Television Coverage of State Government

An empirical analysis of 3,334 state and local television news stories in 10 cities clarifies the reluctance of commercial television newscasters to cover state government. Contrary to what many television news directors assert, television's minimal attention to state government cannot be attributed to an alleged negative relationship between state government and newscast ratings. Rather, it appears to stem from the high cost of obtaining filmed coverage of state government in a timely fashion. William T. Gormley Jr. is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. Public Opinion Quarterly ? 1978 by The Trustees of Columbia University Published by Elsevier North-Holland, Inc. 0033-362X/78/0042-0354/$1.25 This content downloaded from 207.46.13.127 on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 04:22:38 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms TELEVISION COVERAGE OF STATE GOVERNMENT 355 attention state government receives from the mass media generally and from commercial television in particular, given the latter's preeminence as a news source. A New Approach to Agenda-Setting There is growing evidence that television and other mass media "set the public's agenda" by conveying messages concerning the relative importance of various issues (McCombs and Shaw, 1971; Funkhouser, 1973; Becker et al., 1975). If television can influence the public's perception of an issue's importance, it may also influence the public's perception of a level of government's importance. The more the public is exposed to news about a particular level of government, the more imporant the public may regard that level of government. This is not to imply that public perceptions are completely malleable, for television may be able to increase or reduce the salience of state government only within certain limits. Studies of both the print and broadcast media have shown that economic and structural constraints play a major role in shaping the news decisions of journalists (Sigal, 1973; Epstein, 1973). An inquiry into such constraints could identify the reasons for commercial television's minimal emphasis on state government and could indicate whether this must remain a fixed feature of our media environment. Why do local television newscasts pay little attention to state politics? One possibility is that viewers would have it no other way, that viewers react to news about state politics by switching channels. Another possibility is that television news directors prefer to cover other kinds of stories that are easier and less expensive to produce in a visually appealing way. A data base consisting of 3,334 state and local television news stories from 25 commercial television stations in 10 cities can be used to test these hypotheses.' The data, in the form of television scripts from early evening newscasts, were gathered during the spring of 1975. In 9 of the 10 cities, the scripts were obtained for a period when the state legislature was in session, in order to maximize the number of state government stories in the data base. The news scripts were analyzed by six coders, who noted, among other things, whether a story concerned state government and whether it included film. Since intercoder reliability for a variable I The 10 cities are Fresno, Calif.; Sacramento, Calif.; Quincy, Ill.; Rock Island, Ill.; Portland Me.; New York, N.Y.; Rochester, N.Y.; Dayton, Ohio; Dallas, Tex.; and Norfolk, Va. The television news stories were obtained for a study of the effects of newspaper-television cross-ownership on news content, made possible by a grant from the John and Mary Markle Foundation (Gormley, 1976). This content downloaded from 207.46.13.127 on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 04:22:38 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 356 WILLIAM T. GORMLEY JR. thought to present coding difficulties was .916, the intercoder reliability for these -relatively simple variables should be even higher.2 In addition to the news scripts, information on each television station's early evening newscast rating was obtained from news directors in the 10 cities. Popular Preferences and State Government Coverage A frequent comment by television news directors is that they cannot afford to increase their coverage of state government. To do so, they argue, would mean a decrease in their ratings. Even filmed reports of state government, they say, are likely to be dull-"talking heads" that are less exciting visually than a fire or accident in living color. In view of the importance of an informed electorate in a democracy, should news directors be tailoring their news decisions to suit popular tastes? Even if one assumes, as many news directors do, that popular preferences should be satisfied, there is no convincing evidence to support the argument that increased state government coverage leads to lower-rated television newscasts. If it did, one would expect to find that the television stations with the greatest emphasis on state government do poorly in the ratings. And yet, the figures do not support this expectation, as Table 1 indicates. In 7 of 10 cities examined, the station with the greatest known state government emphasis is the station with the highest-rated newscast in Table 1. Crosstabulation of State Government Coverage by Television Newscast Rating by City (N=3,334) Television Percentage of Television Station's State and Local News Stories Station's Devoted to State Government Early Rock Evening SacraIslandPortNew RochDayNorNewscast Fresno, mento, Quincy, Moline, land, York, ester, ton, Dallas, folk, Rating Calif. Calif. Ill. Ill. Me. N. Y. N. Y. Ohio Tex. Va. 1st 10.4* 22.9* 9.8 24.0 16.0* 22.2* 6.1* 20.8* 12.9* 2nd 6.7 11.9 13.8* 11.9* 30.5* 19.9 4.7 6.9 3rd 7.6 15.4 7.1 8.8 15.0 14.7 11.0 4th 5th 7.4 NOTE: An asterisk indicates television station with the highest percentage of state government stories in each city; a dash indicates missing data. 2 Intercoder reliability was determined by using the rigorous pairwise comparison method, which involves computing a percentage agreement score for each possible pair of coders. Thus, if there are six coders, 15 percentage agreement scores are computed. The scores are then averaged for an overall intercoder reliability score. This method is discussed in Budd et al. (1967:68). This content downloaded from 207.46.13.127 on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 04:22:38 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms TELEVISION COVERAGE OF STATE GOVERNMENT 357 the market. In one of the 10 cities, the station with the greatest known state government emphasis has higher ratings than another station in the market that emphasizes state government less. In only 2 of the 10 cities does the station with the greatest emphasis on state government have the lowest-rated newscast in the market. In short, in 8 of 10 cities, there is a positive relationship between state government emphasis and newscast ratings. These figures, of course, do not necessarily mean that greater state government emphasis leads to higher ratings. A more plausible interpretation is that ratings affect state government emphasis. Higher ratings mean more advertising revenue. Consequently, the higher a station's ratings, the more money it has to allocate for the relatively expensive filmed coverage of state government. News directors may be correct in asserting that few people purposely watch the television station which emphasizes state government the most. Nevertheless, if a television station that emphasizes state government more than its competitors does not attract viewers, neither does it seem to repel them. In other words, the weaknesses of commercial television's statehouse reporting cannot be blamed on the public. Film Availability and State Government Coverage An alternative explanation is partly economic, partly logistical. Filmed coverage of state government stories typically requires more money and more time than filmed coverage of local stories. The most expensive television coverage of state government-through a fulltime state capital reporter-is a rarity, except for stations actually located in a state capital (Purvis and Gentry, 1976:3). Rather than opt for a state capital bureau, most television stations wait for state government news to come to them in the form of a wire service story or a fortuitous visit by a state official. As a compromise solution, some television stations retain a state capital "stringer" who serves them and other broadcasting stations as well. However, even when a television station pays for a stringer's services, it is often frustrated by the logistical difficulties of getting his stories back from the state capital in time to be aired on the early evening news. Because filmed coverage of state government is expensive, news directors don't like to pay for such coverage. Even if they do allocate funds for state government coverage, they may be unable to secure timely filmed reports of state capital stories (and timeliness is crucial to journalists). Thus, one expects to find that state government stories are less likely than other stories to include film. As Table 2 indicates, this expectation is confirmed. Only 37.1 percent of televised state This content downloaded from 207.46.13.127 on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 04:22:38 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 358 WILLIAM T. GORMLEY JR. Table 2. Crosstabulation of State Government Coverage by Film Usage on Television