Local television news professionals face audience declines and a rapidly changing information environment. Faced with such circumstances, many have suggested that sensational and entertaining fare might offer a way to bolster viewership. Our data from a national survey of local TV news viewers in the United States (n = 2,728) suggest that view might be incomplete. Although a variety of beliefs about TV news, including those related to how exciting or entertaining the news is, predicted general attitude toward TV news viewing, the most important predictor of such attitude was the extent to which a person found programming to be informative. TV professionals might be wrong about the need to chase audiences with dramatic and entertaining fare, sacrificing substantive reporting in the process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbromsL.JorgensenC. M.SouthwellB. G.GellerA. C.EmmonsK. M.Gender differences in young adults' beliefs about sunscreen use. Health Education & Behavior, 30, 29–43 (2003).
2.
AjzenI.FishbeinM. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3.
AjzenI.FishbeinM. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In AlbarracinD.JohnsonB. T.ZannaM. P., The Handbook of Attitudes (pp.173221). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4.
Ball-RokeachS.The origins of individual media-system dependency: A sociological framework. Communication Research, 12, 485–510. (1985).
5.
BaumM. A.Sex, lies, and war: How soft news brings foreign policy to the inattentive public. American Political Science Review, 96, 91–110. (2002).
6.
BermanR. (1987). How television sees its audience: A look at the looking glass.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
7.
BirdS. E. (1992). For inquiring minds: A cultural study of supermarket tabloids.Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press.
8.
BushmanB. J.Violence and sex in television programs do not sell products in advertisements. Psychological Science, 16, 702–708. (2005).
9.
CooperC. P.BurgoonM.RoterD. L.An expectancy-value analysis of viewer interest in television prevention news stories. Health Communication, 13, 227–240. (2001).
10.
DiddiA.LaRoseR.Getting hooked on news: Uses and gratifications and the formation of news habits among college students in an Internet environment. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50, 193–210. (2006).
11.
EmeryE.EmeryM. (1984). The press and America: An interpretive history of the mass media (5th ed.).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
12.
EvansJ. R.MathurA.The value of online surveys. Internet Research, 15, 195–219. (2005).
13.
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
14.
GottliebC.BeltT.Where have all the viewers gone?Project for Excellence in Journalism. Retrieved June 1, 2007, from http://www.journalism.org/node/248 (2001).
15.
GrabeM. E.ZhouS.BarnettB.Explicating sensationalism in television news: Content and the bells and whistles of form. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45, 635–655. (2001).
16.
GreenbergB. S. (1974). Gratifications of television viewing and their correlates for British children. In BlumlerJ. G.KatzE., The Uses of Mass Communication: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research (pp.7192), Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
17.
HaleM.FowlerE. F.GoldsteinK. M.Capturing multiple markets: A new method of capturing and analyzing local television news. Electronic News, 1, 227–243. (2007).
18.
HamiltonJ. T. (2005). The market and the media. In OverholserG. & JamiesonK. H., The Press (pp. 351371). New York: Oxford University Press.
19.
HargreavesI.ThomasJ. (2002). New News, Old News; an ITC and BSC Research Publication.London: Broadcasting Standards Commission/Independent Television Commission.
20.
HarrisonJ. (2006). News.New York: Taylor & Francis.
21.
Hendriks VettehenP. G.SchaapG.SchlosserS.What men and women think while watching the news: An exploration. Communications, 29, 235–251. (2004).
22.
HummeE. (1996). The new paradigm for news. In JamiesonK.. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science: The media and politics (pp. 141153). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
KleinR. D.Audience reactions to local TV news. American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 1661–1672. (2003).
MindichD. T. Z. (2005). Tuned Out: Why Americans Under 40 Don't Follow the News.New York: Oxford University Press.
26.
NabiR. L.SouthwellB. G.HornikR. C.Predicting intentions versus predicting behaviors: Domestic violence prevention from a Theory of Reasoned Action perspective. Health Communication, 14, 429–449. (2002).
27.
PalmgreenP.WennerL. A.RayburnJ. D.Relations between gratifications sought and obtained: A study of television news. Communication Research, 7, 161–192. (1980).
28.
PapacharissiZ.RubinA. M.Predictors of Internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 175–196. (2000).
29.
PerseE. M.Involvement with local television news: Cognitive and emotional dimensions. Human Communication Research, 16, 556–581. (1990a).
30.
PerseE. M.Media involvement and local news effects. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43, 17–36. (1990b).
31.
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. (2004). News audiences increasingly politicized. [report]. Retrieved June 1, 2007, from http://people-press.org
32.
PriorM.Any good news in soft news? The impact of soft news preference on political knowledge. Political Communication, 20, 149–171. (2003).
33.
Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2007). The state of the news media: An annual report on American journalism. Retrieved June 1, 2007, from http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007
34.
RosengrenK. E. (1974). Uses and gratifications: A paradigm outlined. In BlumlerJ. G.KatzE., The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 269286). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
35.
RosenstielT.GottliebC.BradyL. (1999). Local TV news project 1998: What works, what flops, and why. Retrieved June 1, 2007, from http://www.journalism.org/node/377
36.
RubinA. M.Television use by children and adolescents. Human Communication Research, 5, 109120. (1979).
37.
RubinA. M.An examination of television viewing motivations. Communication Research, 8, 141165. (1981).
38.
RubinA. M.Ritualized and instrumental television viewing. Journal of Communication, 34, 67–77. (1984).
39.
RubinA. M. (2002). The uses-and-gratifications perspective of media effects. In BryantJ. & ZillmannD., Media Effects. Advances in Theory and Research. Second Edition (pp. 525548). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
40.
RubinR. B.PerseE. M.PowellR. A.Loneliness, parasocial interaction, and local television news viewing. Human Communication Research, 12, 155–180. (1985).
41.
ScottD. K.GobetzR. H.Hard news / soft news content of the national broadcast networks, 1972–1987. Journalism Quarterly, 69, 406–412. (1992).
42.
ShawD. L.SlaterJ. W.In the eye of the beholder? Sensationalism in American press news, 1820–1860. Journalism History, 12(3–4), 8691. (1985).
43.
SlatteryK. L.HakanenE. A.Sensationalism versus public affairs content of local TV news: Pennsylvania revisited. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 38, 205215. (1994).
44.
SmithK. H.StuttsM. A.Effects of short-term cosmetic versus long-term health fear appeals in anti-smoking advertisements on the smoking behavior of adolescents. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 3, 157177. (2003).
45.
SteigerJ. H.Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251. (1980).
46.
StevensJ. D.Sensationalism in perspective. Journalism History, 12(3–4), 7879. (1985).
47.
VanderboschH.EggermontS.Elderly people's media use: At the crossroads of personal and societal developments. Communications, 27, 437–455. (2002).
48.
WilliamsE. J.The comparison of regression variables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 21, 396–399. (1959).
49.
WimmerR. D.DominickJ. R. (2006). Mass Media Research (8th ed.).Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
50.
YzerM. C.SieroF. W.BuunkB. P.Bringing up condom use and using condoms with new sexual partners: Intentional or habitual?Psychology & Health, 16, 409–421. (2001).
51.
YzerM. C.CappellaJ. N.FishbeinM.HornikR.SayeedS.AhernR. K.The role of external variables in an integrative model of behavioral change: The effects of adolescents' risk for regular marijuana use on intention to use marijuana. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 1229–1250. (2004).
