Masters Theses

Date of Award

5-1993

Degree Type

Thesis

Degree Name

Master of Science

Major

Communication

Major Professor

Edward Caudill

Committee Members

James Crook

Abstract

This study analyzes and compares editorial opinions and reporting strategies of three newsweeklies during the 1989 Alar chemical scare. The author seeks to determine if selected press coverage of the 1989 controversy was accurate and impartial or, as some media critics charge, reflected a negative news bias resulting from reckless reporting, misplaced values, journalistic perceptions, or a willing participation in advancing the special-interest agenda of environmental and consumer advocacy groups (Rosen, 1990). Using a directional approach to thematic content analysis, the author evaluates coverage in Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report, and compares this coverage to what is considered by Neilson (1973) and others (Katz, 1992) to be the in-depth, balanced reporting style of the Wall Street Journal. Citing source selection, hyperbole, metaphorical devices and the frequency of negative themes and assertions, the author maintains that some articles reflect journalists' personal biases and perceptions of public attitudes surrounding the chemical controversy. The author concedes, however, that the seemingly negative slant and hyperbolic distortion in selected articles may in part be the result of time constraints placed on reporters, complexity of the subject, lack of scientific background needed to competently assess conflicting information, and difficulty in finding reliable and impartial sources for information. With data gleaned from this study and public opinion polls conducted following release of the 1989 Alar report, the author asserts that some coverage did indeed reflect a negative slant, and was tarnished by what seemed an anti-chemical bias. The negative nature of some reports, the author contends, was largely generated by a vocal cadre of environmental and consumer activists, and was buoyed by an effective public relations campaign that appeared bent on eliminating or greatly curtailing the use of agricultural chemicals. The author cautions that the seemingly cavalier approach taken by some reporters has the potential to further damage media credibility and widen the schism which some press scholars feel exists between the scientific and journalistic communities (Salomone, Greenberg, Sandman and Sachsman, 1990). In conclusion, the author echoes the criticism of others who contend that many journalists and the publications they work for are more interested in simply getting a good story than getting the facts. Exhaustive research and a commitment to fairness are the essential elements needed to enhance credibility and distance reporting from emotional advocacy.

Download
Files over 3MB may be slow to open. For best results, right-click and select "save as..."

Share

COinS