NO NEWS IS GOOD NEWS

(1)

Supervisor | Michael Stevenson August 2015

Ryan Snyder

S2503611

University of Groningen

International Master of Journalism

NO NEWS IS GOOD NEWS

(2)

ABSTRACT

The advent of twenty-‐four hour television news transformed the landscape of journalism forever. It altered the public's perception of what news could be and how it could be delivered and accessed. Instead of finding it, scouring the pages of printed news, the events of the world were sent directly to the consumer, who had only to sit still long enough to watch and listen. Soon the world began to evolve into a more fast-‐paced and hurried world, and television news evolved alongside it. But has television news evolved too far within its own medium? Is it more television than it is news? This paper looked into the daily and weekly schedules of the three top twenty-‐four hour television news networks in the US -‐ CNN, FoxNews, and MSNBC -‐ with a four-‐day quantitative analysis to determine the general make-‐up and flow of a day's worth of news and the priorities of each network. It is concluded that television and news may be so far entwined at this point as to be inseparable. Commercialization and revenue has turned these news agencies into businesses, and viewer growth and retention have replaced journalism standards as their primary goals. Programs are focused on the branding of their host(s) over the quality of their content. Quantitative and content analysis of breaking news suggest the decline of traditional journalism practices for branded, attention-‐seeking lies as 'breaking news' is only such by pure coincidence more than intent. Twenty-‐four hour television news is only news in name, and not in practice -‐ another methodically-‐crafted brand.

Keywords: twenty-‐four hour television news; US cable news networks; flow; program scheduling;

breaking news; commercials; branding

Chapter 1 | INTRODUCTION

On Cable television you've got 24 hours a day, 60 minutes an hour to fill up, and there isn't that much news. So what do you fill it up with? (Rosenberg & Feldman 2008, p.27)

The face of television journalism changed forever in the late 1980s with the creation of the Cable News Network in America and the start of global news broadcasting via satellites. Around the clock and around the world news broadcasting had begun, and it would never look back. It was the "journalistic equivalent of walking on the moon" (Wiener 1992, p. 17). However, it was not until a few years later, with their coverage of the US involvement with the war in Iraq, that CNN had cemented itself as the forerunner of modern television journalism. Their never-‐before-‐seen live war coverage forced other broadcast companies -‐ fellow US competitor National Broadcasting Company and the British Broadcasting

Corporation from across the Atlantic -‐ to follow suit or quickly be left behind. 'Ratings in the early 1990s increased dramatically, primarily as a result of CNN's pivotal role in covering the Gulf War. CNN's approach to the war provided coverage that was

(4)

Since then the speed of news has increased a thousandfold, creating a norm that seems to be one in which viewers are bombarded with more news than they could feasibly comprehend at once. In this age of instants, spawned as a consequence of the birth of the Internet, news is accumulated and disseminated at an inconceivable rate, folded and layered on top of each other in the form of screen clutter. Anchors are ‘relegated to an upper portion of the screen, as small as a third, while competing for viewers' attention with layers of computer graphics and superficial, tabloidy, factoidy headlines (not the tip of the iceberg but the tip of the tip) that run continuously near the bottom of the screen’

(Rosenberg & Feldman 2008, p. 21). It is enough to frighten off any claustrophobic viewers. But it is also the availability of global news that has increased -‐ just as much and as quickly as the speed in which we receive it -‐ in a meteoric exponential rise that seems unlikely to slow or change. News can be found on nearly every screen in America. It is the go-‐to ambient noise, the 'room temperature' of television channels. It is everywhere. And it is there all the time: 'Watching the news has become a daily ritual, one that can be done simultaneously with everyday occupations such as ironing, doing the laundry, having dinner, drinking coffee, or playing with the children' (Schaap 2009, p. 27).

Yet despite this constant nature of television news, the heaviest cable news viewers only tune in for an average of 72 minutes per day (Pew Research 2013). This

overabundance of news, then, begs some important questions. It is necessary to step back a moment from the constant outpour and ask ourselves what it is we're watching, or not watching, or half-‐watching every day. If viewers barely pay attention, then what is happening on screen all day long? Just what is twenty-‐four hours worth of news? What does it consist of? After all, television news is America's primary source for news. Television broadcast news was ‘the public's main source for national and international news’ (Pew Research 2011) with 66% of the people polled citing television over all other news media. In fact, when asked to name what is first thought of when hearing 'news organization,' 63% cite a cable news source, with FoxNews and CNN named far more than any other

organization (Pew Research 2011).

'It is often said that the rise of the 24-‐hour news channels has changed the nature of public life' (White 2004, p.1 cited in Lewis, Cushion & Thomas 2005, p. 461). It is then no surprise that journalism and communications scholars have focused on the subject of television and 24-‐hour news rather heavily. Much focus has been put into audience research (Schaap 2009) (from how television news effects them to the understanding, retention, and comprehension of news broadcasts) news as entertainment and its subsequent branding (Jones 2012, Morris 2005, ) politics (van Santen & Vliegenthart

2013), sociological impacts, criticisms (Rosenberg & Feldman 2008, Sorensen 2012), and of course numerous content analyses (Fields 1988) of specialized areas such as breaking news stories and live reports (Lewis & Cushion 2009, Lewis, Cushion & Thomas 2005, Jones 2012, Tuggle & Huffman 2001, Tuggle, Huffman & Rosengard 2007), narrative structures (Machill, Kohler & Waldhauser 2007), and source use (Reese 1994).

(5)

genre)? How does their arrangement throughout the day provide a flow of information, and what does that flow say, if anything, about the channel?

To answer these, a weeklong analysis of the programming schedules of these three major networks will be collected from the television guide, chronologically throughout each of their twenty-‐four-‐hour daily schedules. Using primarily the websites of CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, and a brief viewing, the character or genre of each program will be assessed (specifically, whether each program focuses on its host(s) or its content). It will then be possible to swim up a bit to scour the murky waters of

commercialization and breaking news, in order to examine when and why broadcast companies agree to break their scheduled flow of information. Which types of programs are more or less likely to be interrupted for commercials or breaking news? And when they are, what constitutes as 'breaking news' enough to interrupt 'flagship' programming such as The O'Reilly Factor or Anderson Cooper 360? Are these programs, due to being scheduled in 'primetime' slots, less inclined to be interrupted than other programs or more in order to present an inflated view of breaking news journalism to a wider audience?

Quantitative analyses will be conducted over a one week span to better understand both commercial and breaking news interruptions. The total time of commercial breaks, as well as the overall number of breaks per program, will be counted over the course of four days across each of the three news channels. In addition, the total number of commercials aired per break will be recorded. A consistent set of programs and times of day will be used as much as possible. Across the three stations, one one-‐hour show will be selected four times per day -‐ early morning, morning, midday or afternoon, and evening. A similar approach will be taken for breaking news analysis; the same four days and same programs will be selected as per commercial analysis. The total number of breaking news stories, the total time each breaking news interruption lasts, and the headlines during the

announcement will all be recorded. When possible each network's 'primetime' or 'flagship' program will be monitored. Regardless of which programs are selected, the same amount of time, and time periods, per day will be recorded overall for every channel. These will be done to better recognize any patterns or differences between interruptions for the most-‐ watched programs per channel and those considered to be in the less-‐watched timeframes.

Chapter 2 | TWENTY-‐FOUR HOUR TELEVISION NEWS

2a | The Rise of...

(6)

Business was booming, but it was not without its problems. With twenty-‐four hours worth of news comes twenty-‐four hours worth of production costs. No longer were

companies only responsible for small fragments of daily production; they had to do this all the time. Twenty-‐four hour cable news channels would now have to struggle ‘not only to find inexpensive means of filling airtime (such as a heavy reliance on talk and

commentary), but they would also need to produce programming with more variety,

stylistic flair and audience appeal beyond a reliance on the traditional means...if they hoped to attract and sustain viewers across day-‐parts' (Jones 2012, p. 150).

Every cable company rushing to make their name heard in the twenty-‐four hour news world had these obstacles to surpass. Each company was competing with the others, so each obstacle had to be met first, better, and faster. The external struggles of

maintaining twenty-‐four hours worth of professional news production were made more difficult by the internal struggle to beat out the competition, to be the loudest and the one the public heard first. Three networks emerged, their voices silencing any others, yet still not fully drowning out each other completely.

CNN

Ted Turner mentally created CNN in the mid-‐1970s -‐ a time when it was believed that a mere twenty-‐two minutes per day was 'the limit of the public's appetite for [television] news' (Whittemore 1990, p. 4). That was all. Twenty-‐two minutes. They had taken polls; they had said the demand for news was met. But Turner was not listening. How can the public demand something that they think does not exist? 'If, say, the airplane had yet to be invented, and you took a survey asking people if they'd pay to fly on one, how many would say yes? Not a lot! But what if you went out and just built the plane and showed people how it flew?' (Whittemore 1990, p. 4).

That was just how Turner worked. He thought ahead. '"Business is like a chess game and you have to look several moves ahead. Most people don't...That's basically the way the networks were moving. But I've always thought several moves ahead"' (Whittemore 1990, p. 23). It is how an idea as simplistic yet visionary as twenty-‐four hour news is born. It worked because nobody expected it; everybody already in ‘the game’ was too content with their own position to look ahead. 'For three decades, the Big Three networks had become so smug and self-‐satisfied that by now they seemed unaware that their power over TV news could be threatened' (Whittemore 1990, p. 5). That, according to Turner, is when the game can change. '"Once it's obvious to everybody that something is going to be successful, the opportunity is gone. Then anybody else can do it, too"' (Whittemore 1990, p. 23). Needless to say, the success of that wild play for domination still resonates some four decades later. CNN, though accompanied by other followers, remains one of the leading providers of twenty-‐four hour news. Indeed, the success of the station was so significant, a term arose to describe its impact on the overall world: The CNN Effect.

(7)

While the truth of this effect is debatable, what cannot be ignored is the

overwhelming impact CNN has had on the game. 'Colin Powell observed that 'live television coverage doesn't change the policy, but it does create the environment in which the policy is made' (cited from McNulty 1993, p. 80 in Gilboa 2005, p. 28).

The CNN Effect is meaningless in whether or not it exists in truth; the fact that the term exists at all proves CNN's impact on the world. Its groundbreaking entrance into the world of news production and news delivery did more than just ousting the 'Big Three networks' of the time. It made them entirely obsolete. It brought a gun to a knife-‐fight. It set them so far back the networks have never fully recovered.

Turner was right about another thing, as well. Once he had done it -‐ once he had invented twenty-‐four hour news -‐ anybody could do it. And they did. CNN started the new game, but others quickly joined in. And one in particular came to play to win. And it, too, changed the game.

Fox News

'That Fox News is, consistently and across all of its programs, offering a conservative ideological voice and doing so under the heading of 'news' is, at this date, an undeniable point' (Jones 2012, p. 179)

Fox News burst into the twenty-‐four hour news scene in 1996 with a vicious appetite for success and recognition. Upon their entrance the network's claim was to 'be basically a hard-‐news network, providing straight, factual information to the American people so that they can make up their own minds, with less 'spin' and less 'face time' for anchors' (cited from Auletta 2003, in Morris 2005, p. 60). Time would prove the irony of that statement, but the transformation that has seen Fox News forsake this initial claim has also see them rise to become the most popular news network of the age. And they achieved this by a simple revelation -‐ that news was not just news; news was politics:

The news, especially political news, wasn't something that happened. It was something that you shaped out of the raw data, brought out of the clay of zhlubby, boring politics, reborn with heroes and villains, triumphs and reverses, never-‐ ending story lines -‐ what TV executives call "flow." And the beauty of it was that the viewers -‐ the voters -‐ were the protagonists, victims of evil Kenyan socialist overlords, or rebels, coming to take the government back. There was none of the on-‐the-‐one-‐hand, on-‐the-‐other-‐hand relativity crossfire that mirrors the journalism-‐school ideal of objectivity. All the fire went one way. The viewers, on their couches, were flattered as the most important participants, the foot soldiers in Fox's army (Jones 2012, p. 151)

What CNN did to the face of television news, Fox News did to twenty-‐four hour news by 'demonstrating that news production is aimed not at representing truth but at

(8)

programs were...what mattered was the message, and who received it. If you cater your message to a single audience, one who not only listens to your message but wants to hear it, you create a permanent audience. You create a community.

'Conservative media produce a safe haven...that 'reinforces the views of these outlets' like-‐minded audience members, helps them maintain ideological coherence, protects them from counter persuasion, reinforces conservative values and dispositions, hold Republican candidates and leaders accountable to conservative ideals, tightens their audience's ties to the Republican Party, and distances listeners, readers, and viewers from 'liberals,' in general, and Democrats, in particular' (Jones 2012, p. 181)

With this community you have something the competition does not: stability. This stability of Fox News is nearly unprecedented. The overwhelming fear of every twenty-‐four hour news network, or every television program period, is losing their audience. And this is the reason Fox News can be so bold and unapologetic in their ideological performance. They do not need to worry about losing viewership unless they stop being ideological. It is relatively ironic in the spectrum of professional journalism. The most widely watched and popular news network is a network who voluntarily flies in the face of traditional

journalism standards of objectivity.

But one interesting thing about Fox News is their view of themselves, because they 'defend [their] conservativism by contending that [they] serve as a 'counterweight' to the liberalism of mainstream news media outlets' (Jones 2012, p. 179). This coincides with what Jones says earlier. Fox News not only distance themselves ideologically from their competition, but taking this 'counterweight' stance helps distance their audience from the competition and strengthens their own brand name and community. It is a two-‐birds-‐one-‐ stone scenario. Lambast your competition as overtly liberal to your overwhelming

conservative audience, who not only do not tune in to your competition, but also keep coming back to you to listen to exactly what they want to hear.

Where Turner and CNN recognized the potential for television news by upping the stakes of the news supply and gambling the demand would follow suit, Fox News

recognized the benefits of television news. That is, discard the obsolete standards of news journalism and follow the successes of television paradigms. 'Within a decade [of their creation], Fox was crushing its cable news competitors in ratings and profitability' (Jones 2012, p. 179).

Fox News understood that television was a different animal than print. For some reason, they would not be held to the same strict standards. And even if they were, it would not matter. They would have their devoted viewership. Yet they still needed the

camouflage of news to sell their ideological performance. Because 'without news, such statements are little more than opinions. Within news, they become 'facts' (Jones 2012, p. 184).

MSNBC

(9)

another before Keith Olbermann, the host of Countdown, and Chris Matthews, the host of

Hardball, seized on antiwar, anti-‐Republican sentiments in the latter part of the Bush

administration' (Stelter 2010). It was then that MSNBC embraced their political side with the slogan The Place for Politics.

That was 2006, ten years after its inception. The network's inability to settle on a slogan was not only an indication of their uncertainty of their own direction, but of their place within the world of twenty-‐four hour television news. They broke into the scene in the same summer as Fox News, but they were not as fast out of the gates. '"For a long time, we were sort of a subsidiary of NBC News, the little brother, the triple-‐A ball club"'

(Sherman 2010). The problem was that while MSNBC was struggling to emerge from their older brother's shadow and find a way to label themselves, Fox News already knew what it wanted from the start. '"Fox figured it out that you have to stand for something in cable," MSNBC president Phil Griffin says. "What we're doing is targeting an audience. In

television, and in particular cable television, brand is everything"' (Sherman 2010). Once The Place for Politics was set, MSNBC was free. They did not have to pretend anymore. Fox News had the courage to embrace their partisanship and politics early on; MSNBC was scared to follow suit. What if it did not work? '"For a while it was unclear whether it was a Fox News phenomenon or if this was something that could work outside right-‐wing TV"' (Sherman 2010). Once they realized that this was the key to rating success, it was obvious what had to be done. '"[The slogan] gave us the focus that we never had," Griffin says. "We [had] once branded ourselves 'America's News Channel.' [That] was a lie! We weren't."’ (Sherman 2010).

But MSNBC still was not done branding themselves. Once they embraced their political nature, they still had to pick a side. But that was the easy part. In 2010 they chose another slogan: Lean Forward. While still keeping their hard-‐sought The Place for Politics, MSNBC embraced their position further with this new slogan. It put them on the other side of the line from Fox News. 'The tagline "defines us and defines our competition," said Phil Griffin, the president of MSNBC, his implication being that the Fox News Channel, which is No. 1 in cable news and a home for conservatives, is leaning backward' (Stelter 2010). Part of the struggle of those ten years was the reluctance to take the same road as Fox News, to get off the line. Perhaps they did not want to accept the facts of the new world of twenty-‐four hour news -‐ you can toe the line as long as you like; but the line ends.

Somewhere you fall off. Stand on one side and you stay grounded for good. Eventually, the message sunk in. When MSNBC chose Lean Forward as their secondary slogan, they

released an ad campaign with it. In it, the narrator says '"When we understand the world around us, we lose our fear and we move ahead"' (Stelter 2010).

2b | Criticisms & Benefits

(10)

There was always the possibility with the advent of the twenty-‐four hour news cycle that there just would not be enough news. That was the worry; that was what held everyone back. But when Ted Turner just went and just did it, that was that. Everyone else had to tag along. And that follow-‐the-‐leader mindset is what brought about one of the key criticisms of modern-‐day news. 'The mainstream media cover issues with often striking similarity' (Reese 1994, p. 84). There was still the obvious ‘What are they going to do for twenty-‐four hours,’ but now there was also, ‘and what makes you different from the other one?’

It is partly why Fox News branched out with their ideological viewpoint. They might be covering the same issues, but at least they were going to cover them their way. When MSNBC went left to Fox's right, the field became a bit less homogenized. But though by this point the first question of concern was diluted to a mere whisper, its message was still relevant, even if nobody bothered to pay attention anymore: Is there enough news for twenty-‐four hour news networks?

The answer, simply, is yes -‐ provided you create some of it. 'The news is often where the reporter is rather than the reporter being where the news is' (Lewis, Cushion &

Thomas 2005, p. 467). The beneficial aspect of television news was that the technology it provided opened so many doors, most famously the ability to 'go live.' With this capability, twenty-‐four hour news networks went crazy. 'Mostly, events are covered live not because they're worthy of that coverage but because the equipment to do it exists' (Rosenberg & Feldman 2008, p. 15).

This is not to say that all live coverage is extraneous and unnecessary, or that they do not provide valuable insight, unique perspectives, and, depending on the situation, brave reporters. Indeed, the role of live coverage in its early days was much like this. However, with time, the ability to 'go live' became a crutch, a dependency that the networks were quickly unable to stop leaning against. As we will see later in this paper, they became overused, watered-‐down, and irrelevant.

Yet in their heyday (and even now) they provided a much-‐needed answer to that ever-‐posed question: What do you fill the time with when there is no news?

'You fill it up with the correspondent on the scene and the anchorman having this conversation. And the anchorman says, 'What is going on down there. How does the situation feel? How do you predict this is gonna come out? What's your reaction to what so-‐and-‐so just said?' It's chitchat in which the reporter tells what he thinks, how he feels, what his reaction is, and so forth' (Rosenberg & Feldman 2008, p. 27)

At some point, however, even chitchat cannot suffice. It is a time wasting strategy, and sooner or later even that dried up. So with no fresh news, and no idle talk, what then? It was a very possible situation. Indeed, even inevitable. People went home; shops closed; even presidents had to sleep. There would be plenty of times when news slept, too. When that happened, what then? When everything had happened and everything was said, what was left to do? How could twenty-‐four hours of this ever work?

(11)

p. 36). When twenty-‐four hour news networks ran out of hard news and soft talk, they just moved on. They switched genres. Sports, celebrities and entertainment, human interest, etc... it was all fair game. After all, people did not just want 'real news.' People wanted to know what was going on in the world, and these things counted.

Fast-‐forward to the 21st century and 'real news' is on the back-‐burner. It is the same reason why Fox News branched out in the first place -‐ people do not really want 'real news' anymore. 'Serious stories and reporting has been purposefully desensitized to the average viewer. It's why a massacre of thousands in Syria is a secondary story to the girl from

Twilight cheating on the guy from Twilight. Serious journalism doesn't get the viewers

anymore. Loud music over a waving U.S. flag and flickering lights bring in the audiences. Journalism is now clipped to a sentence that scrolls at the bottom of the screen' (Sorensen 2012).

But not everyone has the same preference. Surely there are still millions of others interested in the news? Except when 'real news' does come in, it is twisted. Just look at MSNBC as example. With the slogan America's News Channel, even their president admitted it felt a wrong fit for the network. Only after changing their tagline to The Place of Politics did they truly feel comfortable.

Yet the problem really is not that the news networks are political networks first, news networks second. The problem is that they still do not fully admit this. 'Now, major networks are fighting over who is more non-‐biased than the others. Each network tries to show how they report both sides equally, but it's the worst kept secret ever. It's not even a secret' (Sorensen 2012). And this is shown no more clearly than Fox News's slogan: Fair

and Balanced. It is almost satire.

So news has to cover less serious topics to stay on air for twenty-‐four hours, and the major networks are riddled with partisan bias and political viewpoints. This is, as Sorensen said, no secret. So with this knowledge, can these discrepancies be overlooked? No, because the real criticism of twenty-‐four hour news, and modern-‐day news in general, is that it simply does not hold up to the basic standards of journalism, and the reason for that is speed. '"It is absolutely true, and anybody who says otherwise is slinging bullshit, that every mistake that's made in the news business is made because of speed"' (Rosenberg & Feldman 2008, p. 4).

It was an inevitability with the advent of television and the general changing of times. The world sped up, and the news had to keep with it. But news networks are not just in a race against the demands of the public; they are also in a race with each other. Despite the less homogenized field of news networks, the race to deliver the news first still exists. The news itself might be twisted and filtered to represent the intended audience, but it is still news, and if there is one aspect of standard journalism each network still clings to, it is speed.

(12)

stories, you don't want to spend too much time checking because you don't want to find out you're wrong' (Rosenberg & Feldman 2008, p. 8). The pressure to be first, and to be best, outweighs the consequences of being wrong.

The public, for the most part, does not care, though, unless the truth of the mistake comes forward. If not, they want their news moving as quickly as their lives, to have the news available at any moment 'so that they can receive it without breaking stride the way a marathon runner grabs a cup of water on the run' (Rosenberg & Feldman 2008, p. 24). The relationship between twenty-‐four hour news and speed brings up a chicken-‐and-‐the-‐egg debate. Lewis, Cushion & Thomas (2005) believe that life, in general, ‘now responds to the constant demands of never-‐ending, rolling news cycle' (p. 461). Rosenberg disagrees. Speed in news is nothing new.

'Speed was not invented by this generation's technophiles. The rush to report has been in journalism's bloodstream surely since humankind first felt the itch to pass on information, when prehistoric cave dwellers wrote on walls, early Romans gathered in the forum to hear the latest gossip and roving reporter Herodotus recorded what he saw in his fifth century BCE travels in lands along the Mediterranean and Black Seas. One can also envision scoop-‐hungry medieval town criers competing to be the first to report 'All's well!' (Rosenberg & Feldman 2008, p. 17)

The recent surge of speed in relation to news is not entirely without benefits. Despite its existence in the days of Neanderthalic paint scribblings, wander-‐prone

Herodotus, and loud-‐mouthed newspaper boys, speed and technology revolutionized news delivery and news acquisition. 'One legendary story from the early days of television news in The Netherlands (where television news did not start until 1956) tells that in 1957, when filmed footage from abroad was still flown in by plane, one December even the TV-‐ screen showed just the text: 'Due to fog, tonight no foreign news' (Van Liempt 2005, cited in Schaap 2009, p. 1). And even if news did arrive, it 'was often obsolete by the time it was broadcast' (Schaap 2009, p. 1).

Now, however, news moves with the times, and technology's positive involvements are indisputable. 'Technology is wonderful if it's beneficial, and where would the news business be without its remarkable advances? In 1481, a letter reporting the death of a Turkish sultan took two years to reach England' (Rosenberg & Feldman 2008, p. 13). Lewis, Cushion & Thomas (2005) suggest three purposes of twenty-‐four hour news that, when fulfilled, create invaluable public benefits:

'1. To allow someone to watch an up-‐to-‐date news bulletin when they wish. 2. To allow a viewer to watch major live news events as they happen.

(13)

Together, these three benefits of twenty-‐four hour news should create a more informed and well-‐rounded public. A more informed public that has the benefit of continuous, constant information is capable, or should be capable, of performing well-‐ thought and engaging discussion, making more beneficial judgment calls, and be able to better understand the world around them.

In fact, even the blatant political bias of modern twenty-‐four hour news should, theoretically, provide an even more balanced public. Imagine, if you can, an opened-‐minded and reflective individual who is capable of critical-‐thought processes and the ability to observe both sides of any issue. That individual, with the ability to gather information on the same issue from Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN, has information from three separate, and at least two opposing, viewpoints. A rational and insightful individual would use that plethora of information to the utmost of their abilities in whichever context is required. Perhaps that individual does not exist. Certainly that individual is nothing like the general public. However it is indisputable that the public has an outrageous amount of information available. Too much information, it could be argued. CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC are merely the forerunners of cable television news in America. Combine these networks with local stations, online and print newspaper, online and print magazines, talk shows, radio shows, bloggers. The list goes on, and from it only individual journalists and bloggers have the ability to attempt twenty-‐four hour information (however, that reality is near impossible considering their lack of resources, funding, or manpower). So the massive cable network twenty-‐four hour news channels of Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC are, far and away, the most available, non-‐stop source of information in the country.

Despite the discrepancies and criticisms launched at twenty-‐four hour news

networks (and many of them valid), their basic existence provides the public with need-‐to-‐ know knowledge that can be found nowhere else, and it does so at virtually any moment of any day. What it comes down to is two possible viewpoints on the effects of twenty-‐four hour news networks: optimism or pessimism. The optimistic will view them as television news that 'can enlighten ordinary citizens, increase their involvement, knowledge and understanding of what is important to know, and educate them into being rational voters,' while the pessimistic will see it as 'a dispenser of biased (either left-‐wing or right-‐wing) disinformation, the prime instrument for keeping the 'masses' quiet to perpetuate the status quo in the hands of those already in power, or conversely, to destabilize society' (Schaap 2009, p. 3).

Chapter 3 | UNDERSTANDING TELEVISION NEWS: A Literary and

Theoretical Look

The conflicting perspectives as to the effects of twenty-‐four hour news, and whether it provides substance or biased fluff, is a theme that will be looked into in more depth further in this paper with the emergence of breaking news. Before then, it is perhaps beneficial to look more closely at television news research as a whole, to see what has been covered and where research has tended to focus.

(14)

of TV news research…are much less impressive’ (Renckstorf & Wester 1999, p. 39). Despite the large amount of studies, Renckstorf & Wester(1999) claim that a ‘systematic, consistent and theoretically coherent view’ on TV news has yet to arise (p. 39). Indeed, it can be no surprise that a clear, narrow view has eluded the general study considering the wide range of television news research foci: structure, sources and guests, breaking news and live reports, ideology, scheduling, criticism...to name but a handful. The sheer volume makes a ‘coherent view’ improbable, and this is not even taking into account audience research, which may be the most researched topic of television news.

Television news is ‘the dominant way that Americans get news at home’ (Pew Research Center 2013), so it is understandable that audience research is nearly as wide-‐ ranging as the broader focus of television news itself. Audience research in terms of Fox News and their ideology was mentioned earlier, touching on the effects that blatant

partisan spin has on forming and keeping an audience through community creation. While the extent of the research was more on the efforts of Fox as a channel, this shows how audience research is almost an inevitable byproduct of any television news research.

This inevitability is just one reason the research of television news audiences is so wide-‐ranging and difficult to form into a coherent set of results. When nearly everything can be interpreted into audience research, how do you focus? And even if you can, how do you analyze that data? After all, audience interpretation is ‘at least partly an internal and therefore covert mental action. Interpretations are inside the minds of people’ (Schaap 2009, p. 4) and they create their own unique reality in conjunction with their own personal goals or motives1_.

One of the main foundations of news, and therefore television news, is objectivity. But in actuality, can news ever be objective? How can it be with a human audience? News becomes subjective, regardless of whether it may or may not be objective in its

presentation, the moment it reaches its viewers, because they ‘build their own story of an event or issue, elaborate on the parts that resonate with them, leave out parts that did not, infer what was meant by actors, invent reasons for why things happened and mash all this into their picture of a specific event or issue.’ It is why Schaap (2009) considers measuring subjective meanings to be ‘one of the most complex problems one could embark upon in social sciences’ (p. 4).

But this has not deterred everyone from trying. Mark Levy (1977) sought to provide a ‘subjective meaning’ of watching television news for the average American audience viewer through five factors – surveillance-‐reassurance (their motivations for watching),

cognitive orientation (opinion formation and holding), dissatisfactions, affective orientation

(attitudes towards programs), and diversion. Using a questionnaire with a sample of 240 adults in the New York region, Levy found that most, ‘but by no means all,’ viewers thought watching television news was ‘generally worthwhile’ (p. 117). On an individual factor basis, Levy’s results suggest that viewers feel reassured from watching the news, that they use it as ‘a guide for further information-‐seeking’ (p.113) while receiving the opportunity to ‘activate, test, reinforce, or perhaps modify their opinions,’ (p. 113) that over-‐dramatized programs annoy them and the service of headlines is a time-‐waster, that they are calmed by ‘the familiar presence of the celebrity news-‐readers,’ (p. 115) and that it is both a form of escapism and information-‐gathering.

(15)

audiences feel towards television news. After all, ‘generally worthwhile’ is not exactly a ringing endorsement. Due to the difficulty in audience perception, Schaap (2009) proposes that the most important question of communication research is the audiences’ role as recipients (p. 3).

Setting aside the notion of embarking further upon the subjective meanings route, Levy (& Windahl 1984) went on to look into audience activities. They posited two

dimensions of activity: relationship and phases. The relationship phase shows the audience as being ‘selective’ and ‘involved’ while the phases include three periods of exposure: preexposure, exposure itself, and postexposure.

It is the second phase that is the crux of Schaap’s (2009) ambitious research which spans over 250 television news studies throughout a three-‐decade period. Ignoring her own claims of impossibility, Schaap’s Interpreting Television News focuses on the audience as an active viewer and participant in television news, trying, as the title suggests, to understand how an audience interprets the news they watch: ‘this project holds that a television news viewer is an active processor who in interpreting the news, manipulates, elaborates, and integrates the information as it is received, using previously acquired knowledge’ (Schaap 2009, p. 6).

Aside from this attempt, much of what has gone for audience interpretation has been its (the audience’s) ability to retain and comprehend the information provided by television news, due to the ‘complex and covert nature of interpretation’ (Schaap 2009, p. 5) and that ‘little attention has actually been given to this mediating step in the route between exposure to a message and its consequences’ (p. 4). It makes sense, given not only the difficulty Schaap explains behind interpreting interpretation but also the information give-‐and-‐take relationship of television news and its viewers.

Many results do not paint a positive picture, as Machill, Kӧhler & Waldhauser (2007) claim that ‘numerous scientific studies have shown that the content of TV news is quickly forgotten or misunderstood by audiences2_{’
(p.
186).
Their
research
–
providing
a
concept}

for increasing retention and comprehension by use of narrative structures – uses a 2003 and 2004 study by the Gewis Institute in Germany to show that news presented by

Tagesschau (public service channel) was not understood by 88% of viewers, and 98%

could not recall topics presented on Tagesschau, Heute, and RTL Aktuell programs even one day after broadcasts.

Schaap, too, provides additional evidence that television news viewers ‘remember disappointingly little from news3_{,’
(p.
12)
only
recall
between
twenty
and
twenty-‐five}

percent4_{or
less}5_{,
and
only
fifty
percent
if
cued}6_{.
Moreover,
viewers
understand
just
as
little}

as they remember, misinterpreting or even mistakenly adding facts that never existed7

(Schaap 2009). ‘In other words, people who watch the news do not seem to learn what they ought to learn from the news8_{’
(p.
13).}

NO NEWS IS GOOD NEWS

Ryan Snyder

University of Groningen

International Master of Journalism

NO NEWS IS GOOD NEWS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

Chapter 1 | INTRODUCTION

Chapter 2 | TWENTY-­‐FOUR HOUR TELEVISION NEWS

2a | The Rise of...

CNN

Fox News

MSNBC

2b | Criticisms & Benefits

Chapter 3 | UNDERSTANDING TELEVISION NEWS: A Literary and

Theoretical Look

Chapter 2 | TWENTY-‐FOUR HOUR TELEVISION NEWS