This study conducted a cross-national television news content analysis in 14 countries to compare the elements of sensationalism appearing in four types of media systems. A secondary analysis was further employed to examine the relationship between news sensationalization, news competition levels, and professionalism of these countries. Results reveal that crime-, accident-, and disaster-related news remain the staples of sensational news across countries. Dual broadcasting systems devoted more sensational news coverage than commercial broadcasting systems. Sensational formal features were found to be limited in all broadcasting systems. Celebrities and ordinary people tended to pose as news actors to personalize and dramatize the news more frequently than allowing officials or authoritative sources to legitimate the stories. Furthermore, news competition has been confirmed as an impact to the boom of news sensationalization. More professional journalists report more soft news than less professional ones.
BarkinSM (2003) American Television News: The Media Marketplace and the Public Interest. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
4.
Bek MG (2004) Tabloidization of news media: An analysis of television news in turkey. European Journal of Communication19(3): 371–386.
5.
CurranJIyengarSLundABSalovaara-MoringI (2009) Media system, public knowledge, and democracy: A comparative perspective. European Journal of Communication24(1): 5–26.
6.
DavisHMcLeodSL (2003) Why humans value sensational news: An evolutionary perspective. Evolution and Human Behavior24: 208–216.
7.
De SwertK (2008) Sensationalism in a television news context: Toward an Index for Comparative Research. Discussion Paper. In: International Association for Media and Communication Research Conference, Sweden, July.
8.
EhrlichME (1996) The journalism of outrageousness: Tabloid television news vs. investigative news. Journalism and Mass Communication Monographs155: 1–24.
9.
EspositoSA (1996) Presumed innocent? A comparative analysis of network news’, primetime newsmagazines’, and tabloid TV’s pretrial coverage of the O.J. Simpson criminal case. Communications and the Law18(4): 49–72.
10.
GrabeMELangAZhaoXQ (2003) News content and form: Implications for memory and audience evaluations. Communication Research30: 387–413.
11.
GrabeMEZhouBBarnettB (2001) Explication sensationalism in television news: Content and the bells and whistles of form. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media45: 635–655.
12.
GrabeMEZhouSHLangABollsPD (2000) Packaging television news: The effects of tabloid on information processing and evaluative responses. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media44(4): 581–598.
13.
GulyasA (2000) The development of the tabloid press in Hungary. In: SparksCTullochJ (eds) Tabloid Tales: Global Debates Over Media Standards. Lanham, MD: Rowman Littlefield, pp. 111–128.
14.
HallinDCManciniP (2004) Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
15.
HjarvardS (2000) Proximity, the name of the rating game. Nordicom Review21(2): 63–81.
16.
HofstetterCRDozierDM (1986) Useful news, sensational news: Quality, sensational and local TV news. Journalism Quarterly63(4): 815–820.
17.
HvitfeltH (1994) The commercialization of the evening news: Changes in narrative technique in Swedish TV news. Nordicom Review15(1): 33–41.
18.
KnightG (1989) Reality effects: Tabloid television news. Queen’s Quarterly96(1): 94–108.
19.
LinCC (2009) Rating Journalism: The Commercialization of TV News in Taiwan. Taipei: Linking.
20.
LinSP (2008) Popular News: A Perspective of Cultural Studies. Taipei: Wu-Nan.
21.
LoVH (2004) The Changing Mainland, Hong Kong and Taiwan Journalists. Taipei: Chuliu.
LosifidisP (2007) Public television in small European countries: Challenges and strategies. International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics3(1): 65–87.
24.
McManus JH (1994) Market-Driven Journalism: Let the Citizen Beware?Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
PfetschB (1996) Convergence through privatization? Changing media environments and televised politics in Germany. European Journal of Communication11(4): 427–451.
27.
PostmanN (1985) Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: Viking.
28.
ReeseSD (1989) The news paradigm and the ideology of objectivity: A socialist at the Wall Street Journal. Critical Studies in Mass Communication7: 390–409.
29.
SlatteryKLHakanenEA (1994) Sensationalism versus public affairs content of local TV news: Pennsylvania revisited. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media38(2): 205–216.
30.
SoCYKChanJM (2007) Professionalism, politics and market force: Survey studies of Hong Kong journalists 1996–2006. Asian Journal of Communication17(2): 148–158.
31.
SparksCTullochJ (2000) Tabloid Tales: Global Debates Over Media Standards. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
32.
ThussuDK (2007) News as Entertainment: The Rise of Global Infotainment. London: Sage.
33.
TuchmanG (1972) Objectivity as strategic ritual: An examination of newsmen’s notions of objectivity. American Sociological Review77: 660–679.
34.
UribeRGunterB (2004) Are soft topics good predictors of emotionality? The case of TV news in Britain. In: Annual Conference of International Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
35.
VettehenPHNuijtenKBeentjesWJ (2005) News in an age of competition: The case of sensationalism in Dutch television news, 1995–2001. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media49(3): 282–295.
36.
VettehenPHNuijtenKBeentjesWJ (2006) Sensationalism in Dutch current affairs programmes1992–2001.European Journal of Communication 21(2): 227–237.
37.
WangTLCohenAA (2009) Factors affecting viewers’ perceptions of sensationalism in television news: A survey study in Taiwan. Issues and Studies45(2): 125–157.
38.
WangYL (1998) The influence of Mainland China’s reform and open-up policy on the management of television business. Mass Communication Research57: 27–49.
39.
YangM-L (2002) Retarded media is degrading the country. Common Wealth Magazine251: 110–144.
