Partisan Sources Receive More Space in Conflict Issues

Newspaper Research Journal, Fall 2003 by Fico, Fred, Balog, Olivia

Partisans sources were more likely to dominate space and attention in conflict stories than were nonpartisan sources when local stories were examined in nine Michigan dailies.

Local conflict is close to both citizens and journalists in a community, unlike most political fights at state or national levels. Outcomes directly affect the audiences of local conflict stories. Indeed, some audience members may be involved in conflict and may turn up as sources in the stories covering it.

This research assesses sources used in local conflict stories and the attention they get. Specifically, this research focuses on conflict partisans, on experts used to provide context or interpretation and on ordinary citizens who provide their perspectives.

How such sources are used in local conflict stories has important implications. Certainly, partisans seek to set the news agenda to facilitate their policy goals, and compete for news attention. How successfully does one side or the other dominate news attention? What news organization qualities or practices facilitate or frustrate partisan efforts?

Moreover, to what degree do nonpartisan sources set the news agenda on an issue? If the goal of journalism is to fully inform the public of policy choices and implications, then stories must include nonpartisan perspectives. What news organization qualities or practices influence the degree to which conflict stories incorporate such sources and their perspectives?

Theoretical Perspective

Two areas of research are brought together in this study. One area concerns the balance in the treatment of partisan opponents in stories covering local conflict. The second area concerns how experts and other nonpartisan sources are also used in these stories.

The importance of integrating these research concerns flows from the findings of agenda- setting research that differences in news media attention to particular issues subsequently influences differences in the public's assessment of the importance of those issues.1 But who sets the media agenda that then sets the public agenda? Certainly if one side in a conflict succeeds in setting that agenda, actual policy outcomes may be influenced. Further, partisans on some issue may not be motivated to fully explore all its ramifications. Consequently, sources who can explore these ramifications also may be crucial for setting the public's agenda.

Conflict Coverage of Issues

Past research has found that conflict stories frequently treat opponents unevenly. Simon et al. found in a study of 21 large circulation and prestige dailies that about one in five conflict stories dealing with law enforcement, education and business included sources from only one of the sides.2 Lacy et al. subsequently found that these newspapers also tended to give nearly 30 percent more space to one of the sides in the conflict.3 Individual newspapers varied widely, however, in the proportion of their stories that were one-sided and in the percentage of story space by which one side dominated.

Studies focusing on the coverage of continuing issues rather than on individual stories have also found significantly imbalanced coverage. In a study of Gulf War stories in prestige and large Michigan dailies, Fico et. al. found that most stories gave anti-war advocates more prominence and space than they did pro-war sources.4 In a more comprehensive analysis of five national issues, six state issues and eight local issues, Fico et. al. also found many more stories favoring one of the conflict sides.5 In fact, typical stories on local issues involving school boards or city councils were more imbalanced than were Gulf War stories, and rivaled the imbalance in stories on state legislative issues involving abortion. Focusing exclusively on local issues covered by a random sample of newspapers, Fico and Drager found that a third of the stories covering 413 issues they examined were very imbalanced in the space and prominence given one side in the controversy.6 However, more than nine in 10 of those issues were covered by three or fewer stories. By contrast, Fico and Soffin found in a sixmonth study of a single local controversy that the community's daily and weekly newspapers gave approximately equal attention to both sides in more than 40 stories written on the issue.7

Studies have examined newspaper, newsroom and reporter characteristics to help explain such variation in conflict coverage. Simon et. al. and Lacy et. al. found that prestige dailies did a better job than others of including sources from both conflict sides and giving both sides did equal space. Studies by Fico et. al. replicated that finding for most national, state and local issues published in a sample of prestige and large Michigan dailies. Fico et. al. also found that front page stories were more likely than those run inside to include sources from both conflict sides. Also, issue stories run on front pages that included only one side were also more likely than stories run inside to be offset by subsequent stories including only the opposition.