This study examines whether readers of the paper and online versions of a national newspaper acquire different perceptions of the importance of political issues. Using data from a weeklong experiment in which subjects either readthe print version of the New York Times, the online version of that paper, or received no special exposure, this study finds evidence that people exposed to the Times for 5 days adjusted their agendas in response to that exposure and that print readers modified their agendas differently than did online readers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abramson, J.
, Arterton, F. C., & Orren, G. (1988). The electronic commonwealth: The impact of new media technologies on democratic politics. New York: Basic Books.
2.
Althaus, S. L.
, & Tewksbury, D. (2000). Patterns of Internet and traditional news media use in a networked community. Political Communication, 17, 21-45.
3.
Becker, L. B.
, & Shoenbach, K. (Eds.). (1989). Audience responses to media diversification: Coping with plenty. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
Bennett, W. L.
(1996). The governing crisis: Media, money, and marketing in American elections (2nd ed.). New York: St. Martin's.
5.
Bennett, W. L.
(1998). The uncivic culture: Communication, identity, and the rise of lifestyle politics. PS: Political Science and Politics, 31, 741-761.
6.
Bogart, L.
(1989). Press andpublic: Who reads what, when, where, andwhy in American newspapers (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
Brown, R. D.
(1996). The strength of a people: The idea of an informed citizenry in America, 1650-1870. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
8.
Capella, J. N.
, & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). The spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. New York: Oxford University Press.
9.
Carey, J. W.
(1989). Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
10.
Converse, P.
(1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206-261). New York: Free Press.
11.
Davis, R.
(1999). The web of politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
12.
Davis, R.
, & Owen, D. (1998). New media and American politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
13.
Dayan, D.
, & Katz, E. (1992). Media events: The live broadcasting of history. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
Dearing, J. W.
, & Rogers, E. M. (1996). Agenda setting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
Delli Carpini, M. X.
, & Keeter, S. (1993). Measuring political knowledge: Putting first things first. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 1179-1206.
16.
Delli Carpini, M. X.
, & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
17.
Dozier, D.M.
& Rice, R.E. (1984). RivalTheories of electronic news reading. In R.E. Rice, J.H.Blair, M. Chen, J. Dimmick, D.M. Dozier, M.E. Jacob, B.M. Johnson, W. D. Penniman, L.L. Svenning, E.M. Rogers, E.W. Rothenbuhler, J.E. Ruchinskas, & F. Williams (Eds.), The new media: Comunication, research, and technology (pp. 103-127). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
18.
Erbring, L.
, Goldenberg, E. N., & Miller, A. H. (1980). Front-page news and real-world cues: A new look at agenda setting by the media. American Journal of Political Science, 24, 16-49.
19.
Fico, F.
, Heeter, C., Soffin, S., & Stanley, C. (1987). New wave gatekeeping: Electronic indexing effects on newspaper reading. Communication Research, 14, 335-351.
20.
Graber, D. A.
(1988). Processing the news: How people tame the information tide (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
21.
Graber, D. A.
(1997). Mass media and American politics (5th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
22.
Heeter, C.
, Brown, N., Soffin, S., Stanley, C., & Salwen, M. (1989). Agenda setting by electronic text news. Journalism Quarterly, 66, 101-106.
23.
Held, D.
(1987). Models of democracy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
24.
Herbst, S.
(1994). Politics at the margin. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Hill, D. B.
(1985). Viewer characteristics and agenda setting by television news. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49, 340-350.
26.
Hoge, J. F.
(1997, November/December). Foreign news: Who gives a damn?Columbia Journalism Review, 36, 48-52.
27.
Iyengar, S.
, & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: Television andAmerican opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28.
Iyengar, S.
, Peters, M. D., & Kinder, D. R. (1982). Experimental demonstrations of the “not-so-minimal” consequences of television news programs. American Political Science Review, 76, 848-858.
29.
Katz, E.
(1996, July). And deliver us from segmentation. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546, 22-33.
30.
Krosnick, J. A.
, Berent, M. K., & Boniger, D. S. (1994). Pockets of responsibility in the American electorate: Findings of a research program on attitude importance. Political Communication, 11, 391-411.
31.
Krosnick, J. A.
, & Brannon, L. (1993). The impact of the Gulf War on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Multidimensional effects of political involvement. American Political Science Review, 87, 963-975.
32.
McCombs, M.
, Danielian, L., & Wanta, W. (1995). Issues in the news and the public agenda: The agenda-setting tradition. In T. L. Glasser & C. T. Salmon (Eds.), Public opinion and the communication of consent (pp. 281-300). New York: Guilford.
33.
McCombs, M.
, Shaw, D. L., & Weaver, D. (Eds.). (1997). Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
McCombs, M.
, & Zhu, J.-H. (1995). Capacity, diversity, and volatility of the public agenda: Trends from 1954 to 1994. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59, 495-525.
35.
McGuire, W. J.
(1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 136-314). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
36.
McLeod, J. M.
, Becker, L. B., & Byrnes, J. E. (1974). Another look at the agenda-setting function of the press. Communication Research, 1, 131-166.
37.
Mendelsohn, M.
, & Nadeau, R. (1996). The magnification and minimization of socialcleavages by the broadcast and narrowcast news media. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8, 374-389.
38.
Miller, J. M.
, & Krosnick, J. A. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 295-309.
39.
Mutz, D. C.
, & Soss, J. (1997). Reading public opinion: The influence of news coverage on perceptions of public sentiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 431-451.
40.
Neuman, W. R.
(1986). The paradox of mass politics: Knowledge and opinion in the American electorate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
Neuman, W. R.
(1991). The future of the mass audience. New York: Cambridge University Press.
42.
Neuman, W. R.
, Just, M., & Crigler, A. (1992). Common knowledge: News and the construction of social meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
43.
Pateman, C.
(1970). Participation anddemocratic theory. London: Cambridge University Press.
44.
Patterson, T.
(1993). Out of order. New York: Knopf.
45.
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
. (1999). Online newcomers more middle-brow, less work-oriented: The Internet news audience goes ordinary. Retrieved June 20, 2001, from http://www.people-press.org/tech98sum.htm
46.
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
. (2001). Public attentiveness to news stories: 1986-2000. Retrieved June 18, 2001, from http://www.%20people-press.org/database.htm
47.
Price, V.
, & Zaller, J. (1993). Who gets the news? Alternative measures of news reception and their implications for research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 133-164.
48.
Protess, D. L.
, Cook, F. L., Doppelt, J. C., Ettema, J. S., Gordon, M. T., Leff, D. R., & Miller, P. (1991). The journalism of outrage. New York: Guilford.
49.
Protess, D. L.
, & McCombs, M. (Eds.). (1991). Agenda setting: Readings on media, public opinion, and policy making. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
50.
Roessler, P.
(1999). The individual agenda-designing process: How interpersonal communication, egocentric networks, and mass media shape the perception of political issues by individuals. Communication Research, 26, 666-700.
51.
Sabato, L. J.
, Stencel, M., & Lichter, S. R. (2000). Peepshow: Media and politics in an age of scandal. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
52.
Schudson, M.
(1998). The good citizen: A history of American civic life. New York: Free Press.
53.
Sunstein, C.
(2001). Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
54.
Tewksbury, D. H.
, & Althaus, S. L. (2000). Differences in knowledge acquisition among readers of the paper and online versions of a national newspaper. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 457-479.
55.
Wanta, W.
(1997). The public and the national agenda. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
56.
Weaver, D. H.
(1977). Political issues and voter need for orientation. In D. Shaw & M. McCombs (Eds.), The emergence of American political issues (pp. 107-120). St. Paul: West.
57.
Webster, J.
, & Phalen, P. (1997). The mass audience: Rediscovering the dominant model. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
58.
White, D. M.
(1950). The gatekeeper: A case study in the selection of news. Journalism Quarterly, 27, 383-390.
59.
Williams, F.
, Phillips, A. F., & Lum, P. (1985). Gratifications associated with new communication technologies. In E. K. Rosengren, L. A. Wenner, & P. Palmgreen (Eds.), Media gratifications research: Current perspectives (pp. 241-252). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
60.
Zaller, J.
(1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
