Access attitudes: A social learning approach to examining community engagement and support for press access to government records

Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly

Volumn 85, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 549-576

  Cuillier, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GOVERNMENT; MASS MEDIA; PUBLIC ACCESS; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; RECORD; SOCIAL THEORY;

EID: 59149085711     PISSN: 10776990     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/107769900808500305     Document Type: Article

References (221)

1. Vincent Blasi, "The Checking Value in First Amendment Theory," Law & Social Inquiry 2 (July 1977): 521-649;
2. Harold L. Cross, The People's Right to Know: Legal Access to Public Records and Proceedings (NY: Columbia University Press, 1953);
3. Alexander Meiklejohn, Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government (NY: Harper, 1948).
4. J. Herbert Altschull, From Milton to McLuhan: The Ideas Behind American Journalism (NY: Longman, 1990);
5. Jeffrey J. Maciejewski and David T. Ozar, "Natural Law and the Right to Know in a Democracy," Journal of Mass Media Ethics 20 (spring-summer 2005): 121-38;
6. Dwight L. Teeter, "The First Amendment at Its Bicentennial: Necessary but Not Sufficient?" Journalism Quarterly 69 (spring 1992): 18-27.
7. Secrecy legislation has included the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, Drivers Privacy Protection Act of 1994, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Also, see Susan Dente Ross, "Breakdown or Breakthrough in Participatory Government? How State Open Meetings Laws Apply to Virtual Meetings," Newspaper Research Journal 19 (summer 1998): 31-46.
8. See Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974), limiting access to prisons; Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee, 489 U.S. 749 (1989), making criminal rap sheets secret; Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting, 528 U.S. 32 (1999), making secret government records that could be used as mailing lists; Office of Independent Counsel v. Favish, 51 U.S. 157 (2004), making secret photos that could embarrass family members. Also, see Matthew D. Bunker, "Closing the Courtroom: Judicial Access and Constitutional Scrutiny after Richmond Newspapers," in Access Denied: Freedom of Information in the Information Age, ed. Charles N. Davis and Sigmund L. Splichal (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 2000), 155-74;
9. Sandra F. Chance, "Anonymous Juries: Justice in the Dark," in Access Denied: Freedom of Information in the Information Age, ed. Charles N. Davis and Sigmund L. Splichal (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 2000), 175-93;
10. Martin E. Halstuk, "Blurred Vision: How Supreme Court FOIA Opinions on Invasion of Privacy Have Missed the Target of Legislative Intent, Communication Law & Policy 4 (winter 1999): 111-48;
11. Michael Hoefges, Martin E. Halstuk, and Bill F. Chamberlin, "Privacy Rights Versus FOIA Disclosure Policy: The 'Uses and Effects' Double Standard in Access to Personally Identifiable Information in Government Records," William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 12 (December 2003): 1-64;
12. Susan Dente Ross, "In the Shadow of Terror: The Illusive First Amendment Rights of Aliens," Communication Law & Policy 6 (winter 2001): 75-122;
13. Susan Dente Ross, "An Apologia to Radical Dissent and a Supreme Court Test to Protect it," Communication Law & Policy 7 (autumn 2002): 401-30;
14. Joey Senat, "Reno v. Condon Opens Door to More Access Limits," Newspaper Research Journal 24 (September 2003): 63-81.
15. Ted Gup, Nation of Secrets: The Threat to Democracy and the American Way of Life (NY: Doubleday, 2007);
16. Peter Hernon, "Government Information Policy in a Time of Uncertainty and Change," in Federal Information Policies in the 1990s: Views and Perspectives, ed. Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, and Harold C. Relyea (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1996), 1-18;
17. Alasdair Roberts, Blacked Out: Government Secrecy in the Information Age (NY: Cambridge, 2006);
18. Susan Dente Ross, "Access and New Media Technology: Teleconferencing, Telecommuting, and Public Access," in Access Denied: Freedom of Information in the Information Age, ed. Charles N. Davis and Sigmund L. Splichal (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 2000), 65-83.
19. American Society of Newspaper Editors, ASNE Memo of the Patriot Act II, (February 2003), available at http://www.asne.org/ index.cfm?id=4348;
20. Elizabeth Bluemink and Mark Brush, "A Flawed Tool: Environmental Reporters' Experience with the Freedom of Information Act," Society of Environmental Journalists (September 2005), available at http:// www.sej.org/foia/SEJ_FOIA_Report2005.pdf;
21. Jennifer LaFleur, "The Lost Stories: How a Steady Stream of Laws, Regulations and Judicial Decisions Have Eroded Reporting on Important Issues," Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (2003), available at http://www.rcfp.org/loststories/;
22. Charles Lewis, "Freedom of Information Under Attack in the Name of 'Homeland Security,' the Work of Journalists Is Made Harder," Nieman Reports 56 (June 2002): 84-86;
23. Pete Weitzel, "Beware of Regulatory Creep as Secrecy Shrouds Records," The IRE Journal 27 (November-December 2004): 15;
24. Ben Welsh, "Privacy, Security Block Access to Data," Uplink 18 (January-February 2006): 8-9.
25. Tom Curley, "Media, Public Must Fight Secrecy," speech at the National Freedom of Information Coalition conference, Santa Fe, NM (May 14, 2005), available at http://www.sunshineweek.org/sunshineweek /curleynfoic.
26. Sam Archibald, "The Early Years of the Freedom of Information Act, 1955 to 1974," Political Science and Politics 26 (December 1993): 726-31;
27. Michael McGregor, "When the 'Public Interest' Is Not What Interests the Public," Communication Law & Policy 11 (spring 2006): 207-24;
28. Alan D. Monroe, "Public Opinion and Public Policy, 1980-1993," Public Opinion Quarterly 62 (spring 1998): 6-28;
29. Shoon Kathleen Murray and Peter Howard, "Variation in White House Polling Operations: Carter to Clinton," Public Opinion Quarterly 66 (winter 2002);
30. Stuart Oskamp and P. Wesley Schultz, Attitudes and Opinions (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2005);
31. Benjamin I. Page and Robert Y. Shapiro, "Effects of Public Opinion on Policy," American Journal of Political Science 77 (March 1983): 175-90;
32. Kiyul Uhm, "The Cold War Communication Crisis: The Right to Know Movement," Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 82 (spring 2005): 131-47.
33. David L. Altheide, Terrorism and the Politics of Fear (Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 2006);
34. Margaret A. Blanchard, "Why Can't We Ever Learn? Cycles of Stability, Stress, and Freedom of Expression in United States History," Communication Law & Policy 7 (autumn 2002): 347-78;
35. Elaine Cassel, The War on Civil Liberties: How Bush and Ashcroft Have Dismantled the Bill of Rights (Chicago: Chicago Review Press, 2004);
36. Leonie Huddy, Nadia Khatib, and Theresa Capelos, "The Polls: Reactions to the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001," Public Opinion Quarterly 66 (fall 2002): 418-50;
37. Jane Kirtley, "Transparency and Accountability in a Time of Terror: The Bush Administration's Assault on Freedom of Information," Communication Law & Policy 11 (autumn 2006): 479-509;
38. Roper Center at University of Connecticut, Public Opinion Online, survey of 1,144 adults nationwide in May 2004 showed that 56% said the Patriot Act is necessary, Assession number 0454540, question 005.
39. Samuel J. Best, Brian S. Krueger, and Jeffrey Ladewig, "Privacy in the Information Age," Public Opinion Quarterly 70 (fall 2006): 375-401;
40. Wendell Cochran and Jonathan M. Katz, "FOIA Requests Increasingly Denied for Privacy, not Security, Grounds," report for Investigative Reporters and Editors (June 6, 2003), available at http:// www.ire.umd.edu/foia.html;
41. David Cuillier, "The Public's Concern for Privacy Invasion and Its Relationship to Support for Press Access to Government Records," Newspaper Research Journal 25 (fall 2004): 95-103;
42. Charles N. Davis, "Electronic Access to Information and the Privacy Paradox: Rethinking Practical Obscurity and its Impact on Electronic Freedom of Information," Social Science Computer Review 21 (spring 2003): 15-26;
43. Martin E. Halstuk and Bill F. Chamberlin, "The Freedom of Information Act 1966-2006: A Retrospective on the Rise of Privacy Protection Over the Public Interest in Knowing What tile Government's up to," Communication Law & Policy 11 (autumn 2006): 511-64;
44. Jane Kirtley, "The Privacy Paradox," Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, (1998), available at http://www.rcfp.org/privpdx /pp.html.
45. Cuillier, "The Public's Concern for Privacy Invasion and Its Relationship to Support for Press Access to Government Records";
46. Paul D. Driscoll, Sigman L. Splichal, Michael B. Salwen, and Bruce Garrison, "Public Support for Access to Government Records: A National Survey," in Access Denied: Freedom of Information in the Information Age, ed. Charles N. Davis and Sigmund L. Splichal (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 2000), 23-36;
47. Joseph Phelps and Matthew D. Bunker, "Direct Marketers' Use of Public Records: Current Legal Environment and Outlook for the Future," Journal of Interactive Marketing 15 (winter 2001): 33-48;
48. Suzanne J. Piotrowski and Gregg G. Van Ryzin, "Citizen Attitudes Toward Transparency in Local Government," The American Review of Public Administration 37 (September 2007): 306-23.
49. Albert Bandura, Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1986).
50. Connie Roser, "Involvement, Attention, and Perceptions of Message Relevance in the Response to Persuasive Appeals," Communication Research 17 (October 1990): 571-600.
51. Charles K. Atkin, "Communication and Political Socialization," in Handbook of Political Communication, ed. Dan Nimmo and Keith Sanders (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage), 299-328;
52. Steven H. Chaffee, L. Scott Ward, and Leonard P. Tipton, "Mass Communication and Political Socialization," Journalism Quarterly 47 (winter 1970): 647-59, 666;
53. Doug M. McLeod, Gerald M. Kosicki, and Jack M. McLeod, "Resurveying the Boundaries of Political Communication Effects," in Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, ed. Jennings Bryant and Dolf Zillmann (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002), 215-67;
54. Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (NY: Simon and Schuster, 2000).
55. The selection of press access as opposed to overall public access was intentional for two reasons. First, previous studies have shown that support varies depending on who is accessing the information, with people demonstrating high support for their own access but low support for the press or others' access information. Support for personal access often scores very high, resulting in a ceiling effect that produces little variance. Support for press access is more varied. Second, given that many legislative and court battles over public records involve the media, it is important for journalists to know how citizens think about press access to government documents.
56. See Piotrowski and Van Ryzin, "Citizen Attitudes Toward Transparency in Local Government."
57. David Banisar, "The freedominfo.org Global Survey: Freedom of Information and Access to Information Laws around the World," (2006), available at http://www.freedominfo.org/documents /global_survey2006.pdf;
58. David Banisar, "Government Secrecy: Decisions Without Democracy," OpenTheGovernment.org (2007), available at http:// www.openthegovernment.org/otg/govtsecrecy.pdf;
59. Bluemink and Brush, "A Flawed Tool: Environmental Reporters' Experience with the Freedom of Information Act"; Harry Hammitt, "Mediation Without Litigation," National Freedom of information Coalition (2007), available at http://www.nfoic.org /resources/reports/hammitt_mediation_without_litigation.pdf;
60. Patrice McDermott and Emily Feldman, "Secrecy Report Card 2008," for OpenTheGovernment.org (2008), available at http:// www.openthegovernment.org/otg/SecrecyReportCard08.pdf;
61. Catherine Nielsen, "40 Years of FOIA, 20 Years of Delay," The National Security Archive (July 2, 2007), available at http:// www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB224/ten_oldest_report.pdf.
62. For example, the American Society of Newspaper Editors commissioned national phone surveys in 2006 and 2007 for National Sunshine Week asking basic questions about opinions toward the press and open government. Available at http://www.sunshineweek.org/sunshine week/ polls06 and http://www.sunshineweek.org/sunshineweek/scrippspoll07.
63. Driscoll et al., "Public Support for Access to Government Records: A National Survey." The percentage of those surveyed who favored access to public records varied depending on who the requester is: law enforcement 85%; journalists 49%; bankers 47%; credit card companies 21%. Men were slightly more supportive of freedom of information than women.
64. Phelps and Bunker, "Direct Marketers' Use of Public Records."
65. Cuillier, "The Public's Concern for Privacy Invasion and Its Relationship to Support for Press Access to Government Records."
66. Piotrowski and Van Ryzin, "Citizen Attitudes Toward Transparency in Local Government."
67. Julie L. Andsager, "A Constant Tension: Public Support for Free Expression," Stanford Journal of International Law 38 (2002): 3-18;
68. Julie L. Andsager, Robert O. Wyatt, and Ernest L. Martin, Free Expression in Five Democratic Publics (Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2004);
69. Jack M. McLeod, Catherine A. Steele, Hsu-Hsien Chi, and Kuang-Yu Huang, "Understanding Political Tolerance: Alternative Models of Public Support" (paper presented at the annual meeting of AEJMC, Boston, August 1991).
70. Julie L. Andsager, "Differentiating Media Practices: How Demographic Variables Relate to Support for Freedom of the Press" (paper presented at the annual meeting of AEJMC, Montreal Canada, August 1992);
71. Lee B. Becker, Robin E. Cobbey, and Idowu A. Sobowale, "Public Support for the Press," Journalism Quarterly 55 (autumn 1978): 421-30;
72. Lawrence Bobo and Frederick C. Licari, "Education and Political Tolerance: Testing the Effects of Cognitive Sophistication and Target Group Affect," Public Opinion Quarterly 53 (fall 1989);
73. Jennifer Lambe, "Dimensions of Censorship: Understanding Public Opinion about the Limits of Free Expression" (Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota, 2000, retrieved from Digital Dissertations, 61 /05, 1.666 (AAT 9972984);
74. Jennifer Lambe, "Who Wants to Censor Pornography and Hate Speech?" Mass Communication & Society 7 (summer 2004): 279-99;
75. Samuel A. Stouffer, Communism, Conformity and Civil Liberties (NY: Peter Smith, 1955);
76. David A. Yalof and Kenneth Dautrich, The First Amendment and the Media in the Court of Public Opinion (United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
77. Andsager, "Differentiating Media Practices: How Demographic Variables Relate to Support for Freedom of the Press";
78. Julie L. And - sager, "Tolerance and Support for Expression: The Same Construct?" (paper presented at the annual meeting of AEJMC, Washington, DC, August 1995);
79. Andsager, "A Constant Tension: Public Support for Free Expression";
80. Lambe, "Who Wants to Censor Pornography and Hate Speech?";
81. Darrel Montero, "Support for Civil Liberties among a Cohort of High School Graduates and College Students," Journal of Social Issues 31 (spring 1975): 123-36;
82. Clyde Z. Nunn, "Support of Civil Liberties Among College Students," Social Problems 20 (winter 1975): 300-18;
83. Stouffer, Communism;
84. Peter Suedfeld, Daniel G. Steel, and Paul W. Schmidt, "Political Ideology and Attitudes Toward Censorship," Journal of Applied Social Psychology 24 (May 1994): 765-81.
85. Andsager, "Differentiating Media Practices: How Demographic Variables Relate to Support for Freedom of the Press";
86. Andsager, "A Constant Tension: Public Support for Free Expression";
87. Edward A. Gaugler and Sheldon S. Zalkind, "Dimensions of Civil Liberties and Personality: Relationships for Measures of Tolerance and Complexity," Journal of Social Issues 31 (spring 1975): 93-110;
88. McLeod et al., "Understanding Political Tolerance";
89. Montero, "Support for Civil Liberties";
90. Clyde Z. Nunn, Harry J. Crocket, and J. Allen Williams, Tolerance for Nonconformity: A National Survey of Americans' Changing Commitment to Civil Liberties (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978);
91. James W. Prothro and Charles M. Grigg, "Fundamental Principles of Democracy: Bases of Agreement and Disagreement," Journal of Politics 22 (May 1960): 276-94;
92. Stouffer, Communism; W. Cody Wilson, "Belief in Freedom of Speech and Press," Journal of Social Issues 31 (1975): 69-76;
93. Robert O. Wyatt, Free Expression and the American Public: A Survey Commemorating the 200th Anniversary of the First Amendment (Washington, DC: American Society of Newspaper Editors, 1991).
94. Andsager, "A Constant Tension: Public Support for Free Expression";
95. Wyatt, Free Expression;
96. Yalof and Dautrich, The First Amendment.
97. Andsager, "A Constant Tension: Public Support for Free Expression."
98. Driscoll et al., "Public Support for Access to Government Records: A National Survey";
99. Piotrowski and Van Ryzin, "Citizen Attitudes Toward Transparency in Local Government."
100. McLeod et al., "Understanding Political Tolerance."
101. Atkin, "Communication and Political Socialization";
102. Chaffee, Ward, and Tipton, "Mass Communication";
103. McLeod, Kosicki, and McLeod, "Resurveying the Boundaries";
104. Susan Dente Ross and Julie L. Andsager, "Solutions to Circulation Woes? Free Expression as Predictor of News Seeking," Newspaper Research Journal 21 (winter 2000): 77-90.
105. George Gerbner, Larry Gross, Michael Morgan, and Nancy Signorielli, "Charting the Main Stream: Television's Contribution to Political Orientation," Journal of Communication 32 (June 1982): 100-27.
106. Michael Morgan and James Shanahan, "Television and the Cultivation of Political Attitudes in Argentina," Journal of Communication 41 (winter, 1991): 88-103;
107. McLeod et al., "Understanding Political Tolerance."
108. Christopher E. Beaudoin and Esther Thorson, "Social Capital in Rural and Urban Communities: Testing Differences in Media Effects and Models," Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 81 (summer 2004): 378-99;
109. Lee B. Becker and Sharon Dunwoody, "Media Use, Public Affairs Knowledge and Voting in a Local Election," Journalism Quarterly 59 (summer 1982): 212-18;
110. Chaffee, Ward, and Tipton, "Mass Communication";
111. Hugh M. Culbertson and Guido H. Stempel, "How Media Use and Reliance Affect Knowledge Level," Communication Research 13 (October 1986): 579-602;
112. William P. Eveland and Dietram Scheufele, "Connecting News Media Use with Gaps in Knowledge and Participation," Political Communication 17 (July 2000): 215-37;
113. Jack M. McLeod and Daniel G. McDonald, "Beyond Simple Exposure: Media Orientations and Their Impact on Political Processes," Communication Research 12 (January 1985): 3-34;
114. Michael Pfau, Patricia Moy, R. Lance Holbert, Erin Szabo, Wai-Kuo Lin, and Weiwu Zhang, "The Influence of Political Talk Radio on Confidence in Democratic Institutions," Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 75 (winter 1998): 730-45.
115. Lambe, "Dimensions of Censorship";
116. McLeod et al., "Understanding Political Tolerance";
117. Dietram A. Scheufele, Matthew C. Nisbet, and Ronald E. Ostman, "September 11 News Coverage, Public Opinion, and Support for Civil Liberties," Mass Communication & Society 8 (summer 2005): 197-218.
118. Chaffee, Ward, and Tipton, "Mass Communication";
119. Naewon Kang and Nojin Kwak, "A Multilevel Approach to Civic Participation: Individual Length of Residence, Neighborhood Residential Stability, and Their Interactive Effects with Media Use," Communication Research 30 (February 2003): 80-107;
120. GangHeong Lee, Joseph N. Cappella, and Brian Southwell, "The Effects of News and Entertainment on Interpersonal Trust: Political Talk Radio, Newspapers, and Television," Mass Communication & Society 6 (fall 2003): 413-34;
121. Pippa Norris, "Does Television Erode Social Capital? A Reply to Putnam," PS: Political Science & Politics 29 (September 1996): 474-79;
122. Bruce E. Pinkleton and Erica W. Austin, "Media Perceptions and Public Affairs Apathy in the Politically Inexperienced," Mass Communication & Society 7 (summer 2004): 319-37;
123. Bruce E. Pinkleton, Erica W. Austin, and Kristine K.J. Fortman, "Relationships of Media Use and Political Disaffection to Political Efficacy and Voting Behavior," Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 42 (winter 1998): 34-49;
124. John Stauffer, Richard Frost, and William Rybolt, "Recall and Learning from Broadcast News: Is Print Better?" Journal of Broadcasting 25 (summer 1981): 253-62;
125. Karin Cwinn Wilkins, "The Role of Media in Public Disengagement from Political Life," Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 44 (fall 2000): 569-80.
126. Shirley S. Ho, Dominique Brossard, and Dietram A. Scheufele, "Effects of Value Predispositions, Mass Media Use, and Knowledge on Public Attitudes Toward Embryonic Stem Cell Research," International Journal of Public Opinion Research 20 (summer 2008): 171-92;
127. Chul-joo Lee and Dietram A. Scheufele, "The Influence of Knowledge and Deference Toward Scientific Authority: A Media Effects Model for Public Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology," Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 83 (winter 2006): 819-34.
128. M. Kent Jennings and Vicki Zeitner, "Internet Use and Civic Engagement: A Longitudinal Analysis," Public Opinion Quarterly 67 (September 2003): 311-34;
129. Thomas J. Johnson and Barbara K. Kaye, "A Vehicle for Engagement or a Haven for the Disaffected: Internet Use, Political Alienation, and Voter Participation," in Engaging the Public: How Government and the Media Can Reinvigorate American Democracy, ed. Thomas J. Johnson, Carole E. Hays, and Scott P. Hays (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998), 123-35;
130. James E. Katz, Ronald E. Rice, and Philip Aspden, "The Internet, 1995-2000: Access, Civic Involvement, and Social Interaction," American Behavioral Scientist 45 (November 2001): 405-19;
131. Dhavan V. Shah, Jaeho Cho, Seungahn Nah, Melissa R. Gotlieb, Hyunseo Hwang, Nam-Jin Lee, Rosanne M. Scholl, and Douglas M. McLeod, "Campaign Ads, Online Messaging, and Participation: Extending the Communication Mediation Model," Journal of Communication 57 (December 2007): 676-703;
132. Dhavan V. Shah, Nojin Kwak, and R. Lance Holbert, "'Connecting' and 'Disconnecting' with Civic Life: Patterns of Internet Use and the Production of Social Capital," Political Communication 18 (April 2001): 141-62;
133. Dhavan V. Shah, Jack M. McLeod, and So-Hyang Yoon, "Communication, Context, and Community: An Exploration of Print, Broadcast, and Internet Influences," Communication Research 28 (August 2001): 464-506;
134. Eric M. Uslaner, "Trust, Civic Engagement, and the Internet," Political Communication 21 (April-June 2004): 223-42;
135. Michael Xenos and Patricia Moy, "Direct and Differential Effects of the Internet on Political and Civic Engagement," Journal of Communication 57 (December 2007): 704-18.
136. Atkin, "Communication and Political Socialization";
137. Chaffee, Ward, and Tipton, "Mass Communication";
138. McLeod, Kosicki, and McLeod, "Resurveying the Boundaries." 40. Putnam, Bowling Alone.
139. Bandura, Social Foundations.
140. Roser, "Involvement, Attention, and Perceptions."
141. Julie L. Andsager, "How Personal Control and Political Orientation Relate to Support for Expressive Rights," (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Association for Public Opinion Research, Chicago, November 1994);
142. Andsager, "Tolerance and Support for Expression";
143. Becker, Cobbey; and Sobowale, "Public Support for the Press";
144. Bobo and Licari, "Education and Political Tolerance";
145. Lambe, "Dimensions of Censorship";
146. Margaret E. Thompson, "The Impact of Need for Cognition on Thinking about Free Speech," Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 72 (winter 1995): 934-47;
147. Yalof and Dautrich, The First Amendment; Sheldon S. Zalkind, "Civil Liberties: An Overview of Some Contributions from the Behavioral Sciences," Journal of Social Issues 31 (spring 1975): 1-12.
148. Angus Campbell, Gerald Gurin, and Warren E. Miller, The Voter Decides (Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson, 1954);
149. Bandura, Social Foundations; Michael E. Morrell, "Survey and Experimental Evidence for a Reliable and Valid Measure of Internal Political Efficacy," Public Opinion Quarterly 67 (winter 2003): 589-602.
150. Bruce E. Pinkleton and Erica W. Austin, "Individual Motivations, Perceived Media Importance, and Political Disaffection," Political Communication 18 (July 2001): 321-34;
151. Bruce E. Pinkleton and Erica W. Austin, "Exploring Relationships Among Media Use Frequency, Perceived Media Importance, and Media Satisfaction in Political Disaffection and Efficacy," Mass Communication & Society 5 (spring 2002): 141-66.
152. Roser, "Involvement, Attention, and Perceptions."
153. Pinkleton and Austin, "Individual Motivations."
154. Stephen Earl Bennett, "Political Talk Radio Shows' Impact on Democratic Citizenship," in Engaging the Public: How Government and the Media Can Reinvigorate American Democracy, ed. Thomas J. Johnson, Carole E. Hays, and Scott P. Hays (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998): 111-121;
155. Eveland and Scheufele, "Connecting News Media Use"; John P. Robinson, Jerrold G. Rusk, and Kendra B. Head, Measures of Political Attitudes, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Library of Congress No. 68-65537 (1968).
156. Nojin Kwak, Ann Williams, Xiaoru Wang, and Hoon Lee, "Talking Politics and Engaging Politics. An Examination of the Interactive Relationships Between Structural Features of Political Talk and Discussion Engagement," Communication Research 32 (October 2005): 87-111;
157. McLeod, Kosicki, and McLeod, "Resurveying the Boundaries."
158. The fourteen-day survey started Sunday, February 19, 2006, and ended Saturday, March 4, 2006. A sample of 4,538 randomly generated phone numbers of listed and non-listed numbers in the United States, screened to eliminate nonworking numbers, was purchased from Survey Sampling International. The company randomly generated phone numbers throughout the country then pre-screened the list to eliminate disconnected or business numbers. Despite the prescreening, 20%, or 886 of the numbers, were found to be disconnected, leaving 3,652 working numbers. The calling was directed by the author and a paid assistant who monitored calls, and was conducted from a survey phone lab at a mid-sized public university. Callers were experienced undergraduate surveyors employed at a university survey lab, paid $10 per hour, and some undergraduate students who completed the surveying for extra credit in a research methods course. All callers underwent an hour training session before their four-hour shifts. In order to enhance response, each eligible phone number was called at least six times and calling times were scheduled 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Friday and noon to 9 p.m. Saturday and Sunday.
159. Dillman's Total Design Method was employed to maximize response, including starting the survey with a short topical question and highlighting sponsorship by a university (also, special thanks to Dr. Dillman, who provided helpful suggestions and advice for this survey). The cooperation rate was 24%, as calculated as cooperation rate 4 by the American Association of Public Opinion Research guidelines, including partials, completed surveys and refusals, but excluding noneligible households (businesses, nonworking numbers), non-contacts (answering machines, language barrier), "other" dispositions. Of the 1,787 eligible people contacted, 403 completed the survey and 28 completed part of it.
160. Respondents were 51% female and 49% male, equivalent to the overall national gender proportion. The sample was slightly older than the U.S. population when compared to 2000 census figures (25% were 60 or older, compared to 20% nationally), more educated (40% had a college four-year degree or higher compared to 25% nationally), and had a higher percentage of Caucasian participants (85% compared to 75% nationally). Because the sample was similar to those in national polls and represented those who most influence public policy (e.g., more educated, older), actual responses were used in analysis without weighting.
161. Robert F. DeVellis, Scale Development: Theory and Application (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2003);
162. Susan E. Embretson and Steven P. Reise, Item Response Theory for Psychologists (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000);
163. Jum C. Nunnally and Ira Bernstein, Psychometric Theory (NY: McGraw-Hill, 1994).
164. 2 = 116, p < .01; CFI = .92; AGF1 = .92; SRMR = .05; RMSEA = .05.
165. See Shalom H. Schwartz, "Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries," in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 25, ed. Mark P. Zanna (San Diego, CA: Academic Press), 1-65. Of the fifty-six items in the value survey, the four power items were used, introduced by: "Next I will read a number of things that people might value. On a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being opposed to your values and 10 being of supreme importance to your values, please rate the extent to which each value is important to you." Respondents then rated four values: "Social power - control over others, dominance," "Wealth - material possessions, money," "Authority - the right to lead or command," "Preserving my public image - protecting my 'face.'" A scale was created by calculating a mean of the four items (Cronbach's alpha = .73).
166. "On a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being not at all important and 10 being very important, state the number for each of the following media for how important they are to you as a news and information source." Respondents then rated radio, television, newspaper, magazine, and Internet.
167. This was measured by an index (alpha = .70) based on three questions, rated on a scale from 0 to 10: "Newspapers should be allowed to criticize public officials," "Newspapers should be allowed to freely publish stories without government approval," and "Newspapers should be allowed to freely criticize the U.S. military for its performance."
168. Index (alpha = .71), on a scale from 0 to 10, by calculating the mean of three questions: "Voting gives people an effective way to influence what the government does," "I can make a difference if I participate in the election process," and "I have a real say in what the government does."
169. Index (alpha = .83), on a scale from 0 to 10, by calculating the mean of four questions: "I'm interested in election information," "I pay attention to election information," "I actively seek out information concerning the election," and "I like to stay informed about the elections."
170. Index (alpha = .81), based on the means of six items measured on a scale from 0 to 10: "On a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being not important at all and 10 being very important, the level of importance the following activities have in your life." The six items were "Giving blood," "Signing community petitions," "Attending public meetings, rallies, or speeches," "Contacting and talking to elected officials," "Contributing money to a political or public interest campaign," and "Volunteering for a community organization."
171. Cuillier, "The Public's Concern for Privacy Invasion and Its Relationship to Support for Press Access to Government Records";
172. Phelps and Bunker, "Direct Marketers' Use of Public Records";
173. Piotrowski and Van Ryzin, "Citizen Attitudes Toward Transparency in Local Government."
174. Zip codes were randomly selected proportionate to the population, then the second and third digits of the phone number were randomly selected (NXX), followed by random selection of the last four digits (NXX-XXXX). If the first call did not result in a completed interview, then I was added to the number and that new number was called. After twenty attempts to obtain an interview from the selected NXX codes, the NXX number was rejected and a new zip code selected. This system stratifies by geography and avoids bias by race and urban dwelling, but does not allow for simple response rate calculation.
175. Similar to the first study, females accounted for 51% and males 49%; 82%
176. Newspaper use was measured by summing two questions: "How do you get information about state and local government," (1 if "newspaper" was selected and 0 if not selected), "How do you get information about federal issues" (1 if "newspaper" was selected and 0 if not selected), providing a scale from 0 to 2. For television the same scale was developed using the same questions for when "television" was selected.
177. Simple correlations indicated relationships between support for access and education (r = .10, p < .01), political conservatism (r = .21, p < .01), support for press rights (r = .07, p < .05), and political interest (r = .11, p < .01).
178. Gerbner et al., "Chatting the Main Stream."
179. Thomas J. Johnson and Barbara K. Kaye, "A Boost or Bust for Democracy? How the Web Influenced Political Attitudes and Behaviors in the 1996 and 2000 Presidential Elections," Harvard International Journal of Press-Politics 8 (July 2003): 9-34;
180. Shah, Kwak, and Holbert, "'Connecting' and 'Disconnecting' with Civic Life";
181. Xenos and Moy, "Direct and Differential Effects."
182. Bandura, Social Foundations; Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo, The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion (NY: Academic Press, 1986).
183. Steven H. Chaffee and Connie Roser, "Involvement and the Consistency of Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors," Communication Research 13 (July 1986): 373-99; Roser, "Involvement, Attention, and Perceptions."
184. Archibald, "The Early Years"; Cross, The People's Right to Know.
185. Floyd J. McKay, "First Amendment Guerillas: Formative Years of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press," Journalism & Communication Monographs 6 (October 2004): 106-42; Uhm, "The Cold War."
186. For an inventory of all the state's public record laws see the Citizen Access Project, available at http://www.citizenaccess.org, as well as the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Open Government Guide, available at http://rcfp.org/ogg/.
187. Larry M. Bartels, "Question Order and Declining Faith in Elections," Public Opinion Quarterly 66 (spring 2002): 67-79;
188. Leo W. Jeffres, Urban Communication Systems: Neighborhoods and the Search for Community (Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2002); Putnam, Bowling Alone.
189. Blanchard, "Why Can't We Ever Learn?"
190. Roper Center polling in September 2007 showed 62% of the public said going to war in Iraq was a mistake, up from 24% in 2003. Also, a December 2007 poll showed that 65% of the public disapproved of the way the president handled Iraq, available at http:// www.ropercenter.uconn.edu.
191. Pew Research Center for People and the Press, Voters Liked Campaign 2004, but too much "Mud-Slingling,' (2004), available at http:// people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=233.
192. Gerd Bohner and Michaela Wanke, Attitudes and Attitude Change (NY: Taylor and Francis, 2002);
193. Robert B. Cialdini, Influence: Science and Practice (Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 2001);
194. Ziva Kunda, Social Cognition: Making Sense of People (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999);
195. Richard E. Petty and Duane To Wegener, "Attitude Change: Multiple Roles for Persuasion Variables," in The Handbook of Social Psychology Vol. 1, ed. Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, and Gardner Lindzey (NY: McGraw-Hill, 1998), 323-90;
196. Anthony R. Pratkanis and Elliot Aronson, Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion (NY: Henry Holt and Company, 2001).
197. Petty and Cacioppo, The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion.
198. Susan T. Fiske, "Attention and Weight in Person Perception: The Impact of Negative and Extreme Behavior," Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 38 (June 1980): 889-906;
199. Michael F. Meffert, Sungeun Chung, Amber Joiner, Leah Waks, and Jennifer Garst, "The Effects of Negativity and Motivated Information Processing During a Political Campaign," Journal of Communication 56 (March 2006): 27-51.
200. Petty and Wegener, "Attitude Change: Multiple Roles for Persuasion Variables."
201. See www.sunshineweek.org.
202. Julie L. Andsager and Susan Dente Ross, "Assessment of Outcomes of Free Expression Courses," Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 53 (winter 1999): 54-66;
203. Dorothy Bowles, "Missed Opportunity: Educating Newspaper Readers about First Amendment Values," Newspaper Research Journal 10 (winter 1989): 39-53;
204. Troy A. Murphy, "Deliberative Civic Education and Civil Society: A Consideration of Ideas and Actualities in Democracy and Communication Education," Communication Education 53 (January 2004): 74-91.
205. Robert M. Entman, Democracy Without Citizens: Media and the Decay of American Politics (NY: Oxford University Press, 1989);
206. Doris A. Graber, Processing the News: How People Tame the Information Tide (White Plains, NY: Longman, 1988);
207. McLeod, Kosicki, and McLeod, "Resurveying the Boundaries";
208. Jay Rosen, What Are Journalists For? (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999).
209. For a comprehensive quantitative analysis of public journalism's positive effects on civic engagement, as well as a good summary of previous studies, see Sandra L. Nichols, Lewis A. Friedland, Hernando Rojas, Jaeho Cho, and Dhavan V. Shah, "Examining the Effects of Public Journalism on Civil Society from 1994 to 2002: Organizational Factors, Project Features, Story Frames, and Citizen Engagement," Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 83 (spring 2006): 77-100.
210. Richard Curtin, Stanley Presser, and Eleanor Singer, "The Effects of Response Rate Changes on the Index of Consumer Sentiment," Public Opinion Quarterly 64 (winter 2000): 413-28;
211. Robert M. Groves, Stanley Presser, and Sarah Dipko, "The Role of Topic Interest in Survey Participation Decisions," Public Opinion Quarterly 68 (spring 2004): 2-31;
212. Scott Keeter, Courtney Kennedy, Michael Dimock, Jonathan Best, and Peyton Craighill, "Gauging the Impact of Growing Nonresponse on Estimates from a National RDD Telephone Survey," Public Opinion Quarterly 70 (special issue 2006): 759-79;
213. Scott Keeter, Carolyn Miller, Andrew Kohut, Robert M. Groves, and Stanley Presser, "Consequences of Reducing Nonresponse in a National Telephone Survey," Public Opinion Quarterly 64 (summer 2000): 125-48;
214. Christopher McCarty, "Differences in Response Rates Using Most Recent Versus Final Dispositions in Telephone Surveys," Public Opinion Quarterly 67 (fall 2003): 396-406;
215. Daniel M. Merkle and Murray Edelman, "Nonresponse in Exit Polls: A Comprehensive Analysis," in Survey Nonresponse, ed. Robert M. Groves, Don A. Dillman, John L. Eltinge, and Roderick J.A. Little (NY: Wiley & Sons, 2002): 243-58;
216. Robert M. Groves, "Nonresponse Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Household Surveys," Public Opinion Quarterly 70 (special issue 2006): 646-75.
217. John Ehlen and Patrick Ehlen, "Cellular-Only Substitution in the United States as Lifestyle Adoption," Public Opinion Quarterly 71 (special issue 2007): 717-33;
218. Scott Keeter, Courtney Kennedy, April Clark, Trevor Tompson, and Mike Mokrzycki, "What's Missing from National Landline RDD Surveys? The Impact of the Growing Cell-Only Population," Public Opinion Quarterly 71 (special issue 2007): 772-92.
219. Dennis Chong, "How People Think, Reason, and Feel about Rights and Liberties," American Journal of Political Science 37 (August 1993): 867-99;
220. John F. Dillon, "Local Journalist and Public Official Attitudes Toward Media Freedoms in the Context of Socio-Cultural Integration" (Ph.D. diss., Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, 1991), retrieved from Digital Dissertations, 53/07,2,141 (AAT9230739);
221. John Immerwahr and John Doble, "Public Attitudes Toward Freedom of the Press," Public Opinion Quarterly 46 (summer 1982): 177-94.