<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>State of the Media &#187; 2007 Pages</title>
	<atom:link href="http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://stateofthemedia.org</link>
	<description>Just another Pew Research site</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2013 17:02:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Front Page</title>
		<link>http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/front-page/</link>
		<comments>http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/front-page/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Jan 2007 19:42:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Russell Heimlich</dc:creator>
		
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stateofthemedia.org/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/front-page/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Section IV: Values and the Press</title>
		<link>http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/journalist-survey-intro/survey-findings/section-iv-values-and-the-press/</link>
		<comments>http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/journalist-survey-intro/survey-findings/section-iv-values-and-the-press/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:31:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sfamoyegun</dc:creator>
		
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stateofthemedia.org/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Section IV: Values and the Press Press Going Too Easy on Bush Bottom-Line Pressures Now Hurting Coverage, Say Journalists by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press Overview Section I: Views on Performance Section II: Covering the President and the Campaign Section III: Today’s Changing Newsroom Section IV: Values and the Press [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
<h1>Section IV: Values and the Press</h1>
<p>Press Going Too Easy on Bush<br />
<strong>Bottom-Line Pressures Now Hurting Coverage, Say                      Journalists</strong></p>
<p><em>by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-journalist-survey-intro/2007-survey-findings/">Overview</a><br />
<a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-journalist-survey-intro/2007-survey-findings/2007-section-i-views-on-performance/"> Section I: Views on Performance</a><br />
<a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-journalist-survey-intro/2007-survey-findings/2007-section-ii-covering-the-president-and-the-campaign/">Section II: Covering                      the President and the Campaign</a><br />
<a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-journalist-survey-intro/2007-survey-findings/2007-section-iii-today%e2%80%99s-changing-newsroom/">Section III: Today’s                      Changing Newsroom</a><br />
Section IV: Values and the Press</p>
<p>NOTE: This report is also available on                      the Pew Research Center <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20061002164429/http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=214" target="_blank">Web                      site</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Section IV: Values and the Press </strong></p>
<p>Journalists at national and local news organizations are                         notably different from the general public in their ideology                         and attitudes toward political and social issues.   Most  national                      and local journalists, as well as a    plurality of Americans                      (41%), describe  themselves   as political moderates. But news                       people –   especially national journalists – are more liberal,                         and far less conservative, than the general public.</p>
<p><a href="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/files/2011/01/41.jpg"><img src="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/files/2011/01/41.jpg" alt="" width="267" height="231" /></a></p>
<p>About a third of national journalists (34%) and somewhat                         fewer local journalists (23%) describe themselves as  liberals;                        that compares with 19% of the public in  a May   survey conducted                      by the Pew Research  Center.   Moreover, there is a relatively                      small  number of   conservatives at national and local news organizations.                         Just 7% of national news people and 12% of local  journalists                        describe themselves as conservatives,  compared with a   third                      of all Americans.</p>
<p>In this regard, Internet journalists are similar ideologically                         to local journalists: 57% describe themselves as    moderates,                      while 27% say they are liberals and 13%    conservatives. Local                      TV and radio journalists    include the lowest percentage of                      liberals of any of    the journalist groups surveyed (15%). Even                      among    local TV and radio journalists, however, just 13% describe                         themselves as conservatives.</p>
<p><em>Major Differences: God and Morality, Homosexuality</em></p>
<p>The 1995 survey of journalists found particularly sharp                         differences between journalists and the public when it came                         to attitudes toward morality and homosexuality. A   solid  majority                      of Americans consistently have   expressed  the opinion that                      it is necessary to   believe in God  to be a moral person. Nearly                        six-in-ten (58%)  expressed that view in a 2002 Pew Research                        Center  survey, while 40% said that belief in God is not a                         prerequisite for morality. Journalists, regardless  of  their                       organization and position, take a  decidedly  different view.                       Fully 91% of those who  work at  national news  organizations                      say it is not   necessary to believe in  God to be moral; 78%                      of   local journalists agree.</p>
<p><a href="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/files/2011/01/42.jpg"><img src="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/files/2011/01/42.jpg" alt="" width="293" height="279" /></a></p>
<p>As was the case in 1995, journalists are much more accepting                         of homosexuality than is the general public. Overwhelming                         majorities of national (88%) and local (74%) say    homosexuality                      should be accepted by society.  Only   about half of the public                      agrees (51%).</p>
<p>Since the mid-1990s, however, public support has increased                         for societal acceptance of homosexuality, while  journalists’                        attitudes have been more stable. In a  1993   Times-Mirror survey,                      most Americans (53%)  said   homosexuality should be discouraged;                      today a  narrow   majority (51%) believes homosexuality should                       be   accepted. National journalists also have become slightly                         more accepting of homosexuality since 1995 (83% then,  88%                        today), while local journalists’ views have  been stable   (75%                      then, 74% today).</p>
<p><em>More Agreement on Safety Net </em></p>
<p>There is more common ground between news professionals and                         the public in attitudes toward individual freedom and    government                      assistance for needy people. Identical    majorities of local                      journalists (58%) and the    public (58%) say it is more important                      that    Americans be free to pursue their goals without government                         interference, than that government guarantee that no one is                         in need.</p>
<p><a href="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/files/2011/01/43.jpg"><img src="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/files/2011/01/43.jpg" alt="" width="304" height="250" /></a></p>
<p>National journalists are divided over this question – 49%                         place higher priority on freedom from government  interference                        while 42% say it is more important  that the   government play                      an active role to  guarantee aid to   the needy. Opinion among                       Internet journalists   divides along similar lines: 51% believe                       freedom   from government interference is more important;  43%                        say a government guarantee of aid for the  needy is more important.</p>
<p><em>Conservative Journalists Secular Too</em></p>
<p>There is a broad consensus among news professionals, regardless                         of their ideology, that it is not necessary to believe    in                      God to be moral. But other issues –    homosexuality and the                      government’s role in aiding    the needy – produce wider fissures                      along    ideological lines.</p>
<p><a href="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/files/2011/01/44.jpg"><img src="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/files/2011/01/44.jpg" alt="" width="302" height="333" /></a></p>
<p>Journalists who identify themselves as liberals are virtually                         unanimous in their view that homosexuality should be    accepted                      by society (95% agree). More than    eight-in-ten moderates (84%)                      agree. But only about    half of conservatives (49%) say homosexuality                         should be accepted.</p>
<p>The news people surveyed also are deeply divided over the                         question of whether individual freedom, or government aid                         to the needy, is more important. Liberals by a wide    margin                      (61%-33%) place greater priority on    government guarantees                      of aid for the needy. By    contrast, conservatives overwhelmingly                      say it is    more important that everyone be free to pursue life’s                         goals (88%); just 9% feel it is more important for government                         to guarantee that no one is in need.</p>
<p><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20061002164429/http://www.stateofthemedia.org/journalist_survey_prc4.asp#">[top]</a></p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/journalist-survey-intro/survey-findings/section-iv-values-and-the-press/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Section III: Today’s Changing Newsroom</title>
		<link>http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/journalist-survey-intro/survey-findings/section-iii-today%e2%80%99s-changing-newsroom/</link>
		<comments>http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/journalist-survey-intro/survey-findings/section-iii-today%e2%80%99s-changing-newsroom/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:30:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sfamoyegun</dc:creator>
		
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stateofthemedia.org/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Section III: Today’s Changing Newsroom Press Going Too Easy on Bush Bottom-Line Pressures Now Hurting Coverage, Say Journalists by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press Overview Section I: Views on Performance Section II: Covering the President and the Campaign Section III: Today’s Changing Newsroom Section IV: Values and the Press NOTE: [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
<h1>Section III: Today’s Changing Newsroom</h1>
<p>Press Going Too Easy on Bush<br />
<strong>Bottom-Line Pressures Now Hurting Coverage, Say                      Journalists</strong></p>
<p><em>by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press</em></p>
<p><a href="../2007-journalist-survey-intro/2007-survey-findings/">Overview</a><br />
<a href="../2007-journalist-survey-intro/2007-survey-findings/2007-section-i-views-on-performance/"> Section I: Views on Performance</a><br />
<a href="../2007-journalist-survey-intro/2007-survey-findings/2007-section-ii-covering-the-president-and-the-campaign/">Section II: Covering                      the President and the Campaign</a><br />
Section III: Today’s                      Changing Newsroom<br />
<a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-journalist-survey-intro/2007-survey-findings/2007-section-iv-values-and-the-press/"> Section IV: Values and the Press</a></p>
<p>NOTE: This report is also available on                      the Pew Research Center <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20061002164402/http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=214" target="_blank">Web                      site</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Section III: Today’s Changing Newsroom</strong></p>
<p>Newsroom staff cutbacks are hitting print journalism at                         both the national and local level. About half of respondents                         working at newspapers or magazines (48%  nationally,   54% locally)                      say the size of their  newsroom staff   has decreased in the                      past three  years. Relatively   few in the print sector are seeing                       growth in the   number of staff.</p>
<p>The picture is more mixed in television and radio, with                         about equal numbers saying their newsrooms are growing as                         shrinking. About half (47%) of those in national    broadcast                      media say there has been no change in    staffing compared with                      three years ago.</p>
<p><a href="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/files/2011/01/31.jpg"><img src="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/files/2011/01/31.jpg" alt="" width="279" height="322" /></a></p>
<p>One significant change in the news business is growth in                         the practice of repackaging and repurposing news stories for                         multiple uses. About half of both national and   local  respondents                      (48% each) say they are doing   this more  now than in the past;                      print and   broadcast  journalists at each level are similar                      in   this  respect.</p>
<p>At the same time, relatively few voice unhappiness with                         this trend, with the notable exception of local broadcast                         reporters. Three-in-ten local TV reporters (29%) say   they                       are unhappy over repackaging stories for   multiple  purposes.                      That compares with only about   one-in-ten  national radio and                      TV news people, and   similar  percentages of national and local                      print    journalists.</p>
<p><a href="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/files/2011/01/32.jpg"><img src="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/files/2011/01/32.jpg" alt="" width="349" height="210" /></a></p>
<p>Most journalists today give good ratings to the quality                         of leadership in their own organizations, a view that has                         changed little since 1999. At the national level, 30%   of  news                      professionals say their management is   doing an  excellent job,                      and 41% say they are doing   a good  job. There is relatively                      little  difference  between  national print and broadcast media                       in  leadership  ratings. But over half of executives at the                         national level say the quality of leadership is  excellent                        (and 38% rate it as good). Senior  newsroom staff and line                        journalists are less  positive.</p>
<p>At the local level, 22% overall rate leadership as excellent,                         and nearly half (47%) say the quality is good. Ratings   are                       higher among local newspaper journalists than    among those                      in television and executives rate    leadership more positively                      than reporters and    producers.</p>
<p>Training and professional development programs are fairly                         common in newsrooms today. About half (47%) of national    journalists                      and 56% of local journalists say they    have participated in                      such activities provided by    their news organization in the                      past twelve months.    Among those who have taken part in training,                       close   to half say they participated in such a program for                         five days or more over the past year.</p>
<p>Executives and senior editors and producers are more likely                         than line staff to report having taken part in  professional                        development activity. Respondents  who have   participated in                      training rate their own  news   organization’s management more                      highly than  those   who have not participated, and this is especially                         true of reporters.</p>
<p>In a related area, large majorities of respondents (76%                         nationally and 77% locally) say there are ongoing management                         efforts to address ethical issues in their  newsroom,   about                      the same as in 1999. As with  training and   professional development,                      those who  report that   their organizations are engaged in this                       activity   rate their management more favorably.</p>
<p><em>Internet’s Impact Mostly Positive</em></p>
<p>Most news professionals (60% at the national level, 51%                         locally) say the emergence of the Internet has made journalism                         better; very few say it has hurt journalism.  These   views are                      fairly similar to those expressed  by   journalists in 1999.                      More local journalists  say the   Internet has had either a positive                      or  negative   impact, with higher percentage today saying it                       has   made journalism worse (18% compared with 8% in 1999).                         Only local news executives are divided over the  Internet’s                        impact: 31% say it has been good for  journalism; 27% view                        it negatively.</p>
<p><a href="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/files/2011/01/33.jpg"><img src="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/files/2011/01/33.jpg" alt="" width="253" height="195" /></a></p>
<p>Not surprisingly, enthusiasm about the Internet is greatest                         among younger respondents in the survey. More than    seven-in-ten                      (72%) of those under 35 years of age    think the Internet has                      been good for the    profession; just 13% view it negatively.                         Journalists age 35 and older also have a generally positive                         view of the Internet’s impact, though by a much smaller  margin                        (54% better, 15% worse).</p>
<p><em>Changes for the Better</em></p>
<p>Those who believe the Internet has helped journalism most                         frequently cite its power as a research tool. Nearly half                         of those who see a positive impact of the Internet    mention                      some aspect of the Internet as a  convenient   place to find                      timely information, to  get data at   any hour of the day, and                      to do  fact-checking on   deadline. Those who work for local                       news   organizations are especially likely to mention this benefit                         of the Internet (61% of local vs. 47% of national  and 16%                        of Internet journalists).</p>
<p>Another widely noted positive impact of the Internet is                         its ability to deliver information to the public more quickly                         and to promote greater competition among news    organizations.                      This view is much more prevalent    among print journalists than                      among those working in    TV and radio. A frequent comment within                      this   theme  is that print journalism now has the ability to                         compete with television and radio for breaking news. Also,                         the speed of the Internet in delivering information was   the                       single most cited benefit among journalists   who work  primarily                      on their organization’s   websites.</p>
<p>About one-in-five say the Internet has helped journalism                         by making far more information available to the public, and                         by helping to improve the accuracy of the   information.  A related                      notion, mentioned about as   often, is  that the Internet has                      broadened the   range of  outlets and voices available to the                        public. This  includes more points of view, deeper stories,                        and  coverage of topics and stories that otherwise would not                         have fit into existing time and space available.   These changes                       have forced journalism to be more   innovative and  responsive                      to the public; one   respondent said the  Internet has “democratized                      the   press.”</p>
<p>A less common argument for why the web has made journalism                         better is that the Internet has made journalism more    accountable                      by enabling the public – and other    journalists – to more easily                      verify the accuracy of    information and communicate these concerns                         directly to those who produced a report. Only around one-in-twenty                         who see the web as having had a positive influence  make   this                      case.</p>
<p><em>Changes for the Worse</em></p>
<p>Those who think the Internet has been bad for journalism                         most often cite the fact that it promotes the spread of    unvetted                      and unfiltered information to the public;    nearly half (53%                      national, 45% local) cite this    concern. Others express a related                      concern about  the   speed and pressure of the Internet leading                      to  too   many factual errors in news coverage (17% national,                         29% local).</p>
<p>Another concern raised by some is that the Internet has                         promoted the rise of pseudo-journalism, “junk” sites,                         and low-brow news. One negative consequence cited by   several                       respondents is that “news” reported on   these sites                       force mainstream journalists to waste   time chasing  down baseless                      rumors and innuendo.  In  a similar  vein, a smaller group refers                        specifically to the  Internet having damaged the credibility                        of  journalism in the mind of the public.</p>
<p>Around one-in-ten who see the Internet as having a bad influence                         on journalism say the web has made journalists lazy  by   allowing                      them to do research at their desks   rather  than going out into                      the field, with some    specifically stating that the Internet                      has made    plagiarism too easy.</p>
<p><em>Internet’s Downside</em></p>
<p>The survey’s respondents were asked specifically about two                         issues related to the growth of the Internet: increased    deadline                      pressures, and the potential spread of    misinformation and                      rumors into the news. Majorities    of both print and broadcast                      journalists say that    the Internet has increased the amount                      of bad    information that finds its way into news stories. Overall,                         65% of national journalists and 57% of local journalists  agree;                        smaller numbers think there has been no  change  (31%  nationally,                      38% locally). Hardly  anyone  thinks the  Internet has reduced                      the amount  of  misinformation  in circulation, though only 38%                       of  those working  with websites think the problem is worse                        because of  the Internet.</p>
<p><a href="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/files/2011/01/34.jpg"><img src="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/files/2011/01/34.jpg" alt="" width="254" height="339" /></a></p>
<p>But there is a considerable difference of opinion on the                         Internet’s impact on deadline pressures. Majorities overall                         believe the Internet has neither increased nor    decreased such                      pressures (55% of national    respondents, 60% of local respondents                      feel this    way). Hardly anyone thinks deadline pressures have                         declined, and 42% at the national level and 35% at the local                         level say the pressure is greater.</p>
<p>Within these averages there is a great deal of variation                         by type of medium and by job title. At both the national and                         local level, print journalists are far more  likely   than TV                      and radio journalists to say  deadline   pressure has been increased                      by the  Internet.   National media executives are more likely                       than   their editors or line journalists to feel this way. And,                         perhaps not surprisingly, those whose principal job   responsibility                       is Internet-based journalism are   the most likely  to feel greater                      deadline pressures   (78%).</p>
<p><em>Journalists in the Online Sector</em></p>
<p>The poll included a separate sample of 68 journalists whose                         job responsibilities include managing, editing, or writing                         for the online outlets of national and local  news   organizations.                      Job titles for this group of    respondents included “online                      content manager,”    “online editor,” “website                      manager,” and the like.</p>
<p>For the most part, online journalists are not significantly                         different from others demographically with the exception  of                        age. The average age of respondents in the   Internet  group                      is 42, compared with 46 among the   rest of  the sample. Similarly,                      those working in   online jobs  had an average of 18 years experience,                        compared  with 22 years for the rest of the respondents. More                         say they have undergone training or professional   development                       activities provided by their   organization (66% vs. 52%). And                       far more say the   Internet has increased their  deadline pressures.</p>
<p>Given the evolving nature of news organizations’ websites,                         it is no surprise that those in the online sector say they                         are doing more repackaging of stories than in the    past: 71%,                      versus 48% for other journalists. But    more are happy about                      the change than unhappy by a    margin of five-to-one (44% vs.                      9%).</p>
<p>In most cases, the opinions of online journalists track                         closely with non-Internet journalists regarding the state                         of the profession, the reasons for declining  audiences,   the                      validity of criticisms about  journalism, the   quality of their                      own news  organization, and their   own personal and political</p>
<p>values. They are somewhat more likely than their counterparts                         who work in broadcasting to say journalists have become    out                      of touch with their audiences, and to offer    that a boring                      and static news product is one  reason   some media are facing                      declining audiences,  but   many print journalists share this                      concern.  In that   vein, more online journalists than others                       in both   print and broadcasting see the changing media environment                         as the biggest problem facing journalism.</p>
<p>Not surprisingly, most of the key differences between the                         views of online journalists and others pertain to the role                         of the Internet itself. One of the biggest   differences  is                      that majorities (57%) of those   whose principal  job is not                      in online journalism   say the Internet  allows too much posting                      of links   to material that  is unfiltered or unvetted; just                        28% of those  working in the sector agree that this is a valid                         criticism. Similarly, far more of those who do not   primarily                       work on their news organization’s   website say the Internet                       has allowed more   misinformation to find its way into  news                      stories   (61%, compared with just 38% among  online journalists).                        And fewer Internet than  non-Internet journalists say the  Internet                       has hurt  journalism (3% versus 16%).</p>
<p><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20061002164402/http://www.stateofthemedia.org/journalist_survey_prc3.asp#">[top]</a></p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/journalist-survey-intro/survey-findings/section-iii-today%e2%80%99s-changing-newsroom/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Section II: Covering the President and the Campaign</title>
		<link>http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/journalist-survey-intro/survey-findings/section-ii-covering-the-president-and-the-campaign/</link>
		<comments>http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/journalist-survey-intro/survey-findings/section-ii-covering-the-president-and-the-campaign/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:30:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sfamoyegun</dc:creator>
		
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stateofthemedia.org/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Section II: Covering the President and the Campaign Press Going Too Easy on Bush Bottom-Line Pressures Now Hurting Coverage, Say Journalists by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press Overview Section I: Views on Performance Section II: Covering the President and the Campaign Section III: Today’s Changing Newsroom Section IV: Values and [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
<h1>Section II: Covering the President and the Campaign</h1>
<p>Press Going Too Easy on Bush<br />
<strong>Bottom-Line Pressures Now Hurting Coverage, Say                      Journalists</strong></p>
<p><em>by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press</em></p>
<p><a href="../2007-journalist-survey-intro/2007-survey-findings/">Overview</a><br />
<a href="../2007-journalist-survey-intro/2007-survey-findings/2007-section-i-views-on-performance/"> Section I: Views on Performance</a><br />
Section II: Covering                      the President and the Campaign<br />
<a href="../2007-journalist-survey-intro/2007-survey-findings/2007-section-iii-today%e2%80%99s-changing-newsroom/">Section III: Today’s                      Changing Newsroom</a><br />
<a href="../2007-journalist-survey-intro/2007-survey-findings/2007-section-iv-values-and-the-press/"> Section IV: Values and the Press</a></p>
<p>NOTE: This report is also available on                      the Pew Research Center <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20061002164434/http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=214" target="_blank">Web                      site</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Section II: Covering the President and the Campaign</strong></p>
<p>Many journalists today feel that news media has lost its                         critical edge – especially when it comes to coverage of the                         Bush administration. Reporters and editors in   national  news                      organizations, in particular, feel   the press  has gone too                      easy on the Bush   administration.  Moreover, the perception                      that news   organizations  have gone soft is not confined to                        attitudes about  coverage of Bush. An increasing number of                        both  national and local journalists feel the traditional   criticism                       of the press as too cynical is no longer   valid. Indeed, on                       both the national and local   level, more fault the  press for                      being too timid   than too cynical.</p>
<p>The journalists surveyed give middling ratings to national                         news coverage of Bush’s presidency. A narrow majority of    national                      journalists (53%) give the coverage a    grade of A or B; local                      journalists are far less    generous in their grading of how                      their colleagues    in national news organizations have covered                      Bush    (43% A or B). In a similar survey in 1995, national journalists,                         in particular, offered more positive opinions of  coverage                        of the Clinton administration (65% A or  B).</p>
<p>The journalists are somewhat more positive in their assessments                         of the presidential campaign. A majority of national    journalists                      (56%) say coverage of the campaign has    been better than coverage                      of the 2000 campaign.    Local journalists are more divided:                      46% say    coverage of the current campaign is better than in                         2000, while 34% say it is worse.</p>
<p><em>Differences Over Bush Coverage</em></p>
<p>Solid majorities of national print and TV journalists, as                         well as Internet journalists, say the media has not been    critical                      enough in its coverage of the    administration. A smaller plurality                      of local print    journalists agree (46%).</p>
<p><a href="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/files/2011/01/21.jpg"><img src="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/files/2011/01/21.jpg" alt="" width="290" height="235" /></a></p>
<p>But local television journalists, on balance, feel the coverage                         of the Bush administration has been fair. A plurality   of  this                      group (44%) believes the coverage has  been   fair; moreover,                      nearly as many say coverage  has   been too critical of the administration                      (25%)  as   say it has been not critical enough (28%).</p>
<p><em> Ideological Divisions </em></p>
<p>Much has been made of the public’s ideological divisions                         in this election year, but journalists also are divided along                         ideological lines over several issues, including    press coverage                      of the Bush administration.  Liberals   who work in national                      and local news  organizations   overwhelmingly feel the press                      has  not been  critical  enough of the Bush administration. Roughly                         two-thirds of liberal journalists (68%) express that view,                         compared with 28% who say coverage has been fair  and 3% who                        believe the press has been too  critical of the   administration.</p>
<p><a href="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/files/2011/01/22.jpg"><img src="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/files/2011/01/22.jpg" alt="" width="262" height="227" /></a></p>
<p>Self-described moderates offer a mixed judgment of the Bush                         coverage – about the same percentages say it has not been                         critical enough (44%) and fair (43%). But most    conservatives                      (53%) think the press has been too    critical of the administration,                      compared with 30%    who view it as fair and 17% who think it                      has been    too critical.</p>
<p><em>Beyond Bush: Cynicism Concerns Decline</em></p>
<p>In the 1999 survey, narrow majorities of both national (53%)                         and local (51%) journalists agreed that the statement,   “the                       press is too cynical,” represented a valid    criticism                      of news organizations.</p>
<p><a href="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/files/2011/01/23.jpg"><img src="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/files/2011/01/23.jpg" alt="" width="283" height="241" /></a></p>
<p>But there has been a dramatic decline in the percentage                         of national and local journalists who feel the press can be                         legitimately criticized for excessive cynicism.  Just   37% of                      national journalists and only  slightly more   local journalists                      (40%) view the  press as too   cynical. This pattern is even                      more  apparent among   Internet journalists: 24% view the press                       as too   cynical, compared with 48% five years ago.</p>
<p>Internet journalists, in particular, believe that the press                         can be faulted for being too timid rather than too cynical                         (56% too timid vs. 24% too cynical). Journalists    working at                      national news organizations agree  (47%   vs. 37%). But local                      journalists are split:  42% view   the press as too timid, 40%                      too cynical.</p>
<p><em>Ideological Coverage – Valid Criticism? </em></p>
<p>Overall, news people are divided over whether journalists                         today too often let their own ideological views show in  their                        reporting. Similar percentages of national  (45%)   and local                      (43%) journalists view this as a  valid   criticism.</p>
<p><a href="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/files/2011/01/24.jpg"><img src="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/files/2011/01/24.jpg" alt="" width="337" height="195" /></a></p>
<p>But local executives, in particular, approach this issue                         very differently. Roughly seven-in-ten local news executives                         (73%) say coverage too often reflects a   journalist’s  ideology;                      roughly six-in-ten national   news  executives (62%) agree that                      this is not a   valid  criticism of the press.</p>
<p>By comparison, there is broad agreement across the spectrum                         of reporters, managers and executives that is a bad thing                         if news organizations take a “decidedly”   ideological                       point of view in their coverage of the   news. Fully  72% of                      national journalists and 74%   of local  journalists have a negative                      view of news    organizations taking a strongly ideological stance                         in their coverage.</p>
<p><em>Fox’s Outsized Impact </em></p>
<p>Most national and local journalists do not believe any national                         daily news organization is “especially liberal”                         in its news coverage. Roughly six-in-ten in both groups    (62%                      national/59% local) say no national daily  news   organization                      strikes them as particularly  liberal   in its coverage. Among                      the minority that  names a   specific news organization as being                       especially   liberal, the New York Times was mentioned most                         frequently (20% national/17% local).</p>
<p><a href="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/files/2011/01/25.jpg"><img src="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/files/2011/01/25.jpg" alt="" width="227" height="473" /></a></p>
<p>By contrast, solid majorities of both national and local                         journalists say there is an organization that they think is                         especially conservative – and for most the    organization that                      comes to mind is Fox News    Channel. Fully 69% of national journalists                      cited    Fox News Channel as especially conservative in its coverage.                         Fewer local journalists (42%) mentioned Fox; still, a much                         higher percentage of local journalists named Fox   than  any                      other single news organization,   conservative or  liberal.</p>
<p><a href="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/files/2011/01/26.jpg"><img src="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/files/2011/01/26.jpg" alt="" width="236" height="178" /></a></p>
<p>Roughly two-thirds of self-described conservatives (68%)                         could identify a specific news organization that is  especially                        liberal, and the same number (68%)  could name a   news organization                      that is  “especially   conservative.” But moderates                      and  liberals could   identify conservative news organizations                       far more   often than liberal ones. Roughly three-quarters of                         liberals (74%) and a majority of moderates (56%) say  they                        couldn’t think of any news organization  that is especially                        liberal.</p>
<p><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20061002164434/http://www.stateofthemedia.org/journalist_survey_prc2.asp#">[top]</a></p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/journalist-survey-intro/survey-findings/section-ii-covering-the-president-and-the-campaign/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Section I: Views on Performance</title>
		<link>http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/journalist-survey-intro/survey-findings/section-i-views-on-performance/</link>
		<comments>http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/journalist-survey-intro/survey-findings/section-i-views-on-performance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:27:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sfamoyegun</dc:creator>
		
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stateofthemedia.org/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Section I: Views on Performance Press Going Too Easy on Bush Bottom-Line Pressures Now Hurting Coverage, Say Journalists by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press Overview Section I: Views on Performance Section II: Covering the President and the Campaign Section III: Today’s Changing Newsroom Section IV: Values and the Press NOTE: [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
<h1>Section I: Views on Performance</h1>
<p>Press Going Too Easy on Bush<br />
<strong>Bottom-Line Pressures Now Hurting Coverage, Say                      Journalists</strong></p>
<p><em>by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press</em></p>
<p><a href="../2007-journalist-survey-intro/2007-survey-findings/">Overview</a><br />
Section I: Views on Performance<br />
<a href="../2007-journalist-survey-intro/2007-survey-findings/2007-section-ii-covering-the-president-and-the-campaign/">Section II: Covering                      the President and the Campaign</a><br />
<a href="../2007-journalist-survey-intro/2007-survey-findings/2007-section-iii-today%e2%80%99s-changing-newsroom/">Section III: Today’s                      Changing Newsroom</a><br />
<a href="../2007-journalist-survey-intro/2007-survey-findings/2007-section-iv-values-and-the-press/"> Section IV: Values and the Press</a></p>
<p>NOTE: This report is also available on                      the Pew Research Center <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20061002164408/http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=214" target="_blank">Web                      site</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Section I: Views on Performance</strong></p>
<p>Journalists are divided over whether their profession is                          advancing or regressing. Only about half of local  journalists                         – and even fewer national  journalists – feel  their   profession                      is moving in  the right  direction. In   particular, national                      TV  and radio  journalists are   the most negative, with 61% saying                        the field is   headed in the wrong direction, compared  with                       just   33% who say the opposite.</p>
<p><a href="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/2004-journalist-survey-intro/2004-survey-findings/files/2011/01/11.jpg"><img src="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/2004-journalist-survey-intro/2004-survey-findings/files/2011/01/11.jpg" alt="" width="233" height="238" /></a></p>
<p>There also is a significant divide between executives and                          reporters in these national organizations, with executives                          seeing the profession headed in the right   direction   (by a                      57% to 38% margin) while   reporters say  things  are declining                      (by 54% to   39%).</p>
<p><a href="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/2004-journalist-survey-intro/2004-survey-findings/files/2011/01/12.jpg"><img src="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/2004-journalist-survey-intro/2004-survey-findings/files/2011/01/12.jpg" alt="" width="340" height="449" /></a></p>
<p><em>Continuing Concerns Over Quality </em></p>
<p>Problems with the quality of coverage remains a major concern                          of journalists, but an increasing percentage mention     business                      and financial factors. A plurality of     national journalists                      (41%) cite quality concerns     such as sensationalistic coverage;                      the need for     accuracy; and a lack of depth, relevance and                          objectivity as the most important problems facing their profession.                          Collectively, these were also the top concerns     volunteered                      by national journalists in 1999, and in     a similar survey a                      decade earlier.</p>
<p>Among local journalists, however, business and financial                          problems are now mentioned as frequently as concerns over                          the quality of coverage. More than a third of  local   news  people                      (35%) cite business and  financial   factors  as the biggest problem                      facing  journalism,   up from  25% five years ago.</p>
<p><em>Print Journalists Worried About Losing Readers </em></p>
<p>There are significant differences among journalists in different                          media, as well as those working at local and  national    news                      organizations, over the biggest  problem    confronting journalism.                      Broadcast  journalists,    especially at the national level, cite                       issues    relating to quality much more often than do their print                          counterparts. Roughly half of national broadcast  journalists                         (51%) cite quality concerns,  compared with 32% of    national                      print journalists.</p>
<p><a href="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/2004-journalist-survey-intro/2004-survey-findings/files/2011/01/13.jpg"><img src="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/2004-journalist-survey-intro/2004-survey-findings/files/2011/01/13.jpg" alt="" width="282" height="230" /></a></p>
<p>By comparison, declining readership is cited by 15% of print                          journalists at both national and local news   organizations,                        but no more than 2% of broadcast   journalists view   loss of                      audience as the most   important concern.   Instead, broadcast                      journalists   view limits on   resources – and the pressure to                        make profits and   get bigger ratings – as the biggest financial                          problems.</p>
<p>Despite the growing concern over business and financial                          issues, fewer journalists mention an overly competitive media                          environment as the biggest problem. In 1999,  17%  of   national                      and 15% of local journalists    specifically  mentioned increasing                      competition as a    problem; just  5% of national and 2% of local                         journalists say  this today.</p>
<p>While the quality of coverage and business concerns are                          seen as the leading problems facing journalism, the single                          word mentioned more frequently than any other by     journalists                      assessing their profession is     “credibility.” Roughly                      a quarter of both national     and local journalists mentioned                      problems with     public trust and confidence in some form, and                          one-in-five specifically mentioned credibility as the biggest                          concern for the profession.</p>
<p>Print journalists are far more likely than those in broadcast                          to see credibility as the biggest problem facing     journalism                      today. Four-in-ten (39%) journalists     working at national newspapers,                      magazines and wire     services say credibility is the biggest                      problem,     compared with just 15% at national TV and radio outlets.                          And this gap exists at the local level as well, with local                          print journalists nearly three-times as likely  as  local   broadcast                      journalists (33% vs. 12%) to  cite    credibility as their greatest                      concern.</p>
<p>There is also a sizeable difference between younger and                          older journalists in perceptions of the credibility problem.                          Just one-in-ten journalists under age 35 cite    concerns  about                      credibility and public trust as the    biggest  problem facing                      the profession, compared    with about  quarter of those age 35                      to 54 (26%),    and a third of  those age 55 and older.</p>
<p><a href="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/2004-journalist-survey-intro/2004-survey-findings/files/2011/01/14.jpg"><img src="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/2004-journalist-survey-intro/2004-survey-findings/files/2011/01/14.jpg" alt="" width="138" height="148" /></a></p>
<p>Though a number of journalists specifically mentioned recent                          scandals involving New York Times reporter Jayson Blair    and                       USA Today’s Jack Kelley in describing why  the    profession has                      lost credibility with the  public,    relatively few expressed                      concerns with  any  broader   ethical problems in their field.                      In  fact,  just 5%   of national journalists (and 6% of local                        news   people) cite ethics or a lack of standards as the biggest                          problem in journalism, about half as many as in  the  1999 survey.</p>
<p><em>Plagiarism Not Widespread</em></p>
<p>The vast majority of journalists of all backgrounds and                          at all workplaces say that plagiarism is no more prevalent                          today than it has been in the past, just more of a    focus  on                      the problem. More than seven-in-ten    national  (77%) and local                      (72%) journalists agree    with the  statement “We are hearing                      more about    plagiarism but  its prevalence has not increased.”                         About  one-in-five at both the national and local level (21%                          of national journalists, 23% local) say there is more    plagiarism                       today than in the past.</p>
<p>There is virtually no difference across different groups                          of journalists in this perception. Broadcast and print     journalists,                      as well as executives, senior editors,     and reporters all predominantly                      say that recent     incidents of plagiarism do not signify a wider                          problem in the field. There is similarly no difference in                          this view between young and old, those who are more and  less                         experienced, or those who are more and less   educated.</p>
<p><em>What the Press is Doing Well</em></p>
<p>Print and broadcast journalists also differ over what journalism                          is doing well these days. Print journalists most   often   point                      to the quality and depth of coverage   that  is  provided. They                      describe the volume of   topics   covered, coverage with context                      and   insight, and an   ability to make the news interesting and                        relevant.   Fully 42% of local print journalists and 31% of                          their national counterparts cited some aspect of  the  quality                        of coverage as journalism’s best   performance trait, compared                        with just 18% of   local broadcast journalists and  19%  of national                        broadcast journalists.</p>
<p><a href="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/2004-journalist-survey-intro/2004-survey-findings/files/2011/01/16.jpg"><img src="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/2004-journalist-survey-intro/2004-survey-findings/files/2011/01/16.jpg" alt="" width="271" height="356" /></a></p>
<p>Those working in television and radio are more likely to                          cite the timeliness and speed of reporting as what  journalism                         is doing best today. Among local  journalists,    broadcast journalists                      are more than  twice as likely    as those working in print (33%                       vs. 14%) to cite    the immediate coverage of live and breaking                       news  as   journalism’s greatest strength. This gap is even  wider                         within the national press, with 37% of  national broadcast                         journalists – and just 11% of  national print  journalists –                        citing timeliness  and speed as the  best aspect of   today’s                      news.</p>
<p>The watchdog role of the press is cited as journalism’s                          strength by fewer in the field. Print journalists are about                          twice as likely as those in broadcasting to say     investigative                      reporting and watchdog journalism  is    what the press is doing                      well these days. By     contrast, those in TV and radio make far                      more     mention of the value of news websites and the use of                          production technology to better deliver news to the public.</p>
<p><a href="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/2004-journalist-survey-intro/2004-survey-findings/files/2011/01/17.jpg"><img src="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/2004-journalist-survey-intro/2004-survey-findings/files/2011/01/17.jpg" alt="" width="224" height="240" /></a></p>
<p>As was the case five years ago, roughly half of journalists                          say the profession does a good job of striking a balance     between                      what audiences want to know and what’s     important for them                      to know. This opinion is held  by    comparable numbers of national                      and local     journalists, as well as among those working in both                          print, broadcast, and Internet media.</p>
<p><em>Criticisms of the Press</em></p>
<p>Nearly eight-in-ten in both national and local news organizations                          believe the criticism that the press pays too  little    attention                      to complex issues is valid (78%    national,  77% local). This                      is comparable to    findings in  previous press surveys conducted                      in    1995 and 1999.  Roughly two-thirds also agree that there                         are too  many talk shows on cable television today, and this                          view is shared equally by both print and broadcast    journalists.</p>
<p>Most journalists also accept as valid the criticism that                          the distinction between reporting and commentary has   seriously                        eroded, although the percentage who   cite this as a   valid criticism                      has, if anything,   declined since   1999. However, far more national                        and local   journalists regard this as a legitimate critique                          than did so in 1995.</p>
<p><a href="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/2004-journalist-survey-intro/2004-survey-findings/files/2011/01/18.jpg"><img src="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/2004-journalist-survey-intro/2004-survey-findings/files/2011/01/18.jpg" alt="" width="414" height="271" /></a></p>
<p>A growing number of national journalists, in particular,                          say news reports are increasingly full of factual errors and                          sloppy reporting. The number of national    journalists  who view                      this as a valid criticism has    increased  steadily from 30%                      in 1995 to 40% in    1999 to 45%  today. A comparable percentage                      of    local journalists  say this is a valid criticism (47%).                         That  represents a decline from 1999 (55%), but is higher than                          the 1995 level (40%).</p>
<p>In both 1995 and 1999, slim majorities agreed with the criticism                          that the press was too cynical, but this perception    has  ebbed                      among both national (37%) and local    (40%)  journalists today.                      In fact, more national     journalists say the press is too timid                      (47%) than     too cynical. In addition, the proportion who feel                          the press can be criticized for becoming out of touch with                          their audience has dropped slightly within both groups  of                         journalists.</p>
<p><em>Grading the Media</em></p>
<p>Journalists give the highest ratings to major national newspapers                          – 92% of national journalists and 80% of local     journalists                      give national newspapers a grade of A     or B. By contrast, local                      TV news receives the     lowest grades; just 32% of local journalists                      say     local TV news outlets deserve a grade of A or B and national                          journalists’ grades are even lower (21% A or B).</p>
<p><a href="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/2004-journalist-survey-intro/2004-survey-findings/files/2011/01/19.jpg"><img src="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/2004-journalist-survey-intro/2004-survey-findings/files/2011/01/19.jpg" alt="" width="301" height="195" /></a></p>
<p>Grades for other news media – network TV news, cable TV                          news, and local newspapers – fall somewhere in between   national                        newspapers and local TV news. In that   regard,   little has changed                      from nine years ago,   when   journalists gave very similar grades                      to   these media   organizations.</p>
<p>Most journalists give their own news organization middling                          grades. Just 22% of national journalists, and 14% of local                          journalists, gave their organization an A,  though    roughly                      six-in-ten of both groups gave  their own    organization a grade                      in the B range.  These  grades   also are similar to the grades                       journalists  assigned   in 1995.</p>
<p><a href="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/2004-journalist-survey-intro/2004-survey-findings/files/2011/01/110.jpg"><img src="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/2004-journalist-survey-intro/2004-survey-findings/files/2011/01/110.jpg" alt="" width="262" height="280" /></a></p>
<p>Print journalists are particularly critical of network and                          local TV news. Just 32% of national print journalists give                          favorable grades (A or B) to network TV news,   while   twice                      as many (65%) assign grades of C or   D.   Journalists at local                      newspapers are, at most,   only   slightly more favorable. By                      comparison, a   majority   of journalists working at both national                        and local   TV and radio outlets give favorable grades to network                          news programs.</p>
<p>Nearly half (47%) of local TV journalists give favorable                          grades to their own field’s performance, compared with only                          18% of local print journalists. The   print/broadcast   gap is                      slightly narrower among   journalists at   national outlets, but                      only because   ratings of local   TV news are low among all national                        reporters   whether in print or broadcasting. Among broadcast                          media, cable TV news channels are the exception to  the  media                        divide, as they are graded similarly  by  both print and   TV/radio                      journalists.</p>
<p>Journalists were also asked to give a grade to national                          news organizations for their websites, and the marks were                          fairly strong. Sizable majorities of both national    (70%)  and                      local (57%) journalists gave grades of  A   or B  to major media                      websites. And the grades    among local  journalists are lower                      only because    more said they  were unable to rate these websites                       –   very few in  either group gave poor marks to the websites.</p>
<p><em><br />
Why is Journalism on the Wrong Track?</em></p>
<p>In the general evaluation of whether their profession is                          headed in the right direction or the wrong direction,     journalists                      were almost evenly divided in their     view. While those taking                      a pessimistic view were     not asked directly what they had in                      mind, an     analysis of their responses to other questions provides                          some indication of the factors behind this opinion.</p>
<p>In particular, journalists who say things are going badly                          are significantly more likely to take their profession and                          employers to task for the quality of the news    product.  They                      believe the press has become too    timid, and  almost unanimously                      say the press pays    too little  attention to complex issues.                      Nearly    three-quarters  of journalists who say the profession                         is headed in  the wrong direction say the distinction between                          reporting and commentary has seriously eroded,  compared   with                       only half of those who think  things are on   the right track.</p>
<p>Concerns about the impact of bottom-line pressures also                          are far more prevalent among those saying the profession is                          on the wrong track, which is closely related to     concerns about                      sloppy reporting and the  increasing    commercialization of the                      news. Many  say the    emergence of the 24-hour news cycle has                       weakened    journalism and that news reports are increasingly                          full of factual errors. And those critical of the overall                          direction of journalism more frequently cite  sensationalistic                         reporting and an emphasis on  ratings as the  biggest   problems                      facing the  profession.</p>
<p>Within the newsroom, those who are unhappy with the leadership                          of their own news organization are far more negative     about                      the profession as a whole compared with  those    who are satisfied                      with their bosses. In   addition,   those who have participated                      in training   or   professional development over the past 12 months                          are significantly more optimistic about the profession as                          a whole than those who have had no such training.</p>
<p><a href="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/2004-journalist-survey-intro/2004-survey-findings/files/2011/01/111.jpg"><img src="../2005-journalist-survey-intro/2005-survey-findings/2004-journalist-survey-intro/2004-survey-findings/files/2011/01/111.jpg" alt="" width="224" height="195" /></a></p>
<p>But overall cynicism about journalism is not simply an expression                          of sour grapes on the part of those who have faced     economic                      pressures or staffing cuts at their own     place of work. Those                      who have seen their  newsrooms    shrink, or who say that resource                      and  staffing    limitations are the biggest problem facing the                          profession, are no more or less likely to be negative about                          the direction of journalism than those who have  not faced                         resource limitations.</p>
<p>Similarly, there are no generational or ideological divides                          on this general evaluation of the state of the  profession.                         Journalists young and old, liberal,  moderate and    conservative                      are all about evenly  divided in  terms   of whether they are                      optimistic  or  pessimistic  about  the field.</p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/journalist-survey-intro/survey-findings/section-i-views-on-performance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>News Investment</title>
		<link>http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/cable-tv-intro/news-investment/</link>
		<comments>http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/cable-tv-intro/news-investment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:21:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sfamoyegun</dc:creator>
		
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stateofthemedia.org/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[News Investment By the Project for Excellence in Journalism As media platforms proliferate and evolve, cable news networks are faced with growing pressures to stay relevant, and have to go beyond just producing TV journalism. Not only must they improve their existing content, but like other media they must increasingly compete with other kinds of [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h1>News Investment</h1>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><em>By the Project for Excellence in Journalism</em></p>
<p>As media platforms proliferate and evolve,  cable news networks are faced with growing pressures to stay relevant,  and have to go beyond just producing TV journalism. Not only must they  improve their existing content, but like other media they must  increasingly compete with other kinds of journalism, online, on mobile  devices, with text, audio and more. Cable’s great historic advantage,  immediacy, is no longer the province of cable alone.</p>
<p>Against that background, these developments stood out in 2006:</p>
<ul>
<li> Fox News appears to be continuing to increase investment in its news operation at a higher rate than its competitors.</li>
<li> CNN, along with its sister channel, CNN  Headline News, after scaling back earlier in the decade, is increasing  its investment, too, but more slowly.<a><sup>1</sup></a></li>
<li> MSNBC, which has been cutting back on its  operations for the previous two years, was projected to see expenses  grow in 2006, but that was before the announcement by GE of its new NBC  2.0 program, which is tallying up major cutbacks throughout the news  division.</li>
<li> It is less clear how much of each  channel’s investment is going into reporters and producers —  newsgathering boots on the ground — and how much is going elsewhere.</li>
<li> The trend toward opinion journalism, one  of the elements of Fox News’s success, appears to be strengthening among  its rivals. CNN, CNN Headline News and MSNBC all invested more heavily  in promoting opinionated personalities.</li>
</ul>
<p>I<strong>nvesting Back and Preparing for the Future </strong></p>
<p>There are two ways of analyzing a station’s financial investment in the news product. The first is to look at <em>all</em> the money a company spends to operate a station. That amount, total  expenses, includes salaries and capital expenditures on technology and  machinery, as well as the specific costs attributed to different  programs.</p>
<p>The second way of looking at expenses is to  identify the part attributable to specific programs, termed programming  expenses. That includes the costs of either buying material from others  or producing it in-house. This second category deserves a closer look.</p>
<p><em> Programming Expenses</em></p>
<p>Projections for 2006 indicate that the three  main news channels will have spent up to two-thirds of their overall  expenses on news programming. At MSNBC, programming was expected to make  up 74% of all expenses. Fox News’s share was 63%, while CNN was  expected to invest about 54% of its expenses in programming. The numbers  represent a slight growth for MSNBC and Fox News from the previous year  and a decline for CNN.<a><sup>2</sup></a></p>
<p>While CNN devotes the smallest percent of  its total expenses to the newsroom, it is still at the top when it comes  to sheer dollars. Its projected newsroom spending for 2006 was $346  million, up from $330 million in 2005 (a 5.7% increase). One reason the  number is higher is it reflects both CNN and CNN Headline News.</p>
<p>Fox News was expected to spend roughly $75  million less than CNN in 2006 ($271 million in programming expenses),  but that represented almost a 23% rise from $221 million in 2005, the  biggest percentage growth among all the three competitors.</p>
<p>MSNBC, meanwhile, was projected to spend by  far the least, $153 million in 2006, a 10% rise from the previous year  ($139 million).</p>
<p>Those projections, however, were released by  Kagan Research before the changes in ownership and restructuring at NBC  Television (see <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-cable-tv-intro/2007-ownership/">Ownership</a>).  Actual figures might not reflect the optimistic projections. If media  reports are to be believed, the shakeups in NBC News, CNBC and MSNBC  newsgathering resources are bound to mean some cutbacks in programming  costs.</p>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td height="25" align="right">
<div><a id="a" name="a"></a> Cable News Programming Expenses</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="11" align="right">
<div>1997 &#8211; 2006, by Channel</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="11" align="right">
<div><img src="http://web.archive.org/web/20080104032054/http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007/images/narrative%20charts/2007%20cable/cable-H-newsinv.jpg" alt="pie chart sample" width="533" height="334" /></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="11" align="right"><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20080104032054/http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007/chartland.asp?id=233&amp;ct=line&amp;dir=&amp;sort=&amp;col1_box=1&amp;col2_box=1&amp;col3_box=1">Design Your Own Chart</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="11" align="right">
<div>Source: Kagan Research, LLC, a division of Jupiter-Kagan Inc.<br />
CNN figures include CNN Headline News</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><em>Total Expenses </em></p>
<p>When other expenses are added in (such as  salaries and capital expenditures on equipment and facilities), Fox News  is expected to increase expenses nearly 17% (compared with the 23%  increase in revenues). That is about the same growth in expenses the  channel saw in 2005 (16%). In dollar terms, Fox News is expected to  spend $428 million in 2006, up from $367 million in 2005.</p>
<p>CNN’s total expenses were projected to  increase almost 5%, to $675 million, up from $643 million the year  before, on revenue growth of 8%. That means CNN will spend about 69% of  its revenues to cover expenses, as opposed to 70% in 2005. The share it  puts back is more than Fox News but much less than MSNBC.</p>
<p>MSNBC, meanwhile, seemed to be cutting costs  in 2006. If the projections are correct, MSNBC would have cut expenses  by 14% during the year on revenue growth of 7%. MSNBC has been cutting  costs for the last three years, according to the data, but these  cutbacks are significantly higher. The channel had cutbacks of 3% in  2005 and 5% in 2004.</p>
<p>Given its lower base, expenses eat up a  considerably higher percentage of MSNBC’s revenue. In 2006, MSNBC was  expected to have spent a total of $205 million, about three-fourths  (76%) of its total revenue.<a><sup>3</sup></a></p>
<p>Cable News Expenses<br />
2005 vs. 2006, in $ millions</p>
<table border="1" width="422">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th width="67" scope="col"></th>
<th width="88" scope="col">2005 Projected</th>
<th width="149" scope="col">2005 actual<br />
(projection vs. actual)</th>
<th width="90" scope="col">2006 projected</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>CNN</td>
<td>
<div>574.3</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>643 (+68.7)</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>675.2</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Fox News</td>
<td>
<div>366.6</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>366.6 (0)</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>428</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>MSNBC</td>
<td>
<div>234.6</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>238.8 (+4.2)</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>205.2</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Source: Kagan Research, LLC, a division of JupiterKagan Inc.</p>
<p>How do those expenses play out on the ground  in terms of newsroom sizes and operations? Are those elements growing,  or is the money going into promotion, salaries for hosts, sets, and show  costs? That is harder to know, and increasingly the news channels are  not saying.</p>
<p>CNN is clearly the largest operation, with  11 domestic bureaus and 26 international ones. Those numbers reflect no  change from a year earlier. But finding much more than that, for the  moment, is difficult. The network did not provide its staffing numbers,  but for the latest year for which we have data, 2004, it had roughly  4,000 employees (see our <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2005-cable-tv-intro/2005-news-investment/" target="_blank"> 2005 Annual Report</a>).</p>
<p>Fox News appears to be building. The channel  ended 2006 with 10 bureaus in the U.S. and 6 abroad, according to the  Los Angeles Times reporter Matea Gold.<a><sup>4</sup></a> The number overseas doubled from the three it had at the end of 2005,  in London, Paris and Jerusalem. Channel executives were also reported to  be planning to build their international coverage by partnering with  other international news organizations or broadening their pool of  freelancers.<a><sup>5</sup></a> But getting a full scope of Fox’s investment is also difficult. Like  CNN, the channel did not offer staffing numbers, but for the latest year  for which we have estimates, 2004, it had 1,250 employees in its news  operation.</p>
<p>At MSNBC, the trend lines are probably not  promising. With its parent company cutting back, and the network still  struggling to build audience, it had begun cutting costs at least two  years earlier. MSNBC relies on NBC News’ bureaus domestically and  worldwide. Those include 15 international bureaus and seven bureaus in  the U.S. As of December 2006, it had a staff of 600 dedicated to the  cable operation, according to its PR department.<a><sup>6</sup></a> But the news channel can also turn to NBC personnel for content.</p>
<p><strong>Changes on the Air and Behind the Scenes </strong></p>
<p>The declines in viewership, slowdown in  growth of profits and growing competition from new media all represent  challenges for cable news. One way the industry appears to be responding  is by changing programming line-ups. All three channels fiddled with  their programs and on-air faces in 2006. The impact of these changes,  though, remains to be seen.</p>
<p><em> CNN </em></p>
<p>In the search for a successful programming strategy to counter Fox News, CNN made numerous changes in 2006.</p>
<p>Those began first thing in the morning, a  time slot where CNN lags behind both Fox News and the broadcast network  morning shows. CNN’s American Morning became an hour shorter starting in  2007 (6 a.m. to 9 a.m.) just a year after it had been expanded to four  hours. That makes it the same length as Fox News’s more popular “Fox  &amp; Friends.” Trade magazines speculated that CNN may also hope to  attract morning network TV viewers in the wake of all the changes in the  broadcast morning shows with the departure of Charles Gibson and Katie  Couric to evening news (see <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-network-tv-intro/2007-audience/">Network TV Audience</a>).</p>
<p>In daytime — between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. — CNN  merged its two programs, CNN Live Today and Live From, into one long  news block called CNN Newsroom. CNN’s longtime anchor, Daryn Kagan, left  the channel in September 2006. She was replaced by a new hire, Don  Lemon, who began by hosting the afternoon leg of the show along with  Kagan’s former co-anchor Kyra Phillips, who remains. Lemon had been a  local TV anchor in Chicago.</p>
<p>In prime time, CNN continued to promote its  two tent poles, the star anchor Anderson Cooper’s Anderson Cooper 360,  which starts at 10 p.m., and Wolf Blitzer’s The Situation Room, which  runs from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. Another prominent personality getting  increasing attention is CNN’s Lou Dobbs, who hosts his one hour show at 6  p.m. as a break in Blitzer’s show. The rest of prime time is taken up  by Paula Zahn Now (8 p.m.) and Larry King Live (9 p.m.)</p>
<p>Dobbs saw some notable ratings success in 2006 (see <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-cable-tv-intro/2007-audience/">Audience</a>).  The surge came after Dobbs recast himself from a traditional financial  journalist into an economic populist crusading on such issues as  exportation of jobs and the decline of the middle class. The  transformation has made Dobbs more an advocacy and opinion journalist in  the mold of Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly and MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann. And  just as their shows have been the only ones seeing growth when cable  news over all is slowing down, Dobbs’ numbers are also on the rise.</p>
<p>Dobbs, who has been with CNN since its  inception (save for an interlude from 1999 to 2001) was an utterly  conventional financial reporter who did features on different companies  and interviews with corporate chieftains. His new show airs at 6 p.m. ET  and begins CNN’s evening programming. The hour-long show is spilt in  two: The first half hour contains domestic and international news, while  the second is dominated by “brands” or special segments on his pet  issues. These segments, with names like “Broken Borders” or “Exporting  America,” are heavily promoted across CNN.<a><sup>7</sup></a></p>
<p><em> CNN Headline News </em></p>
<p>One of the biggest questions facing the CNN  news channels — CNN U.S. and CNN Headline News — is how they can compete  with the more opinion-filled prime-time competition and still hold on  to their reputation as objective news sources.</p>
<p>For CNN, one strategy has been to make  Headline News a more personality-driven talk and opinion TV channel in  prime time. Originally designed as a 24 hour “wheel” format, where  headlines were simply repeated every half hour, the channel continued  its efforts to create a more distinct identity for itself in 2006.</p>
<p>Ken Jautz, who is responsible for Headline  News, told the New York Times that the channel was analogous to the  op-ed page, with the main CNN providing the rest of the more objective  news pages.</p>
<p>That, at least in prime time, represents a  remarkable transformation for Headline News. The name itself in the  evening is a holdover from another time, if not something of a misnomer.  It is also, as noted in the<a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-cable-tv-intro/2007-audience/"> Audience </a>section, a sign of how headlines, or news on demand, is no longer a franchise cable commands alone.</p>
<p>The shift “from news to views” saw Headline  News investing in some changes to its lineup and promoting a host of  strong personalities. Chief among the channel’s star names are the  prime-time talk-show hosts Glenn Beck and Nancy Grace, both  controversial.<a><sup>8</sup></a></p>
<p>Beck, a conservative talk-radio host, joined  Headline News in May 2006 with his own prime-time show (Glenn Beck at 7  p.m. ET). Asserting that he is no journalist, Beck tends to takes  radical points of view and claims to say “what others are feeling but  afraid to say.”<a><sup>9</sup></a></p>
<p>Equally brash, if not more so, is the other  Headline News star, Nancy Grace. The former lawyer, who began the Nancy  Grace legal talk-show in 2005, is known for her personal and emotional  involvement in the cases she airs. In 2006, Grace’s aggressiveness  became even more controversial when one of her guests, Melinda Duckett,  committed suicide after Grace treated her as a potential suspect in the  Ducketts’ son’s disappearance. In November 2006, the woman’s family sued  Grace.<a><sup>10</sup></a></p>
<p>But prime time is not the only slot on which  CNN Headline News executives are concentrating. Noticing the attention  that the morning anchor Robin Meade was getting, they re-branded the  program around her — calling it Robin &amp; Company — in October 2005,  making it more conversational and less straight news. One year later,  the strategy seemed to have paid off with higher ratings and positive  audience feedback.</p>
<p>As for its lineup changes, it eliminated its  4 p.m. to 6 p.m. newscast, citing a need to “bolster their editorial  services elsewhere.” To fill the gap, the earlier newscasts were  increased by an hour each. In prime time, it extended its star weeknight  shows to the weekends. Those include Prime News with Erica Hill,  Showbiz Tonight and Nancy Grace.</p>
<p><em> MSNBC </em></p>
<p>The fate of MSNBC was the subject of much  speculation throughout 2006. In October, NBC Television announced a  major new initiative that implied that the channel would have to shift  its current headquarters and combine its newsgathering resources with  that of the sister concerns NBC News and CNBC. The changes to its staff  weren’t clear yet, but the cuts at the NBC News division were an ominous  sign for the newsgathering resources at MSNBC, which had already been  cutting expenses for three years, (See <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-cable-tv-intro/2007-ownership/">Ownership</a> and <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-network-tv-intro/">Network TV</a>.)</p>
<p>Even before the NBC restructuring was announced in October 2006, MSNBC was making a significant number of programming changes.</p>
<p>In July 2006, soon after the resignation of  its president and GM, Rick Kaplan, it cancelled the legal show he had  approved, Rita Cosby: Live and Direct (only a few months after giving it  a prime-time slot). MSNBC also saw the end of two other shows that  Kaplan had approved, Connected Coast to Coast and Weekends with Maury  and Connie. The latter was hosted by the NBC talk-show veteran Maury  Povich and his wife, the former news anchor Connie Chung. Kaplan’s only  remaining creation is the Tucker Carlson Show, which was re-branded  Tucker and re-scheduled to an late afternoon slot, but it has been a  ratings disappointment. According to Nielsen data, Carlson’s show saw a  19% drop in viewers in November 2006 compared to November 2005.</p>
<p>The star personalities on MSNBC instead have turned out to be Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann.</p>
<p>Reminiscent of Fox News’ opinion-laden prime  time fare, Olbermann’s opinionated, increasingly anti-administration 8  p.m. talk show, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, has become a surprise  ratings success in recent months (see <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-cable-tv-intro/2007-audience/">Audience</a>). Indeed, in February 2007, MSNBC renewed his contract for four more years.<a><sup>11</sup></a></p>
<p>Before he became a news talker, Olbermann  was a sports broadcaster, notably with ESPN. His sharp commentary and  writing as a co-anchor of SportsCenter became a trademark for the  channel, and he continues to appear on ESPN Radio.<a><sup>12</sup></a> He joined MSNBC in 1997 to host The Big Show, which became The White  House in Crisis during the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal in 1998, but quit a  year later. He rejoined the channel in March 2003 with the current show.  Launched to cover the Iraq War, it was originally called Countdown:  Iraq, but is now a mix of the top headlines (“counted down” to reach a  big story last, though in reality the top stories of the day come first)  accompanied by his comments and a number of quick recurring segments  such as “Oddball” or “Top 3 Newsmakers.”</p>
<p>The show has been gaining viewers since  August 2003, even though it competes at that hour with Fox News’s The  O’Reilly Factor, the most-watched cable news show. Indeed, one of the  factors for Olbermann’s success has been his on-air feud with O’Reilly.  Openly critical of the Fox News host, Olbermann has frequently named him  “the worst person in the world” (one the recurring segments of his  show) that has consequently made Olbermann “a hero to liberals and  anathema to conservatives.”<a><sup>13</sup></a> More notably, it has led to both media coverage and higher ratings.</p>
<p>Olbermann is one of a growing number of  cable news personalities bringing their opinions to news channels and  succeeding. After years of ratings troubles, MSNBC couldn’t be happier.  According to Dan Abrams, “Keith Olbermann is the right person at the  right time, and doing it the right way.&#8221;<a><sup>14</sup></a></p>
<p><em> Fox News </em></p>
<p>One core of Fox News’ success, and one CNN  and MSNBC are beginning to emulate, is that it has created distinct  programs, usually built around opinionated personalities. And  furthermore, it has managed to do that at different points in the day.</p>
<p>That success begins in the morning. From 6  a.m. to 9 a.m. ET, the channel airs Fox &amp; Friends, the highest-rated  cable morning show. According to some trade magazines, the program is  even poised to take on the network broadcast shows.<a><sup>15</sup></a> Built as a talk show with three hosts, the show’s casual and  conversational approach is peppered with hard-news updates, personal  opinion and ideological edge. The show saw no changes in format, though  one of its anchors, E.D. Hill, was replaced by Gretchen Carlson in  September 2006.</p>
<p>In February 2007, the channel re-branded its  9 a.m. to 11 a.m. block American Newsroom, hosted by Bill Hemmer and  Megyn Kelly. During the earlier programming changes in September 2006,  Hemmer was made the anchor of a one-hour show at noon that used the Fox  News Web site as a hook. “Fox Online” was a recap of the day’s top news  and picked up stories that are most popular on the Web site for  discussion. The time slot is now taken up by its predecessor, Fox News  Live, which was extended by an hour; it now runs from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.  and is anchored by E. D. Hill.</p>
<p>September was also when the anchor Martha  MacCallum was promoted to be a host of her own show, The Live Desk with  Martha MacCallum, from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. The channel named Jane Skinner  anchor of the weekday show Fox News Live, from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m., to  replace MacCallum.</p>
<p>Another prominent change was the elimination  of its Dayside program in September. The show’s anchors, Mike Jerrick  and Juliet Huddy, headed to a network morning program for Fox’s  broadcast stations (see <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-local-tv-intro/2007-audience/">Local TV Audience</a>).<a><sup>16</sup></a></p>
<p><em> The Fox Business Channel </em></p>
<p>The biggest question about Fox News in 2007  is its business channel, though its existence is now more a question of  when, not if.</p>
<p>In February 2007, Murdoch announced that the Fox Business Channel would launch by the fourth quarter of the year.</p>
<p>Getting enough subscribers for the new  channel to make financial sense was one of the biggest obstacles to its  launch. It managed to reach its goal of 30 million subscribers by the  end of 2006, after securing “carriage” or becoming a part of the channel  line-up on the Comcast, Time Warner and Charter cable systems and on  the DirecTV satellite network.<a><sup>17</sup></a></p>
<p>The first big sign of News Corp.’s  investment in the new venture was its inclusion in Fox News’s  license-fee contract renegotiations in October 2006 (see <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-cable-tv-intro/2007-economics/">Economics</a>).  While there was no official statement, trade reports early in the year  said that Fox would ask for about 10 cents per subscriber per month for  the business channel.<a><sup>18</sup></a> Eventually, however, Fox executives clarified that the business channel  was not a factor in determining the rates for Fox News.</p>
<p>News Corp. has already invested in some  staff for the business channel. According to Television Week, Neil  Cavuto will oversee content and business news coverage.<a><sup>19</sup></a> Day-to-day operations will be handled by Kevin Magee, a former Fox  radio syndication chief who is also in charge of the new syndicated  morning TV show on the broadcast network. He was named executive vice  president of the business channel in October 2006.</p>
<p>Joining them will be former CNBC  correspondent Alexis Glick, who was made director of business news in  September 2006. She is also expected to anchor on-air.</p>
<p><strong> New York</strong><strong> , New York</strong></p>
<p>One other change in cable newsrooms was a  greater push toward New York City, the traditional home of national  television news. All three networks created a higher presence there in  2006. CNN beefed up its studio, Fox News bought marketing space on Times  Square and MSNBC moved in with NBC News.</p>
<p>CNN, headquartered in Georgia, invested in a  large studio at the Time Warner Center (its New York headquarters). The  new studio is technologically advanced, and its centerpiece is a giant  video wall displaying both video and graphics that first showed up  during the broadcast of Anderson Cooper 360 in October 2006. It was  promoted as a big-screen showcase for the latest video and informational  graphics pouring into CNN from around the nation, the world and the  Web, and was used heavily during the election coverage in November 2006.</p>
<p>All MSNBC operations are expected to be out  of New Jersey sometime in 2007 as it begins sharing space with NBC News  at its Rockefeller Center headquarters in Manhattan.</p>
<p>Most of Fox News’s programs are aired from  its New York headquarters (also the site for a massive 10th anniversary  party in October 2006). The Fox Television group built on its presence  in the city by signing a 10-year deal to air its programming on Times  Square. The 1,400-square-foot television screen is an iconic marketing  space, and the Fox group intends to use it to air Fox News content  morning and evening, along with local news from the New York Fox station  and sports programming. Its new business channel is also expected to be  based in Manhattan.</p>
<p><a>Click                            here to view footnotes for this section.</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/cable-tv-intro/news-investment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Source Bibliography</title>
		<link>http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/about-the-story-intro/source-bibliography/</link>
		<comments>http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/about-the-story-intro/source-bibliography/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Jan 2007 16:32:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian Bailey</dc:creator>
		
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stateofthemedia.org/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Source Bibliography The following list comprises the sources used throughout this report. A &#124; B &#124; C &#124; D &#124; E &#124; F &#124; G &#124; H &#124; I &#124; J &#124; K &#124; L &#124; M &#124; N &#124; O &#124; P &#124; R &#124; S &#124; T &#124; U &#124; V &#124; W&#38;X [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h1>Source Bibliography</h1>
<p>The following list comprises the sources used throughout                      this report.</p>
<p><a name="A"></a><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#A">A</a> | <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#B">B</a> |                      <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#C">C</a> | <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#D">D</a> | <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#E">E</a> | <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#F">F</a> | <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#G">G</a> | <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#H">H</a> | <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#I">I</a> | <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#J">J</a> | <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#K">K</a> | <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#L">L</a> | <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#M">M</a> | <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#N">N</a> | <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#O">O</a> | <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#P">P</a> | <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#R">R</a> | <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#S">S</a> | <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#T">T</a> | <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#U">U</a> | <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#V">V</a> | <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#W">W&amp;X</a> | <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#Y">Y</a> | <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#Z">Z</a></p>
<h1>A</h1>
<p>Advertising Age, “100 Leading Media Companies,”  AdAge.com. Companies are ranked by their total media revenues collected  in the U.S. in 2003. Available online at: http://<a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2006/footnotes/www.adage.com/page.cms?pageId=1158">www.adage.com/page.cms?pageId=1158</a>.</p>
<p>Frank Ahrens, “Delays, Low Fines Weaken FCC Attack on Indecency,” Washington Post, November 10, 2005 .</p>
<p>Alternative Weekly Network, “Alternative Weekly Reader Comparison 1995 – 2005”</p>
<p>Alternative Weekly Network demographic data.</p>
<p>American Journalism Review, “Journalism’s Backseat Drivers,” August/September 2005.</p>
<p>American Society of Newspaper Editors, “Newsroom Employment Survey,” Table A, published April 12, 2005 . Available online at: <a href="http://www.asne.org/index.cfm?id=5646">http://www.asne.org/index.cfm?id=5646</a>.</p>
<p>Chris Anderson, “The New Boom,” Wired, February 2006.</p>
<p>Julia Angwin, Kevin J. Delaney and Peter Grant, “Google, Comcast Seek Piece of AOL,” the Wall Street Journal, October 13, 2005</p>
<p>Julia Angwin and Kevin J. Delaney, “Microsoft Pushes to Seal AOL Advertising Linkup,” the Wall Street Journal, December 7, 2005</p>
<p>Julia Angwin, “Fox quietly gears up its business channel to challenge CNBC,” Wall Street Journal, June 20, 2005 .</p>
<p>Arbitron, “Public Radio Today: How America Listens to Public Radio Stations,” June 13, 2005</p>
<p>Arbitron/Edison Media Research, “Internet and Multimedia 2005: The On-Demand Media Consumer,” March 23, 2005</p>
<p>Arbitron, “Radio Today: How America Listens to Radio, 2005 Edition,” December 22, 2004 .</p>
<p>Tom Ashbrook, “The Assault on NPR,” Boston Globe, May 26, 2006 .</p>
<p>Association of Alternative Newsweeklies member pages.</p>
<p>Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, unpublished circulation figures.</p>
<p>“Broadband Subscriber Growth Slows,” Associated Press, October 17, 2005 .</p>
<p>“Los Angeles Times suspends ‘Wikitorials,’ Associated Press, June 21, 2005 .</p>
<p>AP, “Viacom Details Split Plans,” CBS News Web site, August 5, 2005 .</p>
<p>“AP to launch online video network; Board approves  general assessment and licensing plan,” Associated Press press release,  July 21, 2005</p>
<p>Douglas Arthur, “Knight Ridder: A Scenario Analysis,” Morgan Stanley, November 29, 2005 . Available online at: <a href="http://www.poynterextra.org/KR/Research.pdf">http://www.poynterextra.org/KR/Research.pdf</a></p>
<p>“Google Localizes Online Maps Service,” The Associated Press, October 6, 2005 .</p>
<p>Agence France Presse, “Murdoch’s NewsCorp sees earnings jump,” August 10, 2005 .</p>
<p>Atlanta Business Chronicle, “Cumulus grows with Susquehanna acquisition,” October 31, 2005 .</p>
<p>Eric Auchard, “Web Map Tracks Demand for Major News ,” Reuters, August 18, 2005 .</p>
<p>Audit Bureau of Circulations, publisher’s  statements and audit reports for Time, Newsweek, US News and World  Report, The New Yorker, The Economist, Jet, The Atlantic, The Week,  People, In Touch, The Star</p>
<p>Audit Bureau of Circulations, publisher’s statements for La Opinion, El Diario, El Nuevo Herald.</p>
<p>Ayala, Nancy , “ ‘Rumbo’ secures $18 Million for New Investors,” Marketing y Medios, June 13, 2005 .</p>
<p>Abigail Azote, “Post-Rather, CBS news really sinks,” <a href="http://www.medialifemagazine.com/">Media Life Magazine</a> online archives, April 25, 2005</p>
<p>Abigail Azote, “A winter&#8217;s chill descends on &#8216;Nightline,&#8217; ” Media Life, January 26, 2006 .</p>
<p><a name="B"></a><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#">return to                      the top</a></p>
<h1>B</h1>
<p>Katy Bachman, “Fox Buffs Up Local News,” Media Week, October 10, 2005 .</p>
<p>Katy Bachman, “Mixed News for Houston PPM,” Media Week.com, September 20, 2005 .</p>
<p>Katy Bachman, “Clear Channel Applauds Its ‘Less is More’ Initiative,” Billboard Radio Monitor, May 17, 2005 .</p>
<p>Katy Bachman, “TVB: TV ad revenues grew by 12 percent in 2004”, Media Week, March 17, 2005 .</p>
<p>Ben Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, (Beacon Press: 2000)</p>
<p>Ed Bark, “Alert the media: CNN back to hard news”, Dallas Morning News, June 25, 2005</p>
<p>Jason Bates, EU Broadcasting: Regional Populations Creating Demand, Via Satellite, September 1, 2005 <a href="http://www.telecomweb.com/cgi/pub/via/via09010503.html">http://www.telecomweb.com/cgi/pub/via/via09010503.html</a></p>
<p>Stephen Battaglio, “New boss in town,” TV Guide, November 30, 2005 .</p>
<p>John Battelle, The Search: How Google and Its  Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture  (Portfolio Hardcover: 2005).</p>
<p>“$80bn Google takes top media spot,” BBC News, June 8, 2005 .</p>
<p>Belo Corp. presentation to CFSB Media Week Investors Conference, December 2005.</p>
<p>Bendixen and Associates for New California Media,  The Ethnic Media in America : The Giant Hidden in Plain Sight, June 7,  2005 , p. 11.</p>
<p>Paul Berger, “Get it together: Blog collectives seek to draw ads,” Online Journalism Review, December 9, 2005 .</p>
<p>Jonathon Berr, “Ad spending growth slows; web, cable, Spanish media doing best,” Orlando Sun-Sentinel, September 5, 2005 .</p>
<p>Robert Bianco, “More is Much Less in Revamped &#8216;Nightline,&#8217; ” USA Today, November 30, 2005 .</p>
<p>BIAfn Press Release, “BIA Financial Network  Reports that Hispanic Television Stations Continue to Grow in Numbers  and in Shares”, BIA Web site, June 16, 2005 .</p>
<p>BIAfn Press Release, “BIA Financial Network  reports on revenue growth of top television station owners over the past  four years,” BIA Web site, May 12, 2005 .</p>
<p>BIA Subscription News Commentary, “Upheaval in the Lineup of Local Television Stations,” BIAfn, January 25, 2006</p>
<p>BIAfn TV Industry Overview, 2005.</p>
<p>AP, “Casper Television Stations cancels evening news broadcast,” Billings ( Mont. ) Gazette, January 5, 2006 .</p>
<p>HD Update, “Shut-Off Date Is (Finally) Official”, Broadcasting &amp; Cable, February 9, 2006 .</p>
<p>“NBC Quietly Marks End of an Era,” Broadcasting &amp; Cable, January 1, 2005 .</p>
<p>“Google adds software designed to track success of customers’ ads,” Bloomberg News, November 15, 2005 .</p>
<p>“Microsoft and Associated Press to Join in New Video Distribution,” Bloomberg News, November 10, 2005 .</p>
<p>Hal Bodeker, “Solar power: Local stations and  networks are tapping into the energy of the morning-news hours,” Orlando  Sentinel, September 7, 2005 .</p>
<p>“What Local Web Sites Earn: 2005 Survey,” Borrell Associates Inc., March 2005.</p>
<p>“N.Y. Times circulation plummets in Big Apple,” The Boston Herald, January 12, 2006 .</p>
<p>Broadcasting &amp; Cable, “PTC Drives Spike in Smut Gripes,” November 14, 2005 .</p>
<p>Merrill Brown, “I Webbed the news today – oh boy!” Seattle Times, September 11, 2005 .</p>
<p>Sandy Brown, “Google Does Web Another Favor,” TheStreet.com, December 20, 2005 .</p>
<p>Rick E. Bruner, “The Decade in Online Advertising, 1994-2004,” Doubleclick.com, April 2005.</p>
<p><a name="C"></a><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#">return to the                      top</a></p>
<h1>C</h1>
<p>Pete Carey, “Knight Ridder said to urge cuts” Contra Costa Times, January 25, 2006 .</p>
<p>Carnegie Corporation of New York , “Use of Sources for News.” Available online at: http://<a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2006/footnotes/www.carnegie.org/pdf/AbandoningTheNews.ppt#0">www.carnegie.org/pdf/AbandoningTheNews.ppt#0</a>.</p>
<p>Bill Carter, “Amid Rumors, ‘Today’ Marks 10 Years as Weekly Ratings King,” New York Times, December 8, 2005 .</p>
<p>Bill Carter, ‘Ted Koppel and Crew to Join Discovery,” New York Times, Jan. 5, 2006 .</p>
<p>Steve Case, “It’s Time to Take It Apart,” the Washington Post, December 11, 2005 .</p>
<p>CBS Corporation Company Profile, online at: <a href="http://www.cbscorporation.com/our_company/index.php">http://www.cbscorporation.com/our_company/index.php</a></p>
<p>Center for Digital Democracy, “Broadcast Lobby’s  Indecent Posture: Asking for Big Public Hand-out,” Market Watch, April  26, 2004 . Online: <a href="http://www.democraticmedia.org/news/marketwatch/NABhandout.html">http://www.democraticmedia.org/news/marketwatch/NABhandout.html</a></p>
<p>Center for the Digital Future at the USC Annenberg  School , “Fifth Study by the Digital Future Project Finds Major New  Trends in Online Use for Political Campaigns,” December 7, 2005 .  Available online at: <a href="http://www.digitalcenter.org/pdf/Center-for-the-Digital-Future-2005-Highlights.pdf">http://www.digitalcenter.org/pdf/Center-for-the-Digital-Future-2005-Highlights.pdf</a>.</p>
<p>Center for the Digital Future at the USC Annenberg School , unpublished data, January 2006.</p>
<p>Center for the Media Research, “18-24 Year Olds Most Influenced by New Media,” July 11, 2005 .</p>
<p>Center For Media Research, “Critical Mass Podcasting Expected by 2010,” December 8, 2005 .</p>
<p>Center for the Media Research, “Media Habits of Affluent Adults,” February 22, 2005 .</p>
<p>Renee Chen, Esther Thorson and Stephen Lacy, “The  Impact of Newsroom Investment on Newspaper Revenues and Profits at Small  and Medium Newspapers, 1998-2002,” Journalism and Mass Communications  Quarterly, Autumn 2005.</p>
<p>“ Cincinnati newspaper agreement will not be renewed after 2007,” Cincinnati Post, January 16, 2004 .</p>
<p>ClickZ, “Internet Penetration: Critical Mass, Then What?” July 6, 2005 . Available online at: http://<a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2006/footnotes/www.clickz.com/experts/crm/actionable_analysis/article.php/3517561">www.clickz.com/experts/crm/actionable_analysis/article.php/3517561</a>.</p>
<p>CNN.com, “Poll: Most Americans unfamiliar with blogs,” March 3, 2005 .</p>
<p>“Online ad sales soaring, report says,” CNN/Money, November 16, 2005 . Available online at: http://<a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2006/footnotes/money.cnn.com/2005/11/16/technology/web_ads/%20">money.cnn.com/2005/11/16/technology/web_ads/</a></p>
<p>GE Profile on the Columbia Journalism Review’s “Who Owns What” (<a href="http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/ge.asp">http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/ge.asp</a>),</p>
<p>comScore Networks, “ Advertisers Take Note: Internet Streaming Video Now Reaches More Mature Audiences,” December 1, 2005 .</p>
<p>Jim Conaghan, “Outlook 2006,” Presstime,” January 2006. Available online at: <a href="http://www.naa.org/Presstime/PTArtPage.cfm?AID=7378">http://www.naa.org/Presstime/PTArtPage.cfm?AID=7378</a>.</p>
<p>Consumer Reports WebWatch, “Leap of Faith: Using the Internet Despite the Dangers,” October 26, 2005 . Available online at: <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2006/footnotes/www.consumerWebwatch.org/pdfs/princeton.pdf">www.consumerWebwatch.org/pdfs/princeton.pdf</a>.</p>
<p>Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Office of  Inspector General, “Report of Review: Review of Alleged Actions  Violating The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, as Amended,” Report No.  EPB503-602, Pg. 6, November 15, 2005 .</p>
<p>Robert W. Crandall, Robert W. Hahn, Robert E.  Litan, and Scott Wallsten, (“Universal Broadband Access: Implementing  President Bush’s Vision,” AEI-Brookings Joint Center For Regulatory  Studies, May 2004. Available online at: http://<a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2006/footnotes/www.aei-brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=941">www.aei-brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=941</a>.</p>
<p>CSFB Media Week presentations, December 2005.</p>
<p>Tim Cuprisin, “Channel 18’s 9 p.m. News Might Sign Off,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, January 16, 2006 .</p>
<p>Anthony Crupi, “CBS White House Correspondent Roberts Joins CNN,” Media Week, February 1, 2006 .</p>
<p>Anthony Crupi, “CNN Names Gallagher Faith and Values Corr,” Media Week, September 7, 2005 .</p>
<p><a name="D"></a><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#">return to the                      top</a></p>
<h1>D</h1>
<p>Paul Davidson, “Martin Known as Consensus Builder,” USA Today, October 30, 2005 .</p>
<p>Wendy Davis, “Deutsche Bank: Online Ad Spending Up 11 % in Q2,” Media Post, July 18, 2005 .</p>
<p>Wendy Davis, “Marketers Shift Budget To Local Sites,” Media Post, October 19, 2005 .</p>
<p>Wendy Davis, “ OMMA Keynote: Online World Unprepared For Influx Of Marketing Dollars,” Online Media Daily, June 7, 2005</p>
<p>Wendy Davis, “Online Rivals Papers, Surpasses Yellow Pages Among Local Shoppers,” Media Daily News, March 23, 2005 .</p>
<p>Davies, Jennifer, Gluttons for Gossip, San Diego Union-Tribune, September 3, 2005 .</p>
<p>Heidi Dawley, “Time-wise, Internet is now TV’s equal,” Media Life Magazine, February 1, 2006 .</p>
<p>Jay DeFoore, “More Than 2,000 Newspaper Jobs Lost  in 2005,” Editor &amp; Publisher November 17, 2005 . (The 2,000 total  includes jobs in all departments, not just news.)</p>
<p>Michael Deibert, “Newspaper Ad Spending Climbs, Albeit Mostly Online,” Media Post, August 23, 2005</p>
<p>John Dempsey, “The Fox ripple effect,” Variety, March 13, 2005 .</p>
<p>Stefano DellaVigna &amp; Ethan Kaplan, “Fox News  Effect: Media Bias and Voting,” U.C. Berkeley, August 15, 2005 .  Retrieved from http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/sdellavi/</p>
<p>“Free Fall for U.S. Newspapers’ Circulations,” Digital Deliverance, November 1, 2004 . Available online at: <a href="http://www.digitaldeliverance.com/MT/archives/000474.html">http://www.digitaldeliverance.com/MT/archives/000474.html.</a></p>
<p>Tom Dorsey, “CNN‘s fidgeting isn‘t helping in race to catch Fox News,” The Courier-Journal, July 23, 2005.</p>
<p>Geoff Dougherty, “Emmis Communications sells 9 TV stations for $ 681M,” The Chicago Tribune, August 23, 2005 .</p>
<p>Kevin Downey, “Payout: Clear Channel’s ratings are up,” Media Life Magazine (<a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.com/2006/footnotes/www.medialifemagazine.com">www.medialifemagazine.com</a>), January 24, 2006 .</p>
<p>Kevin Downey, “For Nielsen, a Most Delicate Dilemma,” Media Life, November 18, 2005 .</p>
<p>“ U.S. Stocks End Slightly Lower; Oil at 5 1/2 Month Low,” Dow Jones, November 29, 2005 .</p>
<p>Duffy, Brian, memo as reprinted on the Poynter Online Forum <a href="http://poynter.org/forum/?id=32127">http://poynter.org/forum/?id=32127</a></p>
<p><a name="E"></a><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#">return to the                      top</a></p>
<h1>E</h1>
<p>“The battle of the portals,” The Economist, October 22-28,2005 .</p>
<p>“The online ad attack,” The Economist, April 27, 2005 .</p>
<p>“International Yearbook,” Editor &amp; Publisher, 2005.</p>
<p>“Listen Up! Oxford Dictionary Picks Its ‘Word of the Year,’ and It’s ‘Podcast,’ ” Editor and Publisher, December 8, 2005</p>
<p>“Scripps Closing Birmingham Post-Herald, Dissolving JOA,” Editor and Publisher online, September 22, 2005 .</p>
<p>“TimesSelect Draws About 135,000 Paid Users for Exclusive Online Offerings,” Editor and Publisher, November 9, 2005</p>
<p>“Top 20 Papers By Circulation, According to New FAS-FAX,” Editor &amp; Publisher, November 7, 2005 .</p>
<p>2004 Editor and Publisher Yearbook Online data, 1940-2003, <a href="http://www.editorandpublisher.com/">www.editorandpublisher.com</a></p>
<p>Rick Edmonds, “As Blogs and Citizen Journalism  Grow, Where’s the News?” Poynter Online, November 14, 2005 . Available  online at: <a href="http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=91391">http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=9139</a>.</p>
<p>Rick Edmonds, “A Bad Year for Newspaper Stocks – A  Worse Year for the Gray Lady,” Poynter Online, January 12, 2006.  Available online at: <a href="http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=94997">http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=94997</a></p>
<p>Rick Edmonds, “An Online Rescue for Newspapers?” Poynter Online, January 27, 2005 . Available online at: <a href="http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=77603%5C">http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=77603\</a></p>
<p>Rick Edmonds, “Ignoring the Elephants in Newspaperland,” Poynter Online, December 3, 2004.</p>
<p>Rick Edmonds, “The Next Bad Thing for Newspapers? More Circulation Woes,” Poynter Online, November 3, 2005.</p>
<p>Rick Edmonds, “Trouble on the Top Line,” Poynter Online, June 27, 2005. Available online at: <a href="http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=84473">http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=84473</a>.</p>
<p>John Eggerton, “DTV Bill Signed into Law,” Broadcasting &amp; Cable, February 8, 2006 .</p>
<p>John Eggerton, “Bill Bennett Joins CNN,” Broadcasting &amp; Cable, January 25, 2006 .</p>
<p>John Eggerton, “Wolzien Exiting Sanford Bernstein”, Broadcasting &amp; Cable, July 15, 2005</p>
<p>Ben Elgin, “Gunning for Google,” Business Week, November 8, 2005 .</p>
<p>Tobi Elkin, “AOL Eyes Web Video Sales Opportunities, Says “Upfront” Not Likely,” Media Post, March 14, 2005</p>
<p>Stuart Elliott, The New York Times, “With Fewer Paying Up, AOL.com Shifts to Free,” October 14, 2005.</p>
<p>Stuart Elliot, “To promote a cable network, a plan to inundate the Internet,” New York Times, December 12, 2005 .</p>
<p>“The Broadband Revolution: You Say You Want a Definition,” emarketer, March 30, 2001</p>
<p><a name="F"></a><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#">return to the                      top</a></p>
<h1>F</h1>
<p>Ross Fadner, “Newspapers Brace for Google Free WiFi Plan,” Media Daily News, October 7, 2005 .</p>
<p>Fadner, Ross, Newsstand Sales Soar for Celebrity Magazines, November 15, 2005 , <a href="http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&amp;art_aid=36309">http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&amp;art_aid=36309</a></p>
<p>Financial Wire, “NBC, Time Reach Agreement,” October 25, 2005 .</p>
<p>Jon Fine, “Net to Newspapers: Drop Dead,” BusinessWeek online, July 4, 2005.</p>
<p>Lauren Rich Fine, “Newspaper Primer, 5th Edition,” Merrill Lynch, May 11, 2001 .</p>
<p>Lauren Rich Fine, “Tribune Co. – Is There a Way to  Surface Value: A Scenario Analysis,” analyst’s report for Merrill  Lynch, November 8, 2005 .</p>
<p>Lauren Rich Fine, “2006: A Bifurcated Year or Before KRI, After KRI,” Merrill Lynch, January 9, 2006 .</p>
<p>Lauren Rich Fine, “Q4 Preview,” Merrill Lynch, January 17, 2006 .</p>
<p>Mark Fitzgerald, “Editor of the Year 2004: Being Julia, In Atlanta ,” Editor &amp; Publisher, February 1, 2005 .</p>
<p>Mark Fitzgerald, “Shield Law Sponsor: Bloggers ‘Probably Not’ Considered Journos,” Editor and Publisher, October 10, 2005 .</p>
<p>Toni Fitzgerald, “CNN Headline News topples MSNBC,” Media Life Magazine, March 31, 2005 .</p>
<p>Toni Fitzgerald, “CNN Headline News topples MSNBC,” Media Life Magazine, March 31, 2005 .</p>
<p>Lucinda Fleeson, “Bureau of Missing Bureaus,” American Journalism Review, October/November 2003.</p>
<p>Franklin Foer, “The Journal At Sea,” New York , September 12, 2005 .</p>
<p>David Folkenflik, Morning Edition, June 30, 2005 .</p>
<p>AP, “Laredo TV Station drops newscast, staff,” Fort Worth Star Telegram, January 4, 2006 .</p>
<p>Jon Freidman, “Happy Birthday CNN. Now form an identity,” Market Watch, June 10, 2005 .</p>
<p>Wayne Friedman, “NBC Buys up More of MSNBC from Microsoft,” Media Post Magazine, December 27, 2005 .</p>
<p>Wayne Friedman, “NBC Buys Up More of MSNBC from Microsoft,” Media Post Magazine, December 27, 2005 .</p>
<p><a name="G"></a><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#">return to the                      top</a></p>
<h1>G</h1>
<p>Gallup Poll, May 23-26, 2005 .</p>
<p>Gannett, “ Gannett completes acquisition of  HomeTown Communications Network’s assets; Richard Aginian named  consultant and president and publisher of Detroit suburban group,”  Gannett press release, March 31, 2005 . Available online at: <a href="http://www.gannett.com/go/press/pr033105.htm">http://www.gannett.com/go/press/pr033105.htm</a>.</p>
<p>Jill Geisler, “Morale, Motivation and Balance,” Poynter Online, March 7,2005. Available online at: <a href="http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=34&amp;aid=79346">http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=34&amp;aid=79346</a>.</p>
<p>Gary Gentile, “Five Tribune Papers to Seek Job  Cuts,” Chicago Tribune, November 17, 2005 . (The Hartford Courant  announced its cuts later).</p>
<p>Mark Glaser, “GrayLady.com: NY Times explodes wall between print, Web,” Online Journalism Review, August 8, 2005</p>
<p>Donald Graham presentation to CSFB Media Week Investors Conference, December 6, 2005 . Available online at: <a href="http://library.corporate-ir.net/library/62/624/62487/items/176243/CSFB_12.6.05.pdf">htt p://library.corporate-ir.net/library/62/624/62487/items/176243/CSFB_12.6.05.pdf</a>.</p>
<p>Clark Gilbert and Scott D. Anthony, “Newspapers in an Electronic Age,” the Wall Street Journal, November 8, 2005 .</p>
<p>Paul Ginocchio, “Auto: Turning the Corner or Are the Wheels Coming Off,” Deutsche Bank Securities, January 17, 2006 .</p>
<p>Paul Ginocchio, “Circulation Declines Accelerate Again,” Deutsche Bank Securities, November 8, 2005 .</p>
<p>Paul Ginocchio, “Newspaper Publishers Keeping Cash in Circulation,” Deutsche Bank Securities, August 11, 2003 .</p>
<p>Paul Ginocchio, “Newspaper Publishers: Private Company Outlook, ” Deutsche Bank Securities, December 1, 2005 .</p>
<p>Mark Glaser, “GrayLady.com: NY Times explodes wall between print, Web,” Online Journalism Review, August 8, 2005</p>
<p>Mark Glaser, “Two Times One,” Media , October 2005.</p>
<p>Antone Gonsalves, “”Online Ad Spending Projected To Slow,” Tech Web News, May 6, 2005.</p>
<p>Matea Gold, “Koppel will do in-depth shows for  Discovery; Ex-Nightline anchor to focus on topics like international  affairs, race, religion,” Los Angeles Times, Jan. 5, 2006</p>
<p>Paul Gough, TV News Section, Hollywood Reporter, June 22, 2005 .</p>
<p>Michele Greppi, “Geraldo prepping new daily show,” Television Week, October 3, 2005 .</p>
<p>Marisa Guthrie, “CBS’ Roberts jumps to CNN,” New York Daily news, February 2, 2006 .</p>
<p><a name="H"></a><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#">return to the                      top</a></p>
<h1>H</h1>
<p>Hall’s Reports research. Unpublished data. <a href="http://www.hallsreports.com/index.html">www.hallsreports.com</a></p>
<p>Saul Hansell, “As Gadgets Get It Together, Media Makers Fall Behind,” the New York Times, January 25, 2006 .</p>
<p>Saul Hansell, “Big Hitters Said to Want Piece of AOL,” the New York Times, October 13, 2005 .</p>
<p>Saul Hansell, “An Ex-ABC Impresario Aims to Build the Studio of the Future,” the New York Times, September 24, 2005 .</p>
<p>Saul Hansell, “Google wants to dominate Madison Avenue, too,” the New York Time s, October 30, 2005</p>
<p>Saul Hansell, “It’s Not TV, It’s Yahoo,” the New York Times, September 24, 2005 .</p>
<p>Saul Hansell, “More People Are Watching Their Programs on the Web, The New York Times, August 1, 2005 .</p>
<p>Saul Hansell, “Yahoo Hires Journalist to Report on Wars,” the New York Times, September 12, 2005 .</p>
<p>Saul Hansell, “Yahoo plans to connect services with TiVo,” the New York Times, November 7, 2005</p>
<p>Saul Hansell and Geraldine Fabrikant, “New Free  Site May Affect Time Warner Decision on Troubled Unit,” the New York  Times, June 3, 2005 .</p>
<p>Saul Hansell and Geraldine Fabrikant, “Why Time  Warner Has Fallen in Love With AOL, Again,” the New York Times,  September 26, 2005 .</p>
<p>Harris Interactive/ Public Relations Society of  America , “Executive, Congressional and Consumer Attitudes Toward Media,  Marketing and the Public Relations Profession,” November 10, 2005 .</p>
<p>Paul Heine, “Hollander: A Radio Shift is Underway,” Billboard Radio Monitor, September 27, 2005 .</p>
<p>Samantha Henig, “Larry Kramer on CBSNews.com,  Transparency, and Having 1,500 Employees for a Web Site,” CJR Daily,  July 29, 2005 .</p>
<p>Eric Herman, “Pressure Rises for Trib Chief,” Chicago Sun-Times, January 3, 2006 .</p>
<p>Neil Hickey, “TV on Steroids,” Columbia Journalism Review, March/April, 2004.</p>
<p>John M. Higgins, “CBS: In the Money,” Broadcasting &amp; Cable, January 8, 2006 .</p>
<p>John M. Higgins, “The Battle for Fifth Place,” Broadcasting &amp; Cable, February 27, 2006 .</p>
<p>John M. Higgins, “D’Alba keeps fighting for CNN”, Broadcasting &amp; Cable, October 17, 2005 .</p>
<p>Jonathan Higuera, Print Reorganizes, Hispanic Business.com, December 2005.</p>
<p>Hoovers.com, Univision Communications fact sheet.</p>
<p>“Media Consumption Study,” Hoy &amp; TNS Market Development, October 11, 2005 . Online at: <a href="http://www.hoyinternet.com/acerca/hoy-press092305eng,0,305692.story">http://www.hoyinternet.com/acerca/hoy-press092305eng,0,305692.story</a>.</p>
<p><a name="I"></a><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#">return to the                      top</a></p>
<h1>I</h1>
<p>ImpreMedia press release, “ ImpreMedia Enters Florida Market with Purchase of La Prensa,” January 31 2006 .</p>
<p>“Internet Advertising Revenues Estimated To Exceed  $12.5 Billion For Full Year 2005,” Interactive Advertising Bureau,  March 1, 2006 .</p>
<p>Interactive Advertising Bureau, “Interactive  Advertising Revenues Grow Nearly 33% As 2004 Totals $9.6 Billion,” April  28, 2005 .</p>
<p>Interactive Advertising Bureau, “Q2 Reports Close to $3 Billion in Internet Advertising Revenues,” September 26, 2005 .</p>
<p>“CNBC girds for Fox Business threat,” www.investors.com, September 21, 2005 .</p>
<p>Impremedia. Newspapers page.</p>
<p><a name="J"></a><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#">return to the                      top</a></p>
<h1>J</h1>
<p>Peter Johnson, “ABC News team makes formal debut tonight,” USA Today, January 3, 2005 .</p>
<p>Peter Johnson, “Webcasts, blogs allow flexibility,” USA Today, January 3, 2006 .</p>
<p>Chris Jones and J.M. Kalil, “ Las Vegas Sun to rise with morning R-J,” Las Vegas Review Journal, June 15, 2005 .</p>
<p>Jupiter Media, “Jupiter Research Forecasts Online  Advertising Market To Reach $18.9 Billion By 2010; Search Advertising  Revenue to Surpass Display,” Jupiter Media press release, August 15,  2005 .</p>
<p>Mark Jurkowitz, “Amid cuts, Herald loses newsroom veterans,” Boston Globe, June 11, 2005 .</p>
<p><a name="K"></a><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#">return to the                    top</a></p>
<h1>K</h1>
<p>KAET, Arizona State University ’s public television station Web site.</p>
<p>Kagan Research, “Economics of Basic Cable Networks 2006,” Kagan Research, LLC, June 2005.</p>
<p>The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, “Generation  M: Media in the Lives of 8-18 Year-olds,” March 2005. Available online  at: http://<a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2006/footnotes/www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/Generation-M-Media-in-the-Lives-of-8-18-Year-olds-Report.pdf">www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/Generation-M-Media-in-the-Lives-of-8-18-Year-olds-Report.pdf</a>.</p>
<p>Ken Kerscbaumer, “CNN Opens Up Pipeline,” Broadcasting and Cable, December 5, 2005</p>
<p>Ken Kerschbaumer, “TV on the PC gets real: Time  Warner launches trial in San Diego ,” Broadcasting &amp; Cable, August  8, 2005 .</p>
<p>David Kesmodel, “Papers Turn to ‘Podcasting’ In Bid to Draw More Readers,” the Wall Street Journal, May 13, 2005 .</p>
<p>Kirk Whisler &amp; Latino Print Network, “Hispanic Publications in 2004,” Carlsbad . California .</p>
<p>Kirk Whisler &amp; Latino Print Network, “Hispanic Publication Advertising Sales in 2004,” Carlsbad , California .</p>
<p>Kirk Whisler &amp; Latino Print Network, “Hispanic Publication Advertising Sales in 2003,” Carlsbad , California .</p>
<p>Abbey Klaasen, “CNN‘s Aaron Brown out; Anderson Cooper moved to 10 p.m.,” Ad Age, November 3, 2005.</p>
<p>Klaassen, Abbey, “Looking for a Grinch? Try Media Company CEOs,” Ad Age.com, December 16, 2005</p>
<p>Howard Kurtz, “Ted Koppel and Nightline Crew Turn Down HBO for Discovery Deal,” Washington Post, Jan. 5, 2006</p>
<p>Howard Kurtz, “ U.S. News Gives a Top Political Writer the Pink Slip,” Washington Post, October 5, 2005</p>
<p>Howard Kurtz, “ABC Mulls Changes to ‘Nightline’ With Or Without Koppel,” Washington Post, February 9, 2005 .</p>
<p>Howard Kurtz, “Firms Paid TV’s Tech Gurus To Promote Their Products,” Washington Post, April 20, 2005 .</p>
<p>Howard Kurtz and Frank Ahrens, “Sirius Lands a Big Dog: Howard Stern,” Washington Post, October 7, 2004 .</p>
<p><a name="L"></a><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#">return to the                      top</a></p>
<h1>L</h1>
<p>Stephen Labaton, “NPR Conflict With Overseer Is Growing,” New York Times, May 15, 2005.</p>
<p>Stephen Labaton, Lorne Manly &amp; Elizabeth  Jensen, “Chairman Exerts Pressure on PBS, Alleging Biases,” New York  Times, May 2, 2005 .</p>
<p>Paul R. La Monica, “Should GE cancel NBC Universal?” Media Biz on CNN Money, January 19, 2006 . Online at: <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/19/commentary/mediabiz/index.htm">http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/19/commentary/mediabiz/index.htm</a>.</p>
<p>J.D. Lasica, “Participatory Journalism Puts the Reader in the Driver’s Seat,” August 7, 2003</p>
<p>Robert P. Laurence, “Network news opts for style over substance,” The San Diego Union-Tribune, December 22, 2005 .</p>
<p>Charles Layton, “The Dallas Mourning News,” American Journalism Review, April/May 2005.</p>
<p>Charles Layton, “ Sherman ’s March,” American Journalism Review, February/March 2006.</p>
<p>Michael Learmonth, “Jolly Roger’s Grand Plan,” Variety, October 16, 2005 .</p>
<p>Michael Learmonth, “CNN Flops in February as Fox News Surges,” Daily Variety, March 2, 2005 .</p>
<p>Michael Learmonth, “Fox Nets Record Aud for Prexy  Speech: State of the Union address draws in 6.46 million viewers,” Daily  Variety, February 1, 2006 .</p>
<p>Jeff Leeds, “Director at XM Resigns as Costs Skyrocket,” New York Times, February 17, 2006 .</p>
<p>Scott Leith, “CNN enshrines fire and ice team of Cooper, Brown,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, September 30, 2005 .</p>
<p>Scott Leith, “CNN sets up permanent New Orleans  bureau to cover Katrina recovery,” Atlanta Journal and Constitution,  September 16, 2005 .</p>
<p>Scott Leith, “CNN starts live net video service,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, December 3, 2005 .</p>
<p>Devin Leonard, “Big News at Dow Jones,” Fortune, January 20, 2006 .</p>
<p>Rob Lever, “Blogs take giant step towards mainstream,” AFP, October 19, 2005 .</p>
<p>Gary Levin, “Disney finds place for tweens,” USA Today, October 26, 2005 .</p>
<p>Steve Levingston, “A Trial Separation,” Washington Post, January 4, 2006 .</p>
<p>James L. Levre “The Fox News channel tops CNN’s  audience, and casts its eyes toward its advertising rates”, the New York  Times, January 30, 2002 .</p>
<p>David Lieberman, “$2.7B deal would put Disney radio unit in Citadel’s hands,” USA Today, February 6, 2006 .</p>
<p>Michael Liedtke, the Associated Press, “New Google Search Engine Boosts Blogging,” September 14, 2005</p>
<p>Robert E. Litan and Alice M. Rivlin, “Projecting the Economic Impact of the Internet,” American Economic Review, 91:2, 2001</p>
<p>Lowry, Tom, “Mighty Week,” Business Week, March 21, 2005</p>
<p>Joel Lunenfeld, “Online Video Advertising is Growing Up,” Media Post’s Online Video Insider, January 23, 2006 .</p>
<p><a name="M"></a><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#">return to the                      top</a></p>
<h1>M</h1>
<p>Robert MacMillan, “Tsunami Prompts Online Outpouring,” The Washington Post, January 3, 2005 .</p>
<p>“Towards a Critical Media Studies Approach to the Blogoshpere,” by Vincent Maher. Available online at: <a href="http://nml.ru.ac.za/menthol/?p=129">http://nml.ru.ac.za/menthol/?p=129</a>.</p>
<p>Scott Maier, “Accuracy Matters: A Cross-Market  Study of Newspaper Error and Credibility,” Journalism and Mass  Communications Quarterly, Autumn 2005.</p>
<p>Steven Mallas, “XM’s Foxy Deal,” The Motley Fool.com, October 21, 2005</p>
<p>Joe Mandese, “TV, Radio, Outdoor Ratings Poised  for Transformation, New Alliances,” Media Daily News, July 22, 2005 ,  posted 8:15am EST.</p>
<p>Carl Marcucci, “Buyers, sellers address the 2006  radio upfront — Part II,” Radio &amp; Television Business Report,  October 2005, Volume 22, Issue 10, pg. 14.</p>
<p>Kevin J. Martin, “Protecting Children from Violent  and Indecent Programming.” Written statement for the Commission on  Commerce, Science and Transportation, U.S. Senate, February 11, 2004 .</p>
<p>Sam Matthews, “BBC hints at launch of 24-hour US news station,” Brand Republic , October 11, 2005 .</p>
<p>Sarah McBride, “TV News Stars Move to NPR And Sound Off,” the Wall Street Journal, January 20, 2006 .</p>
<p>Robert McChesney and John Podesta ,“Let There Be Wi-Fi,” Washington Monthly, January/February 2006.</p>
<p>Mediabistro.com, “More on Atlantic Media’s New Superstar,” April 21, 2005 <a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/magazines/more_on_atlantic_medias_new_superstar_20765.asp">http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/magazines/more_on_atlantic_medias_new_superstar_20765.asp</a></p>
<p>“The latest upfront news is, well, news,” Media Daily News, June14, 2005.</p>
<p>Media Mark Research, Inc. (Prepared by NAA  Business Analysis and Research Department), “Newspaper Section  Readership 2005,” Spring 2004 study. Available online at: http://<a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2006/footnotes/www.naa.org/marketscope/readership2005/section_readership_2005.pdf">www.naa.org/marketscope/readership2005/section_readership_2005.pdf</a>.</p>
<p>Mediamark Research, “Magazine Audience Estimates” 1997.</p>
<p>Mediamark Research, “Magazine Audience Estimates” 2005. <a href="http://www.mediamark.com/">www.mediamark.com</a></p>
<p>News Brief, “Kagan: cable has recovered, will grow at double-digit rates,” October 3, 2005 , Media Post Web site.</p>
<p>Don Melvin, “More Americans turn to BBC for news,” Cox News Service, August 26, 2004 .</p>
<p>Meredith Corporation press release, May 24, 2005</p>
<p>Davis Merritt, &#8220;Knightfall: Knight Ridder and How  the Erosion of Newspaper Journalism is Putting Democracy at Risk.&#8221; ( New  York , N.Y. : AMACOM Books, 2005)</p>
<p>Donica Mensing and Jackie Rejfek, “Prospects for  profit: The (un)evolving business model for online news,” Paper  presented to the International Symposium on Online Journalism,  University of Texas at Austin, April 9, 2005.</p>
<p>Joel Meyer, “Journal Editorial Report Jumps to Fox News,” Broadcasting &amp; Cable, November 30, 2005 .</p>
<p>Philip Meyer, “The Vanishing Newspaper: Saving  Journalism in the Information Age” ( Columbia , University of Missouri  Press, 2004).</p>
<p>Mid-Year Media Review presentation. Available online at: <a href="http://www.gannett.com/go/press/mymr05/overview.htm">http://www.gannett.com/go/press/mymr05/overview.htm</a></p>
<p>Alex Mindlin, “Browsing the Site, Not Watching the Show,” New York Times, September 19, 2005</p>
<p>Arshad Mohammed, “Verizon Executive Calls for End to Google’s ‘Free Lunch,” the Washington Post, February 7, 2006 .</p>
<p>Monster 2004 annual report and presentation at CSFB Media Week Conference December 2005.</p>
<p>Linda Moss, “Viacom Split Becomes a Reality: Unwinding of Assets Targeted for Early ’06,” Multichannel News, June 20, 2005 .</p>
<p>Keith Moyer, et al. “10 Ways our new design will work for you,” startribune.com (flash presentation). Available online at: <a href="http://www.startribune.com/style/graphics/redesign_guide/">http://www.startribune.com/style/graphics/redesign_guide/</a></p>
<p>MSNBC.com, “Meet the Press No. 1 in November 2005 sweeps,” December 6, 2005 .</p>
<p>MSNBC Profile on the NBC Universal Web site (Company Overview, Television Networks). Online at: <a href="http://www.nbcuni.com/About_NBC_Universal/Company_Overview/overview03.shtml">http://www.nbcuni.com/About_NBC_Universal/Company_Overview/overview03.shtml</a></p>
<p>Museum of Broadcast Communications , “U.S. POLICY:  TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996,” Museum of Broadcast Communications Web  site. Online: <a href="http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/U/htmlU/uspolicyt/uspolicyt.htm">http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/U/htmlU/uspolicyt/uspolicyt.htm</a></p>
<p><a name="N"></a><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#">return to the                      top</a></p>
<h1>N</h1>
<p>Andrew Nachison, the Media Center at the American Press Institute blog: Morph, June 22, 2005 , 4:53 p.m.</p>
<p>National Newspaper Association, “ America ’s Community Newspapers Grow; Thrive through Change,” December 2005.</p>
<p>National Public Radio Annual Report 2003, pg. 4.</p>
<p>New California Media Directory, National Ethnic Media, 2nd Edition.</p>
<p>News &amp; Technology, “Patriot tab meets end in Harrisburg , Pa. ”November 2005. Available online at: <a href="http://www.newsandtech.com/issues/2005/11-05/nt/11-05_patriot.htm">http://www.newsandtech.com/issues/2005/11-05/nt/11-05_patriot.htm</a></p>
<p>News Corp. Annual Report, June 2005</p>
<p>News Corporation press release, “Speech by Rupert  Murdoch to the American Society of Newspaper Editors,” April 13, 2005 .  Available online at: http://<a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2006/footnotes/www.newscorp.com/news/news_247.html">www.newscorp.com/news/news_247.html</a>.</p>
<p>“2005 Newspaper M &amp; A Values Up 72%, Says Report,” News Inc. January 9, 2006 .</p>
<p>Newspaper Association of America, “Daily &amp;  Sunday Newspaper Readers Per Copy Trend,” Simmons and Market Research  Bureau (1994-1997); MediaMark Research Inc. (1998-Present); SRDS  Circulation prepared by NAA Business Analysis and Research Department,  January 9, 2006.</p>
<p>Newspaper Association of America, “Daily and  Sunday Newspapers 2005 Readers Per Copy,” prepared by NAA Business  Analysis and Research Department, August 27, 2005 .</p>
<p>Newspaper Association of America, “Daily and Sunday  Newspapers 2005 Readers Per Copy,” prepared by NAA Business Analysis  and Research Dept., MRI Spring 2005; SRDS Circulation 2005.</p>
<p>Newspaper Association of America , “NAA Releases ABC FAS-FAX Analysis,” November 7, 2005 .</p>
<p>Newspaper Association of America , “New Newspaper  Audience Database (NADbase) Report Provides Advertisers With Expanded  Audience Measurement Data Across Media Platforms,” October 3, 2005 .</p>
<p>Newspaper Association of America , “Over 47 Million  People Visited A Newspaper Web Site in September, Representing Nearly A  Third of All Internet Users,” November 1, 2005 .</p>
<p>Newspaper Association of America , “Print And  Online Newspaper Advertising Up 2.4% In Q3; Up 2.9% In First Nine Months  of 2005,” November 22, 2005 .</p>
<p>Newspaper National Network, “Media Engagement Study,” June 15-21, 2005 .</p>
<p>“To Stop Drag, New Anchors,” New York Daily News, January 13, 2006 .</p>
<p>New York Times Company presentation at UBS Warburg Media Week Conference, December 2004.</p>
<p>Newsweek staff box, July 18, 2005</p>
<p>Nielsen Media Research Web site, Local People Meter Roll-Out Schedule, Online: <a href="http://www.nielsenmedia.com/lpm/rollout_sched.htm">http://www.nielsenmedia.com/lpm/rollout_sched.htm</a></p>
<p>Yuki Noguchi, “Lycos, Yahoo Pushing to Put Media Online, the Washington Post, October 4, 2005 .</p>
<p>Norris, Floyd, “As Primedia Falls, Preferred Stock Lives up to Its Name,” New York Times, October 26, 2005</p>
<p>Paul Nowell, “FCC Chairman Kevin Martin speaks at inaugural Helms Forum,” Miami Herald, October 11, 2005 .</p>
<p><a name="O"></a><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#">return to the                    top</a></p>
<h1>O</h1>
<p>Gavin O’Malley, “Bypass Surgery: CBS Skips Cable, Uses Web For 24-Hour News Channel,” MediaPost, July 13, 2005</p>
<p>Gavin O’Malley, “MSNBC.com To Post Entire “NBC Nightly News,” Online Media Daily, November 1, 2005 .</p>
<p>On the Media, “Up from the Wreckage,” Oct 21, 2005 , taken from the program transcript, <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.com/2006/footnotes/www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/transcripts_102105_wreckage.html">www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/transcripts_102105_wreckage.html</a></p>
<p>Kris Oser, “Online Video Ad Spending To Triple By 2007,” AdAge.com, November 17, 2005 .</p>
<p>Online Media Daily, “Media Execs Bullish On Ad Spending,” October 18, 2005 .</p>
<p>Online Publishers Association, “Drivers and Barriers To Online Video Viewing,” February 8, 2005 .</p>
<p>“Washingtonpost.com: News consumption growing online,” Online Publishers Association Intelligence Report, March 7, 2006 .</p>
<p>Online Publishers Association bi-weekly newsletter, August 22- September 2, 2005 .</p>
<p>“New Online Publishers Association Study  Identifies Key Experiences That Drive Web Usage,” Online Publishers  Association press release, June 1, 2005 .</p>
<p><a name="P"></a><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#">return to the                      top</a></p>
<h1>P</h1>
<p>Bob Papper, “News Staffing and Probability Survey,” RTNDA Communicator, October 2005.</p>
<p>Bob Papper, “Salary Survey,” RTNDA Communicator, June 2005, pg. 26.</p>
<p>Bob Papper, “Running in Place,” RTNDA Communicator, July/August 2005, Vol. 59, No. 7, pg. 27.</p>
<p>Pamela Parker, “Classifieds Still King but Paid Search Looms Locally,” Clickz.com, September 22, 2005</p>
<p>Sacha Pfeiffer, “ Phoenix Buys into El Planeta,” Boston Globe, September 1, 2005 .</p>
<p>Adam L. Penenberg, “Can Bloggers Strike It Rich?” Wired News, September 22, 2005 .</p>
<p>Pew Hispanic Center , “Changing Channels and Crisscrossing Cultures: A Survey of Latinos on the News Media,” April 2004</p>
<p>The Pew Internet and American Life Project, “Generations online,” December 2005. Available online at: http://<a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2006/footnotes/www.pewInternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Generations_Memo.pdf">www.pewInternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Generations_Memo.pdf</a>.</p>
<p>The Pew Internet and American Life Project, “Selling items online,” November 2005. Available online at: <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_SellingOnline_Nov05.pdf">http://www.pewInternet.org/pdfs/PIP_SellingOnline_Nov05.pdf</a></p>
<p>The Pew Internet and American Life Project, “The state of blogging,” January 2005. Available online at: http://<a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2006/footnotes/www.pewInternet.org/pdfs/PIP_blogging_data.pdf">www.pewInternet.org/pdfs/PIP_blogging_data.pdf</a>.</p>
<p>The Pew Internet and American Life Project, “Teen Content Creators and Consumers,” November 2, 2005 .</p>
<p>The Pew Internet and American Life Project, “Usage Over Time” spreadsheet. Available online at: <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/trends/UsageOverTime.xls">http://www.pewInternet.org/trends/UsageOverTime.xls</a></p>
<p>Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, “Bush a Drag on Republican Midterm Prospects,” February 9, 2006 .</p>
<p>Pew Research Center for the People and the Press,  “Alito Viewed Positively, But Libby Takes a Toll,” November 8, 2005 .  Available online at: <a href="http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=262">http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=262</a>.</p>
<p>Survey by the Pew Research Center , conducted by  Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Survey conducted  September 6- 7, 2005.</p>
<p>Survey by the Pew Research Center , conducted by  Princeton Survey Research Associates International in association with  the Project for Excellence in Journalism. Survey conducted June 8- 12,  2005.</p>
<p>Pew Research Center for he People and the Press,  “News Audiences Increasingly Politicized,” June 8, 2004 . Available  online at: <a href="http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=215">http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=215</a>.</p>
<p>Pew Research Center for the People and the Press,  conducted in association with the Project for Excellence in Journalism,  “Public More Critical of Press, but Goodwill Persists,” June 26, 2005 .</p>
<p>Pew Research Center for the People and the Press,  “Two in three critical of Bush’s relief efforts,” Pew Research Center ,  September 8, 2005 . Online: <a href="http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=255">http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=255</a></p>
<p>The Pew Research Center for the People and the  Press, Part 1 – The 2005 Political Typology: Beyond Red vs. Blue in  “Mapping the Political Landscape, 2005,” Pew Research Center .</p>
<p>Jeremy Polofsky, “Clear Channel renews bid to ease ownership limits,” Reuters, October 3, 2005 .</p>
<p>James Poniewozik, “The Decency Police,” Time Magazine, volume 165, No. 13, March 28, 2005 .</p>
<p>“A midwestern newspaper recently made a surprising  declaration in big, brash Texas : Smaller is better,” PRESSTIME,  June/July 2005. Available online at: <a href="http://www.naa.org/Presstime/PTArtPage.cfm?AID=7063">http://www.naa.org/Presstime/PTArtPage.cfm?AID=7063</a></p>
<p>“Demand for Spanish language news content rising  rapidly; Hispanic journalists and news stations registered on the  NewsMarket jumps 250%,” PR News Wire, August 25, 2005 .</p>
<p>PRSA/Harris Interactive, “Executive, Congressional  and Consumer Attitudes Toward Media, Marketing and the Public Relations  Profession.” Study conducted June 7-12, 2005 .</p>
<p>Publisher’s Information Bureau data. January &#8211; December 1997 vs. 1996. Excluding data from newspaper magazines</p>
<p>Publisher’s Information Bureau data. January &#8211; December 2005 vs. 2004. Excluding data from newspaper magazines.</p>
<p><a name="R"></a><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#">return to the                      top</a></p>
<h1>R</h1>
<p>Radio Business Report, “Wachovia points its arrow further down,”, e-mail newsletter, September 21, 2005 .</p>
<p>Radio Business Report, “2005 the roll of the Dice; Tracking of a Soft Year,” August 29, 2005 .</p>
<p>Lee Rainie, “We Stand By Our Data,” Pew Internet &amp; The American Life Project, April 6, 2005 .</p>
<p>James Rainey, “Geffen Eyes Another Medium: The Times,” Los Angeles Times, September 17, 2005 .</p>
<p>Antonio Regalado, “Video Blogs Break Out With Tsunami Scenes,” the Wall Street Journal, January 3, 2005 .</p>
<p>The Reporters’ Committee for Freedom of the Press Web site, last accessed February 10, 2006 . Available online at: <a href="http://www.rcfp.org/shields_and_subpoenas.html#shield">http://www.rcfp.org/shields_and_subpoenas.html#shield</a>.</p>
<p>Reuters , “TV, radio indecency complaints plunge 96pct-FCC,” September 28, 2005 .</p>
<p>“Mobile blogs give citizen journalism legs,” Reuters, May 21, 2005 .</p>
<p>Bill Richards, “JOA fight may have different twist in next stage,” Seattle Times, August 21, 2005 .</p>
<p>Lori Robertson, “Adding a Price Tag,” American Journalism Review, December/January 2006.</p>
<p>Lori Robertson, “The Chronicle Chronicles,” American Journalism Review, October/November 2005.</p>
<p>J. Max Robins, “Singin’ the News Blues,” Broadcasting &amp; Cable, July 25, 2005 .</p>
<p>Kevin Roderick, interviewed on NPR’s “On the Media,” November 25, 2005 . Online at: <a href="http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/transcripts_112505_la.htm.">http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/transcripts_112505_la.htm.</a></p>
<p>Allison Romano, “Special Report: Hispanic Television Summit ,” Multichannel News, October 17, 2005 .</p>
<p>Allison Romano, “NBC U Takes Control of MSNBC,” Broadcasting &amp; Cable, December 23, 2005 .</p>
<p>Allison Romano, “Nightly News boss sounds off,” Broadcasting &amp; Cable, December 5, 2005 .</p>
<p>Jay Rosen, “ Greensboro Goes Open Source: A Follow Up,” Pressthink, December 21, 2004 .</p>
<p>Jay Rosen, “The Net Knows More Than You: An Open Letter to the People of CBS News,” PressThink, September 16, 2005 .</p>
<p>Jack Rosenberry, “The Effect of Content Mix on  Circulation Penetration for U.S. Daily Newspapers,” Journalism and Mass  Communications Quarterly, Summer 2005.</p>
<p>Private conversation with Tom Rosenstiel,  director, Project for Excellence in Journalism, principal author of the  State of the News Media annual report.</p>
<p>Sean Ross, “What CC’s Spotload Initiative Means For You,” Edison Media Research, July 22, 2004 .</p>
<p>RTNDA News, Staffing and Profitability Survey, RTNDA Communicator, October 2005.</p>
<p>RTNDA Salary Survey, “Median TV News Salary Comparisons Over Time”, RTNDA Communicator, June 2005.</p>
<p><a name="S"></a><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#">return to the                    top</a></p>
<h1>S</h1>
<p>Lydia Saad, “Blogs Not Yet in the Media Big Leagues,” The Gallup Poll, March 11, 2005 . Available online at: <a href="http://poll.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?CI=15217">http://poll.gallup.com/con10t/default.aspx?CI=15217</a>.</p>
<p>Jennifer Saba, “Analysts Worry About Newsroom  Cuts, As Top Editors in Philly and San Jose Review Options,” Editor  &amp; Publisher online, September 28, 2005 .</p>
<p>Jennifer Saba, “Dispelling the Myth of Readership Decline, Editor&amp; Publisher, November 28, 2005 .</p>
<p>Jennifer Saba, “Online Growth Proving to Be Industry’s Life Raft,” Editor and Publisher, August 19, 2005</p>
<p>Jennifer Saba, “Onward ABC Soldiers,” Editor &amp; Publisher, April 2005.</p>
<p>Jennifer Saba, “Report Finds Drop in ‘Other Paid’  in FAS-FAX, Lists Gains and Losses,” Editor &amp; Publisher, November 8,  2005 .</p>
<p>Jennifer Saba and Joe Strupp, “What? You Gained Circ?” Editor &amp; Publisher, December 2004.</p>
<p>“12 Cities Still Have JOA’s,” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, April 29, 2003 .</p>
<p>Seelye, Katharine, “Gruner &amp; Jahr Said to Sell 2 Business Magazines,” New York Times, June, 21, 2005</p>
<p>Seelye, Katharine, “Time Inc. to Cut 100 More Jobs as It Focuses on Web Business,” New York Times, January 31, 2006</p>
<p>Katherine Seelye, “At Newspapers, Some Clipping,” The New York Times, October 10, 2005 .</p>
<p>Katharine Q. Seelye, “Can Papers End the Free Ride?” the New York Times, March 14, 2005 .</p>
<p>Dan Sewell, “Federated Merger Another Blow to Papers,” Associated Press, September 22, 2005 .</p>
<p>Letter from Bruce S. Sherman, CEO of Private Capital Management, L.P. Letter dated November 1, 2005 . Available online at: <a href="http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/205520/000089722605000213/kri2.txt">http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/205520/000089722605000213/kri2.txt</a></p>
<p>Jay Sherman, “NBCU Puts up Four Stations for Sale ,” Television Week, January 9, 2006 .</p>
<p>Scott Sherman, “The Evolution of William Dean Singleton,” Columbia Journalism Review, March/April 2003.</p>
<p>Richard Siklos, “News Corporation, With IGN in Its  Stable, Backs Up Promise to Be Bigger Web Player,” the New York Times ,  September 9, 2005 .</p>
<p>Erika D. Smith, “Media Madness,” the Indianapolis Star, September 26, 2005 .</p>
<p>Jay Smith, “‘Scorekeepers’ Understate Vibrancy Of Newspaper Readership,” The Tampa Tribune, November 7, 2005 .</p>
<p>Smith, Stephanie, Time Inc. Axes 105 Staffers, Mediaweek.com, December 13, 2005</p>
<p>Mike Shields, “Online Video Comes of Age,” MediaWeek, September 19, 2005 .</p>
<p>Mike Shields, “Rational Exuberance,” Media Outlook Report, AdWeek Magazines, September 26, 2005 .</p>
<p>Soriano, Cesar, “British Mag Makes Scene,” USA Today, August 2, 2005 .</p>
<p>Chase Squires, “News at the Speed of Light,” St. Petersburg Times, December 14, 2005 .</p>
<p>Joel Stein, “You Don’t Know Jack,” Time, Vol. 166, No. 7, August 15, 2005 .</p>
<p>Jacques Steinberg, “News Corp. starts to fill shoes of departed Murdoch,” New York Times, August 16, 2005 .</p>
<p>George Stephanopoulos, “Why is Judge Alito Smiling?,” <a href="http://www.abcnews.blogs.com/theworldnewser">The World Newser</a>, January 9, 2006 .</p>
<p>Michael Stoll, “Mercury News will shed 2 ethnic papers,” Grade the News, October 21, 2005 . Available online at: <a href="http://www.gradethenews.org/2005/nmclosure.htm">http://www.gradethenews.org/2005/nmclosure.htm</a></p>
<p>Louise Story, “As Corporate Ad Money Flows Their  Way, Bloggers Risk Their Rebel Reputation,” the New York Times, November  26, 2005 .</p>
<p>Joe Strupp, “Knight Ridder, Gannett, MediaNews Strike Blockbuster Deal,” Editor &amp; Publisher, August 3, 2005 .</p>
<p>Joe Strupp, “Post-Dispatch Cuts Nearly 12% of News Staff Through Buyouts,” Editor &amp; Publisher, November 1, 2005 .</p>
<p>Seth Sutel, “Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. Expands Its Online Strategy,” Associated Press, December 6, 2005</p>
<p>Georg Szalai, “Fox Interactive in Growth Spurt,” Hollywood Reporter, December 7, 2005 .</p>
<p><a name="T"></a><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#">return to the                    top</a></p>
<h1>T</h1>
<p>The Tarrance Group,”Executive Summary to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,” Pg. 6, October 8, 2003, pg. 3</p>
<p>Eric A. Taub, “With Stern on Board, Satellite Radio Is Approaching a Secure Orbit,” New York Times, December 19, 2005 .</p>
<p>Technorati Website, located at http://<a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2006/footnotes/www.technorati.com/">www.technorati.com/</a>, last accessed January 31, 2006 .</p>
<p>“ U.S. Broadband Use Tops 60%&#8211;Maybe,” TelecomWeb, October 7, 2005 .</p>
<p>Thomas, “Down to the Wire,” Foreign Affairs, May/June 2005 .</p>
<p>“New York Times Company Reports First-Quarter Results,” Times Company press release, April 14, 2005 .</p>
<p>Television Bureau of Advertising, “Broadcast TV’s Ad Revenues Up 1.0% in 1st Quarter,” TVB Web site, June 10, 2005 .</p>
<p>Time staff box, September 12, 2005</p>
<p>“Cable and VCR Households,” TV Basics: Online  Brochure, Media Trends Track, Research Central, Television Bureau of  Advertising (TVB) Web site; Online: <a href="http://www.tvb.org/nav/build_frameset.asp?url=/rcentral/index.asp">http://www.tvb.org/nav/build_frameset.asp?url=/rcentral/index.asp</a></p>
<p>“TVB Forecasts Spot TV to Grow 6.1-7.9% in 2006,” TVB Web site, September 8, 2005 .</p>
<p>Television Bureau of Advertising, “Minus Political  Dollars, Local Broadcast TV Revenues Down 11.7% in 3rd Quarter,” TVB  Web site, January 6, 2006 . Online: <a href="http://www.tvb.org/nav/build_frameset.asp?url=/rcentral/adrevenuetrack/revenue/2005/ad_figures_1.asp">http://www.tvb.org/nav/build_frameset.asp?url=/rcentral/adrevenuetrack/revenue/2005/ad_figures_1.asp</a></p>
<p>Mike Tierney, “Fox now the big dog in cable news — and growing,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, September 9, 2005 .</p>
<p>Time Warner Annual Report, 2004</p>
<p>Turner Asia Website, “CNN Worldwide Corporate Profile – CNN bureaus,” May 2005. Online: <a href="http://www.cnnasiapacific.com/en/groups/corporate/cnn.bureaus.asp">http://www.cnnasiapacific.com/en/groups/corporate/cnn.bureaus.asp</a></p>
<p><a name="U"></a><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#">return to the                      top</a></p>
<h1>U</h1>
<p>R. Thomas Umstead, “Large Rate Hikes by Fox , USA ,” Multichannel News, October 31, 2005 .</p>
<p>Univision 2005 Third-Quarter Results press release.</p>
<p>University of Chicago , “Valuing New Goods in a  Model with Complementarity: Online Newspapers,” Matthew Gentzkow,  January 24, 2006 . Available online at: http://<a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2006/footnotes/www.gsb.uchicago.edu/fac/matthew.gentzkow/research/PrintOnline.pdf">www.gsb.uchicago.edu/fac/matthew.gentzkow/research/PrintOnline.pdf</a>.</p>
<p>University of Connecticut , “National Polls of  Journalists and the American Public on First Amendment and the Media  Released,” May 16, 2005 .</p>
<p>U.S. Census, “2004 Community Survey Data Profile  Highlights,” “2004 Community Survey: Language Spoken at Home by Ability  to Speak English for the Population 5 Years and Over.”</p>
<p>U.S. Census, Foreign-Born Population by World Region of Birth, Age and Sex, March 1995.</p>
<p>U.S. Census, Foreign-Born Population in U.S. Regions, by Sex and World Region of Birth, 2004.</p>
<p>U.S. Census, “Mapping Census 2000: The Geography of U.S. Diversity, Hispanic or Latino Origin”</p>
<p>U.S. Census, “Mapping Census 2000: The Geography of U.S. Diversity, Asian”</p>
<p>U.S. Census, “Mapping Census 2000: The Geography of U.S. Diversity, Black or African American” p. 4.</p>
<p>U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Estimates of the  Population for Incorporated Places Over 100,000, Ranked by July 1, 2004 .  Population: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2004 , <a href="http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/tables/SUB-EST2004-01.xls">http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/tables/SUB-EST2004-01.xls</a></p>
<p>U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Estimates of the  Population for Incorporated Places Over 100,000, Ranked by July 1, 2004 .  Population: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2004, <a href="http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/tables/SUB-EST2004-01.xls">http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/tables/SUB-EST2004-01.xls</a></p>
<p>“A Nation Online: Entering the Broadband Age,” U.S. Department of Commerce, September 2004.</p>
<p><a name="V"></a><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#">return to the                      top</a></p>
<h1>V</h1>
<p>Aline Van Duyn, “Ailes takes chair at Fox TV, News Corp.,” Financial Times, August 16, 2005 .</p>
<p>Adrian Van Klaveren, “Newsgathering,” BBC News,  November 4, 2004 . Online:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ifs/hi/newsid_3960000/newsid_3964600/3964687.stm</p>
<p>Diego Vasquez, “It’s NBC’s Brian Williams by a length,” <a href="http://www.medialifemagazine.com/">Media Life Magazine</a> online archives, January 6, 2005 .</p>
<p>Veronis Suhler Stevenson, Communications Industry Forecast 2005-2009</p>
<p>David A. Vise, “AOL Rediscovers Success With Free Web Sites,” the Washington Post, October 19, 2005 .</p>
<p>David A. Vise, “AOL to Buy Blog Site in Bid to Expand Reach,” The Washington Post , October 7, 2005 .</p>
<p>David A. Vise, “Yahoo to Add 5 Gawker Media Blogs to Web Site,” the Washington Post, November 16, 2005.</p>
<p>Fred Vogelstein, “Yahoo’s Brilliant Solution,” Fortune, August 8, 2005 .</p>
<p><a name="W"></a><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#">return to the                      top</a></p>
<h1>W &amp; X</h1>
<p>Andrew Wallenstein &amp; Kimberly Speight, “Syndie Biz Could Pop as Prime Slots Open,” Hollywood Reporter, January 25, 2006 .</p>
<p>Andrew Wallenstein, “Comcast Reworks AZN Plan, Cuts Staff,” Reuters, December 11, 2005 .</p>
<p>“Desperate No More? Networks See a Rebound in Viewers,” The Wall Street Journal, May 25, 2005 .</p>
<p>David Washburn, “A Lifeline Online,” San Diego Union-Tribune, November 27, 2005 .</p>
<p>Edward Wasserman, “Selling the blogosphere,” the Miami Herald, October 17, 2005 .</p>
<p>Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive press release,  “Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Partners with MSNBC on Single  Advertiser Day Across News Sites,” December 13, 2005</p>
<p>Webster, J., Phalen, P., &amp; Lichty, L., (2000)  Ratings Analysis: The Theory and Practice of Audience Research, Lawrence  Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey .</p>
<p>Joanna Weiss, “Cooper’s celebrity is part of the story in new CNN role,” Boston Globe, November 8, 2005 .</p>
<p>Brian Williams, “Jumping the Gun, and Counting the Dead,” The Daily Nightly, <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/">www.msnbc.com</a>, posted 5:05pm EDT , September 29, 2005 .</p>
<p>Pui-Wing and Kevin J. Delaney, “Google’s Growth  Helps Ignite Silicon Valley Frenzy,” the Wall Street Journal, November  23, 2005 .</p>
<p><a name="Y"></a><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#">return to the                      top</a></p>
<h1>Y</h1>
<p>Yahoo! Finance breakdown of major holders. Available online at: <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=KRI">http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=KRI</a>.</p>
<p>Emmis Communications Press Release, “Emmis  Completes Sale of Four Additional Television stations,” Yahoo Finance  Web site, January 27, 2006 .</p>
<p>Yahoo Finance &#8211; NBC Universal (<a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/138/138804.html">http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/138/138804.html</a>) and CNBC (<a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/115/115587.html">http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/115/115587.html</a>) Profiles</p>
<p>Yahoo Media Relations press release, 2004</p>
<p><a id="Y" name="Y"></a><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#">return to the top</a></p>
<h1>Z</h1>
<p>Peter Zollman, “Competing With Craig,” Classified Intelligence, December 2004.</p>
<p>David Zurawik, “At CBS News, hopes for a resurgence,” Baltimore Sun, October 27, 2005 .</p>
<p><a id="Z" name="Z"></a><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/#">return to the top</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/about-the-story-intro/source-bibliography/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Authors and Collaborators</title>
		<link>http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/about-the-story-intro/authors-and-collaborators/</link>
		<comments>http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/about-the-story-intro/authors-and-collaborators/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Jan 2007 16:30:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Wike</dc:creator>
		
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stateofthemedia.org/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Authors and Collaborators Many partners contributed to this report. The chapter on newspapers was co-authored by Rick Edmonds of the Poynter Institute. Andrew Tyndall of ADT Research gave particularly close reads and copious suggestions on the Cable TV chapter. The rest of the chapters were written by the staff of the Project. Bill Kovach, the [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Authors and Collaborators</p>
<p>Many partners contributed to this report.</p>
<p>The chapter on newspapers was co-authored by Rick Edmonds of the Poynter Institute. Andrew Tyndall of ADT Research gave particularly close reads and copious suggestions on the Cable TV chapter. The rest of the chapters were written by the staff of the Project. Bill Kovach, the chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists, served as a consultant to the Report.</p>
<p>From the Project, researchers conducted the data aggregation and did initial drafting in the following areas: David Vaina for the network and online chapters, Gauri Malhotra for the cable and local television chapters, Niki Woodard for the radio and parts of newspaper chapters, and Dante Chinni, for the ethnic, alternative and magazine chapters. Banu Akdenizli, Michael Smith, Tricia Sartor, Kenny Olmstead and Jessica Golding worked on the Web site analysis under the supervision of Niki Woodard and Amy Mitchell. Jennifer Fimbres managed the budget and distribution.</p>
<p>Amy Mitchell, the Project’s deputy director, and Tom Rosenstiel, its director, supervised the project, edited the chapters and wrote the analytical components.</p>
<p>The Web firm, Blattner Brunner designed the Web site. The Project’s staff put the design into effect. The programming consultant Don Bell designed and programmed the Chartland component. He and Niki Woodard designed the Flash technology component of the Web site analysis. Pamela Nabholz took the photos that appear on the site. Wendy Kelly of WLK Design will publish the executive summary.</p>
<p>Evan Jenkins, a longtime New York Times editor who is now a consulting editor of the Columbia Journalism Review, was the copy editor.</p>
<p>More than twenty-five people served as readers of the chapters. Among them are: Charles Bierbauer, John Carroll, Sandy Close, Wally Dean, Bill Falk, Howard Finberg, Edward Fouhy, Mark Hanzlik, Mark Jurkowitz, Richard Karpel, Katie King, Bill Kovach, Scott Libin, DC Livers, Edward Schumacher Matos, Dick Meyer, Phil Meyer, Victor Navasky, George Niesen, Robert Papper, Atiba Pertilla, Juana Ponce de Leon, Deborah Potter, Adam Powell, Lee Rainie, Alan Seraita, Steve Shepard, Al Stavitsky, Roberto Suro, Tom Taylor, Andrew Tyndall, Bill Wheatley, Dale Willman and Judy Woodruff. Their thoughtful insights and suggestions greatly improved the chapters, but the readers are in no way responsible for the analysis or narrative accounts in this report. Moreover, the readers were not sources for information, unless explicitly cited in footnotes. In no case did a reader serve as an anonymous source for anything in the report.</p>
<p>Finally, the project could not have been completed without the extraordinary support, both financially and personally, of the Pew Charitable Trusts, particularly Don Kimelman, our friend and colleague, and Rebecca Rimel, whose idea this report was in the first place. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/about-the-story-intro/authors-and-collaborators/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Methodology</title>
		<link>http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/about-the-story-intro/methodology/</link>
		<comments>http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/about-the-story-intro/methodology/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Jan 2007 16:20:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Wike</dc:creator>
		
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stateofthemedia.org/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Methodology The data for this study were collected in two parts. Much of the study is based on research conducted originally by other people or organizations. Other research, particularly the content analysis, is original work conducted specifically for this report. For the data aggregated from other researchers, the Project took several steps. First, we tried [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Methodology</p>
<p>The data for this study were collected in two parts. Much of the study is based on research conducted originally by other people or organizations. Other research, particularly the content analysis, is original work conducted specifically for this report.</p>
<p>For the data aggregated from other researchers, the Project took several steps. First, we tried to determine what data had been collected and by whom for the eight media sectors studied. We organized the data into the seven primary areas of interest we wanted to examine: content, audience, economics, ownership, newsroom investment, alternative news outlets and public attitudes. For all data ultimately used, the Project sought and gained permission for their use.</p>
<p>Next, the Project studied the data closely to determine where elements reinforced each other and where there were apparent contradictions or gaps. In doing so, the Project endeavored to determine the value and validity of each data set. That in many cases involved going back to the sources who collected the research in the first place. Where data conflicted, we have included all relevant sources and tried to explain their differences, either in footnotes or in the narratives.</p>
<p>In analyzing the data for each media sector, we sought insight from experts by having at least three outside readers for each sector chapter. Those readers raised questions, offered arguments and questioned data where they saw fit.</p>
<p>All sources are cited in footnotes or within the narrative, and listed alphabetically in a source bibliography. The data used in the report are also available in more complete tabular form online, where users can view the raw material, sort it on their own and make their own charts and graphs. Our goal was not only to organize the available material into a clear narrative, but to also collect all the public data on journalism in one usable place. In many cases, the Project paid for the use of the data.</p>
<p>For the original content analysis research conducted by the Project, the methodology follows.</p>
<p>Web Site Analysis Methodology</p>
<p>As the Internet continues to change the news industry and the methods of production, circulation and consumption, it is ever more critical to understand the emerging trends and news outlets available online. Citizens must make daily choices about what sites to go to for various kinds of news information, but it is largely up to them to figure out which site can best fit their needs at the moment. And in many instances they may be making choices without fully understanding why.</p>
<p>The content analysis element of the 2007 Annual Report on the State of the News Media was designed to try to sort through the many different kinds of sites that offer news information. What do some sites emphasize over other things? Are there common tendencies? The creation of the study and the analysis of the findings was a multi-step process.</p>
<p>Sample Design and Web Site Capture</p>
<p>To assess the range of news Web sites available, we selected 38 different Web sites that provide such information. The sites were initially drawn from the seven media sectors that PEJ analyzes in each annual report:</p>
<p>    * Newspaper (9 sites from a mix of national, regional and local papers)<br />
    * Cable news (3 sites)<br />
    * Network News (3 sites, commercial and public; NBC’s online identity is merged with that of MSNBC<br />
    * Local TV (2 sites)<br />
    * Radio (2 sites, one national network and one local)<br />
    * Weekly news magazine (3 sites)<br />
    * Online-only news sites (10 sites ranging from aggregators to citizen-based sites to online magazines and<br />
    * Online blogs (4))</p>
<p>In addition, we included one foreign broadcast site (BBC News) and the site of one wire service. (Due to the language barrier, Ethnic, non-English language Web sites were not included in the study.)</p>
<p>The result was the following list of sites:</p>
<p>Sites Studied</p>
<p>ABC News Com http://abcnews.go.com</p>
<p>BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk</p>
<p>Benicia News http://www.benicianews.com</p>
<p>Boston Phoenix http://www.thephoenix.com</p>
<p>CBS11 TV http://cbs11tv.com</p>
<p>CBS News http://www.cbsnews.com</p>
<p>Chicago Sun Times http://www.suntimes.com</p>
<p>CNN http://www.cnn.com</p>
<p>Crooks and Liars http://www.crooksandliars.com</p>
<p>Daily Kos http://www.dailykos.com</p>
<p>Des Moines Register http://www.desmoinesregister.com</p>
<p>Digg http://digg.com</p>
<p>Economist http://www.economist.com</p>
<p>Fox News http://www.foxnews.com</p>
<p>Global voices http://www.globalvoicesonline.org</p>
<p>King5 TV http://www.king5.com</p>
<p>Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com</p>
<p>Little Green Footballs http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com</p>
<p>Michelle Malkin http://www.michellemalkin.com</p>
<p>MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com</p>
<p>AOL News http://news.aol.com</p>
<p>Google News http://news.google.com</p>
<p>Yahoo News http://news.yahoo.com</p>
<p>New York Post http://www.nypost.com</p>
<p>New York Times http://www.nytimes.com</p>
<p>NPR http://www.npr.org</p>
<p>Ohmynews.com http://english.ohmynews.com</p>
<p>PBS NewsHour http://www.pbs.org/newshour</p>
<p>Reuters http://www.reuters.com</p>
<p>Salon http://salon.com</p>
<p>San Fran. Bay Guardian http://www.sfbg.com</p>
<p>Slate http://slate.com</p>
<p>Time Magazine http://www.time.com</p>
<p>Topix http://www.topix.net</p>
<p>USA Today http://www.usatoday.com</p>
<p>Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com</p>
<p>The Week Magazine http://www.theweekmagazine.com</p>
<p>WTOP Radio http://www.wtop.com</p>
<p>Web sites were captured by a team of professional content coders. At each download, coders made an electronic and printed hard-copy of the homepages for each site as well as the top five news stories. Prominence was determined as follows:</p>
<p>The biggest headline at the top of the screen is the most prominent story. It may or may not have an image associated with it. The second-most prominent story is one that is attached to an image at the top of the screen, if that is a different story from the most prominent story. If there is no image at the top of the screen, (or there are two significant stories attached to the same image) refer then to the next-largest headline. To determine the next-most-prominent stories, refer first to the size of the headlines, and then the place (height) on the screen. If two stories have the same font size and are at the same height on the screen, then give the story on the left more prominence.</p>
<p>Stories were defined as:</p>
<p>    * Any headlines that linked to a landing page within the Web site rather than a specific news report were omitted, as were links to landing pages of other Web sites.<br />
    * We did include links to specific stories on other Web sites as well as video or audio stories.</p>
<p>Capture Timing</p>
<p>Web sites were initially studied from September 18 through October 6, 2006. For that initial review, each site was captured and coded four different times. For two captures, the research team coded for the entire set of variables, both the homepage analysis and the variables related to the content of news stories. The other two rounds of capture were coded only for the variables relating to the content of the lead stories.</p>
<p>Each site was then studied again during the week of February 12-16, 2007, and coded separately. Results for the two time periods were compared. In cases where features had changed, we closely examined the site again to confirm the change or correct inconsistencies. Final analyses were based on the confirmed February site scores.</p>
<p>Coding Scheme and Procedure</p>
<p>To create the coding scheme, we first worked to identify the different kinds of features available online — everything from contacting the author to quickly finding just what you want to receiving your news free — and how they could be measured. After several weeks of exploratory research, we identified 63 different quantitative measures and developed those into a working codebook (see list of primary variables below).</p>
<p>Coding was performed at the PEJ by a team of seven professional in-house coders, overseen by a senior researcher and a methodologist. Coders were trained on a standardized codebook that contained a dictionary of coding variables, operations definitions, measurement scales and detailed instructions and examples. The codebook was divided into two sections. The first was based on an inventory of the Web site’s homepage. That was performed three separate times — twice in September, 2006, and once in February, 2007. The second component involved coding the content of news stories themselves. We included the top five stories for the variables related to the content of the news and took the average score for each variable.</p>
<p>Before coding began, coders were trained on the codebook. Excel coding sheets were designed and used consistently throughout the process. Meetings were held throughout to discuss questions, and where necessary additional captures took place to verify findings.</p>
<p>Coders followed a series of standardized rules for coding and quantifying Web site traits. Three variables deserve specific mention:</p>
<p>1. Multimedia components on the homepage: Coders counted all content items, defined as links to all material other than landing pages or indexes of some sort. Included were narrative text, still photos, interactive graphics, video, audio, live streams, live Q&amp;A’s, polls, user-based blogs, podcast content and slide shows. Next, the coders tallied the total number of content items on the page as well as the totals for each media form and entered the percentages for each into the data base.</p>
<p>2. Advertisements: In counting advertisements on the homepage, coders included all ads, from obvious banners and flash advertisements to the smaller single-link sponsors of a site. Self-promotional ads were also included in the total. The idea of this variable was to estimate the economic agenda of a given site based on the amount of advertising on the homepage. Advertisements on internal pages were not included in the tally. Because of day-to-day variance in the total number of homepage ads, the final figure was either the average based on all the visits to a site or, in cases where a site redesign had clearly occurred, the latest use of ads.</p>
<p>3. Also in the Byline variable, blog posts required special rules. In counting bylines, for instance, researchers coded a blog entry as if the entry was posted by the blog host—John Amato on Crooks and Liars, for example. If the blog entry was posted by a regular contributor or staff, the “story” scored a “2.” And if the blog entry was posted by an outside contributor, not bylined, or consisted primarily of outside material (an entry, for instance, that simply said, “Read this,” followed by an excerpt from another source), then the post received a score of “3,” the lowest on the scale of original stories.</p>
<p>Analysis</p>
<p>In analyzing the data, we were able to group variables into six different areas of Web emphasis: User Customization, User Participation, Multimedia Use, Content Branding and Originality, Depth of Content and Revenue Streams.</p>
<p>Customization includes</p>
<p>    * Homepage customization (allows user to tailor page)<br />
    * Search options (simple or advanced search)<br />
    * RSS feeds — options and prominence<br />
    * Podcasts — options and prominence<br />
    * Mobile phone delivery options</p>
<p>Participation includes</p>
<p>    * Users’ contribution to content<br />
    * Scheduled, live discussions<br />
    * Ability to:<br />
          o e-mail author<br />
          o post comments<br />
          o rate the article/post<br />
          o take a poll<br />
    * List of most-viewed stories<br />
    * List of most-e-mailed stories<br />
    * List of most-linked-to stories</p>
<p>Multimedia includes</p>
<p>Percent of homepage content devoted to:</p>
<p>    * Narrative<br />
    * Photos/non-interactive graphics<br />
    * Video<br />
    * Audio<br />
    * Live stream<br />
    * User blog<br />
    * Live Q &amp; A<br />
    * Slide show<br />
    * Poll<br />
    * Interactive graphic</p>
<p>Editorial Branding includes</p>
<p>    * Breadth of sources<br />
    * Editorial process<br />
    * Use of bylines<br />
    * Direction of story links</p>
<p>(internal or external)</p>
<p>Story Depth includes</p>
<p>    * Frequency of updates<br />
    * Use of related story links<br />
    * Use of archive links</p>
<p>Revenue Streams includes</p>
<p>    * Registration requirements<br />
    * Fee-based content<br />
    * Archive fees<br />
    * Number of homepage ads</p>
<p>(Self-promotional and external)</p>
<p>Codes within each variable were translated into a numerical rating from low to high for that particular feature. Then PEJ research analysts produced an Excel template to tally the scores (summing the variables) for each site within the six categories. Thus for each of the six categories, each site had a final score. The range of scores was then divided into four quartiles and sites were marked according to which quartile they fell into.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/about-the-story-intro/methodology/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>About The Story – Intro</title>
		<link>http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/about-the-story-intro/</link>
		<comments>http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/about-the-story-intro/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Jan 2007 16:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian Bailey</dc:creator>
		
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stateofthemedia.org/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[About the Study The State of the News Media report was written by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, with the aid of many collaborators. Funding was provided by the Pew Charitable Trusts. Click here for information about printing pages from the report. Methodology Details on how we put together study together, including background on [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h1>About the Study</h1>
<p>The State of the News Media report was written by the <a href="http://www.journalism.org/" target="_blank">Project                    for Excellence in Journalism</a>, with the aid of many <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-authors-and-collaborators/">collaborators.</a> Funding was provided by the Pew Charitable Trusts.</p>
<p>Click <a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007/printingthereport.asp">here</a> for information                    about printing pages from the report.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-methodology/"><strong>Methodology</strong></a><br />
Details on how we put together study together, including background                    on the content analysis sections.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-authors-and-collaborators/"><strong>Authors and Collaborators</strong></a><br />
A list of people who worked on the report.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007-about-the-story-intro/2007-source-bibliography/"><strong>Source Bibliography </strong></a><br />
An alphabetical listing of all the sources referenced in the                    report, including Web addresses.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007/contact.asp">Contact Us</a></strong><br />
How to reach the Project for Excellence in Journalism.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007/permissions.asp"><strong>Permissions</strong></a><br />
Details on using information found in the report.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007/privacy.asp"><strong>Privacy Policy</strong></a><br />
Information about your privacy. We do not collect any user                    information.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007/sitemap.asp"><strong>Site Map</strong></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://stateofthemedia.org/2007/about-the-story-intro/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
