Newspapers confront an acute dilemma: how to give citizens more of what they need in a democracy—more than citizens now know enough to demand in the marketplace. The more news production strays from the core function of enhancing democracy, the more potential consumers learn they have little reason to invest their free time consuming serious political journalism. So they don’t, and newspapers and the stock market continue redirecting their resources. To counter this, industry observers have been urging non-profit business models. Yet even in this scenario, maintaining their watchdog function requires newspapers to support staffs large enough to investigate the powerful. Therefore, this essay argues, even a non-profit newspaper industry should still pursue mass audiences. Building on a synthesis of scholarly findings, this article suggests ways of doing political journalism that respond to changing audience interests and ever-growing alternatives to traditional daily newspapers—while remaining true to the higher ideals of watchdog journalism. To illustrate pitfalls of current practice and benefits of innovation it analyzes news about global warming.
Arnold, R.D.2004. Congress, the press, and political accountability. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
Baum, M.2005. Talking the vote: Why presidential candidates hit the talk show circuit. American Journal of Political Science49 (2): 213-34.
3.
Baum, M., and T. Groeling.2007. Iraq and the "Fox effect": An examination of polarizing media and public support for international conflict. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.
4.
Baym, G.2007. Representation and the politics of play: Stephen Colbert’s Better Know a District. Political Communication24 (4): 359-76.
5.
Belt T.L., and M. Just.2007. The local news story: Is quality a choice?Political Communication25 (2): 194-215.
6.
Bennett, W.L.2009. News: The politics of illusion. 8th ed. New York: Longman.
7.
Bennett, W.L., R. Lawrence, and S. Livingston.2007. When the press fails. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8.
Berinsky, A., and D. Kinder.2006. Making sense of issues through media frames: Understanding the Kosovo crisis. Journal of Politics68 (3): 640-56.
9.
Bimber, B.2003. Information and American democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Borrelli, S.A., and B. Lockerbie.2008. Framing effects on public opinion during prewar and major combat phases of the U.S. wars with Iraq. Social Science Quarterly89 (2): 502-22.
11.
Boykoff, M.T.2008. Flogging a dead norm? Newspaper coverage of anthropogenic climate change in the United States and United Kingdom from 2003 to 2006. Area39 (4): 470-81.
12.
Brader, T.2006. Campaigning for hearts and minds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13.
Cao, X.2005. Political comedy shows and knowledge about primary campaigns among young Americans. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.
14.
Capella, J.N., and K.H. Jamieson.1997. Spiral of cynicism. New York: Oxford University Press.
15.
Carvalho, A.2007. Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge: re-reading news on climate change. Public Understanding of Science16 (2): 223-43.
16.
Castells, M.2009. Communication power. New York: Oxford University Press.
17.
Chong, D., and J. Druckman.2007a. Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science10 (1): 103-26.
18.
Chong, D., and J. Druckman.2007b. A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication57 (1): 99-118.
19.
Chong, D., and J. Druckman.2007c. Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review101 (4): 637-55.
20.
Dahl, R.A.1990. Myth of the presidential mandate. Political Science Quarterly105 (3): 355-72.
21.
Entman, R.M.1989. Democracy without citizens. New York : Oxford University Press.
22.
Entman, R.M.2004. Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion, and U.S. foreign policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
Entman, R.M.2005. The nature and sources of news. In Institutions of American democracy: The press, ed. K. Jamieson and G. Overholser, 48-65. Oxford University Press.
24.
Entman, R.M.2007. Framing bias: Media in the distribution of power. Journal of Communication57 (1): 163-73.
25.
Entman, R.M., and C.V. Bell.2007. Slanting news and the representation of political interests: The Bush tax cuts. Unpublished manuscript.
26.
Entman, R.M., S. Livingston, and J. Kim.2009. Doomed to repeat: Iraq news, 2002-2007 . American Behavioral Scientist52 (5): 689-708.
27.
Entman, R.M., J. Matthes, and L. Pellicano.2008. Framing politics in the news: Nature, sources, and effects. In Handbook of journalism studies, ed. K. Wahl-Jensen and T. Hanitzsch, 175-90. Philadelphia: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
Entman, R.M., and A. Rojecki.2000. The black image in the white mind: Media and race in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
Farnsworth, S.J.2008. Spinner in chief: How presidents sell themselves and their policies. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
30.
Feldman, L., and V. Price.2008. Confusion or enlightenment? How exposure to disagreement moderates the effects of political discussion and media use on candidate knowledge. Communication Research35 (1): 61-87.
31.
Feldman, L.M., and D.G. Young.2006. Late-night comedy as a gateway to traditional news: An analysis of time trends in news attention among late-night comedy viewers during the (2004) presidential primaries. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association , Philadelphia.
32.
Forster, E.M.1910. Howard’s end. A. A. Knopf: New York.
33.
Forster, E.M.1927. Aspects of the novel. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt: Orlando, FL.
34.
Georgia Tech.2008. Proceedings from Journalism 3G-The future of technology in the field. http://www.cc.gatech.edu/events/cnj-symposium/CJ_Symposium_Report.pdf.
35.
Gilens, M.1999. Why Americans hate welfare. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
36.
Grabe, M.E., and Kamhawi, R.2006. Hard wired for negative news? Gender differences in processing broadcast news. Communication Research, 33(5), 346-369.
37.
Grabe, M.E., and S. Zhou.2003. News as Aristotelian drama: The case of 60 Minutes. Mass Communication and Society6 (3): 313-36.
38.
Graber, D.A.1999. Processing the news: Taming the information tide. New York: Longman.
39.
Graber, D.2003. The media and democracy: Beyond myths and stereotypes . Annual Review of Political Science6 (June): 139-60.
40.
Hacker, J., and Pierson.2005. Off center: The Republican revolution and the erosion of American democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
41.
Hamilton, J.T.2004. All the news that’s fit to sell. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42.
Hamilton, J.T.2009. The road ahead for media hybrids. Report of the Duke Non-Profit Media Conference, May 4-5. Dewitt Wallace Center, Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University . http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/nonprofitmedia/documents/DWC_Conference_Report.pdf .
43.
Hansen, K.M.2007. The sophisticated public: The effect of competing frames on public opinion. Scandinavian Political Studies30 (3): 377-96.
44.
Hindman, M.S.2008. The myth of digital democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45.
Huddy, L., S. Feldman, and E. Cassese.2007. On the distinct political effects of anxiety and anger. In The affect effect: Dynamics of emotion in political thinking and behavior, ed. A. Crigler, M. MacKuen, G.E. Marcus, and W.R. Neuman, 202-30. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
46.
Iyengar, S.1991. Is anyone responsible?Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
47.
Iyengar, S., and K.S. Hahn.2007. Natural disasters in black and white: How racial cues influenced public response to Hurricane Katrina. Unpublished manuscript.
48.
Iyengar, S., H. Norpoth, and K.S. Hahn.2004. Consumer demand for election news: The horserace sells. Journal of Politics66 (1), 157-75.
49.
Jerit, J.2007. Issue public, news attention, and the information environment . Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.
50.
Jerit, J.2008. Issue framing and engagement: Rhetorical strategy in public policy debates. Political Behavior30 (1): 1-24.
51.
Jones, A.S.2009. Losing the news. New York: Oxford University Press.
52.
Kam, C.D.2006. Political campaigns and open-minded thinking. Journal of Politics68 (4): 931-45.
53.
Kurtz, H.2004. The Post on WMDs: An inside story-Prewar articles questioning threat often didn’t make front page. Washington Post . August 12.
54.
Logan, B., and D. Sutter.2004. Newspaper quality, Pulitzer prizes, and newspaper circulation. American Economic Journal32 (2): 100-12.
55.
Lupia, A., and T.S. Philpot.2005. Views from inside the net: How Web sites affect young adults’ political interest. Journal of Politics67 (4): 1122-42.
56.
Machill, M., S. Kohler, and M. Waldhauser.2007. The use of narrative structures in television news-An experiment in innovative forms of journalistic presentation. European Journal of Political Communication22 (2): 185-205.
57.
Mendelberg, Tali.2001. The race card: Campaign strategy, implicit messages, and the norm of equality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
58.
Mendelberg, Tali.2008. Racial priming: Issues in research design and interpretation . Perspectives on Politics6 (1): 135-40.
59.
Mutz, Diana.2006. Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participative democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
60.
Niblock, S.2007. From "knowing how" to "being able": Negotiating the meanings of reflective practice and reflexive research in journalism studies. Journalism Practice1 (1): 20-32.
61.
Parker, K. and C. Dean.1997. Ten years of the Pew News Interest Index. A report for presentation at the 1997 meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Washington, D.C.
62.
Patterson. T.E.2002. The vanishing voter. New York: Knopf.
63.
Patterson, T.E.2003. Putting research into practice: Communication scholars, the media, and democracy. In Donsbach/Jandura, S.Chancen und Gefahren der Mediendemokratie. Uvk Verlags GmbH, 19-27.
64.
Peer, L.2007. The former audience and the future public: Conceptualizing and measuring new media use and its potential for democracy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.
65.
Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism.2009. The state of the news media. http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2009/index.htm.
66.
Price, V., and D. Tewksbury.1997. News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. In Progress in the communication sciences, vol. 13, ed. G.A. Barnett and F.J. Boster. New York: Ablex.
67.
Prior, M.2007. Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. New York : Cambridge University Press.
68.
Robinson. S.2007. Someone’s gotta be in control here. Journalistic Practice1 (3): 305-21.
69.
Rojecki, A.2008. The arc of resonance: Hurricane Katrina and its metaphoric aftermath. Unpublished manuscript.
70.
Schudson, M.1999. The good citizen. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
71.
Shorenstein Center (Harvard University).2008 . Women and news: Expanding the news audience, increasing participation, and informing citizens. Conference report of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the press, politics, and public policy.
72.
Slothuus, R.2007. Framing deservingness to win support for welfare state retrenchment. Scandinavian Political Studies30 (3): 323-44.
73.
Sniderman, P., and S.M. Theriault.2004. The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In Public opinion, ed. W.E. Saris and P.M. Sniderman, 133-65. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
74.
Tewksbury, D.2003. What do Americans really want to know? Tracking the behavior of news readers on the Internet. Journal of Communication53 (4): 694-710.
75.
Valentino, N.A., V.L. Hutchings, A.J. Banks, and A.K. Davis.2008. Is a worried citizen a good citizen? Emotions, political information seeking, and learning via the Internet. Political Psychology29 (2): 247-73.
76.
Westen, D.2007. The political brain. New York: PublicAffairs.
77.
Xenos, M., and P. Moy.2007. Direct and differential effects of the internet on political and civic engagement. Journal of Communication57 (4): 704-18.
78.
Zaller, J.2001. Monica Lewinsky and the mainsprings of American politics . In Mediated politics, ed. W.L. Bennett and R.M. Entman, 252-78. New York: Cambridge University Press.
79.
Zaller, J.2004. The relationship between news quality and market share in network TV news. Presented at the annual conference of the American Political Science Association, Chicago .
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
