Sample Tv Commercials

This study found that the use of local TV news and network TV news increased significantly in the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, but readership of newspapers and news on the Internet did not. Five months after the attacks 41 percent of respondents said their news media use had increased.

Sept. 11, 2001, touched every aspect of American society. It destroyed lives and devastated families. It ravaged property, wiped out businesses and crippled the American economy. Sept. 11 changed the President's agenda, re-ordered the priorities of Congress, started a war and established new laws and regulations that tightened airport security and immigration. As a result of the terrorist attacks, Americans' sense of security at home has been forever changed.

Sept. 11 also affected the media. On network television, commercials and entertainment programs were dropped for wall-to-wall news coverage while newspapers published extra editions and devoted entire special sections to coverage of the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the anthrax scare and the War on Terrorism.1 Because of the enormity of the devastation, an important question is: Did the terrorist attacks change news media use and if so, why? This study will use a trend analysis to examine the impact of Sept. 11 on news media use and a cross-sectional study to analyze use of news media and gratifications sought after the terrorist attacks. Furthermore, this study will pay special attention to newspaper nonreaders to determine if their news media behavior was affected by the terrorist attacks.

Although the increase in network TV news use and the record-setting Internet traffic have been well documented,2 less attention has been paid to the impact of the terrorist attacks on all news media use over time and the gratifications sought from that news use. This study will look at the impact of Sept. 11 on a broader range of news media use, including newspapers, cable TV news, local TV news, network TV news and news on the Internet. While emphasis has been placed on news users, virtually no attention has been given to the impact of Sept. 11 on traditional non-news users. This study will also examine news use and gratifications of newspaper nonreaders and answer the question: In the aftermath of Sept. 11, did nonreaders turn to the news and if so, why?

Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

This study employs the uses and gratifications approach as a framework for answering the following research questions about news users and adults who traditionally ignore the news:

RQ1:

1) What was the impact of Sept. 11 on old and new news media use and the gratifications sought?

RQ2:

2) In the aftermath of Sept. 11, did newspaper nonreaders turn to the news and if so, why?

Uses and Gratifications Approach

It is a bit ironic that one of the first studies of media effects from the perspective of the people "affected" concerned the lack of access to usual information. When eight newspapers in New York City went on strike in 1945, Bernard Berelson and Columbia University's Bureau of Applied Social Research interviewed newspaper readers to find out what they were missing.3 Some of the uses and gratifications mentioned by those people included: information and interpretation of public affairs, a tool for daily living, respite / escape, social prestige and social contact.

Even with the modest sample size (60 in-depth interviews), Berelson's study of why people missed their daily newspaper became important because of the role of the reader. Instead of asking what the media do to people, the question was turned around to find out what people do with the media.

As the idea of powerful media and a passive, accepting audience lost favor, uses and gratifications emerged as a popular approach to media effects research. Once it became clear the individual media consumer played a significant role in the power of the media message, researchers focused on how the audience chose media sources and what benefits it received from those choices.4

The reasons why people picked specific content and media became the basis for typologies of use. McQuail, Blumler and Brown narrowed down the audience's stated reasons into four categories: surveillance, diversion, personal identity and personal relationship.5 Surveillance was described as information about things that might affect people or help them accomplish something. Diversion was considered an emotional release or escape from routines. Personal identity pertained to self-understanding or value reinforcement and personal relationship described the use of media as a substitute for companionship.

One criticism of uses and gratifications has been the differing approaches to setting up the categories of media use. Some researchers took motive definitions from previous studies and made changes to fit the specific study,6 while others created their own typology through surveys or interviews.7 Even with the changing categories and typologies, one broad motive was constant in all uses and gratifications studies involving news: surveillance or cognitive orientation to describe the idea of seeking out information. The people who used media for this reason were usually heavier consumers of news than the rest of the population.8

The people who were most active in choosing various media for their needs also tended to be those who used media to gather information.9 Levy's study of local and network television news showed that the surveillance dimension included the idea of reassurance.10 Almost three out of ten people surveyed said they felt more secure and reassured after watching television news.

Bantz has been critical of uses and gratifications studies that are limited to just one medium. Limiting research to one content area and one medium makes it impossible to know if the use "...is a consequence of the medium, its content, or their interaction." 11 Plus, people do not limit their media choices if they have a specific need. Perse and Dunn showed that those who want specific information look across different media to find the best source for that information.12

That information becomes even more important to the audience in times of crisis. Peled and Katz looked at wartime functions of the media when Syrians and Egyptians invaded Israel on Yom Kippur in October 1973. By interviewing random samples of the adult Jewish population, the authors found that television in general and TV news in particular became important as a way to relieve tension. Televised information "served not only the need to know but also the need for relief from tension and for a feeling of social connectedness."13

Although the typologies may change in uses and gratifications research, the overall impact of the approach is "...an assessment of media consumption in audience-related terms, rather than in technological, aesthetic, ideological, or other more or less 'elitist' terms."14

By asking newspaper readers, TV and cable news viewers and Internet users about the reasons for their increased news media use after Sept. 11, this study will contribute to the uses and gratifications literature in general and how this approach functions in audience-related terms during a national crisis.

Nonreaders

This study will also pay special attention to individuals who admit they seldom or never read a newspaper. Newspaper executives and journalism scholars have studied nonreaders for decades for insight into why they ignore newspapers. From the vantage point of newspaper publishers, editors and marketing executives, nonreaders are one of the reasons that newspaper readership has declined over the past 30 years. Newspaper executives have reasoned that if nonreaders can be understood, they can be converted into newspaper readers.

Journalism scholars, on the other hand, have studied nonreaders as an important component of the news media landscape that must be understood. These studies over the past 40 years have mostly contributed to the demographic and sociological profile of nonreaders and identified the reasons nonreaders turned away from newspapers.

Nonreaders were first studied in 1964 when Westley and Severin examined their demographic and sociological characteristics.15 Although the Westley and Severin study did not ask nonreaders directly why they did not read newspapers, it did contribute to a profile of the nonreader that has mostly been defined by the demographic variable age. After almost four decades of research on the nonreader, the dominant attribute that has emerged about nonreaders is that they are more likely than newspaper readers to be young adults.16 Although youth has primarily defined nonreaders, it has also been found that adults over seventy are more likely than middle-aged adults to be nonreaders of newspapers.17

Although age has been the predominant variable identified, other variables have been linked to nonreading-less social interaction;18 less political participation;19 less likely to live in an urban area;20 shorter length of residence;21 less education;22 less income;23 less community identification;24 less civic duty to keep informed of current events;25 less motivation to use newspapers to keep up with current events and understand what's going on.26 Overall, the nonreader studies suggest the nonreader is mostly younger, lower on the socio-economic scale, less rooted in the community and less interested in the world of current events.

Even though the first in-depth study of nonreaders was conducted in 1964, it took fifteen years from the Westley and Severin benchmark study for nonreader avoidances27 to be explored. In a two-wave study that used an open-ended question during Wave I and a checklist of closed-ended questions, developed from the answers to the open-ended question, Poindexter was able to identify ten nonreader avoidances, including a miscellaneous category.28 The study which was conducted in the northeastern and midwestern United States showed the top four avoidances were lack of time, preference for another medium, cost and lack of interest. Other avoidances included health-related concerns, circulation problems, language barriers, objections to newspaper content and a distaste for reading.

In a 1980 study to identify predictors of newspaper readership, Burgoon and Burgoon asked nonreaders in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., Fort Meyer, Fla., Springfield, Mo. and Reno, Nev. why they didn't read newspapers. The predominant reason was lack of time but other reasons included: availability of news from radio and TV, disinterest, cost and poor eyesight.29

Seven years later in Carbondale, Ill., Lipschultz revisited newspaper avoidances by comparing nonreaders with casual and usual readers. Using a checklist of twelve avoidances, Lipschultz showed that nonreaders attributed avoidance of newspapers to use of radio-TV, cost, lack of usefulness, time, interest, trust and attractiveness and the amount of detail.30

In 1994, Huntress examined newspaper nonreaders and television news nonviewers in Austin, Texas to understand non-users of news.31 The responses to the open-ended survey question were consistent with the Poindexter, Burgoon and Burgoon and Lipschultz studies. The avoidances included lack of time, newspaper content and presentation, preference for another medium and an "other" category which included avoidances such as poor vision, poor reading skills, language barriers, dislike of reading and lack of a subscription.

A partial replication 20 years after the 1979 Poindexter nonreader study found that preference for another information medium continued to be a reason for ignoring newspapers. But in this study that was conducted a generation after the 1979 study, preference for Internet news (10 percent) was as much a reason for ignoring newspapers as preference for TV news (11 percent).32

The additional focus on nonreaders' news media use and gratifications after Sept. 11 will also contribute to the nonreader literature, an important scholarly area that has received less attention over the past decade. Historically, nonreaders have been asked why they ignore newspapers, but this study looks at the reasons why nonreaders may have paid attention to the news after 9/11, the day the United States was attacked by terrorists.

Method

Telephone surveys were conducted with randomly selected adults, 18 years or older, in a southwestern metropolitan area for the years 1994, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002. Random selection of respondents involved a three-part procedure.33 First, phone numbers were selected using systematic random sampling from the most recent metropolitan phone directory; secondly, a one was added to the last digit of the telephone number to ensure reaching new residents and unlisted numbers; finally, the gender of the respondent household head was randomly determined. Interviews were conducted by graduate and undergraduate journalism and communication students who were trained in telephone survey interviewing techniques and ethical research standards. The survey was directed by the first author.

To measure news media use, including newspapers, local TV news, network TV news and Internet news, all survey participants were asked: "How often do you read/watch/use __________?" Response choices on the ordinal scale ranged from "never or seldom" to "every day." Daily local and network TV news viewing as well as newspaper reading were measured for all seven surveys; daily cable news viewing and Internet news use were measured for the time points 1999 through 2002. The data that were used to assess the impact of Sept. 11, 2001 were collected from Sept. 27 through October 10. For the seven telephone surveys, random sample sizes ranged from 322 to 604.

The 2002 cross-sectional survey, which was conducted February 19 through March 5, also asked: Since Sept. 11, do you pay attention to the news more, less, or the same? To identify gratifications associated with paying attention to the news, respondents who paid more attention to the news were asked the follow-up question: Why do you pay more attention? To determine the impact of Sept. 11 on nonreaders, attention to news and the gratifications sought from that attention were analyzed for respondents who indicated they "never or seldom" read a newspaper.

After surveys were coded by graduate students, the coded data were input into the computer. Frequencies, crosstabulations and appropriate statistics for measurements at the nominal and ordinal levels were produced with SPSS, the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.

Results

Pre- and Post- 9-11 Trend Analysis

According to Figure 1, which displays everyday news media use for the years 1994, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002, the impact of Sept. 11 on news media use varied by news medium. The spike in daily use of local TV news and network TV news after Sept. 11 exceeded the margin of error for the sample sizes; the fluctuations in daily use of newspapers, cable news and Internet news did not.34 In other words, from 2000 to post-Sept. 11, 2001, local TV news use increased 12 percent and network TV news increased 13 percent. During this same period, daily newspaper use increased 4 percent, cable news increased 9 percent and Internet news use increased 2 percent.

Validating Increased News Media Use

To validate increased news media use, a survey was conducted five months after Sept. 11, 2001. Respondents were asked: Since Sept. 11, do you pay attention to the news more, less, or the same. According to Table 1, 41 percent of respondents said they paid attention to the news more; 55 percent paid the same attention.

Increased News Media Use and Nonreaders

To determine if nonreaders' news media use was affected by Sept. 11, nonreaders were compared with less than daily readers (1-6 days) and everyday readers. Non-newspaper readers (47 percent) were significantly more likely than everyday newspaper readers (30 percent) to say they paid more attention to the news after Sept. 11 (tau-b=.14, p

Gratifications

Respondents who said they paid more attention to the news after Sept. 11 were asked the follow-up question: Why do you pay more attention? According to Table 2, there were four categories of gratifications: surveillance (67 percent); other (16 percent); curiosity (9 percent); fear and anxiety (8 percent).

A closer look at Table 2 reveals five different types of surveillance, satisfying five distinct needs. Although keeping up with the latest developments (45 percent) far exceeded other types of surveillance, keeping up because of personal impact (8 percent), looking to the news to learn about new threats (6 percent), trying to ascertain the world's reaction (5 percent) and gathering information about new regulations (3 percent) were also examples of surveillance.

Gratifications and Nonreaders

Nonreaders (58 percent) were less likely than daily newspaper readers (82 percent) to say they paid more attention to news after Sept. 11 because of surveillance reasons (X^sup 2^=4.737, d.f.=2, p

Nonreaders' News Choices Before and After 9/11

Table 3 compares news media use of nonreaders and daily newspaper readers for three distinct time periods: one and a half years before 9/11, two weeks after 9/11 and five months after terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon. For the three time periods, nonreaders were significantly less likely than daily newspaper readers to watch local TV news, network TV news and cable news, but for Internet news, a different pattern was found.

Before Sept. 11 and five months after, there was no significant difference between nonreaders' and daily newspaper readers' use of the Internet for news. But immediately after the terrorist attacks, nonreaders were significantly more likely than daily newspaper readers to turn to the Internet for news (tau-b=-.089, p

Discussion and Conclusions

Through a trend analysis, this study first examined the impact of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on use of local TV news, network TV news, newspapers, cable news and Internet news and found that broadcast news dominated. The use of local TV news and network TV news increased significantly after Sept. 11 but readership of newspapers and news on the Internet did not. The findings on broadcast news use in the aftermath of 9/11 were consistent with other research conducted around the country.35 Although some news reports framed the Internet as making history as it served a traumatized nation, this study found that overall, there was no significant increase in Internet news use in the days immediately following 9/11.36 In fact, according to a poll of 4,610 adults conducted online by Harris Interactive, only 3 percent said the Internet was their primary source of news.37

The cross-sectional study that was conducted five months after Sept. 11 supported the increased news media use, especially broadcast news that was evident from the trend study. Overall, 41 percent of the respondents in the cross-sectional study that was conducted five months after the terrorist attacks said they had indeed increased news media use after Sept. 11.

By approaching this study from a uses and gratifications perspective, it was possible to find support for the proposition that in times of crises, citizens turn to the news media, specifically TV, for surveillance reasons. Previous studies have identified one broad category of surveillance but this study found five distinct surveillance dimensions. Although the need to keep up with the latest developments was the dominant surveillance dimension, other dimensions included: learning about new threats, finding out about new regulations, keeping an eye on the world's reaction and keeping up because of the personal impact of the terrorist attacks. The new threats, new regulations and world's reaction dimensions of surveillance seemed to fit with Levy's study of local and network television news that showed three out of ten people surveyed felt more secure and reassured after watching TV news.38 If for example, the audience turned to the news media to find out about new threats and there were none, the audience would likely feel more secure. If after the terrorists turned passenger planes into missiles then flew them into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon, viewers would likely feel somewhat reassured after learning about new regulations on airport security.

Although surveillance motivated most respondents' news use, fear and anxiety motivated others. It is likely that the news helped relieve tension caused by fear and anxiety. This finding would be consistent with the 1974 Peled and Katz study that found the news helped relieve tension after Syrians and Egyptians invaded Israel in October 1973.39

Because few studies in the literature have examined uses and gratifications after a country has been attacked, this study makes a unique contribution to the uses and gratifications literature. Furthermore, by comparing the results of this study on the impact of the 9/11 terrorist attacks with the uses and gratifications study after the 1973 invasion of Israel, it is possible to better understand the unique role that news media play for viewers and readers during a national crisis.

Understanding the gratifications sought from the news media helps explain why so many more people than usual turned to television rather than newspapers or the Internet after the terrorist attacks. Since surveillance was the dominant gratification sought, the news medium that could most immediately satisfy that need while offering compelling pictures was the one relied on most. Even adults who were online said television was their primary source of news after the terrorist attacks.40

It is likely that the need to be connected to others, a feeling that one can experience while watching television, may also have contributed to television's dominance as a news source. Individual family members could watch the news together, discuss their fears and anxieties together and have their individual and family surveillance needs met together. Although newspapers and Internet news offered breadth and depth that could not be found in television, newspapers and the Internet could not duplicate the television viewing experience that connected individuals with their families and the rest of the nation during the days following 9/11. This connectedness was also found in the study that examined uses and gratifications during the 1973 Yom Kippur War in Israel.41

Furthermore, for viewers who were concerned about new threats or suffered from fear and anxiety, the availability of non-stop, commercial-free news coverage likely offered reassurance. Since there were no commercial breaks, anxious viewers would not have to worry that another terrorist attack could be taking place while Dove soap or Visa cards were being sold. The immediacy of TV and its communal experience capability plus the medium's facility for broadcasting breaking news with compelling pictures while reassuring its audience with comprehensive and up-to-date information, best served those who turned to the news to satisfy surveillance needs, fulfill a desire to find out about new threats and regulations, or find some calm during a fearful and anxious time.

Gratifications are normally asked of news users so the fact that this study asked nonreaders why they paid attention to the news contributes to both the uses and gratifications and the nonreader literature. Although nonreaders were less likely than daily readers to pay attention to TV and cable news, that was not the case with Internet news. Before and five months after 9/11, there wasn't a significant difference between nonreaders and newspaper readers in their use of the Internet for news. But during the days following the attacks, nonreaders actually paid more attention than newspaper readers to news on the Internet Since nonreaders were more likely than readers to pay attention to the news for non-surveillance reasons, it is possible that some of the attributes of the Internet played a role in that news use behavior. Perhaps, the Internet's access to a vast array of information may have been more reassuring to nonreaders who typically have not turned to newspapers, TV, or cable news in times past. Also, the fact that traditional news sources were not habits of nonreaders may have been a factor in nonreaders' decision to turn to the Internet. The nonreaders' use of the Internet is consistent with a 1999 nonreader study that found one of the reasons nonreaders turned away from newspapers was because they relied on the Internet for news.42

The preference for Internet news by some nonreaders during normal times and a time of national crisis suggests that nonreaders may not have rejected news content altogether. It appears that some nonreaders may have simply turned to a different medium to deliver that content. While the newsprint edition of newspapers may not have the loyalty of nonreaders, these results suggest that the online version of the newspaper has the potential to appeal to nonreaders since they turned to the Internet for news after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11.

Although a review of the literature over the past decade suggests interest in the nonreader has waned, the present study provides evidence that the nonreader is still a viable component of the media landscape and deserves further study. Future studies should continue to monitor nonreaders' use of the Internet for news and the gratifications sought. Furthermore, future studies should identify approaches that editors can use to connect nonreaders with the newsprint edition of the newspaper via the Internet.

Notes

1. Dana Calvo and David Shaw, "America Attacked Media/Culture Overwhelming Coverage As News Organizations Struggle to Meet Public's Demand for Information," Los Angeles Times, 13 September 2001, sect. A, p. 33; "US TV Continues Round-The-Clock Vigil Without Commercials," Dow Jones Interactive, 13 September 2001, (13 September 2001).

2. Sally Beatty and Joe Flint, "TV Ratings Reflect Nation's Focus As Coverage Remains Continuous," The Wall Street Journal, 13 September 2001, sect. B, p. 6; Melinda Patterson Grenier, "Traffic to News Web Sites Over Two Days Sets Records," Dow Jones Interactive, 13 September 2001, (13 September 2001).

3. Bernard Berelson, "What 'Missing The Newspaper' Means," in Communications Research, 1948-1949, eds. Paul F. Lazarsfeld and Frank N. Stanton, (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949), 111-129.

4. David L. Swanson, "Political Communication Research and the Uses and Gratifications Model: A Critique," Communication Research 6, no.1 (1979): 37-53.

5. Denis McQuail, Jay G. Blumler, and J.R. Brown, "The Television Audience: A Revised Perspective," in Sociology of Mass Communications, ed. Denis McQuail, (Middlesex, England: Penguin, 1972).

6. Robert Abelman, "PTL Club Viewer Uses and Gratifications," Communication Quarterly 37, no.1 (1989): 54-66; Mark R. Levy, "The Audience Experience With Television News," Journalism Monographs 55 (1978): 1-29.

7. Leo W. Jeffres, "Cable TV and Viewer Selectivity," Journal of Broadcasting 22, no. 2 (1978): 167-177; Diane Furno-Lamude and James Anderson, "The Uses and Gratifications of Rerun Viewing," Journalism Quarterly 69 (summer 1992): 362-372; Daniel G. McDonald and Carroll J. Glynn, "The Stability of Media Gratifications," Journalism Quarterly 61 (autumn 1984): 542-549, 741.

8. Alan M. Rubin, "Television Uses and Gratifications: The Interactions of Viewing Patterns and Motivations," Journal of Broadcasting 27, no. 1 (1983): 7-51; Philip Palmgreen, "Uses and Gratifications: A Theoretical Perspective," in Communication Yearbook 8, eds. Robert Bostrom and Bruce Westley, (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1984), 20-55; Mark R. Levy and Sven Windahl, "Audience Activity and Gratifications: A Conceptual Clarification and Exploration," Communication Research 11, no. 1 (1984): 51-78.

9. Rubin, "Television Uses and Gratifications."

10. Levy, "The Audience Experience With Television News."

11. Charles R. Bantz, "Exploring Uses and Gratifications: A Comparison of Reported Uses of Television and Reported Uses of Favorite Program Type," Communication Research 9, no. 3 (1982): 354.

12. Elizabeth M. Perse and Debra G. Dunn, "The Utility of Home Computers and Media Use: Implications of Multimedia and Connectivity," Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 42, no. 4 (1998): 435-456. 13. Tsiyona Peled and Elihu Katz, "Media Functions in Wartime: The Israel Home Front in October 1973," in The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratification Research, eds. Jay G. Blumler & Elihu Katz, (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1974), 66.

14. Elihu Katz, Jay G. Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch, "Utilization of Mass Communication by the Individual," in The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratification Research, eds. Blumler and Katz, (Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage, 1974), 19-25.

15. Bruce H. Westley and Werner J. Severin, "A Profile of the Daily Newspaper Non-Reader," Journalism Quarterly 41 (winter 1964): 45-50, 156.

16. Westley and Severin, "A Profile of the Daily Newspaper Non-Reader;" Jeanne Penrose et al., "The Newspaper Nonreader 10 Years Later: A Partial Replication of Westley-Severin," Journalism Quarterly 51 (winter 1974): 631-638; Paula M. Poindexter, "Daily Newspaper Non-Readers: Why They Don't Read," Journalism Quarterly 56 (winter 1979): 764-770; Judee K. Burgoon and Michael Burgoon, "Predictors of Newspaper Readership," Journalism Quarterly 57 (winter 1980): 589-596; Brooke Benson Huntress, "A Comprehensive Portrait of the News Non-User," (master's thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, 1994).

17. Westley and Severin, "A Profile of the Daily Newspaper Non-Reader."

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid.

21. Ibid.

22. Westley and Severin, "A Profile of the Daily Newspaper Non-Reader;" Jeremy H. Lipschultz, "The Nonreader Problem: A Closer Look at Avoiding the Newspaper," Newspaper Research Journal 8 (summer 1987): 59-69.

23. Westley and Severin, "A Profile of the Daily Newspaper Non-Reader;" Jeanne Penrose et al., "The Newspaper Nonreader 10 Years Later: A Partial Replication of Westley-Severin;" Burgoon and Burgoon, "Predictors of Newspaper Readership."

24. John Clinton Schweitzer, "The Newspaper and Its Community: An Analysis of Nonreadership" (Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1974).

25. Maxwell E. McCombs and Paula M. Poindexter, "The Duty to Keep Informed: News Exposure and Civic Obligation," Journal of Communication 33 (spring 1983): 88-96; Paula M. Poindexter and Maxwell E. McCombs, "Revisiting the Civic Duty to Keep Informed in the New Media Environment," Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 78 (spring 2001): 113-126.

26. Wayne Wanta, Yu-Wei Hu, and Yi-Chen Wu, "Nonreaders, Single Newspaper Readers and Multiple Newspaper Readers: A Discriminant Analysis" (paper presented at AEJMC, Kansas City, Mo., 1993).

27. Rather than focusing on what individuals seek from media content, avoidances focus on what individuals want to avoid. Avoidances are not simply mirror-opposites of gratifications; they are also empirically distinct from gratifications. See: Jack M. McLeod and Lee B. Becker, "Testing the Validity of Gratification Measures Through Political Effects Analysis," in The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research, ed. Jay G. Blumler and Elihu Katz (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage 1974), 137-164; Lee B. Becker, "Measurements of Gratifications," Communication Research 6, no. 1 (1979): 54-73.

28. Poindexter, "Daily Newspaper Non-Readers: Why They Don't Read."

29. Burgoon and Burgoon, "Predictors of Newspaper Readership."

30. Lipschultz, "The Nonreader Problem."

31. Huntress, "A Comprehensive Portrait of the News Non-User."

32. Paula M. Poindexter, "Daily Newspaper Nonreaders: Why They Don't Read; A Partial Replication, A Generation Later" (School of Journalism, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 2000, photocopy).

33. Paula M. Poindexter and Maxwell E. McCombs, Research in Mass Communication: A Practical Guide, (Boston/New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2000), 92-95.

34. 2,000 survey sample size of 604 has a margin of error of + or - 4 percentage points. The 2001 survey sample of 338 has a margin of error of + or - 5 percentage points. The 2002 survey sample of 316 has a margin of error of + or - 6 percentage points. For a discussion on analyzing trend data, see: Lee B. Becker, "Secondary Analysis," in Research Methods in Mass Communication, eds. Guido H. Stempel, III and Bruce H. Westley, (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1981), 249-250. For a discussion on differences in sample results, see: David H. Weaver, "Basic Statistical Tools," in Research Methods in Mass Communication, eds. Guido H. Stempel, III and Bruce H. Westley, (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1981), 76-78.

35. Beatty and Flint, "TV Ratings Reflect Nation's Focus."

36. Riva Richmond, "Web Makes Own History; Rises to Serve Traumatized Nation," Dow Jones Interactive, 13 September 2001,(13 September 2001).

37. Grenier, "Traffic to News Web Sites."

38. Levy, "The Audience Experience With Television News."

39. Peled and Katz, "Media Functions in Wartime: The Israel Home Front in October."

40. Grenier, "Traffic to News Web Sites Over Two Days Sets Records."

41. Peled and Katz, "Media Functions in Wartime: The Israel Home Front in October." For more on one of the first uses and gratifications studies to associate the television viewing experience with connecting with family, see: Elihu Katz, Michael Gurevitch, and Hadassah Hass, "On the Use of the Mass Media for Important Things," American Sociological Review 38 (April 1973): 164-181.

42. Poindexter, "Daily Newspaper Nonreaders: Why They Don't Read."

Poindexter is an associate professor, and Conway is a doctoral student in the School of Journalism at the University of Texas at Austin.

Copyright Newspaper Research Journal, Department of Journalism, University of Memphis Winter 2003
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved

Learn How To Tighten Your Belly Fat Fast - Sponsored Link
Ad - Read My Shocking Story How I Lost My Stomach Fat Without Dieting! :)