2
Media with a Disclaimer:
The Mechanics of American Media Spin and
Power Politics
Influencing the Media as Policy.
With
today’s mass media saturation, it becomes imperative for an enlightened
individual to be familiar with the mechanics that go on “behind the
scenes” of the news media.
The first move for an individual is to become familiar with some of the
basic tenets of the mass media.
Some of these distinctive characteristics include: What is the targeted audience? What is the message that needs to be
conveyed? As well as, objectively
defining the sources that are available to the media to report from on any
given story.
The first thing to always remember is mass media is affected by its context: This context is the intentional targeting of the affluent or elite mass society[1]. The affluent or elite mass society is large and heterogeneous as well as anonymous. Because the print media requires literacy and electronic media can be consumed by almost anyone, mass television news outlets assume the public wants to be entertained, not necessarily informed. First off, mass communication, like most public agencies, is controlled directly and indirectly. More often, these organizations are bound by an addiction to revenue in the form of program acceptance, thus attracting advertising dollars. In addition, these media conglomerates are mostly publicly traded companies, which, as a result, are controlled by the stockowners and “the board.” Increasingly mass communication outlets have been taken out of private (most notably family owned) entities and become a bi-product of a public organization(s) and/or institutions(s). An example of how big this phenomenon has become: 85% of commercial television stations are now affiliated with a major network[2] and two-dozen chains own 70% of newspapers and radio stations (AM & FM)[3]. Finally, the government, through its regulatory agencies, like the Federal Trade Commission – and through its slow steady leaks of information to news agencies, (as well as, the playing off of one agency to another) – has had a big influence in defining what is news and who really controls the news agenda.
A tool commonly used as a means of
exerting some sort of control of the situation and spreading it’s
influence, the media and politicians love to use labeling as a means of
simplifying in order for the viewers to take sides (preferably theirs) on a
given story. Some of the more
prevalent catch phrases these days are: Leftist, Liberal, Terrorist,
Fundamentalist, Environmentalist, Minority, Majority and the list goes on with
each new cause. John Fiske in his
book Media Matters: Race and Gender in
“ The most widely used word to describe other races
– minority – is also used to mean juvenility, and it’s
opposite – majority – means both numerical superiority and
maturity. The infantilization of
the other results from a form of racial Darwinism that constructs whiteness as
the evolutionary goal to which others will ‘naturally’ develop4…”
In analyzing a mass media story or
defining a label, one should always consider the political motivations of the
source. Again, because the media is
trying to entertain us and hold our attention, the media - in classic
One
of the more common ways the media has been able to skew reality to its
advantage is what is termed: Historical Engineering. What Historical Engineering implies, is
the mass media’s re-writing of historical events to support a new view a
network or organization might have for an old story that has since re-surfaced
in the headlines[4]. This is how Historical Engineering is
used to the advantage of the newsmakers: News agencies banking on Americans
short attention span and the rapid pace and over production of
“facts”, are able to re-tell a story however it chooses. Oftentimes, it will tell the story with
so many different versions that the viewer will become disoriented and confused
as to what are the know facts.
The result of this saturation of facts often leads the viewer to forget
details or previous opinions of what really happened in the past, thus
re-shaping public perception of the historical event. This tendency is often used to the
advantage of the media in order to shape viewers perceptions in advance of a
“new” leading or breaking story[5]. An example of this would be the
re-introduction of ex-president Nixon into the public psyche. After the media ran Nixon out of office
and into seclusion in disgrace in 1974, the press then attempted in 1988 to
bring him back as the distinguished “elder statesman.” This kind of media persuasion can work
in two differing ways: the media attempts to persuade us (in the case of Nixon
being “the elder statesman”) and we have – through
concentrated efforts of resistance - the ability to influence the media in
return (again in the instance of the return of Nixon, the renewed interest in
the Watergate affair and Oliver Stone’s release of his movie NIXON[6]. Through consumer choices, individual and
group protest and regulatory mechanics, various resistance groups have the
ability to help influence public opinion through the various media outlets
available. These main outlets
being: Television (network, cable, satellite, pay-per-view, etc.), newspapers,
radio (AM, FM and public access), newspapers, books, magazines, specialty
publications, Internet web sites, direct email webzines, etc.
This
watchdog approach adopted in the media has forced politicians to rarely take
questions from live audiences. They
often stage most public appearances to exclude people with contrary views. This is achieved usually by proposing
controversial ideas in complimentary venues. For example: A republican president might decide to
present a big energy business sympathetic solution to the energy crisis in the
With all this diversification of issues
and the constant stream of stories being leaked to the press, why then have the
newspapers, television programming, radio and local news all become alike in
their “objective” views?
They all get their news from the same source(s): The Associated Press (AP), Reuters and
to and increasingly lesser degree, the UPI (United Press International). The Associated Press serves 84% of the
nations dailies[8]. What oftentimes becomes insidious is
when all the divergent daily news outlets - which use the various wire services
as their primary news source for events outside their local area – will
oftentimes have the same point of view on a given topic. The result of this cohesion of media
outlets, is the dailies presenting stories in such a way (oftentimes the same way) that they are presented as
facts, thus making them look like an authority on a subject[9]. This has created the powerful idea that
news organizations are able to persuade opinion through mass movements.
The
idea of the organized mass movement was an invention by American’s Joseph
Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst[10]. These two were the first to see that the
mass circulation newspaper could be used to create a small but vocal and
disciplined pressure group. A
period example of this would be the war between the
As a result of these continuing
developments in the media industry, we are starting to see rapid changes in the
various news outlets due largely to the increased growth in the cable markets,
high and low frequency radio and satellite transmissions. Since many media corporations are also
being forced by their quest for profitability (read: dominance of markets) to
move into cable television to stay competitive; - and they are the very
suppliers of the programming itself – the media conglomerates are
continually challenging common ownership of production rules imposed on them by
the federal government through the watchdog organization, the FTC (Federal
Trade Commission). This has created
entities that are becoming very
influential and desirable by advertisers and media manipulators
When a viewer today can flip from one
station to another and see so much similarity on varying networks, it starts to
appear that networks make it a policy to copy one another with startling
regularity and predictability. In
this new millennium, the media world seems to be
morphing into one big market.
Recognizing news stories longevity and sensational appeal, the media
corporation(s) will skew and present news stories in such a way as to fit a
mold that will enable it to be used in various other facets of media outlets it
owns for possible future re-use.
Based
on this, in the last fifty years in analyzing television programming, one is
likely to believe that television is increasingly being used to distract,
delude, amuse and insulate the general public from real events and ongoing
situations. Utilizing the media, politicians oftentimes give us fantasies and
rosy scenarios other than facts to describe problems facing people in the “real
world.” To quote Dennis
Miller: “They (mass media executives) are banking on the American
addiction to the ‘Quick Fix’ and their steadfast desire to believe
that the ‘Big Lie’ is in fact, the ‘Big Truth.[13]’
”
When analyzing political manipulation of
news outlets, it is important to understand that politicians live in another
world. When an elected official
first enters politics, they seem to loose touch with what is happening in the
outside world. They appear now to
have only one goal: to be reelected.[14] Because of their isolation and
insulation from the public and the constant playing (performing) to the press,
a politician’s view of reality becomes distorted. Recalling recent events to illustrate
how deep this seclusion has become: Remember Past Treasury Secretary
O’Neill’s firing and the new United States implementation of the
missile defense system to be activated before the 2004 election year weather it
works or not – Remember that these actions were perpetuated for the sole
reason that President Bush (Jr.) would be able to fulfill his campaign promise
made in 2000 in his re-election bid for 2004. So you see, to try an address any real
problems in such a way as to connect to their “Average American”
constituent, politicians will come out with slogans like “Just Say No to
Drugs,” “Three Strikes and Your Out” or the latest brilliant
move by this Bush administration in letting corporate airline pilots carry
handguns in the cockpit as an attempt to counter terrorism in flight. This is all a ruse intended for the
media to show action on real problems without actual monetary cost. These are actual examples in the attempt
to connect to the “Average American” in their concerns to
addressing the cause of real social issues affecting
These
slogans uttered by politicians playing to the press, have made politicians
creatures of the media playing to an audience seeking approval of their
actions. They have fallen under control
of their handlers, the pollsters and spin-doctors who are always keeping an
ever-vigilant eye open to what is happening in the media and the ear of their
favorite reporter(s). This favors a
merger of the political and media worlds, which has been reduced to sets of
one-liners for purposes of simplification and generation of impact through
repeated use.
This
aversion to conflict has caused politicians to strive for the label of:
Bland. The American media has a
tendency to explain a politician’s blandness as a lack of
“charisma.” Politicians appear to be concerned far more with what
might repel potential votes than what might attract them. When a problem arises
a politician oftentimes ignores it and diverts attention by raising other issues
the politicians have devised to control the agenda of public discussion[15]. If reminded of the problem, these
politicians often paint rosy scenarios and delay taking any real action for as
long as possible. When the problem
has gotten too big to ignore and directly affects their constituents (like the
recent accounting scandals of Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, etc.) the politicians then
react to it. More often, these
reactions do not attack the cause of the problem; they only provide symptom
relief. This habit of only providing
symptom relief creates the perception that the problem has been dealt with
responsibly, thus reducing interest in the media and consequently the
public. In an article from USA
Today titled Economic Regime Change,” indicates the underling
reason with regards to the firing of Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, was
simply a move to implement symptom relief for the media amid growing concern
for the troubled economy. The
arthur states:
“The move was largely symbolic. The stock market’s reaction to the
news that Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill and White House National
Economic Council Director Lawrence Lindsey would leave would merely offset
earlier dismay from an unemployment report showing joblessness spiked in
November to 6%. Nor do the
departments foreshadow a dramatic shift in administration policy. O’Neill generally was skeptical of
tax cuts, while (incoming Treasury Secretary) Lindsey was an enthusiastic
supporter.[16]”
Since television has become the chosen
medium for addressing the “public,” the cost for running for public
office has escalated exponentially both locally and nationally. To pay for these increased advertising
expenses candidates and political parties have had to raise large amounts of money. Just as sponsors of television and radio
programs influence the content of the shows, sponsors (or donors) of political
candidates influence their behavior.
What we end up with is a government that represents not only the people,
but to a larger degree the wealth of special interests groups. These groups of interested individuals
pool together members money, in the form of dues paid by the members of said
organization, to influence their chosen candidates and have private access to
the elected officials to hear their concerns. Walter Shapiro, in his media column
“Hype & Glory,” written for the USA Today newspaper, make this
statement in his article titled, True meaning of election can’t be
gleaned from polls to support this argument:
“ No candidate in a tight race dares to challenge the
inflexible rules that govern politics.
So fundraising takes precedence over old-fashioned campaigning, which
might expose the candidates to ordinary voters unable to scrawl $1,000 checks. Therefore, every attack ad is answered
in kind, as campaigns quickly descend into dispiriting exchanges of ludicrous
charges. Maybe there is a better
way to run for office, but no serious candidate is willing to risk defeat in
the high-minded quest to find it.[17]”
In
light of this simplification for greater audience understanding and the need to
be non-offensive, today in
In televisions responding to this
“blandness” of government officials making the news, it’s my
opinion that the major networks will increasingly appeal to the mostly young,
undereducated and the elderly.
Thus, the continued entertainment product shortfall will hasten networks
toward the proliferation of pseudo news-talk (or “Reality Shows”
already prevalent and increasingly dominate) formats. As these pseudo news-talk shows and
“reality shows” expand in numbers, network television will become
characteristically similar to AM radio, while cable television will become a
mirror image of FM radio with its distinctive targeted audience
formatting. In analyzing news
presented by the mass media, it is always important to remember: The mediated
message is transient – here today gone tomorrow. Equally as important, the message is
intended to be useful only for the moment.
This means that all messages of mass communication are public. They are addressed to everyone and are
created to be intelligible and acceptable to every viewer, therefore, they are non-offensive
and easily understood by all.
Governmental threats of prosecution of
the press for publishing what it
deems to be classified information, constant proposed amendments to weaken the
Freedom of Information Acts and the use of lie detectors all have contributed
to the increasingly prevalent notion by the American people that the federal
governments position on the mass media is that it should be placed at arms
length at all times. The government
simply adds information to lists, selfishly trims control of information not
only on defense and foreign policy issues, but also on topics that effect daily
lives, such as: toxic waste, occupational hazards, new technologies and health
issues. This all signals a growing
trend toward the government interference in democratic process and Fist
Amendment rights of Freedom of the Press. Prime time television –
specifically local television – has at one time or another felt the pinch
of governmental regulation. All
television outlets stations are terrific examples of this desire to re-use
stories because of costs associated to libel suits, they would rather thrive on
imitation than go it alone.
Television stations, if backed into a corner, would be able to point the
finger at another organization and state that they are only repeating what was
reported.
This has also caused a flurry of media
mergers. Based on the trend of
escalating media mergers, it would appear the industry is making every attempt
consolidate its power to combat this onslaught of government inquiry and in
their quest for an ever-expanding share of the media market. A good example of this is the recent
merger of Time-Warner with
The AOL-Time Warner merger is a good
example of how mass media dominates - namely television - American society
because the networks are extremely organized, directed and completely committed
to their causes (this case being our attention span and buying power in its
ongoing desire to attract advertising revenue). Americans on the average have
televisions on more than seven hours a day. They also listen to the radio more than
eighteen hours each week, read some part of the newspaper four days a week, and
read approximately fifteen books a year.[19] These varied media re-enforces the other
through influence, advertising, quotations and the like. This creates a monopoly system that is
constantly feeding on itself – both in real dollars and in media driven
influence.
In its ever diligent quest to corner more
markets, media organizations are increasingly becoming public entities
(distribute shares to be bought on the public stock exchanges) with a constant
concern with the bottom line (profitability), thus making them open to
influence and deal making through manipulation. What I’m insinuating here, is this
constant concern with public investment is leading to adverse approaches to
newsgathering not seen quite so blatantly to the informed observer in quite
some time. Because of this
addiction to meeting Wall Street analysis expectations for continued growth and
profitability, a new trend has surfaced in areas of newsgathering tactics. In an effort to save dollars and
maintain consumer interest, cross-owning media companies are commonly re-using
or recycling material in as many media outlets as it owns. An abstract example of this phenomena
might be: The late television series The Fugitive[20]
was in 1993 made into a major motion picture with Harrison Ford. After the actual news event had been
exhausted the main media outlets, the news story is likely to then become a
book manuscript, which then becomes a mass produced paperback, then a made for
television movie, a TV series, and so on.
To keep the increasingly preoccupied
viewers attention, the mass media news organizations have become hooked on
headline news and what I term “junk news.” The scenario goes something like this. Because the spinners of mass media feel
that the public might be getting bored with a story or event, television news
organizations stop covering these sensationalistic events, and newspapers send
them to the back pages. Therefore,
it can then be argued that most journalism is based on the trivial displacing
the momentous. This is effective
precisely because of media executives’ sound belief in the public’s
tendency to measure the importance of news events by how recently they
happened. In a recent USA Today
titled: Poll finds appetite for sniper coverage, illustrates a recent
event in this light:
“If the publics appetite for sniper coverage is waning
it’s not yet reflected in the ratings. Cable news viewer ship is up as much as
40% since the story began. And an
overwhelming 91% of the
In keeping with this notion of a public
obsessed with immediacy and instant gratification – one in which this
writer believes the media outlets brought on themselves through ravenous
competition – the media by its own past conditioning must jump from one hot
story to another in the ever vigilant attempt to hold the viewers attention
long enough for the next commercial break.
Because
of this catering to the publics demand for “Junk News,” real news
rarely appears on TV and also rarely makes headlines. The real news is usually in the middle
of newspapers or in the specialized industry publications. This mass movement media saturation has
lent itself perfectly to modern politics.
Oftentimes if the story is not dramatic enough, programmers have been
known to “fake” the news in order to spice up a potentially
non-newsworthy event for an increasingly sensationalistic dulled public. ABC and CBS are now making it a policy
to do “re-creations” or “simulations (or
dramatizations)” of what they deem to be newsworthy events based on
witness accounts of said event[22]. These “news events” are
completely simulated or made up on viewers or witnesses’ recollections of
an event they (the public) witnessed.
Because of the way dramatizations are presented utilizing
Another adverse side effect of the mass
media’s ever-diligent quest for profitability is very few reporters
actually have direct access to actual breaking news as it happens.[23]
This again is especially prevalent in the small, local markets that rarely have
the budgets to send reporters out to find breaking news. In many cases, this often leads to
stations paying the public to call in and report news as it happens. This practice is often fraught with
conflicting views of what exactly news really is. This quest for profitability
has had the unwelcome impact of forcing reporters and their employers to be
increasingly reliant on news organizations and wire services designed to meet
these vary needs. These main wire
organizations in the
Another cost cutting tool for making the news is the use of polling by the mass media and those seeking to influence the mass media. The use of polls, I feel, is often a feeble and lazy attempt by insulated and budgeted bureaucrats and the mass media to “understand the concerns of the American people.” This heavy reliance on polling for stories and policy directives has created a vicious cycle at times, as illustrated by this example:
Example: Politicians and the government like to address issues in the media that “matter to the mainstream,” or the “Average American.” Because of cost and time restraints, these officials like to make use of mass media polls to tell them what is a concern for an individual say in Arizona, without ever actually going to Arizona to find out. However, the polls rarely tell them what really matters because the polls are flawed by their design. Opinion polling is nothing more than a snapshot in time directed to a very small audience – again because of a constant concern for efficiency and profitability - and with this concern in mind the pollsters set the focus and maintain control of the interview. This practice makes the typical interview artificial by its very nature. It is important to always remember that people first volunteer to be polled. This would imply some sort of personal interest or opinion in the subject being polled. Then they are asked a very specific set of questions about issues they probably haven’t thought that much about or they have only heard one set of opinions by the media on the subject. Often the polled respond to a specific set of answers provided by the pollster as they think they should. Thus presenting a dubious situation in which no one is served by the poll. The polled individual is just dictating back what the media has already told them - The media just reported what the politicians had told them - So the politician or government official who relied on the poll originally was only getting an echo of his or her own rhetoric.
With
this drive for efficiency, when viewing a breaking story, there is an important
distinction to be made between mass communication and other forms of
communication in the
The
press, intellectuals and political commentators, in their ever vigilant quest
for simplicity and entertainment in addressing the “Average
American,” want the traditional politicians sharp exciting clashes and
clear – cut choices (or positions) on political matters. The politicians, however, know
better. Therefore, the politicians
are elected (or reelected) based on their ambiguities on issues and
“staying the course.[25]” This would explain the emphasis on
competence, not making waves, getting things done, ad hoc solutions and the
like.
As stated earlier, major networks are
increasingly appealing to the mostly young, undereducated and the elderly, thus
the trend here appears to be the continued entertainment product shortfall will
hasten networks toward the proliferation of pseudo news-talk (or “Reality
Show” already prevalent and increasingly dominate) formats.[26] A truly revealing quote with a firm
grounding in this assumption of “dumbing it down” for the
“Average American,” was quoted by USA Today in its article, Russian
first lady books a rare solo trip for festival. This article detailed Russian first lady
Lyudmila Putin’s joining Barbara Bush, at her invitation, at the National
Book Festival held on the West Lawn of the Capitol on October 12, 2002, in
“ ‘It will be very
exciting,’ Bush says.
‘I know Russians love their literature,
just like Americans love our stories…’
[27]”
With this “dumbing down” of stories
to make it palatable for all Americans, and as stated previously, the publics
desire to be fed only two kinds of news from the mass media: 1) Headline and 2) Junk News. Headline News is
oftentimes-sensationalistic news creating headlines that are often
misleading. Even the best
newspapers are often unable to capture the essence of the whole story in a few
choice words in its headlines.
Often times theses headlines are intentionally misleading in order to
get the viewer reading.
In
dealing with this perceived short attention span, television doctrine dictates
that interviews should last no more than three minutes[28]. In keeping with this theory, it would
appear that television executives perpetuate the doctrine that there cannot be
a culture in a nation obsessed with immediacy. This is why there is a preference for
“Junk News.” Again,
“Junk News” is titillating, exploitative, often depressing and
usually, never important. The
Headline News and “Junk News” formats are most often seen in their
most glaring examples in local television news formats. The local stations find it most
difficult to compete with the national networks news stations budgets,
therefore, they readily submit to
It is my firm opinion that the American
public in fed more Junk News than any other form of news. I also feel as though a vast majority of
the American public wants the
“Junk News.” This
happens not because the public are simpletons mind you, but because of the fact
that the public is fed SO MUCH news
that they are made to feel helpless and complacent. Thus, desiring an escape and a feeling
that no matter how tuff things get at the office, someone out there has got it MUCH WORSE than them. This will undoubtedly give the
individual a warm fuzzy and a feeling of superiority, thus keeping the viewer
engaged for the next round of commercials.
The
media will form most people’s opinions through constant repetition until
the public majority – through repetition and exhaustion - starts to
believe the media. A majority of
people led by the media and politicians are most concerned in how the problem
will affect them personally. This is understood very well by
politicians and mass media outlets and is manipulated to that end by the
leaders for personal and political ends. This, more often than not, leads the
viewer to a feeling of confusion and consequently, makes the viewer readily
influenced and often times persuaded into a particular direction or opinion by
the views inferred. The reason for this is the media and those manipulating the
media, want us to take a side on an issue before we have had a chance to fully
understand it. After the public has
been duped through repeated label use, it is then assumed that the public is
unlikely to change their minds and tend to accept the view being portrayed as
fact or inevitable conclusion.
So, in conclusion, by first understanding
some of these basic concepts, consumers and organizations can better understand
the rules by which “the game” is being played and on occasion,
influence the media for their own personal gains. As individuals, we can better
shield ourselves from the hype that the media projects, recognize media spin in
relation to unfolding events and see through the “smoke
screen.” In doing this we can
then determine the real story for ourselves. This will always take work. Hard work and objective
observation. I am not sure most
people want to work that hard to get the “real story,” they simply
want to sit back and be entertained.
That is an assumption the power politicians and network executives are
banking on.
Paper Title: Media with a Disclaimer: The Mechanics of
American Media Spin and Power Politics Influencing the Media as Policy.
Celente,
Gerald. Trend Tracking.
Drucker,
Peter F. The New Realities.
****
Fiske, John. Media Matters: Race and Gender in
****
Garber, Marjorie, Matlock, Jann and Walkowitz, Rebecca L. Media Spectacles.
****
Herman , Edward S. and Chomsky, Noam. Manufacturing
Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.
****
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall and Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. The Interplay of
Influence: News, Advertising, Politics, and the Mass Media Older Edition.
Kurtz,
Howard. Spin Cycle: How the White House and the Media Manipulate the
News.
Walsh,
Kenneth T. Feeding the Beast: The White House versus the Press.
Gannet
News agency (publisher) USA Today Newspaper.
Audio
Miller, Dennis. The Rants.
Film
NIXON. Oliver Stone (Director), Anthony Hopkins, Joan
Allen, Powers Boothe (Performers) Walt Disney Video 1995.
The
Fugitive. Andrew Davis (Director), Harrison
Ford, Tommy Lee Jones, Sela Ward (Performers) Warner Home Video 1993.
[1]
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall
and Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. The Interplay of Influence: News,
Advertising, Politics, and the Mass Media Older Edition. International
Thomson Publishing 1997. Page 3.
[2] Jamieson, Kathleen Hall and
Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. The Interplay of Influence: News, Advertising,
Politics, and the Mass Media Older Edition.
[3]
Celente, Gerald. Trend
Tracking.
4 Fiske, John. Media
Matters: Race and Gender in
5Kurtz, Howard. Spin
Cycle: How the White House and the Media Manipulate the News.
6 Gannet News agency
(publisher) USA Today Newspaper.
[4]
Celente, Gerald. Trend
Tracking.
[5]
Gannet News agency
(publisher) USA Today Newspaper.
[6]
NIXON. Oliver Stone
(Director), Anthony Hopkins, Joan Allen, Powers Boothe
(Performers) Walt Disney Video 1995.
[7]
Walsh, Kenneth T. Feeding
the Beast: The White House Versus the Press.
[8]
Celente, Gerald. Trend
Tracking.
[9]
Herman, Edward S. and Chomsky, Noam. Manufacturing
Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.
[10]
Drucker, Peter F. The
New Realities.
[11]
Drucker, Peter F. The
New Realities.
[12]
Drucker, Peter F. The
New Realities.
[13]
Miller, Dennis. The Rants.
[14]
Celente, Gerald. Trend
Tracking.
[15]
Gannet News agency
(publisher) USA Today Newspaper.
[16]
Gannet News agency
(publisher) USA Today Newspaper.
[17]
Gannet News agency
(publisher) USA Today Newspaper.
[18]
Garber, Marjorie, Matlock,
Jann and Walkowitz, Rebecca L. Media
Spectacles.
[19]
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall
and Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. The Interplay of Influence: News, Advertising,
Politics, and the Mass Media Older Edition.
[20]
The Fugitive. Andrew Davis
(Director), Harrison Ford, Tommy Lee Jones, Sela Ward
(Performers) Warner Home Video 1993.
[21]
Gannet News agency
(publisher) USA Today Newspaper.
[22]
Celente, Gerald. Trend
Tracking.
[23] This again is especially prevalent in the small, local markets that rarely have the budgets to send reporters out to find breaking news. In many cases, this often leads to stations paying the public to call in and report news as it happens. This practice is often fraught with conflicting views of what exactly news really is.
[24]
Gannet News agency
(publisher) USA Today Newspaper.
[25]
Gannet News agency
(publisher) USA Today Newspaper.
[26]
Celente, Gerald. Trend
Tracking.
[27]
Gannet News agency
(publisher) USA Today Newspaper.
[28]
Celente, Gerald. Trend
Tracking.