Ben-Porath, Eran N - Internal Fragmentation of the News

This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland Library]On: 11 March 2013, At: 17:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journalism StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjos20

INTERNAL FRAGMENTATION OF THENEWSEran N. Ben-PorathVersion of record first published: 23 Apr 2007.

To cite this article: Eran N. Ben-Porath (2007): INTERNAL FRAGMENTATION OF THE NEWS,Journalism Studies, 8:3, 414-431

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616700701276166

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

INTERNAL FRAGMENTATION OF THE NEWS

Television news in dialogical format and its

consequences for journalism

Eran N. Ben-Porath

Unlike the edited news package, which dominates network and local news in America, the cable

news channels recount the days news predominantly through conversation, a format dubbed

here dialogical news. At the center of this article is the concept of internal fragmentation, a

consequence of the turn to conversation-based reporting, and its central implications: (1) the

authority of the news reporter diminishes; (2) question-asking replaces fact-checking; (3) news

organizations relinquish their accountability for news content; and (4) the news audience assumes

the role of witness or participant rather than receiver. As dialogical news becomes prominent in

the repertoire of viewers, short- and long-term prospects are suggested here. In the short-run,

journalists are losing their battle to control their sources and maintain their gatekeeping function.

In the long run, journalism might lose its significance as societys reflexive storyteller, reverting

instead to its former role as a partisan instrument, a source of entertainment or a bit of both.

KEYWORDS cable news; format effects; fragmentation; journalism; news and narrative;

television news

Introduction

Television news is undergoing rapid transformation in its consumption patterns as

well as in its production. On the consuming end in America, for example, the network

newscasts audience is shrinking, while the popularity of cable has consistently risen.1 As

for production, the ascent of cable television news presents a shift not only in news

consumers habits but also in the way their news is packaged and delivered. Cable, much

like the ubiquitously successful morning news programs, delivers the news predominantly

by way of human interaction (Clayman, 2004), based on conversation rather than on

journalistic monolog.2 A dialogical mode of news reporting presents its viewers with the

news through questions and proposed answers, standing in sharp contrast to the answers-

based certainty of the traditional news package. This article suggests a framework for

assessing the consequences of this shift in news-style for the practice and function of

television journalism, in the context of journalisms place in democracy. Following

Fairclough (1998) and Corner (1999), the two styles of news will be distinguished here

as monological (traditional broadcast) and dialogical (conversation-based).

At the conceptual core of this article is the perception of journalism as narrative,

recognizing that news is a form of literature where journalists employ the traditions of

storytelling, picture making and sentence construction . . . with vital assumptions about

the world built-in (Schudson, 2002, p. 262; also Bird and Dardenne, 1988). As narratives

change, so does the place of their narrators, the journalists (Zelizer, 1993). The new news,

marked by less mediated contact between citizens and candidates (Carey, 1995, p. 377),

Journalism Studies, Vol. 8, No 3, 2007ISSN 1461-670X print/1469-9699 online/07/030414-18 2007 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/14616700701276166

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Auc

kland

Libr

ary] a

t 17:4

2 11 M

arch 2

013

alters the narrative form of the news and consequently the place of journalists and news

institutions. Considering the role of journalism in democracy, these changes in news

format may bear social impact. The study of media effects, although often restricted to

individual-level outcomes, has found that to focus merely on content as the relevant

aspect of media for producing effects is, in many respects, to abandon that which makes

communication a field unto itself (Eveland, 2003, p. 400). Whereas Eveland studies format

in comparing the effects of different media, understanding the meaning of differences in

format is essential for comparisons of genres and sub-genres within the same medium.

A shift in news format towards dialogical newscasting has more than stylistic

consequences. It entails socio-political effects. The monological format, which still

dominates the news programs of American broadcast networks, positions the journalist

as informant (Ekstrom, 2000), a purveyor of knowledge and impartial, objective

representative of all sides and none (e.g. Glasser, 1992; Hallin, 1986). In contrast, the

dialog indicates uncertainty and a willingness to cede factual and interpretive authority to

interviewees and the audience. This format shift can be conceived as internal fragmenta-

tion of the news message, acting in conjunction with the well-noted state of (external)

news-media fragmentation (Bennett, 2004; Blumler and Kavanagh, 1999; Katz, 1996). What

once was a cohesive unit of information delivery becomes diffuse and uncertain. The

medias ability to establish dominant frames (Entman and Herbst, 2001, p. 222), is

undermined not only by the plentitude of competing news outlets, but also by the

presence of competing frames within a news program or, for that matter, within a news

story. There are four central tenets at the basis of this argument:

1. Dialog, as a mode of news delivery, places less authority with any one participant, in

contrast to the tone and structure of the edited news package, which position the

journalist as the dominant source and interpreter of information.

2. Interviewees in conversation-based news are not necessarily journalists employed by the

news organization carrying the news program. Consequently, the organization is

relinquishing its authority on factuality to others.

3. Participants are not necessarily journalists at all. As a result, the authority of journalism is

established more by asking questions than by providing answers.

4. The place of the audience changes, from receiver in the monological state to witness in the

dialogical presentation.

In the first part of this article, I briefly elaborate on the notion of format effects as it

relates to the news. The second section discusses the journalism-as-narrative perspective

and the centrality of authority to the function of journalism embedded in this approach.

The third section proposes a theory of presumed impact stemming from the ascent of

dialogical news and the internal disintegration of the news text. Finally, on the basis of this

discussion I assess the meaning of dialogical news formats for the place of journalism in

society: What short-term effects should this transformation yield for what people make of

the news? What long-term consequences do these changes bode for journalism as a

practice and as a political institution?

An analysis of dialogical news requires a clarification of what it is and what it is not.

Examples of dialogical news are the prime-time programs on the cable news outlets that

aim to provide an account of some of the days main events and burning issues, much the

way a traditional network newscast does:3 CNNs Anderson Cooper 360 , or Paula Zahn Live ,

MSNBCs Countdown with Keith Olberman and Hardball with Chris Matthews ; Fox News On

INTERNAL FRAGMENTATION OF THE NEWS 415

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Auc

kland

Libr

ary] a

t 17:4

2 11 M

arch 2

013

the Record w/Greta van Sustern and the bulk of CNN Headline News programming. While

each of these has its own unique format and emphases, they assume some form of news

recap. This recap is delivered predominantly by way of discussion between the studio host

and discussants in the studio or in remote locations. A second set of programs that fall

under the dialogical rubric adds another twist, the politically identified presenter, such as

Fox News The OReilly Factor and Hannity and Colmes or MSNBCs Scarborough Country.

While these programs stand out for their patent deviation from the norms of objectivity

that have governed television news since its inception, they are also notable for their

reliance on human interaction as a means of delivering the news. Both sets of programs

fall outside typical categories, such as those provided in Erler and Timbergs (2002)

Taxonomy of Television Talk . They differ in rhetorical devices from the afternoon talk show

(e.g. Oprah ), or the News Talk programs such as the Sunday talk shows which are based on

lengthy expositions into one or two topics. Much like traditional newscasts, the dialogical

news programs are marked by a wide array of topics, rested on the occurrences of the

preceding news cycle. In dialogical newscasts, the news is presented and interpreted by a

changing set of discussants, with a possible monological news bulletin included in the

program.

The examples discussed in this article are predominantly American, but the ascent of

dialogical news is part of a global phenomenon of conversation-shows replacing

primetime news, a trend driven by new institutional practices and motivations (Liebes,

1999). This sea change in the way news is packaged and presented (Clayman, 2004, p.

29) has garnered scholarly interest worldwide as evidenced by the publication of studies in

the United Kingdom (e.g. Corner, 1999; Fairclough, 1998), Israel (Liebes, 1999, 2001) and

Greece (Patrona, 2006). While cultural differences in the place of news and the norms of

conversation may modify the effects of format from one society to another, there is an

underlying assumption in these studies, as well as in the present one, that when news is

presented differently, journalism functions differently in society.

Format Effects

The notion that new media genres would affect people differently than previous

ones presupposes that there are attributes other than the content of the message that

affect their recipients (Eveland, 2003). This supposition, that the media themselves shape

peoples responses to content, has spawned an abundance of research, comparing, for

example, the effects of reading newspapers to watching television news (e.g. Chaffee and

Frank, 1996; Davis and Robinson, 1986), reading newspapers to getting information online

(e.g. Althaus and Tewksbury, 2002; Eveland and Dunwoody, 2001) or other combinations

of news media. Research has centered on the social-psychological effects of particular

attributes of mediated information. These studies measured, for example, the impact of

visuals on memory (Graber, 1990; Katz et al., 1977), audio-visual redundancy on processing

the news (Brosius et al., 1996; Drew and Grimes, 1991), the effects of distressing video

imagery on recall and understanding (Newhagen and Reeves, 1992), or the effects of

screen clutter on news comprehension (Bergen et al., 2005). Such research finds that

television news that is structured for children is better understood by children and adults

alike (Walma van der Molen, 2001) or that tabloid format makes television news more

memorable, but only to the degree that the content itself is not overly dramatic (Grabe

et al., 2003). Furthermore, communication research finds broader social effects stemming

416 ERAN N. BEN-PORATH

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Auc

kland

Libr

ary] a

t 17:4

2 11 M

arch 2

013

from the interaction of form and content, such as Robinsons (1976) videomalaise study,

which finds that exposure to different formats of public affairs television differentially

affects attitudes toward the political system. In other words, there is convincing evidence

that looking at content can predict only part of the effect that the news can have on its

audience. Formal features of the news are anticipated to matter in conjunction with the

content.

The effect of format reaches beyond recall and comprehension into the realm of a

shared societal agenda. Althaus and Tewksbury (2002) find that people who get their news

from a newspapers website rather than the same newspaper in hardcopy tend to develop

an agenda independent of the newspapers. As Internet readership expands, while

newspaper readership is declining, this finding speaks volumes for the future of news-

media agenda-setting. Following a similar logic, the central proposition of this paper is

that getting the news through dialogical newscasts allows its viewers more leeway in

interpreting news content. Dialogical news replaces the certitude of the reporter telling

her viewers thats the way it is with a journalist asking other people what is it?

The attribute at the center of this discussion is the organization of the medium or

the structure of its content (Eveland, 2003). Jeffres (1997) identifies narrative structure as a

potentially effective component of television news. In this context, communication

research turns to literary theory: for example, the structural-affect theory holds that

different affective responses can be elicited by manipulating the order in which a story is

conveyed (Brewer and Lichtenstein, 1982). Experimental research finds, indeed, that if a

news story is told linearly, in straight chronological order, the readers suspense levels are

highest. Conversely, if the story is told in reverse order, it evokes the most curiosity, while

the inverted type (most similar to newspaper stories) elicits the least curiosity and

suspense measures (Knoblach et al., 2004).

Not only can narrative format affect audience members dispositions, so can

discursive formats. Cohen, for example, maintains various ways in which interviews are

conducted and presented on the screen might have different consequences for different

audiences (1987, p. 14). The way in which an interview is conducted can affect the way in

which the interviewee, and for that matter the interviewer, are perceived by the viewing

public. Two oft-cited examples involve, on the one hand, Michael Howard, who is

considered to have lost a previous bid for the Conservative party leadership following a

combative television interview with the BBCs Jeremy Paxman. Paxman, for his role, was

dubbed Interviewer of the Year by the Royal Television Society of Great Britain (The

Observer , 1999). In contrast, CBS News anchorman Dan Rather was rebuked by his

employers following public response to a highly aggressive live interview with then Vice

President George Bush (Auletta, 1991), an incident, which had left Rather politically

suspect ever since. Thus, as a form of social interaction, the way in which an interview is

conducted can be just as effective as the content of the interview itself (Clayman and

Heritage, 2002).

An arena ripe for the investigation of format effects on emotional responses is

politics. Politicians shun typical news programs and turn to talk and entertainment venues

so as to avoid the scrutiny of journalists and address their constituents in settings they find

favorable (Just et al., 1996). Outside the newscast, in personal interviews and staged town-

hall meetings politicians engage an audience, which, in response, is affected not only by

the unbridled content of the politicians appeal but also by production techniques and

stage factors including shot length, image graphication, and the social context of the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Auc

kland

Libr

ary] a

t 17:4

2 11 M

arch 2

013

media appearances (Bucy and Newhagen, 1999, p. 205). In their study, Bucy and

Newhagen find that extreme close-ups in one-on-one interviews produced more positive

appraisals of President Clinton, compared with long-shot based town-hall meetings. The

significance of this finding is twofold: it reaffirms the perception that circumventing the

news media yields positive outcomes for the politician and it indicates, once more, that

format in and of itself can affect the audiences response to a discussant.

These two lines of reasoning, circumvention and format effects, are the basis for

anticipating the effects of dialogical news: (1) this is a news format that affords non-

journalists an opportunity to serve as news purveyors; (2) the structural attributes of the

format, in particular its diffuse narrative structure, weaken the control and authority of

journalists and the news media as a whole. In order to explicate this second point, a

discussion of journalism as narrative and its relation to the establishment of authority is

warranted.

The Function of Journalism as Social Narrative

NBC News relaunched its news product in 2004 under the slogan reporting

Americas story. The network was, in a sense, reaffirming the point some media scholars

have been making that journalists do not write articles they write stories (Bell, 1991, p.

147) or melodramatic accounts of events (Weaver, 1975, p. 83). Reality does not present

itself to news producers, but rather, flesh-and-blood journalists literally compose the story

we call news (Schudson, 1989, p. 264). Journalistic storytelling has been analyzed as a

means through which the media construct a shared view of the world (Zelizer, 1993), or as

mythic texts (Bird and Dardenne, 1988; Lule, 2001) that foster certain perceptions of social

reality (Smith, 1979). Television news stands out as the most coherently organized form of

news narrative, with this cohesion spanning both individual stories and newscasts as a

whole, where there is hardly an aspect of the scripting, casting and staging of a television

news program that is not designed to convey an impression of authority and omniscience

(Weaver, 1975, p. 89).

The plot of the news story not only conveys the details of occurrences deemed

newsworthy, but also establishes the authority of the journalist (Zelizer, 1990b). If a

journalist is to succeed in telling a nation its story, day in and day out, the credibility of the

reporter, her news organization and of journalism as an institution must be preserved.

Credibility, in this case, refers not to the perceived veracity of content but to the

acceptance of the person and the institution as authoritative societal storyteller. Authority

is established through linguistic devices such as synecdoche, omission and personalization

(Zelizer, 1990), visual devices such as live reporting on location (Zelizer, 1989), the news

anchors position in the studio set and on the television screen, or their direct stare at the

unseen audience (Morse, 1986), as well as aural devices , predominantly the intonation of

the news (Zelizer, 1989).

The clearest manifestation of journalistic authority is the soundbite. Taped

interviews with sources and experts are reduced to soundbites through a process of

decontextualization in the editing suites and then recontextualization as part of the

reporters narration of a news story (Ekstrom, 2001; Nylund, 2003). Hallin (1992) associates

the ever-shrinking soundbite with an increase in the interpretive role assumed by

television journalists. Newsmakers and experts may voice an opinion but it is the reporter

who ultimately packages and contextualizes it for the viewer. In other words, the authority


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Auc

kland

Libr

ary] a

t 17:4

2 11 M

arch 2

013

to decide what is and what is not of consequence, out of all that has been said, is the

reporters.

A natural companion to authority is accountability. A practice so steeped in

preserving its own authority on factuality cannot walk away from its ownership of all that

is said and done on its premises. Hence the culture of corrections in newspapers and the

recent extensive mea culpas on the pages of the grandest media authority in the United

States, the New York Times. 4 Likewise, if the sad ending to Dan Rathers career at CBS has

taught us anything, it is that the authority that furnishes the allure of news anchors, also

burdens them with responsibility. They can not lay the blame elsewhere. Whatever they

report is in their charge.5

A further bond between narrative structure and journalistic authority rests in the

consistency of language. The construction of the news is practically identical across all US

broadcast networks (and the local news for that matter). News is delivered by one or two

anchorpersons and a team of reporters, who have all undergone similar training (see

Indiana University School of Journalism, 2003). Both visual and aural language across the

newscast is, therefore, highly standardized. Similar organizational needs of television news

outlets result in similar routinized depictions of events (Gans, 1979; Tuchman, 1978).

Consequently, a similarity in the language through which news is organized and reported

emerges.

Dialogical News

Guided by economic and technological considerations, television formats are in a

constant state of change, with the news being no exception (Corner, 1999; Timberg, 2002;

Webster and Phalen, 1997). Two notable factors are responsible for the emergence of

dialogical news: technological upgrades that facilitated greater channel capacity, and the

first Gulf war of 1991 (see Webster and Phalen, 1997). Channel capacity made the

production of cheap news feasible and marketable, while CNNs ratings success during the

war made 24-hour news channels institutionally desirable. Not only has the popularity of

the news channels grown persistently, it is also an inexpensive news format compared

with the production costs of news packages that involve much more manpower,

equipment and facilities (see Mullen, 2003). Economic competition has encouraged

news organizations to minimize costs by turning to talking-heads formats (see also

Entman, 1989). Political elites, appearing on the air at no extra cost, have consequently,

joined the ranks of journalists as sources for information. Due to its profitability, the market

has been booming with additional news channels joining the fray of dialogical

newscasting since the 1990s, such as Fox News, CNBC, MSNBC and the recent redesign

of CNN Headlines primetime as dialog- rather than monolog-based.6

Subsequent to Corners (1999) classification, this dialogical format falls under the

category of talk and leaves the realm of narrative . The dialog mentioned here occurs,

usually, between the anchorperson, representing the news organization, and respondents

that fall broadly into three groups: (1) journalists from the news organization that carries

the program; (2) experts, including journalists from other news outlets; and (3)

newsmakers or advocates on their behalf. The presence of the first set of respondents

mentioned here, the organizations own journalists, suggests that not all conversations in

these programs are devoid of institutional control. This class of discussions fall under

what Schudson (1995) categorizes as known-information interviews (see also Corner,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Auc

kland

Libr

ary] a

t 17:4

2 11 M

arch 2

013

1999, p. 42), in contrast to interviews with newsmakers that are predominantly designed

for information seeking.

Irrespective of the interviewees identity and affiliation, these dialogs are similar to

interviews and distinct from the soundbites or short exchanges between a reporter and an

interviewee that are sometimes interjected into taped news packages. Dialogical news-

casts are based on a preset order of turn-taking (Clayman and Heritage, 2002), where

studio hosts have the authority to ask the questions and decide when the discussion

commences or concludes, but often refrain from contributing their own answer (Clayman,

2002). Unlike the soundbites, which are recontextualized and meticulously selected from a

longer interview, the discussions in dialogical programs are usually broadcast in their

entirety. These interviews are either live or at the very least bear a semblance of liveness

(Bourdon, 2000; Clayman, 2004; Hoskins, 2001).

Internal Fragmentation

Presently, dialogical news sources have yet to overtake the prominence of

traditional formats in the ratings charts.7 But as the popularity of the former has increased

at the expense of the latter, some deductions from the observations made here can be

made, amounting to the central tenets of this paper.

Diminished Authority for the News Reporter

Although the metaphor of their title suggests that anchorpersons are the most

prominent contributors to the newscast, the traditional, monological format highlights the

news reporter as the custodian of fact. Reporters are featured live on location, or on tape,

stating their name and their organizational affiliation (Andrea Mitchell, NBC News). The

anchorperson may lead into the report but from the viewers perspective, it is the

journalist who claims her authorship of the story and authority on the facts by her voice-

over, her choice of visuals, her careful selection of short soundbites and their

interpretation. More often than not in the United States, for example, the reporter leads

into the package herself and only upon sign-off does the anchorperson assume control of

the program, furthering the authority granted to the journalist.

In contrast, dialogical news formats evolve around the anchorperson or host

(Fairclough, 1998). They ask the questions, cut their respondents (including their own

reporters) short and talk directly to newsmakers and experts. In a sense, the beat system

(e.g. Fishman, 1980), which afforded the journalist expertise on a given domain (politics,

crime, education) is eradicated when journalists sources, such as politicians or public

officials, are interviewed live rather than being filtered by the process of news gathering.

Even when the news organizations own reporter is the discussant, she is obliged to do so

in a conversational format, under the stewardship of the anchorperson.

This is not to say that dialogical news does not bolster the authority of reporters in

other ways. For one, dialogical news is usually live and the idea of liveness is powerful. It

reinforces the authority of journalists by suggesting unmediated access to the viewers and

a semblance of being there, which equates liveness with an authentic representation of

reality (Griffin, 1992; Rath, 1989; Vianello, 1985). Live news projects a dual message of

authenticity: photojournalisms ideal of visual truth as authentic knowledge derived from

seeing (Newton, 2001, p. 8), and the authenticity of simultaneity. The geographical and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Auc

kland

Libr

ary] a

t 17:4

2 11 M

arch 2

013

temporal proximity of the reporter going live affords journalists expertise, authenticity

and, accordingly, authority. Furthermore, as they engage in conversation, journalists are

seemingly elevated to ranks of experts, interviewed by the studio host who defers to their

knowledge and expertise.

While the reporter may indeed preserve or augment her level of authority by being

introduced as an expert and reporting live from the scene, she no longer has at her

disposal the use of voice-over intonation, and the careful selection of visuals and

soundbites. In contrast to live reporting, the taped account preserves the message of

spatial proximity (Zelizer, 1990a), while adding authoritative narration (Zelizer, 1990b), as

the editing of available visuals is carefully matched with the reporters coherent narrative

(Graddol, 1994; Meinhof 1994). Soundbites allow the journalists to contextualize the words

of newsmakers, whereas dialogical news grants news sources equal footing to journalists.

Goffmans (1979) concept of footing applies here to the language as well as tone and

gaze of journalists and newsmakers who appear as equals engaged in dialog with the

programs host. What seems an elevation to expert status is also a relegation: non-

journalists may get to answer the same questions as the reporter, openly challenging the

journalists account of occurrences, thus stressing once more the depleted state of the

journalists authority on factuality.

Diminished Authority and Accountability for the News Organization

Not only are reporters ceding their authority, their organizations as a whole are

following suit by allowing others (experts, newsmakers, advocates) to present facts and

interpret them. On the monolgical evening news, the networks are the proprietors of

content, for better or worse. The words of others are clipped and contextualized by

journalists employed by the organization and accountable to its standards and practices.

Authority in monological newscasts is expressed by quoting experts in support of the

journalists narrative (Zelizer, 1990). Conversation-based news is actually concerned with

establishing the interviewee s expertise (Clayman, 1991) rather than the authority of the

news organization itself. The reliance on external experts, such as academics, ex-officials,

and journalists from other news organizations has dual consequences: the news

organization cedes authority on the news to others and it relinquishes responsibility for

what is being said on its airwaves.

An example would best illustrate this point. Former New York Times public editor,

Daniel Okrent (2005) criticized Times correspondent Judith Millers appearance on MSNBCs

Hardball with Chris Matthews , where she reported a story, concerning developments in Iraq.

This story did not appear on the pages of the Times on the day of her television appearance,

nor on the day after it. Okrents concern was that Miller was misrepresenting the paper.

From the perspective of the news channel, things are murkier still. Who is accountable for

Millers story? According to Okrent, it is not the Times . Matthews introduced her, however,

as Judith Miller of the New York Times , suggesting Matthews and, for that matter, MSNBC

as a whole, claim no responsibility over what is reported on their airwaves either.

Apparently, Judith Miller received free time on MSNBC to prognosticate on the future of

Iraqi politics, with no news organization accountable for this content.

The dialogical news environment leaves facts and their interpretation in journalistic

limbo. In his account of the talk television environment, media critic Howard Kurtz (1996)

details a host of instances where pundits and other experts would pontificate with


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Auc

kland

Libr

ary] a

t 17:4

2 11 M

arch 2

013

certitude on one issue or another, at times actually affecting politics or the economy, only

to find that their predictions failed to materialize. Whereas the monological environment

cannot tolerate inaccuracy, dialogical news programs treat factuality tongue-in-cheek:

these same pundits were on the air the following day, their failures not withstanding.

When the news organization is not responsible for the content of its product, it has

inherently less concern for standards of factuality.

Question-asking Rather than Fact-checking

A corollary of the decline of responsibility is the demise of fact checking.

Clayman observes: If journalists previously gained professional status and popular

renown mainly by virtue of their investigative and literary abilities, their ranks have been

joined by journalists known mainly for their skills at questioning and interrogating (2004,

p. 46). The sometimes-muddled border of fact and opinion becomes unrecognizable when

the newsmakers themselves and their advocates provide information to the viewers rather

than being subjected to the interpretive filters of journalists. Interviews are incompatible

with fact-checking. Unless some impartial arbiter appears at the end of the interview and

proclaims the truthfulness of the arguments made, fact and fiction are afforded the same

credence by this form of journalism. Granted, the anchorperson can call out an interviewee

who is patently lying, but fact-checking requires resources and time, which a live television

discussion does not allow.

Once more, an example can illustrate the point. A CNN afternoon newscast featured a

debate between a gay-rights activist and a conservative Texas legislator. The conservative

guest buttressed her position favoring antigay legislation by citing evidence from a

psychological study that was unfamiliar to the other guest as well as the programs host. An

investigation conducted a day later by the Wall Street Journal revealed that the author of

this study was an antigay scientist/activist, and the findings were specious to say the least

(Bialik, 2005). But in the live debate, the news presenter did not and could not have the

informational wherewithal to contest the findings cited by her guest. All she could say was:

Thats a bold statement. Consequently, dubious information was delivered live by an

interested party, while the journalists role was restricted to asking questions. She did not

anticipate this studys mention and could obviously not take the time needed to verify its

scientific merit, as traditional journalism would expect her to. All she could do was defer to

the other interested party involved, as explained by a CNN spokesperson: the opposing

guest was given an opportunity to respond to the guests statement in question.

In dialogical newscasts, reporting becomes subservient to discussion. Clayman

(1991) notes the differences between the type of information offered by the news bulletin

at the beginning of Jim Lehrers NewsHour on PBS and the information on the same

subject leading to a discussion later in the same program. While the news bulletin is

marked by decisiveness concerning the facts reported, news interviews begin with

asserting the expertise of the interviewee. Viewers watching the program in its entirety

receive both types of information, but those exposed strictly to the interview will receive

more information and certainty from the interviewed specialist than from the news

organization they turn to. The two components of NewsHour, the brief news bulletin and

the lengthy discussion section are, in this way, analogous to the two types of television

journalism that occupy our cable boxes: one of certainty and authority, one of

noncomittance and a relinquishment of authority and responsibility.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Auc

kland

Libr

ary] a

t 17:4

2 11 M

arch 2

013

Audience as Witness Rather than Participant

Interviews are not merely dyadic interactions between interviewer/s and inter-

viewee/s, but rather, a triadic relationship, involving the active participants and their

viewers (Schudson, 1995). As a result, the audience of dialogical news fare is not merely a

recipient of the product of news gathering but more so a witness to the production of

information. Unlike the news package, not every word or every image on the screen at any

given time during a three to five minute interview can be perfectly pre-planned. It is up to

the viewers, then, to pick and choose where to direct their attention, which discussant to

trust, what bit of information to retain and how to package all the verbiage and imagery

directed their way into a story that makes sense of their world.

This state of affairs is illuminated by Faircloughs (1998) analysis of the BBCs Today

program, where brief news bulletins, steeped in formal journalistic vocabulary, are

followed by discussions about the news:

We might see this distinction in terms of bifurcation of the institutional voice: news

maintains some of the authority and distance traditionally associated with the voice of the

BBC, whereas the dialogical elements mark a shift away from authority and distance to a

voice which simulates and takes its legitimation from the voices and discourses of ordinary

life and their common-sense ethos (Fairclough, 1998, p. 160).

As Fairclough interprets it, the dialogical portion of the show introduces into the

news program discourses other than the BBCs. These discourses are both the voices of the

programs guests as well as the discourse adopted by the anchors for the purposes of

engaging their audiences. This need to grant the audience a feeling of participation in the

program (American morning programs have actually turned a live audience into part of

the studios backdrop) is foreign to the monological newscasts. In this way, television

journalism is, in essence, turning over the control over what is said to their guests and over

what is understood to their audience. This is a complete reversal of the logic Hallin (1992)

and Nylund (2003) find in television soundbites: dialogical news does not seek to tell a

story by recontextualizing or interpreting the words of others. Narrative authority is thus

replaced by discursive engagement.

Discussion

Journalistic authority has been lambasted, over the years, by critical students of the

press. These scholars have demonstrated how this authority, facilitated by the professional

standards of news work could, introduce a distorted political perspective in the news yet

legitimize the perspective as broad and realistic (Bennett, 1988, p. 76). Likewise, the

standards derived from the professionalization of news, which are inherent in monological

news broadcasts, afford news organization an authority that could help preserve a socio-

political status quo (see Gitlin, 1980; McChesney, 2004). Authors such as Hall et al. (1978)

argue that the media tend to reproduce interpretations which serve the interests of the

ruling class, or the reproduction of dominant ideologies (Woollacott, 1982, p. 10), even

though they are not invariably successful at it. A strong effect of journalistic authority is

inherent in the agenda-setting function of the press (McCombs, 2004; McCombs and

Shaw, 1972), an agenda often tied to the interests of power-holders (Gandy, 1982) and the

medias ability to delimit the sphere of legitimate controversy in society (Hallin, 1986). A

slightly different perspective holds that the authority of news organizations serves as a


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Auc

kland

Libr

ary] a

t 17:4

2 11 M

arch 2

013

guard dog for the powerful and influential among the community served by the

organization (Donohue et al., 1995).

In this vein, the erosion of news authority in dialogical news formats might be

considered a blessing for the press rather than a problem. Fiskes (1996) idea of

multiaxiality factors into this discussion, suggesting dialogical news allows the hitherto-

restricted discourse of minority groups into Americas story . Similarly, Bimber ties the

increased abundance of information to a post-bureaucratic form of government (2003,

p. 21) where political elites ability to set agendas and mobilize society is hampered by

their loss of control over the availability of information. Dialogical news, in this context, has

a democratizing quality letting through more than one account of the news, reclaiming

the privilege of storytelling from a narrow group of elite professionals.

Dialogical news, as practiced in the 24/7 news environment, fails, however, to

provide an alternative to elite sources as custodian of fact. As Fairclough cautions, the

conversational news format is institutionally controlled democratization: the voices of

ordinary people are ventriloquized rather than directly heard. It is also arguably a

democratization that is open to manipulation: it lends democratic legitimacy which can be

used (1998, p. 160). Just because there is more than one voice heard, it does not mean

this is truly a more inclusive format, free of the control of elites. The content, the

discussants, the ideology and taboo of the news are still controlled by the same

institutions, who maintain close ties with political institutions. In other words, a projected

decline in journalists authority in the dialogical news environment does not necessarily

pave the way for non-elite or counter-elite voices to shape the public agenda. Previous

work on studio guests and pundits has indicated the ways in which institutions exert tight

control over who gets to talk on their air other than the organizations employees (Soley,

1992). Another parallel can be drawn from the study of online journalism in general

(Cohen, 2002) and journalist-blogs in particular (Robinson, 2006; Singer, 2005). These

studies indicate that even where new formats are employed, open to the voices and

influences of non-journalists and non-elites, the traditional constraints of the parent news

organization are still mostly in effect.

Not only does the ascent of a new format fail to promise relief from the shortcoming

of journalistic authority, dialogical news takes away the redeeming qualities of this

authority. A news environment bifurcated from without (external fragmentation) and

within (internal fragmentation) can hardly provide a coherent alternative agenda and is

less capable to challenge the reality presented by others or at the very least filter and

contextualize it. Consider the ease in which issues raised by the dominant political party in

the United States, such as gay marriage or the culture of life, dominated all news outlets.

When facts are reduced to questions, factuality is constructed directly by those powerful

enough to have access to the open airwaves. While journalists may utilize this format to

assert authoritativeness in live broadcasts and extended conversations, their voice is in no

way privileged in comparison to that of politicians, other elite members or their proxies.

Interviews, a prominent fixture in dialogical news, offer non-journalists the most

opportunity to voice their perspectives and journalists the least (see Just et al., 1999).

Although these interviews may often assume a semblance of adversarial journalism, they

are also a product of a cooperative effort between politicians and the press, typical of a

media environment described as, a strange hybrid of deference to authorities, and

ritualistic displays of antagonism and feeding frenzy against those same authorities [the

media] cover (Bennett and Serrin, 2005, p. 174). Rather than pave the way for new voices,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Auc

kland

Libr

ary] a

t 17:4

2 11 M

arch 2

013

the authority relinquished by journalists in dialogical news is more likely to allow the old

voices of elites unfiltered access to the viewing audience.

Format Effects of Dialogical News

Journalistic accounts are imperative for citizens to collect the information necessary

to discharge their democratic responsibilities, namely holding their public officials

accountable and deciding on a course of action based on this account (Zaller, 1998, p.

111). This role ascribed to journalism positions the profession itself and journalists

personally as strategic players in the democratic arena as conduits of information and

political scorekeepers. What happens, though, when journalism is voluntarily reshaped in a

way that diminishes its capacity to function along these lines? The discussion so far

suggests that the emergent dialogical news format represents a stage in which these news

organizations have willingly abdicated this role, ceding control of and responsibility for the

nations story to others. This concluding section discusses the projected short- and long-

term outcomes of this news format.

Short-term outcomes. An empirical study (Snoeijer et al., 2002) finds under-

whelming results in measuring the effects of reporting-style on recall and appreciation

of news stories. The experimental study observes similar levels of both dependent

variables for those getting the news through traditional news packages and those getting

it through live reports. These findings fail to affirm the authors hypothesis that politics

would be better understood when presented in live conversation than through a news

package containing little visually relevant material. Of course, the problems of measuring

short-term effects are a longstanding concern that has often frustrated communication

research (e.g. Curran et al., 1982). The one-time exposure to format may not yield any

tangible effects. This should not discourage further studies, along these lines, considering

the vastness of studies, cited above, that have indicated narrative structure and visual

components may well affect cognitive processing of the news.

Narrative authority as an intervening factor can also account for affective short-term

effects. Bucy and Newhagens (1999) findings indicate that the format through which

politicians are presented influences the way viewers perceive them. The proliferation of

talk-venues that accommodate politicians demand conversational skills that have not been

previously required of them (Clayman, 2004), but for those who possess these skills,

dialogical news formats are highly valuable. Rather than plead their case through skeptical

mediators, such as news reporters, politicians (not only the US President, who has had

command of the airwaves for years; see Kernell, 1997) and their spokespeople have

unfettered access to the public. While bypassing traditional news sources is by no means a

novel phenomenon (e.g. Just et al., 1996), the proliferation of news venues offering direct

access to the public suggests that even in the short run, journalists are losing their battle

to control spin and in a broader sense, losing their relevance as political players.

Long-term outcomes. Consistent and increasing exposure to dialogical news is

bound to have accumulative effects on the degree to which journalism can maintain its

place as a social-political institution. Not only is this format ill-equipped for holding other

institutions accountable, it is also a format that subverts journalists capacity to wield their

authority over the narration of all that has transpired in the course of the day. The medium


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Auc

kland

Libr

ary] a

t 17:4

2 11 M

arch 2

013

once identified as most cohesive in its narrative structure (Weaver, 1975) is disintegrating

from without and within. Media fragmentation, through the proliferation of news sources,

already causes political communication to surface in bits and pieces in diverse outlets and

contexts, restricting the possibility of a unified story emerging from news account (Blumler

and Kavanagh, 1999). What dialogical news creates is a parallel process of fragmentation

taking place within the journalistic account itself. The notion of journalists as authorities, or

custodians of fact is constantly eroding. In the long run, journalism might lose its

significance as societys reflexive storyteller, reverting instead to its former role as a

partisan instrument, a source of entertainment or a bit of both. The incipience of this trend

can be observed on venues such as the Fox News Channel or the political blogosphere.

Since the positive side of dialogical news is not entirely clear, we should carefully

consider the consequences of its ascent. The format of news affects its recipients. It affects

how they understand the news and how they evaluate newsmakers. Dialogical news

amounts to a format whose central deviation from the traditional monological news-

package format is in the degree to which it undermines journalists narrative authority and

leads journalism, in general, to cede its control over and responsibility for the way people

understand their society and polity. The power of journalism as a political institution, in a

broad sense of politics, withers when it can no longer fulfill its task as professional

storyteller.8Journalism in the foreseeable future may well need to redefine its social role,

while the citizenry is left without a definitive account of public life.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author thanks Michael Delli Carpini for his guidance and Matt Carlson for his input.

NOTES

1. According to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press cable surpassed the

networks as a source of news viewers regularly watch in 2002, and the trend persisted

in 2006 with 34 percent claiming to watch cable sources regularly and 28 percent citing

the networks; a slight decline for both compared to 2004 (http://people-press.org/

reports/questionnaires/282.pdf).

2. The Project for Excellence in Journalism finds 52 percent of cable news content is

interviews and live conversations with reporters, 24 percent is news packages and the

remaining portions, anchor voiceovers and live events. Network news, in contrast

consists of 86 percent packages and 2 percent interviews and live reports (http://

www.stateofthemedia.org/2005/narrative_cabletv_contentanalysis.asp?media5&cat2).

3. These are also the most watched cable news programs. According to the Nielsen ratings,

the average primetime viewership on a given night for the cable news networks for the

first quarter of 2005 was greater than three million (http://www.mediabistro.com/

tvnewser/original/ratings_2005q1.pdf).

4. On May 26, 2004 the New York Times published an elaborate editorial critique of its own

coverage of the Iraqi threat, prior to the US-led invasion the year before, stating:

coverage . . . was not as rigorous as it should have been (Sec. A, p. 1). On May 11, 2003,

the New York Times published a full account of reporter Jayson Blairs deceptive conduct


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Auc

kland

Libr

ary] a

t 17:4

2 11 M

arch 2

013

leading to fictitious and misleading reports that were published by the newspaper (Sec.

1, p. 26).

5. On September 8, 2004, CBS News aired a report in its 60 Minutes II program presenting

evidence that President Bush wielded family influence to land a comfortable military

assignment during the Vietnam war. The story was authored by news anchor Dan Rather.

An internal CBS investigation revealed that a document prominently featured in the

report was fabricated. Consequently, several senior producers were fired; Rather decided

to leave his position as anchorman, sooner than he had previously planned.

6. The morning news shows, a form of dialogical news, have been around since the 1950s,

yet they are the exception on the networks, rather than the rule. Interestingly, these

programs are doing well in comparison to the sharp decline in ratings of the monological

evening news.

7. Although the Pew data cited in Note 1 suggest more people watch cable news regularly

than network news.

8. Phrase from Bell (1991, p. 147).

REFERENCES

ALTHAUS, SCOTT L. and TEWKSBURY, DAVID (2002) Agenda Setting and the New News: patterns of

issue importance among readers of the paper and online versions of the New York

Times, Communication Research 29(2), pp. 180207.AULETTA, KEN (1991) Three Blind Mice: how the TV networks lost their way , New York: Random

House.

BELL, ALLAN (1991) The Language of News Media , Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

BENNETT, W. LANCE (1988) News: the politics of illusion , New York: Longman.

BENNETT, W. LANCE (2004) Global Media and Politics: transnational communication regimes and

civic cultures, Annual Review of Political Science 7, pp. 12548.BENNETT, W. LANCE and SERRIN, WILLIAM (2005) The Watchdog Role, in: Geneva Overholser and

Kathleen H. Jamieson (Eds), The Press , New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 16988.BERGEN, LORI, GRIMES, TOM and POTTER, DEBORAH (2005) How Attention Partitions Itself During

Simultaneous Message Presentations, Human Communication Research 31(3), pp. 31136.

BIALIK, CARL (2005) Debate Over Gay Foster Parents Shines Light on a Dubious Stat, The Wall

Street Journal , 28 April, http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB111461604615918400-

H9jeoNklah4m52vbH6Iaa2Gm4,00.html, accessed 28 April 2005.

BIMBER, BRUCE (2003) Information and American Democracy: technology in the evolution of political

power , New York: Cambridge University Press.

BIRD, S. ELIZABETH and DARDENNE, ROBERT W. (1988) Myth Chronicle and Story: exploring the

narrative qualities of news, in: James W. Carey (Ed.), Media, Myths and Narratives:

television and the press , Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 6786.BLUMLER, JAY G. and KAVANAGH, DENNIS (1999) The Third Age of Political Communication:

influences and features, Political Communication 16(3), pp. 20930.BOURDON, JEROME (2000) Live Television Is Still Alive: on television as an unfulfilled promise,

Media, Culture & Society 22(5), pp. 53156.BREWER, WILLIAM F. and LICHTENSTEIN, EDWARD H. (1982) Stories Are to Entertain: a structural-affect

theory of stories, Journal of Pragmatics 6, pp. 47386.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Auc

kland

Libr

ary] a

t 17:4

2 11 M

arch 2

013

BROSIUS, HANS-BERND, DONSBACH, WOLFGANG and BIRK, MONIKA (1996) How Do TextPicturesRelations Affect the Informational Effectiveness of Television Newscasts?, Journal of

Broadcasting and Electronic Media 40(2), pp. 18095.BUCY, ERIK P. and NEWHAGEN, JOHN E. (1999) The Micro- and Macrodrama of Politics on Television:

effects of media format on candidate evaluations, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic

Media 43(2), pp. 193210.CAREY, JAMES W. (1995) The Press, Public Opinion and Public Discourse, in: Theodore L. Glasser

and Charles T. Salmon (Eds), Public Opinion and the Communication of Consent , New York:

Guilford Publications, pp. 373402.CHAFFEE, STEVEN and FRANK, STACEY (1996) How Americans Get Political Information: print versus

broadcast news, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 546, pp.

4858.CLAYMAN, STEVEN E. (1991) News Interview Openings: aspects of sequential organization, in:

Paddy Scannell (Ed.), Broadcast Talk , Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 4875.CLAYMAN, STEVEN E. (2002) Disagreements and Third Parties: dilemmas of neutralism in panel

news interviews, Journal of Pragmatics 34(10), pp. 1385410.CLAYMAN, STEVEN E. (2004) Arenas of Interaction in the Mediated Public Sphere, Poetics 32(1),

pp. 2949.CLAYMAN, STEVEN E. and HERITAGE, JOHN (2002) The News Interview: journalists and public figures on

the air , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

COHEN, AKIBA A. (1987) The Television News Interview , Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

COHEN, ELISIA L. (2002) Online Journalism as Market-driven Journalism, Journal of Broadcasting

& Electronic Media 46(4), pp. 53248.CORNER, JOHN (1999) Critical Ideas in Television Studies , New York: Oxford University Press.

CURRAN, JAMES, GUREVITCH, MICHAEL and WOOLLACOTT, JANET (1982) The Study of the Media:

theoretical approaches, in: Michael Gurevitch, Tony Bennett, James Curran and Janet

Woollacott (Eds), Culture, Society and the Media , New York: Methuen, pp. 1129.DAVIS, DENNIS K. and ROBINSON, JOHN P. (1986) News Story Attributes and Comprehension, in:

John P. Robinson and Mark R. Levy (Eds), The Main Source: learning from television ,

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 179210.DONOHUE, GEORGE A., TICHENOR, PHILLIP J. and OILEN, CLARICE N. (1995) A Guard Dog Perspective on

the Role of Media, Journal of Communication 45(2), pp. 11532.DREW, DAN and GRIMES, TOM (1991) Audio-visual Redundancy and Television News Recall,

Communication Research 14(4), pp. 45261.EKSTROM, MATS (2000) Information, Storytelling and Attractions: TV journalism in three modes of

communication, Media, Culture & Society 22, pp. 46592.EKSTROM, MATS (2001) Politicians Interviewed on Television News, Discourse & Society 12(5), pp.

56384.ENTMAN, ROBERT M. (1989) Democracy Without Citizens: media and the decay of American politics ,

New York: Oxford University Press.

ENTMAN, ROBERT M. and HERBST, SUSAN (2001) Reframing Public Opinion as We Have Known It, in:

W. Lance Bennett and Robert M. Entman (Eds), Mediated Politics: communication in the

future of democracy , New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 20325.ERLER, ROBERT J. and TIMBERG, BERNARD M. (2002) A Taxonomy of Television Talk, in: Bernard M.

Timberg (Ed.), Television Talk: a history of the TV talk show , Austin: University of Texas

Press, pp. 195203.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Auc

kland

Libr

ary] a

t 17:4

2 11 M

arch 2

013

EVELAND, WILLIAM P. (2003) A Mix of Attributes Approach to the Study of Media Effects and New

Communication Technologies, Journal of Communication 53(3), pp. 395410.EVELAND, WILLIAM P. and DUNWOODY, SHARON (2001) User Control and Structural Isomorphism or

Disorientation and Cognitive Load? Learning from the web versus print, Communication

Research 28(1), pp. 4878.FAIRCLOUGH, NORMAN (1998) Political Discourse in the Media: an analytical framework, in: Allan

Bell and Peter Garrett (Eds), Approaches to Media Discourse , Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp.

14263.FISHMAN, MARK (1980) Manufacturing the News , Austin: University of Texas Press.

FISKE, JOHN (1996) Media Matters: race and gender in U.S. politics , Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press.

GANDY, OSCAR H. (1982) Beyond Agenda Setting: information subsidies and public policy, Norwood,

NJ: Ablex.

GANS, HERBERT J. (1979) Deciding Whats News , New York: Pantheon.

GITLIN, TODD (1980) The Whole World Is Watching: mass media in the making and unmaking of the

New Left , Berkeley: University of California Press.

GLASSER, THEODORE L. (1992) Objectivity and News Bias, in: Elliot D. Cohen (Ed.), Philosophical

Issues in Journalism , New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 17685.GOFFMAN, ERVING (1979) Footing, Semiotica 25(1), pp. 129.GRABE, MARIA E., LANG, ANNIE and ZHAO, XIAOQUAN (2003) News Content and Form: implications for

memory and audience evaluations, Communication Research 30(4), pp. 387413.GRABER, DORIS (1990) Seeing Is Remembering: how visuals contribute to learning from television

News, Journal of Communication 40(3), pp. 13455.GRADDOL, DAVID (1994) The Visual Accomplishment of Factuality, in: David Graddol and Oliver

Boyd-Barrett (Eds), Media Texts: authors and readers , Bristol, PA: Multilingual Matters, pp.

13660.GRIFFIN, MICHAEL (1992) Looking at TV News: strategy for research, Communication 13(2), pp.

12141.HALL, STUART, CRITCHER, CHAS, JEFFERSON, TONY, CLARKE, JOHN and ROBERTS, BRIAN (1978) Policing the

Crisis: mugging, the state, and law and order , London: Macmillan.

HALLIN, DANIEL C. (1986) The Uncensored War , New York: Oxford University Press.

HALLIN, DANIEL C. (1992) Sound-bite News: television coverage of elections, 19681988, Journalof Communication 42(1), pp. 524.

HOSKINS, ANDREW (2001) Mediating Time: the temporal mix of television, Time & Society 10(2/3),

pp. 21333.INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM (2003) American Journalist Survey: training is the

biggest influence on news judgment, http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.

asp?id28820, accessed 6 October 2005.JEFFRES, LEO W. (1997) Mass Media Effects , Prospect Hills, IL: Waveland.

JUST, MARION R., CRIGLER, ANN N., ALGER, DEAN E., COOK, TIMOTHY E., KERN, MONTAGUE and WEST, DARRELL

M. (1996) Crosstalk: citizens, candidates, and the media in a presidential campaign , Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

JUST, MARION R., CRIGLER, ANN N. and BUHR, TAMI (1999) Voice, Substance and Cynicism in

Presidential Campaign Media, Political Communication 16(1), pp. 2544.KATZ, ELIHU (1996) And Deliver Us from Segmentation, Annals of the American Academy of

Political and Social Science 546, pp. 2233.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Auc

kland

Libr

ary] a

t 17:4

2 11 M

arch 2

013

KATZ, ELIHU, ADONI, HANNA and PARNESS, PNINA (1977) Remembering the News: what the picture

adds to recall, Journalism Quarterly 54(2), pp. 2319.KERNELL, SAMUEL (1997) Going Public: new strategies of presidential leadership , 3rd edn,

Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

KNOBLOCH, SYLVIE, PATZIG, GRIT, MENDE, ANNA-MARIA and HASTALL, MATTHIAS (2004) Affective News:

effects of discourse structure in narratives on suspense, curiosity and enjoyment while

reading news and novels, Communication Research 31(3), pp. 25987.KURTZ, HOWARD (1996) Hot Air: all talk all the time , New York: Random House.

LIEBES, TAMAR (1999) Displacing the News: the Israeli talkshow as public sphere, Gazette 61(2),

pp. 11325.LIEBES, TAMAR (2001) Look Me Straight in the Eye. The political discourse of authenticity,

spontaneity, and sincerity, Communication Review 4, pp. 499510.LULE, JACK (2001) Daily News, Eternal Stories: the mythological role of journalism , New York:

Guilford.

MCCHESNEY, ROBERT W. (2004) The Problem of the Media: U.S. communication politics in the twenty-

first century , New York: Monthly Review Press.

MCCOMBS, MAXWELL E. (2004) Setting the Agenda: the mass media and public opinion, Malden, MA:

Blackwell.

MCCOMBS, MAXWELL E. and SHAW, DONALD L. (1972) The Agenda-setting Function of the Press,

Public Opinion Quarterly 36(2), pp. 17687.MEINHOF, ULRIKE H. (1994) Double Talking News Broadcasts, in: David Graddol and Oliver Boyd-

Barrett (Eds), Media Texts: authors and readers , Bristol, PA: Multilingual Matters, pp. 21223.

MORSE, MARGARET (1986) Talk, Talk, Talk: the space of discourse in television, Screen 26(1), pp.

215.MULLEN, MEGAN G. (2003) The Rise of Cable Programming in the United States: revolution or

evolution? , Austin: University of Texas Press.

NEWHAGEN, JOHN E. and REEVES, BYRON (1992) The Evenings Bad News: effects of compelling

negative television news images on memory, Journal of Communication 42, pp. 2541.NEWTON, JULIANNE H. (2001) The Burden of Visual Truth: the role of photojournalism in mediating

reality , Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

NYLUND, MATS (2003) Asking Questions, Making Sound-bites: research reports, interviews and

television news stories, Discourse Studies 5(4), pp. 51733.OKRENT, DANIEL (2005) Talking on the Air and Out of Turn: the trouble with TV, The New York

Times , 6 February, Sec. 4, p. 2.

PATRONA, MARIANNA (2006) Conversationalism and Media Empowerment in Greek Television

Discussion Programs, Discourse & Society 17(1), pp. 527.RATH, CLAUS-DIETER (1989) Live Television and Its Audiences: challenges of media reality, in:

Ellen Seiter, Hans Borchers, Gabrille Kreutzner and Eva-Maria Warth (Eds), Remote Control:

television, audiences, and cultural power , London: Routledge, pp. 7991.ROBINSON, MICHAEL J. (1976) Public Affairs Television and the Growth of Political Malaise: the case

of The Selling of the Pentagon, American Political Science Review 70(3), pp. 40932.ROBINSON, SUSAN (2006) The Mission of the J-Blog: recapturing journalistic authority online,

Journalism 7(1), pp. 6583.SCHUDSON, MICHAEL (1989) The Sociology of News Production Revisited, Media, Culture &

Society 11(3), pp. 26382.SCHUDSON, MICHAEL (1995) The Power of News , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Auc

kland

Libr

ary] a

t 17:4

2 11 M

arch 2

013

SCHUDSON, MICHAEL (2002) The News Media as Political Institutions, Annual Review of Political

Science 5, pp. 24969.SINGER, JANE B. (2005) The Political J-Blogger: normalizing a new media form to fit old norms

and practices, Journalism 6(2), pp. 17398.SMITH, ROBERT R. (1979) Mythic Elements in Television News, Journal of Communication 29(1),

pp. 7582.SNOEIJER, RONALD, DE VREESE, CLAES H. and SEMETKO, HOLLI A. (2002) Research Note: the effects of

live television reporting on recall and appreciation of political news, European Journal of

Communication 17, pp. 85101.SOLEY, LAWRENCE C. (1992) The News Shapers: the sources who explain the news , New York:

Praeger.

THE NEW YORK TIMES (2003) Correcting the Record: the articles; witnesses and documents unveil

deceptions in a reporters work, 11 May, Sec. 1, p. 26.

THE NEW YORK TIMES (2004) From the Editors, The New York Times and Iraq, 26 May, Sec. A, p. 1.

THE OBSERVER (1999) 100 TV Moments: now its your turn, June 27, Screen Page, p. 6.

TIMBERG, BERNARD M. (2002) Television Talk: a history of the TV talk show , Austin: University of

Texas Press.

TUCHMAN, GAYE (1978) Making News: a study in the construction of reality , New York: Free Press.

VIANELLO, ROBERT (1985) The Power Politics of Live Television, Journal of Film and Video 38(3),

pp. 2640.WALMA VAN DER MOLEN, JULIETTE H. (2001) Assessing TextPicture Correspondence in TV News:

the development of a new coding scheme, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media

45(3), pp. 48398.WEAVER, PAUL (1975) Newspaper News and Television News, in: Douglas Cater and Richard

Adler (Eds), Television as a Social Force , New York: Praeger.

WEBSTER, JAMES G. and PHALEN, PATRICIA F. (1997) The Mass Audience: rediscovering the dominant

model , Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

WOOLLACOOT, JANET (1982) Messages and Meanings, in: Michael Gurevitch, Tony Bennett,

James Curran and Janet Woollacoot (Eds), Culture, Society and the Media , New York:

Routledge, pp. 91111.ZALLER, JOHN (1998) A New Standard of News Quality: burglar alarms for the monitorial citizen,

Political Communication 20(2), pp. 10930.ZELIZER, BARBIE (1989) Saying as Collective Practice: quoting and differential address in the

news, Text 9(4), pp. 36988.ZELIZER, BARBIE (1990a) Where Is the Author in American TV News? On the Construction and

Presentation of Proximity, Authorship and Journalistic Authority, Semiotica 80(1), pp.

3748.ZELIZER, BARBIE (1990b) Achieving Journalistic Authority Through Narrative, Critical Studies in

Mass Communication 7(4), pp. 36676.ZELIZER, BARBIE (1993) Has Communication Explained Journalism?, Journal of Communication

43(1), pp. 808.

Eran N. Ben-Porath, Annenberg School for Communication, 3620 Walnut St, Philadelphia,

PA 19104-6220, USA. E-mail: [email protected]


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Auc

kland

Libr

ary] a

t 17:4

2 11 M

arch 2

013

Ben-Porath, Eran N - Internal Fragmentation of the News

Documents

Transcript of Ben-Porath, Eran N - Internal Fragmentation of the News