competitive Newspapers," Journalism Quarterly 33(summer 1956): 299-314; and John C. Schweitzer and Elaine Goldman, "Does Newspaper Competition Make a Difference to Readers?" Journalism Quarterly 52 (winter 1975)): 706-10; and David H. Weaver and L.E. Mullins, "Content and Format Characteristics of Competing Daily Newspapers," Journalism Quarterly 52 (summer 1975): 257-64; and Galen Rarick and Barrie Hartman, "The Effects of Competition on One Daily Newspaper's Content," Journalism Quarterly 43 (autumn 1966): 459-63; and Guido H. Stempel III, Effects on Performance of a Cross-Media Monopoly, Journalism Monographs, no. 29 (Columbia, SC: AEJMC, 1973); and Ronald G. Hicks and James S. Featherston, "Duplication of Newspaper Content in Contrasting Ownership Situations," Journalism Quarterly 55 (autumn 1978): 549-53; and Stephen Lacy, "The Effects of Intracity Competition on Daily Newspaper Content, Journalism Quarterly 64 (summer-autumn 1987): 281; and Stephen Lacy, "A Model of Demand for News: Impact of Competition on Newspaper Content," Journalism Quarterly 66 (spring 1989): 40-48. Since this study compares news content and writing characteristics found in private-sector and student newspapers within the same community, discussions must first consider whether vast differences are to be expected. Most early researchers indicated that the content of noncompetitive and competitive newspapers does not differ greatly. Willoughby found that there were "no essential content differences" when he studied two competing dailies in an Indiana city. Nixon and Jones determined in 1956 that in cities of less than 400,000 population there are no significant differences between the two groups, except for the size of the "news hole." Similarly, Schweitzer and Goldman found little change in local news content during and after periods of competition. Weaver and Mullins concluded in 1975 that news content differed little between economically "leading" and "trailing" publications when they studied forty-six competing daily newspapers in twenty-three U.S. cities. Standing alone among these early studies was research by Rarick and Hartman, who concluded in 1966 that differences in news content between competing newspapers could be determined by analyzing content in the same newspaper over a longer, nonstatic period of years. Their conclusions received support in 1973, when Stempel found that residents served by a cross-media monopoly (where local print and broadcast outlets are owned by the same entity) were less well informed than those with a diversity of ownership. More than a decade after Rarick's and Hartman's study, Hicks and Featherston called for a reconsideration of Nixon's conclusions on news diversity after they found relatively little news content duplication between competing newspapers in the same city. A 1987 study by Lacy determined that readers receive more news hole through local newspaper competition, in agreement with a portion of Nixon's research. Lacy also found that newspapers in competition serve readers with more reporters and buy more wire services. Two years later he implied that intense competition should more strongly satisfy readers than those receiving their news from newspapers with less competition. Competition, he argued, should more fully meet the information needs and wants of these readers more than readers within a monopoly market.
28. See Westly F. Willoughby, "Are Two Competing Dailies Necessarily Better Than One?" Journalism Quarterly 32 (spring 1955): 197-204; and Raymond B. Nixon and Robert L. Jones, "The Content of Non-Competitive vs. Competitive Newspapers," Journalism Quarterly 33(summer 1956): 299-314; and John C. Schweitzer and Elaine Goldman, "Does Newspaper Competition Make a Difference to Readers?" Journalism Quarterly 52 (winter 1975)): 706-10; and David H. Weaver and L.E. Mullins, "Content and Format Characteristics of Competing Daily Newspapers," Journalism Quarterly 52 (summer 1975): 257-64; and Galen Rarick and Barrie Hartman, "The Effects of Competition on One Daily Newspaper's Content," Journalism Quarterly 43 (autumn 1966): 459-63; and Guido H. Stempel III, Effects on Performance of a Cross-Media Monopoly, Journalism Monographs, no. 29 (Columbia, SC: AEJMC, 1973); and Ronald G. Hicks and James S. Featherston, "Duplication of Newspaper Content in Contrasting Ownership Situations," Journalism Quarterly 55 (autumn 1978): 549-53; and Stephen Lacy, "The Effects of Intracity Competition on Daily Newspaper Content, Journalism Quarterly 64 (summer-autumn 1987): 281; and Stephen Lacy, "A Model of Demand for News: Impact of Competition on Newspaper Content," Journalism Quarterly 66 (spring 1989): 40-48. Since this study compares news content and writing characteristics found in private-sector and student newspapers within the same community, discussions must first consider whether vast differences are to be expected. Most early researchers indicated that the content of noncompetitive and competitive newspapers does not differ greatly. Willoughby found that there were "no essential content differences" when he studied two competing dailies in an Indiana city. Nixon and Jones determined in 1956 that in cities of less than 400,000 population there are no significant differences between the two groups, except for the size of the "news hole." Similarly, Schweitzer and Goldman found little change in local news content during and after periods of competition. Weaver and Mullins concluded in 1975 that news content differed little between economically "leading" and "trailing" publications when they studied forty-six competing daily newspapers in twenty-three U.S. cities. Standing alone among these early studies was research by Rarick and Hartman, who concluded in 1966 that differences in news content between competing newspapers could be determined by analyzing content in the same newspaper over a longer, nonstatic period of years. Their conclusions received support in 1973, when Stempel found that residents served by a cross-media monopoly (where local print and broadcast outlets are owned by the same entity) were less well informed than those with a diversity of ownership. More than a decade after Rarick's and Hartman's study, Hicks and Featherston called for a reconsideration of Nixon's conclusions on news diversity after they found relatively little news content duplication between competing newspapers in the same city. A 1987 study by Lacy determined that readers receive more news hole through local newspaper competition, in agreement with a portion of Nixon's research. Lacy also found that newspapers in competition serve readers with more reporters and buy more wire services. Two years later he implied that intense competition should more strongly satisfy readers than those receiving their news from newspapers with less competition. Competition, he argued, should more fully meet the information needs and wants of these readers more than readers within a monopoly market.
29. See John V. Bodle, When a Student Newspaper Competes for Advertising, Ohio Journalism Monograph, no. 5 (Athens, OH: Scripps School of Journalism, Ohio University, 1996). No study yet has determined categorically whether many campus dailies are truly competitive with private-sector dailies, although Bodle argues that daily student newspapers often operate under similar economic and market conditions.
30. Flesch, The Art of Readable Writing.
31. John Blinn, Barbara Davis, and Guido H. Stempel III, "Effect of Readability and Length of News Stories," College Press Review 20 (spring 1981): 4-6. This result perhaps was not unexpected since, based on Flesch scaling, college students should be able to read more difficult stories as well as easier articles.
32. William C. Porter, "Study shows newspaper/wire copy hits 11th grade; freshman level," Editor and Publisher, 3 October 1981, 28.
33. William C. Porter and Flint Stephens: "Estimating Readability: A Study of Utah Editors' Abilities," Newspaper Research Journal 10 (winter 1989): 87-95.
34. Taher Razik, "A Study of American Newspaper Readability," Journal of Communication 19 (December 1969): 317-24.
35. Guido H. Stempel III, "Readability of Six Kinds of Content in Newspapers," Newspaper Research Journal 3 (October 1981): 32-37.
36. Flesch, The Art of Readable Writing.
37. See Karen H. Jones, "Analysis of Readability and Interest of Marketing Education Textbooks: Implications for Special Needs Learners," Marketing Educators' Journal 19 (1993): 3-15; and Michael F. O'Hear et al., "Measuring Human Interest in First-Year College Writing Textbooks," Reading Research and Instruction, 32 (fall 1992): 64-76; and Karen H. Jones, "Analysis of Readability and Interest of Home Economic Textbooks for Special Needs Learners" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Vocational Association Convention, Nashville, TN, 1993).
38. See Karen H. Jones, "Analysis of Readability and Interest of Marketing Education Textbooks: Implications for Special Needs Learners," Marketing Educators' Journal 19 (1993): 3-15; and Michael F. O'Hear et al., "Measuring Human Interest in First-Year College Writing Textbooks," Reading Research and Instruction, 32 (fall 1992): 64-76; and Karen H. Jones, "Analysis of Readability and Interest of Home Economic Textbooks for Special Needs Learners" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Vocational Association Convention, Nashville, TN, 1993).
39. See Karen H. Jones, "Analysis of Readability and Interest of Marketing Education Textbooks: Implications for Special Needs Learners," Marketing Educators' Journal 19 (1993): 3-15; and Michael F. O'Hear et al., "Measuring Human Interest in First-Year College Writing Textbooks," Reading Research and Instruction, 32 (fall 1992): 64-76; and Karen H. Jones, "Analysis of Readability and Interest of Home Economic Textbooks for Special Needs Learners" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Vocational Association Convention, Nashville, TN, 1993).
40. See Stephen Lacy and Frederick Fico, "Newspaper Quality and Ownership: Rating the Groups," Newspaper Research Journal 11 (spring 1990): 42-56; Leo Bogart, Press and Public: Who Reads What, When, Where and Why in American Newspapers (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1981) and Wayne Wanta et al., "Young Readers and the Newspaper: Factors Affecting Information Recall and Perceived Enjoyment, Readability and Attractiveness"(paper presented at the annual meeting of AEJMC, Montreal, Canada, 1992); and Wanda Harris, "Perceptions of Newspapers by Student and Non-Student Readers" (paper presented at the annual meeting of AEJMC, Norman, OK, 1986); and Frank Denton et al., "Combating Aliteracy with New Modes of Newswriting: A Field Experiment" (paper presented at the annual meeting of AEJMC, Kansas City, MO, 1993); and Langford (first name omitted), as cited by Michael Ryan and Dorothea Owen, "A Content Analysis of Metropolitan Newspaper Coverage of Social Issues," Journalism Quarterly 53 (winter 1976): 635-36. Langford was "op. cited" by the two researchers, but no initial citation was present. Lacy and Fico, adapting categories created by Bogart, measured and compared the amount and type of news stories found in independent and group-owned newspapers. Wanta asked high school students to read and rate the stories in twenty newspapers on enjoyment, readability, and attractiveness. Langford used content analysis to measure the inclusion of "idea" (issue oriented) news stories in one daily newspaper. Harris found that student readers do differ from nonstudent readers in their motivation to read for more details. Denton considered which of four newswriting forms was most interesting to those aliterate (those who can read but do not).
41. See Stephen Lacy and Frederick Fico, "Newspaper Quality and Ownership: Rating the Groups," Newspaper Research Journal 11 (spring 1990): 42-56; Leo Bogart, Press and Public: Who Reads What, When, Where and Why in American Newspapers (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1981) and Wayne Wanta et al., "Young Readers and the Newspaper: Factors Affecting Information Recall and Perceived Enjoyment, Readability and Attractiveness"(paper presented at the annual meeting of AEJMC, Montreal, Canada, 1992); and Wanda Harris, "Perceptions of Newspapers by Student and Non-Student Readers" (paper presented at the annual meeting of AEJMC, Norman, OK, 1986); and Frank Denton et al., "Combating Aliteracy with New Modes of Newswriting: A Field Experiment" (paper presented at the annual meeting of AEJMC, Kansas City, MO, 1993); and Langford (first name omitted), as cited by Michael Ryan and Dorothea Owen, "A Content Analysis of Metropolitan Newspaper Coverage of Social Issues," Journalism Quarterly 53 (winter 1976): 635-36. Langford was "op. cited" by the two researchers, but no initial citation was present. Lacy and Fico, adapting categories created by Bogart, measured and compared the amount and type of news stories found in independent and group-owned newspapers. Wanta asked high school students to read and rate the stories in twenty newspapers on enjoyment, readability, and attractiveness. Langford used content analysis to measure the inclusion of "idea" (issue oriented) news stories in one daily newspaper. Harris found that student readers do differ from nonstudent readers in their motivation to read for more details. Denton considered which of four newswriting forms was most interesting to those aliterate (those who can read but do not).
42. See Stephen Lacy and Frederick Fico, "Newspaper Quality and Ownership: Rating the Groups," Newspaper Research Journal 11 (spring 1990): 42-56; Leo Bogart, Press and Public: Who Reads What, When, Where and Why in American Newspapers (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1981) and Wayne Wanta et al., "Young Readers and the Newspaper: Factors Affecting Information Recall and Perceived Enjoyment, Readability and Attractiveness"(paper presented at the annual meeting of AEJMC, Montreal, Canada, 1992); and Wanda Harris, "Perceptions of Newspapers by Student and Non-Student Readers" (paper presented at the annual meeting of AEJMC, Norman, OK, 1986); and Frank Denton et al., "Combating Aliteracy with New Modes of Newswriting: A Field Experiment" (paper presented at the annual meeting of AEJMC, Kansas City, MO, 1993); and Langford (first name omitted), as cited by Michael Ryan and Dorothea Owen, "A Content Analysis of Metropolitan Newspaper Coverage of Social Issues," Journalism Quarterly 53 (winter 1976): 635-36. Langford was "op. cited" by the two researchers, but no initial citation was present. Lacy and Fico, adapting categories created by Bogart, measured and compared the amount and type of news stories found in independent and group-owned newspapers. Wanta asked high school students to read and rate the stories in twenty newspapers on enjoyment, readability, and attractiveness. Langford used content analysis to measure the inclusion of "idea" (issue oriented) news stories in one daily newspaper. Harris found that student readers do differ from nonstudent readers in their motivation to read for more details. Denton considered which of four newswriting forms was most interesting to those aliterate (those who can read but do not).
43. See Stephen Lacy and Frederick Fico, "Newspaper Quality and Ownership: Rating the Groups," Newspaper Research Journal 11 (spring 1990): 42-56; Leo Bogart, Press and Public: Who Reads What, When, Where and Why in American Newspapers (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1981) and Wayne Wanta et al., "Young Readers and the Newspaper: Factors Affecting Information Recall and Perceived Enjoyment, Readability and Attractiveness"(paper presented at the annual meeting of AEJMC, Montreal, Canada, 1992); and Wanda Harris, "Perceptions of Newspapers by Student and Non-Student Readers" (paper presented at the annual meeting of AEJMC, Norman, OK, 1986); and Frank Denton et al., "Combating Aliteracy with New Modes of Newswriting: A Field Experiment" (paper presented at the annual meeting of AEJMC, Kansas City, MO, 1993); and Langford (first name omitted), as cited by Michael Ryan and Dorothea Owen, "A Content Analysis of Metropolitan Newspaper Coverage of Social Issues," Journalism Quarterly 53 (winter 1976): 635-36. Langford was "op. cited" by the two researchers, but no initial citation was present. Lacy and Fico, adapting categories created by Bogart, measured and compared the amount and type of news stories found in independent and group-owned newspapers. Wanta asked high school students to read and rate the stories in twenty newspapers on enjoyment, readability, and attractiveness. Langford used content analysis to measure the inclusion of "idea" (issue oriented) news stories in one daily newspaper. Harris found that student readers do differ from nonstudent readers in their motivation to read for more details. Denton considered which of four newswriting forms was most interesting to those aliterate (those who can read but do not).
44. See Stephen Lacy and Frederick Fico, "Newspaper Quality and Ownership: Rating the Groups," Newspaper Research Journal 11 (spring 1990): 42-56; Leo Bogart, Press and Public: Who Reads What, When, Where and Why in American Newspapers (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1981) and Wayne Wanta et al., "Young Readers and the Newspaper: Factors Affecting Information Recall and Perceived Enjoyment, Readability and Attractiveness"(paper presented at the annual meeting of AEJMC, Montreal, Canada, 1992); and Wanda Harris, "Perceptions of Newspapers by Student and Non-Student Readers" (paper presented at the annual meeting of AEJMC, Norman, OK, 1986); and Frank Denton et al., "Combating Aliteracy with New Modes of Newswriting: A Field Experiment" (paper presented at the annual meeting of AEJMC, Kansas City, MO, 1993); and Langford (first name omitted), as cited by Michael Ryan and Dorothea Owen, "A Content Analysis of Metropolitan Newspaper Coverage of Social Issues," Journalism Quarterly 53 (winter 1976): 635-36. Langford was "op. cited" by the two researchers, but no initial citation was present. Lacy and Fico, adapting categories created by Bogart, measured and compared the amount and type of news stories found in independent and group-owned newspapers. Wanta asked high school students to read and rate the stories in twenty newspapers on enjoyment, readability, and attractiveness. Langford used content analysis to measure the inclusion of "idea" (issue oriented) news stories in one daily newspaper. Harris found that student readers do differ from nonstudent readers in their motivation to read for more details. Denton considered which of four newswriting forms was most interesting to those aliterate (those who can read but do not).
45. See Stephen Lacy and Frederick Fico, "Newspaper Quality and Ownership: Rating the Groups," Newspaper Research Journal 11 (spring 1990): 42-56; Leo Bogart, Press and Public: Who Reads What, When, Where and Why in American Newspapers (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1981) and Wayne Wanta et al., "Young Readers and the Newspaper: Factors Affecting Information Recall and Perceived Enjoyment, Readability and Attractiveness"(paper presented at the annual meeting of AEJMC, Montreal, Canada, 1992); and Wanda Harris, "Perceptions of Newspapers by Student and Non-Student Readers" (paper presented at the annual meeting of AEJMC, Norman, OK, 1986); and Frank Denton et al., "Combating Aliteracy with New Modes of Newswriting: A Field Experiment" (paper presented at the annual meeting of AEJMC, Kansas City, MO, 1993); and Langford (first name omitted), as cited by Michael Ryan and Dorothea Owen, "A Content Analysis of Metropolitan Newspaper Coverage of Social Issues," Journalism Quarterly 53 (winter 1976): 635-36. Langford was "op. cited" by the two researchers, but no initial citation was present. Lacy and Fico, adapting categories created by Bogart, measured and compared the amount and type of news stories found in independent and group-owned newspapers. Wanta asked high school students to read and rate the stories in twenty newspapers on enjoyment, readability, and attractiveness. Langford used content analysis to measure the inclusion of "idea" (issue oriented) news stories in one daily newspaper. Harris found that student readers do differ from nonstudent readers in their motivation to read for more details. Denton considered which of four newswriting forms was most interesting to those aliterate (those who can read but do not).
46. Gerald C. Stone, Donna B. Stone, and Edgar P. Trotter, "Newspaper Quality's Relation to Circulation," Newspaper Research Journal 2/3 (spring 1981): 16-24; and Lee Becker, Randy Beam, and John Russial, "Correlates of Daily Newspaper Performance in New England," Journalism Quarterly 55 (spring 1978): 100-108; and George A. Gladney, "Newspaper Excellence: How Editors of Small and Large Papers Judge Quality," Newspaper Research Journal 11 (spring 1990): 58-72.
47. Gerald C. Stone, Donna B. Stone, and Edgar P. Trotter, "Newspaper Quality's Relation to Circulation," Newspaper Research Journal 2/3 (spring 1981): 16-24; and Lee Becker, Randy Beam, and John Russial, "Correlates of Daily Newspaper Performance in New England," Journalism Quarterly 55 (spring 1978): 100-108; and George A. Gladney, "Newspaper Excellence: How Editors of Small and Large Papers Judge Quality," Newspaper Research Journal 11 (spring 1990): 58-72.
48. Gerald C. Stone, Donna B. Stone, and Edgar P. Trotter, "Newspaper Quality's Relation to Circulation," Newspaper Research Journal 2/3 (spring 1981): 16-24; and Lee Becker, Randy Beam, and John Russial, "Correlates of Daily Newspaper Performance in New England," Journalism Quarterly 55 (spring 1978): 100-108; and George A. Gladney, "Newspaper Excellence: How Editors of Small and Large Papers Judge Quality," Newspaper Research Journal 11 (spring 1990): 58-72.
49. Lowry, "Agnew and the Network T.V. News," 205-10.
50. Pride and Clarke, "Race Relations in Television News," 319-28.
51. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action. Hayakawa posits that the "report" is the basic symbolic act that enables people to exchange information on what they have seen heard and felt. Reports are capable of verification and they exclude, as far as possible, inferences and judgments. Report sentences are those which state verifiable information that is out in the open and observable in some manner, not things that are matters of personal opinion or inside somebody's head. Inferences, Hayakawa argued, are not capable of verification, at least when they are made. Rather, they are "statements about the unknown made on the basis of the known." Judgment sentences were narrowed by Lowry to sentences that indicate approvaldisapproval, like-dislike, good-bad, etc.
52. Lowry, "Agnew and the Network T.V. News," 205-10.
53. Counts, "The Influence of Message and Source," 443-49. Counts found that subjects reported more inferences in support of a speaker's position when they agreed with the speaker and more nonsupportive inferences when they disagreed with the speaker. He also found that roughly the same number of facts were used, regardless of whether or not they agreed with the speaker. Additionally, few judgments were used by reporters.
54. Ryan, "Reports, Inferences and Judgments," 497-503. He found that 30% of sentences in issue-oriented stories were opinion sentences while 18.3% of event-oriented stories were. Nearly three-fourths (73.7%) of all sentences were analyzed as reports. One-fifth (19.7%) of sentences were attributed reports and 54% were unattributed. The percentage of agreement was
55. Among those pertaining to attribution are Lowry, "Agnew and the Network," 205-10; and Ryan, "Reports, Inferences and Judgments," 497-503; and Pride and Clarke, "Race Relations in Television News," 319-28. Story length was among the variables considered by many researchers, including Lacy and Fico, "Newspaper Quality and Ownership," 42-56; and Demott, "'Interpretative' News Stories," 102-108.
56. Among those pertaining to attribution are Lowry, "Agnew and the Network," 205-10; and Ryan, "Reports, Inferences and Judgments," 497-503; and Pride and Clarke, "Race Relations in Television News," 319-28. Story length was among the variables considered by many researchers, including Lacy and Fico, "Newspaper Quality and Ownership," 42-56; and Demott, "'Interpretative' News Stories," 102-108.
57. Among those pertaining to attribution are Lowry, "Agnew and the Network," 205-10; and Ryan, "Reports, Inferences and Judgments," 497-503; and Pride and Clarke, "Race Relations in Television News," 319-28. Story length was among the variables considered by many researchers, including Lacy and Fico, "Newspaper Quality and Ownership," 42-56; and Demott, "'Interpretative' News Stories," 102-108.
58. Among those pertaining to attribution are Lowry, "Agnew and the Network," 205-10; and Ryan, "Reports, Inferences and Judgments," 497-503; and Pride and Clarke, "Race Relations in Television News," 319-28. Story length was among the variables considered by many researchers, including Lacy and Fico, "Newspaper Quality and Ownership," 42-56; and Demott, "'Interpretative' News Stories," 102-108.
59. Among those pertaining to attribution are Lowry, "Agnew and the Network," 205-10; and Ryan, "Reports, Inferences and Judgments," 497-503; and Pride and Clarke, "Race Relations in Television News," 319-28. Story length was among the variables considered by many researchers, including Lacy and Fico, "Newspaper Quality and Ownership," 42-56; and Demott, "'Interpretative' News Stories," 102-108.
60. Porter, "Study shows newspaper/wire copy," 28.
61. The Flesch readability scale places the most difficult stories in educational categories that indicate such complex reading is best suited for those who have taken university courses or have a college degree.
62. Flesch, The Art of Readable Writing.
63. Flesch, The Art of Readable Writing.
64. Ryan, "Reports, Inferences and Judgments," 497-503.
65. Harris, "Perceptions of Newspapers."
66. Flesch, The Art of Readable Writing.
67. Flesch writes: "Personal words are: (a) All first-, second-, and third-person pronouns except neuter pronouns it, its itself, and they, them, their, theirs, themselves if refering to things rather than people; (b) All words that have masculine or feminine natural gender, e.g. John Jones, Mary, father, sister, iceman, actress. Do not count common-gender words like teacher, doctor, employee, assistant, spouse. Count singular and plural forms; (c) The group words people (with the plural verb) and folks." The author of this present study did compensate for changes in word usage when necessary since Flesch's procedures were published in 1949. Gender neutral words were not counted.
68. Flesch writes: "Personal sentences are: (a) Spoken sentences, marked by quotation marks or otherwise, often including speech tags like 'he said' set off by colons or commas...; (b) Questions, commands, requests, and other sentences directly addressed to the reader...; (c) Exclamations...; (d) Grammatically incomplete sentences whos full meaning has to be inferred from the context....If a sentence fits two or more of these definitions, count only once." Flesch cited specific examples of each.
69. See Counts, "The Influence of Message and Source," 443-49.
70. Dennis T. Lowry, "Agnew and the Network T.V. News," 205-10; and Counts, "The Influence of Message and Source," 443-49; and Ryan, "Reports, Inferences and Judgments," 497-503; and Pride and Clarke, "Race Relations in Television News," 319-28; and John V. Bodle, "Source and Reporter Contributions to News Articles: A Content Analysis Procedure" (paper presented to a regional conference of the AEJMC Theory and Methodology Division, Cleveland, OH, April 1992).
71. Dennis T. Lowry, "Agnew and the Network T.V. News," 205-10; and Counts, "The Influence of Message and Source," 443-49; and Ryan, "Reports, Inferences and Judgments," 497-503; and Pride and Clarke, "Race Relations in Television News," 319-28; and John V. Bodle, "Source and Reporter Contributions to News Articles: A Content Analysis Procedure" (paper presented to a regional conference of the AEJMC Theory and Methodology Division, Cleveland, OH, April 1992).
72. Dennis T. Lowry, "Agnew and the Network T.V. News," 205-10; and Counts, "The Influence of Message and Source," 443-49; and Ryan, "Reports, Inferences and Judgments," 497-503; and Pride and Clarke, "Race Relations in Television News," 319-28; and John V. Bodle, "Source and Reporter Contributions to News Articles: A Content Analysis Procedure" (paper presented to a regional conference of the AEJMC Theory and Methodology Division, Cleveland, OH, April 1992).
73. Dennis T. Lowry, "Agnew and the Network T.V. News," 205-10; and Counts, "The Influence of Message and Source," 443-49; and Ryan, "Reports, Inferences and Judgments," 497-503; and Pride and Clarke, "Race Relations in Television News," 319-28; and John V. Bodle, "Source and Reporter Contributions to News Articles: A Content Analysis Procedure" (paper presented to a regional conference of the AEJMC Theory and Methodology Division, Cleveland, OH, April 1992).
74. Dennis T. Lowry, "Agnew and the Network T.V. News," 205-10; and Counts, "The Influence of Message and Source," 443-49; and Ryan, "Reports, Inferences and Judgments," 497-503; and Pride and Clarke, "Race Relations in Television News," 319-28; and John V. Bodle, "Source and Reporter Contributions to News Articles: A Content Analysis Procedure" (paper presented to a regional conference of the AEJMC Theory and Methodology Division, Cleveland, OH, April 1992).
75. Counts included both "fact" and "report of a fact" in the same Fact category. He defined a fact as "a statement made by the speaker containing verifiable information." A report of a fact was defined as "a fact obtained by the speaker from another source."
76. See Counts, "The Influence of Message and Source," 443-49; Lowry, "Agnew and the Network T.V. News," 205-10; and Pride and Clarke, "Race Relations in Television News," 319-28.
77. See Counts, "The Influence of Message and Source," 443-49; Lowry, "Agnew and the Network T.V. News," 205-10; and Pride and Clarke, "Race Relations in Television News," 319-28.
78. See Counts, "The Influence of Message and Source," 443-49; Lowry, "Agnew and the Network T.V. News," 205-10; and Pride and Clarke, "Race Relations in Television News," 319-28.
79. Ryan, "Reports, Inferences and Judgments," 497-503.
80. Occasionally one sentence contained a combination of fact, detail, and/or reaction. In such cases, the last portion of the sentence was considered, since the preceding words and phrases often were used to prepare the reader for a conclusionary statement.
81. Blinn, Davis, and Stempel, "Effect of Readability," 4-6.
82. University enrollment was used instead of newspaper circulation since the press run on free distribution publications can be inflated or deflated for economic or marketing goals; i.e., a determination by student newspaper management that each issue read in a dormitory or commons area is read by more than one person; or additional copies are distributed free off campus to enhance readership or advertiser perception. Schools with more than 25,000 students were Ohio State University, Purdue University, and Indiana University. Schools with less than 25,000 students were Ohio University, University Of Southern Ilinois at Carbondale, and University of Missouri at Columbia (the Missourian; see discussion on delineation between curriculum-based and independent student newspapers).
83. It is difficult to create a clear delineation between curriculum-based laboratory student newspapers and those that call themselves independent. See Louis E. Ingelhart, "1979: The Campus Press in America," College Press Review 18 (summer 1979): 50-51; and Ingelhart, Student Publications; and Lillian Lodge Kopenhaver and Ron Spielberger, "Are Independent College Papers Really Independent?" College Media Review 28 (spring 1989): 7; and David Nelson, "Give Me Liberty and Give Me Debts," College Media Review 28 (spring 1989): 8. In this study, nonstudent advisers or business managers were asked whether their student staff members received course credit and whether the newspapers was integrated into the curriculum. Independent student dailies - those generally not giving course credit and not part of the curriculum-were located at Ohio University, Purdue University, and Indiana University. Those operating as curriculum-based newspapers were located at Ohio State University, University of Missouri at Columbia (the Missourian), and Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
84. It is difficult to create a clear delineation between curriculum-based laboratory student newspapers and those that call themselves independent. See Louis E. Ingelhart, "1979: The Campus Press in America," College Press Review 18 (summer 1979): 50-51; and Ingelhart, Student Publications; and Lillian Lodge Kopenhaver and Ron Spielberger, "Are Independent College Papers Really Independent?" College Media Review 28 (spring 1989): 7; and David Nelson, "Give Me Liberty and Give Me Debts," College Media Review 28 (spring 1989): 8. In this study, nonstudent advisers or business managers were asked whether their student staff members received course credit and whether the newspapers was integrated into the curriculum. Independent student dailies - those generally not giving course credit and not part of the curriculum-were located at Ohio University, Purdue University, and Indiana University. Those operating as curriculum-based newspapers were located at Ohio State University, University of Missouri at Columbia (the Missourian), and Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
85. It is difficult to create a clear delineation between curriculum-based laboratory student newspapers and those that call themselves independent. See Louis E. Ingelhart, "1979: The Campus Press in America," College Press Review 18 (summer 1979): 50-51; and Ingelhart, Student Publications; and Lillian Lodge Kopenhaver and Ron Spielberger, "Are Independent College Papers Really Independent?" College Media Review 28 (spring 1989): 7; and David Nelson, "Give Me Liberty and Give Me Debts," College Media Review 28 (spring 1989): 8. In this study, nonstudent advisers or business managers were asked whether their student staff members received course credit and whether the newspapers was integrated into the curriculum. Independent student dailies - those generally not giving course credit and not part of the curriculum-were located at Ohio University, Purdue University, and Indiana University. Those operating as curriculum-based newspapers were located at Ohio State University, University of Missouri at Columbia (the Missourian), and Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
86. It is difficult to create a clear delineation between curriculum-based laboratory student newspapers and those that call themselves independent. See Louis E. Ingelhart, "1979: The Campus Press in America," College Press Review 18 (summer 1979): 50-51; and Ingelhart, Student Publications; and Lillian Lodge Kopenhaver and Ron Spielberger, "Are Independent College Papers Really Independent?" College Media Review 28 (spring 1989): 7; and David Nelson, "Give Me Liberty and Give Me Debts," College Media Review 28 (spring 1989): 8. In this study, nonstudent advisers or business managers were asked whether their student staff members received course credit and whether the newspapers was integrated into the curriculum. Independent student dailies - those generally not giving course credit and not part of the curriculum-were located at Ohio University, Purdue University, and Indiana University. Those operating as curriculum-based newspapers were located at Ohio State University, University of Missouri at Columbia (the Missourian), and Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
87. Flesch, The Art of Readable Writing.
88. Harris, "Perceptions of Newspapers by Student and Non-Student."
89. Reporter contributions of information were treated as nonattributed sentences; see methods sections for procedures. It should be noted that the most common subject matter of articles covered by both publications was sports related, where reporter interpretation of events for the reader is commonplace. Therefore, while the agreement correlation between private-sector dailies and campus dailies is central to this study, the specific percentage of attribution found in both papers is tangential and perhaps skewed toward one type of newswriting.
90. Stempel, "Where People Really Get Most of Their News," 2-9.
91. Porter, "Study shows newspaper/wire copy," 28.
92. Blinn, Davis, and Stempel, "Effect of Readability and Length," 4-6; and Flesch, The Art of Readable Writing.
93. Blinn, Davis, and Stempel, "Effect of Readability and Length," 4-6; and Flesch, The Art of Readable Writing.
94. Stempel, "Where People Really Get Most of Their News," 2-9. Stempel noted: "The president's speech on trade policy may be intrinsically more important, but it is the school board meeting that people talk about."