A comparison of the editorial positions taken on three public issues in 1989 by 56 newspapers in the Gannett group with a matched set of 155 other newspapers finds that Gannett newspapers were more likely to take positions, but also less likely to vary in the positions taken. (Also, 72% of the Gannett newspapers responded to the survey of editors versus 52% of the matched set of editors queried.) The study did not seek to find evidence that the newspapers were influenced by higher headquarters, but does suggest a number of ways that subtle influences may work within groups.
This study examined the relationship between chain ownership and editorial role perceptions to illuminate the impact of chain ownership on content. Based on 258 questionnaires returned by a nation-wide sample of daily newspaper editors, the study found the editors of chain-owned newspapers to be more likely than their independent counterparts to subsm'be to activist role perceptions. The tendency toward activist values increased as the size of the chain increased. Further, in general, editors of larger news organizations tended to subscribe to activist values more than did editors in smaller organizations.
Historically, analyses of change in mass media systems have tended to draw upon a ‘dissident vs state’ framework, derived largely from the western historical experience. In the case of China, a ‘state vs market’ scenario has been superimposed on this basic framework, in the context of which the Chinese Communist party-state is often portrayed as a monolithic entity intent on promoting market-oriented reform in China’s economic base, while keeping a tight grip on the country’s mass media system and political superstructure. These dominant analytical frameworks tend to mask a number of important dynamics unique to Chinese history and society, that have played a significant role in the mass media transformation process. The purpose of this article is to outline a new conceptual framework incorporating these unique dynamics. In particular, it is the contention of this article that many of the changes in China’s mass media system during the post-Mao period have been achieved by non-state actors, not in an adversarial process vis-à-vis the state, but through what may be called ‘creative renegotiation and expansion’ of new policy openings initiated by the state. The success of these non-state actors, furthermore, has been due to three major systemic factors: (1) the increasing ‘deideologization’ of the Chinese society set in motion by Deng’s pragmatic policies; (2) the gradual functional shift on the part of the local party cadres and bureaucratic authorities from ideological supervision to entrepreneurial collaboration with private investors; and (3) the increasingly common core of interest created by the media’s commercialization among the party cadres, bureaucratic bodies and media entrepreneurs and managers in extracting profits from the media.
This study examined framing in the American press coverage of the Fourth UN Conference and the NGO Forum in Beijing as a means of (1) assessing the coverage of this event and the extent to which its critical areas of concern were communicated, and (2) exploring the influence of dominant ideology on framing in the news. Employing qualitative and quantitative methods, the study found evidence of an anti-communist as well as an anti-feminist frame. Under the influence of dominant ideology, the newspaper coverage of the conference focused considerably on an extended criticism of China as a communist nation. The study found that the goals of the global feminist movement and their critical areas of concern held far less immediacy and salience for the American press than the need to assert dominant American values.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.