|
Abstract:
|
From time to time, an issue comes along with significant enough implications for
future public policy development that the media begins to cover the topic in depth and at
length. Often when such issues emerge, many and varied interest groups advocating one
side or the other of the possibly future policy. With this wide influence on subsequent
policy, many more interest groups with a "dog in the fight," may strive to become part of
the policy discussion. Over time, the media may begin to adopt the point of view of one
coalition of interest groups and, before long, any other point of view may not be reported
as prevalently. This "dog in the fight" argument is the basis of the hypothesis of this
thesis: The greater the implications for public policy, the greater the potential for
imbalance in reportage. Using a content analysis approach, 89 newspaper articles from the Chicago
Tribune and the New York Times newspapers were coded for point of views reported on
two issues: one with significant public policy implications and one issue without. Results
from 3 independent coders showed that there is a trend toward imbalance and issues with
significant public policy implications are reported differently. Conclusions include the
possibility of a changing role of the United States press and the implications of a changing democratic model if the press no longer functions as watchdog or arena for
public debate. |
