FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Media Ownership Working Group 

Viewpoint Diversity in Cross-Owned 

Newspapers and Television Stations: 

A Study of News Coverage of the 

2000 Presidential Campaign 

By David Pritchard 

September 2002 

2002 - 

2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 Regulations adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 1975 prohibit the 

grant of a license for a broadcast station to a company that owns a newspaper in the same 

community. One purpose of the rule was to preserve a diversity of viewpoints in local media. 

Some of the cross-owned broadcast stations and newspapers were grandfathered, while others 

were required to divest one of the two cross-owned outlets. Since 1975, the Commission also has 

granted a handful of waivers of the rule. 

 

 As part of its review of its ownership rules, the FCC commissioned the present study of 

news coverage of the 2000 presidential campaign by cross-owned newspapers and television 

stations in several American communities. The study addresses the following research question: 

To what extent do commonly owned newspapers and television stations in a community speak 

with a single voice about important political matters? 

 

 Data about the news coverage of 10 cross-owned newspaper-television combinations 

were analyzed. The results show that, in five of the 10 newspaper-television combinations 

studied, the overall slant of the coverage broadcast by a company's television station was 

noticeably different from the overall slant of the coverage provided by the same company's 

newspaper. 

 In the other five combinations under study, the overall slant of newspaper coverage of the 

2000 campaign was not significantly different from the overall slant of the local television 

coverage. The data do not enable us to ascertain why the overall slants in those cases were 

similar. 

 The limited number of observations in this study prevents us from drawing firm or 

sweeping conclusions about the implications of our findings. However, for the markets studied, 

the data suggest that common ownership of a newspaper and a television station in a community 

does not result in a predictable pattern of news coverage and commentary about important 

political events in the commonly owned outlets. 
Viewpoint Diversity in Cross-Owned Newspapers and 

Television Stations: A Study of News Coverage of the 

2000 Presidential Campaign 

INTRODUCTION

 In 1975 the Federal Communications Commission adopted a rule prohibiting a company 

that owned a newspaper in a community from obtaining a license for a broadcast station in the 

same community.1

 When it adopted the rule, the Commission said that “it is unrealistic to expect 

true diversity from a commonly-owned station-newspaper combination.” The concern was not 

only that local cross-ownership might result in a reduction of viewpoint diversity in the 

community's media, but also that a single owner might actively manipulate the news 

disseminated by its newspaper and broadcast properties in an attempt to influence local public 

opinion. The Commission offered no systematic evidence to support its view that crossownership has a negative impact on the range of viewpoints circulating within a community.2

 In light of its concern about viewpoint diversity, the Commission required some of the 

then-existing broadcast-newspaper combinations to divest one of the two properties while 

grandfathering certain other broadcast-newspaper combinations. The Commission also has 

granted waivers to the rule for a small number of combinations created since 1975.3

 By our 

count, there were 17 cross-owned newspaper-television combinations and 10 other newspaperradio-televison combinations in communities throughout the United States in mid-2002. 

 The existing combinations provide a rare opportunity to assess the validity of an 

assumption that provided an important part of the foundation for the 1975 rule: That commonly 

owned news media in a community tend to present similar views of important political issues. 
CONTEXT OF THE RESEARCH

 In late 2001, I published the results of an empirical study about diversity of information 

and viewpoints in news and opinion regarding the 2000 presidential campaign within crossowned newspaper-broadcast combinations in Chicago, Dallas, and Milwaukee.4

 Earlier this year, 

the Federal Communications Commission asked me to conduct a similar study in additional 

communities. This document reports the results of the research in the additional communities as 

well as incorporating results from the study published in 2001. 

 The central research issue for the present study, as for the study published in 2001, was 

whether information and opinion about the 2000 presidential campaign in cross-owned media 

had a coordinated or consistent slant in favor of one major-party candidate or the other, and if so, 

did the slant reflect the interest of the media corporation that owned the newspaper-television 

combination? In other words, the research looked for evidence of whether the news and opinion 

disseminated by commonly owned news organizations in a community appears to be slanted, 

consciously or unconsciously, toward the interests of the corporations that own the news 

organizations.5

 If ever media corporations wished to slant news about a national political campaign, the 

2000 presidential campaign – and especially the increasingly suspenseful final few weeks before 

November 7, Election Day – offered an excellent set of conditions for such influence. The 

presidential race was neck-and-neck in at least a dozen important states as the campaign neared 

its end. A coordinated slant in the campaign coverage of a powerful news organization in any of 

these states might have influenced a relatively small number of swing voters whose choices can 
make a significant difference in whether a state's electoral votes go to the Republican or the 

Democratic candidate. 

 There were few meaningful legal restrictions on how the news media covered the 2000 

presidential campaign. In fact, broadcasters had more legal freedom to cover the 2000 campaign 

than any other campaign in recent memory. Early in the fall of 2000, the FCC announced that it 

would suspend, on a trial basis, two long-standing rules that broadcasters claimed inhibited 

robust journalism.6

 The first rule, the Personal Attack Rule, required broadcasters to notify and 

provide free reply time to anyone whose honesty, character, or integrity had been attacked during 

non-news programming.7

 The second rule, the Political Editorial Rule, required broadcasters to 

notify and provide free reply time to opponents of any political candidate the station endorsed as 

well as to any candidate the station opposed in an editorial.8

 Soon after the FCC action, and less 

than four weeks before Election Day, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled 

that both the Personal Attack Rule and the Political Editorial Rule, which had been in effect 

since 1967, violated the First Amendment.9

 Finally, two key assumptions underlie the way we have interpreted the data. The first is 

that the two major party candidates for president had different views on the desirability of 

retaining the FCC’s newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule. Then-Governor George Bush 

was thought to support relaxation or elimination of the rule, and then-Vice President Albert Gore 

was thought to favor retention of the rule. The second assumption is that the companies owning 

broadcast-newspaper combinations themselves favored repeal of the rule. There is evidence that 

the future of the ban on cross-ownership of newspapers and television stations was an issue of 
central importance to major American media corporations during the 2000 presidential 

campaign.10

 Taken together, these factors – the apparent corporate interest in the election of George 

W. Bush, the intense uncertainty about the outcome of the election, and removal of legal 

restrictions on broadcast comment about political candidates – created favorable conditions for 

the owners of cross-owned media to attempt to influence news content, if they wished to do so. 

METHOD

 The study published in 2001 focused on cross-owned media in three major cities: 

Chicago, Milwaukee, and Dallas.11 The current investigation added seven cross-owned 

newspaper-television combinations in six communities to the data set. News and comment about 

the presidential campaign disseminated by the newspapers and television stations during the last 

fifteen days of the campaign (i.e., from Monday, October 23, 2000, through Monday, November 

6, 2000) were coded and analyzed. Table 1 lists the news organizations included in this study. 
Table 1. Newspaper-television combinations in the study. 

 

Community TV station Newspaper Owner

Chicago IL WGN Tribune Tribune Company 

Dallas TX WFAA Morning News A. H. Belo Corporation 

Fargo ND WDAY Forum Forum Communications 

Hartford CT WTIC Courant Tribune Company 

Los Angeles CA KTLA Times Tribune Company 

Milwaukee WI WTMJ Journal Sentinel Journal Communications 

New York NY WNYW Post News Corp. Ltd. 

New York NY WPIX Newsday Tribune Company 

Phoenix AZ KPNX Arizona Republic Gannett 

Tampa FL WFLA Tribune Media General Inc. 

 The study's research question had to do with whether information and opinion about the 

2000 presidential campaign in cross-owned media had a coordinated or consistent slant in favor 

of one major-party candidate or the other. An initial challenge, accordingly, was to devise a 

measurable definition of “slant.” 

 We defined the “slant” of a published or broadcast item about the presidential campaign 

from the point of view of a hypothetical interested but undecided voter. If the coders judged an 

item to be likely to make such a voter more inclined to vote for Gore than for Bush (or more 

likely to vote for Gore than for a third-party candidate), then the item was coded as “favorable to 
Gore.” The “favorable to Gore” category included items that were pro-Gore as well as items that 

were anti-Bush. Similarly, if an item was likely to make a voter more inclined to vote for Bush, 

then it was coded as “favorable to Bush,” a category that included anti-Gore as well as pro-Bush 

items. Items that favored third-party candidates, items that were equally flattering or unflattering 

to Bush and Gore, and items about polls and campaign strategy were coded as “neutral.” 

 Slant was not a judgment about whether a candidate or his staff would have been happy 

with publication or broadcast of the item, about whether an item was somehow biased, or about a 

journalist's intent. Many items that would meet ordinary standards of journalistic objectivity 

were uncritical reports of what a candidate had done the previous day. If, as often was the case, 

the items depicted the candidate in a positive light, they were coded as favoring the candidate 

(whichever one he was) without any implication that the journalist who produced the story was 

biased. Slant was simply an assessment of whether an item would have made a typical undecided 

voter more likely to vote for Bush, more likely to vote for Gore, or whether it would have had 

minimal effect on a typical undecided voter. 

 The study coded all available non-advertising content about the presidential campaign in 

the newspapers and late-evening local newscasts of the media organizations under study.12 In 

other words, in addition to evaluating the slant of traditional news stories and editorials, the 

study also evaluated the slant of items such as editorial cartoons, staff-written opinion columns 

other than editorials, syndicated opinion columns, guest opinion essays, letters submitted by 

readers, and free-standing photographs. Each item was coded by two members of a team of 

research assistants who had been selected and trained by the author of this report. If the research 

assistants initially disagreed or were uncertain about the slant of any given item, they brought the 
item to the author for review and discussion.13 After discussion, all parties agreed in all cases 

about the appropriate slant of an item. 

 For each news organization's coverage, a coefficient of “slant” was computed.14 The slant 

coefficient could vary from –100 (which would indicate that all items in a given category 

favored Gore, none were neutral, and none favored Bush) to +100 (which would indicate that all 

items in a given category favored Bush, none were neutral, and none favored Gore). Perfectly 

balanced coverage would have a slant coefficient of 0. It is important to note, however, that slant 

coefficients different from 0 should not be construed as evidence of bias on the part of a news 

organization. Objective news organizations respond to the tenor of events, and the last two weeks 

of the campaign featured a certain amount of news that was almost inevitably anti-Bush (e.g., the 

revelations of the decades-old drunk-driving arrests of both Bush and his vice-presidential 

candidate, Dick Cheney) or pro-Gore (e.g., outgoing President Clinton's late-campaign efforts to 

mobilize African American voters to vote for Gore). 

 The results reveal the direction and magnitude of “slant” for each news organization 

under study during the crucial final two weeks of the campaign. The greater the distance between 

the two “slants” of a commonly owned newspaper and television station in a community, the 

stronger the evidence that cross-owned newspapers and television stations provided different 

views of the 2000 presidential campaign. Whether a slant coefficient was positive (i.e., proBush) or negative (i.e., pro-Gore) is not important to the analysis. Rather, it was the magnitude 

of the difference between the slant coefficients of a commonly owned newspaper and television 

station in a given community that provided evidence for distinct views of the campaign.15
 We also ascertained which presidential candidate, if any, received the endorsement of the 

newspaper in a cross-owned combination so that we could compare the endorsement with the 

slant of the news coverage provided by the company's newspaper and television station. 

RESULTS

 The analysis showed that, in five of the 10 newspaper-television combinations studied, 

the overall slant of the coverage broadcast by a company's television station was noticeably 

different from the overall slant of the coverage provided by the same company's newspaper, and 

often contradicted the newspaper's endorsement of a candidate. In the other five combinations 

under study, the overall slant of newspaper coverage of the 2000 campaign was not significantly 

different from the overall slant of the local television coverage. Table 2 shows the results, with 

the newspaper-broadcast combinations ordered from greatest to smallest difference in slant. 

Table 2. Editorial endorsements and slant of coverage. 

 TV station Newspaper Newspaper 

Community Slant Slant Endorsement

Phoenix AZ – 30.43 – 4.69 Bush 

NY (News Corp.) – 3.70 + 20.49 Bush 

Fargo ND + 2.33 – 11.94 Bush 

Milwaukee WI + 5.05 – 8.15 None 

Tampa FL + 3.45 + 13.73 Bush 

Los Angeles CA – 7.84 – 15.70 None 
Dallas TX – 0.03 + 6.55 Bush 

NY (Tribune Co.) – 8.33 – 14.66 Gore 

Hartford CT – 13.16 – 8.67 Bush 

Chicago IL + 0.01 – 3.57 Bush 

 One fact not related to individual communities is apparent from Table 2: The Tribune 

Company did not require its newspapers to coordinate their endorsements for president. Of the 

four Tribune Company newspapers in the study, two endorsed Bush (Chicago, Hartford), one 

endorsed Gore (Newsday), and one made no endorsement (Los Angeles Times). 

 Of the seven television stations in cross-owned combinations where the newspaper 

endorsed Bush, two (WTIC in Hartford and KPNX in Phoenix) provided coverage of the 

presidential campaign that had a clear pro-Gore slant. In five of the newspaper-television 

combinations (Fargo, Milwaukee, the News Corporation's New York combination, Phoenix, and 

Tampa), the overall slant of the newspaper coverage was noticeably different from the overall 

slant of the coverage of the television owned by the same company. 

 Nowhere was this tendency more apparent than in Gannett's Phoenix properties. The slant 

of 192 items from the Arizona Republic (which endorsed Bush) was –4.69, fairly close to 

neutrality. The slant of the 23 items from KPNX-TV, however, was –30.43, the strongest proGore slant coefficient in the study. 

 Diversity of views about the presidential campaign also was evident in the News 

Corporation's New York media. The slant of 122 coded items from the New York Post, which 

had endorsed Bush, was a robustly pro-Bush +20.49.16 WNYW-TV's coverage, however, was 
rigorously neutral; the television slant coefficient of –3.70 was the result of 1 pro-Gore item out 

of 27 coded. The other 26 televised items were neutral. 

 In Milwaukee, the Journal Sentinel's coverage was a mildly pro-Gore –8.15, while 

WTMJ-TV, also owned by Journal Communications, provided coverage that was somewhat proBush (+5.05). It is worth noting that a separate analysis of Journal Communications' Milwaukee 

radio station showed its coverage of the presidential campaign to be powerfully pro-Bush.17 In 

Fargo, Forum Communications newspaper, which endorsed Bush, provided pro-Gore coverage 

of the presidential campaign (–11.94). The associated television station, WDAY-TV, provided 

very balanced coverage (+2.33). 

 A similar trend was apparent in the Tampa/St. Petersburg market. The overall slant 

coefficient of Media General's Tampa Tribune, which endorsed Bush, was a clear pro-Bush 

+13.73. Almost all of WFLA-TV's coverage, on the other hand, was neutral (56 of the 58 

televised items were coded neutral). 

 In the other newspaper-television combinations under study, there was no meaningful 

difference between the overall slants of the newspaper and television coverage of the campaign. 

There was, to be sure, coverage whose slant contrasted with the newspaper's editorial 

endorsement (e.g., the newspaper-television combinations in Hartford and Phoenix) as well as a 

wide diversity of viewpoints in the pages of monopoly newspapers.18

DISCUSSION

 Given the limited number of observations in this study, we cannot draw firm or sweeping 

conclusions about the implications of our findings. However, for the ten markets studied, our 
analysis of the coverage of last two weeks of the 2000 presidential campaign suggests that 

common ownership of a newspaper and a television station in a community does not result in a 

predictable pattern of news coverage and commentary on important political events between the 

commonly-owned outlets. This is not to say that the news organizations under study presented a 

vast range of viewpoints or that their news coverage was helpful in enabling citizens to make 

informed choices on Election Day. It is to say, however, that we found no generalized evidence 

of ownership manipulation of the news in the situations of local cross-ownership we studied. 

 Different news organizations owned by the same company tended to do things 

differently, sometimes favoring Bush, sometimes favoring Gore, and often favoring neither. As 

our previous study showed, editorial pages carried not only management's opinion but also many 

other opinions, including a substantial number of letters, guest columns, and syndicated columns 

that offered readers a range of viewpoints. The slant of campaign coverage broadcast by a 

company's radio and television stations sometimes differed from the slant of news published by 

the company's newspaper. 

 It is important to note that we did not assess the quality of campaign coverage in crossowned media; we simply examined the extent to which commonly owned media took a common 

slant on the campaign. In five of the combinations, the results enable us to say with some 

confidence that the slant of the newspaper's coverage of the last two weeks of the 2000 campaign 

was meaningfully different from the slant of the television station's coverage. For the other five 

combinations, the newspaper and television slants were not meaningfully different. 

 The data to not enable us to ascertain why both commonly owned news organizations in 

these five combinations might have taken a similar slant on the campaign. One possibility is that 
an unseen hand of ownership control operated to harmonize the coverage. Another possibility is 

that the news judgments of professional journalists in a community sometimes tend to converge 

without any influence from ownership. 

 Overall, the range of viewpoints in the campaign coverage of the cross-owned media 

under study tended to reflect the range of viewpoints discussed by the leading candidates for the 

presidency. In other words, cross-owned newspapers and broadcast stations covered the 

campaign in the way that mainstream American news organizations typically cover political 

campaigns. 
NOTES

 

1

. Amendment of Sections 73.34, 73.240, and 73.636 Comm'n Rules Relating to 

Multiple Ownership of Std., FM, and TV Brdcst. Stations, Second Report and Order, 50 

F.C.C.2d 1046, 32 Rad. Reg.2d (P & F) 954 (1975) [hereinafter Second Report & Order]. 

2

. Second Report & Order, supra note 1, para. 97. 

3

. Kortes Commun., Inc., Memorandum Opinion & Order, 15 F.C.C.R. 11846 

(2000) (allowing co-ownership of newspaper and AM station, based on the fact that the 

station was financially troubled and might go off the air, and was a small participant in 

the market); Columbia Montour Brdcst. Co., Memorandum Opinion & Order, 13 

F.C.C.R. 13007 (1998) (allowing co-ownership of newspaper and small AM station, 

based on the fact that the station was financially troubled and could not be sold, and was 

a small participant in a competitive, diverse market); Fox TV Stations, Inc., Declaratory

Ruling, 9 F.C.C.R. 5341 (1993) (allowing co-ownership of newspaper and TV station in 

large market, based on the fact that the station was reacquiring the newspaper such that 

the combination did not constitute a new ownership pattern, and the newspaper might not 

be financially viable on its own), aff'd sub nom. Metropolitan Council of NAACP 

Branches v. FCC, 46 F.3d 1154 (D.C. Cir. 1995); Field Commun. Corp., 65 F.C.C.2d 959 

(1977) (allowing co-ownership of two newspapers and a TV station, based on the fact 

that the newspapers were reacquiring the TV station such that the combination did not 

constitute a new ownership pattern, and the TV station had only recently become 

financially viable). 

4

. David Pritchard, A Tale of Three Cities: “Diverse and Antagonistic” Information 

in Situations of Local Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership, 54 Fed. Comm. L.J. 31 

(2001). [Hereinafter, Pritchard, A Tale of Three Cities]. 

5

. See, e.g., Chris Powell, The Courant's Curious Endorsement, Providence JournalBulletin, Nov. 2, 2000, at B6. 

6

. Stephen Labaton, In Test, FCC Lifts Requirement on Broadcasting Political 

Replies, N.Y. Times, Oct. 5, 2000, at A1. 
 

7

. 47 C.F.R. § 73.123 (1967). 

8

. 47 C.F.R. § 73.123(c) (1967). 

9

. Radio-TV News Dirs. Assoc. v. FCC, 229 F.3d 269 (D.C. Cir. 2000). 

10. Stephen Labaton, Presidential Election Could Alter Shape of Tribune-Times 

Mirror Deal, N.Y. Times, Mar. 19, 2000, at C1. 

11. Although the initial study analyzed the content of news and public affairs 

programming from cross-owned radio stations in Chicago and Milwaukee as well as from 

newspapers and television, only the newspaper and television data will be presented in 

this report. 

12. Media coverage from Chicago, Dallas, and Milwaukee, which provided the data 

analyzed in the study published in 2001, was collected as it was published or broadcast in 

fall 2000. The seven combinations that are analyzed for the first time in this study 

represent all newspaper-television combinations for which useable tapes or transcripts of 

local newscasts for the period under study (October 23 through November 6, 2000) could 

be obtained during the summer of 2002. The stations provided tapes of late-evening 

newscasts, except in the cases of WTIC in Hartford (which could supply only a full 

script) and KPNX in Phoenix (which supplied a log sheet and tape of reporter packages). 

Data for the other seven newspapers analyzed for the first time here was not sought until 

summer 2002, long after the newspaper organizations had discarded old copies. Content 

of five of the seven newspapers is available on Lexis-Nexis (Hartford Courant, Los 

Angeles Times, New York Post, Newsday, and Tampa Tribune). The other two 

newspapers (Fargo Forum, Arizona Republic) supplied photocopies of their political 

coverage for the dates under study. 

13. In the initial examination of the data, coders agreed on the slant of an item in 

more than 92% of the cases, indicating a high degree of reliability. 
 

14. The slant coefficients were transformations of the mean value of the variable 

“slant” for each news organization to create a more intuitively understandable metric. 

15. We determined what constituted a meaningful difference between commonly owned 

newspapers and television stations via two-tailed, independent-samples T-tests which 

compared the slant of coverage by a cross-owned TV station with the slant of the 

coverage of the newspaper in the same combination. T-tests are typically used to compare 

the means of two groups randomly chosen from two populations, enabling inferences 

about the differences between the population means. Such tests also can be used to help 

assess the likelihood that the difference between two population means (e.g., the slants of 

all newspaper and television coverage of a political campaign in a defined period) is a 

meaningful difference rather than a difference caused by chance fluctuation in the data. In 

the present study, the tests suggested that there was an 83% chance that a difference of 

the type we found with the Fargo combination was a meaningful difference. For 

Milwaukee and Tampa, the statistic was 89%. For Phoenix, the statistic was 96%. For the 

News Corporations New York combination, the statistic was 99%. None of the other 

combinations under study had percentages higher than 65%, which we judged not 

adequate to support a finding of a meaningful difference. 

16. Although more than three-quarters of the items in the Post were coded as neutral, 

of the non-neutral items pro-Bush pieces outnumbered pro-Gore pieces by 27 to 2. 

17. See Pritchard, A Tale of Three Cities, supra note 4 at 48-49. 

18. Pritchard discusses this issue in depth with respect to cross-owned newspapers in 

Chicago, Dallas, and Milwaukee. See A Tale of Three Cities, supra note 4, at 42-49.