How keeping up diversifies: Watching public affairs TV in the Netherlands 1988

Abstract

Although concerns have been raised that political infotainment programmes might increasingly substitute more serious information, empirical evidence about changes of individual viewing behaviour is scarce. The authors discuss audience specialization and diversification as two opposing patterns of audience response to a growing variety of public affairs programmes. While specialization results from selective programme choice, diversification may be furthered by the impact of situational factors. Using electronically recorded people-meter data, this study explores information viewing in the Netherlands over the last two decades. As opposed to concerns about audience fragmentation, the authors find that public affairs viewing has become more diverse on the individual level with entertaining information programmes used as an additional source of information. Dutch viewers were exposed to different public affairs information. The personal relevance of TV as a medium is one of the main drivers behind high levels of exposure.

Keywords

Audience fragmentation infotainment news exposure people-meter data public affairs TV

Despite the rise of new media, a majority of citizens in many western countries still rely on television as the most important source of information about public affairs (Mende et al., 2012; Pew Research Centre for the People and the Press, 2010; Van der Burg et al., 2011). Major changes in TV landscapes, however, have raised concerns about a possible decline of the information function of TV. With an abundance of television channels, viewers can choose more easily to avoid public affairs information. Moreover, they can choose between a growing diversity of public affairs formats covering human interest or celebrity issues instead of or in addition to political topics (Aalberg et al., 2010; Delli Carpini and Williams, 2001; Pfetsch, 1996). Soft news or infotainment formats often present political information in a more entertaining fashion, guided by news values such as personalization, prominence, or emotions (Esser, 1999; Grabe et al., 2001; Hendriks Vettehen et al., 2005).

Research on the relationships between watching soft news formats and political interest, knowledge, trust, or political engagement shows an ambivalent picture. Exposure to late night talk or comedy shows has been found to enhance political learning and participation (e.g. Cao and Brewer, 2008; Hollander, 2005) – especially for politically less interested and younger viewers (Feldman and Young, 2008; Young and Tisinger, 2006). However, entertaining forms of political information might facilitate political learning less than more factual information (Kim and Vishak, 2008). The positive impact of news watching on political interest has been found to be dependent on the amount and quality of the actual news coverage that is watched (Strömbäck and Shehata, 2010). Light formats were found to have mixed effects on political trust and cynicism (Guggenheim et al., 2011; Tsfati et al., 2009). Comedy shows in particular might lead to more biased perceptions of political information (Arpan et al., 2011).

The discussion about the possible effects of soft news or infotainment often presumes that such light information formats are so attractive that they substitute serious information programmes for many viewers (Bennett, 2003; Prior, 2007). But light formats have also been regarded as an opportunity to reach politically uninterested viewers that would otherwise not be exposed to political information at all (Baum and Jamison, 2006; Zaller, 2003). Whether light TV formats turn out to be a threat or an opportunity for citizens’ political awareness or knowledge, thus, also depends on actual consumption patterns. High correlations between exposure to soft and hard news formats indicate that different information formats have shared audiences (Arpan et al., 2011; Feldman and Young, 2008). So far, however, very little is known about actual consumption of serious and light programme formats by individual viewers (Young and Tisinger, 2006). Virtually no research about changes in viewing patterns has been conducted that could demonstrate the substitutional or complementary use of different formats. This study fills this gap by analysing the consumption of public affairs programmes in the Netherlands over the last two decades. We discuss audience specialization and diversification as two opposing patterns of audience response to a growing variety of public affairs programmes. While specialization results from selective programme choice, diversification may be furthered by the influence of situational factors on viewing behaviour.

Our analysis is based on people-meter data that contain electronically recorded information on individual viewing behaviour. These data are unique in offering very precise measures of TV exposure that are highly consistent over time. The sample period from 1988 to 2010 covers the transition from a low-choice viewing environment with two public service channels to a high-choice one with a mix of various public and commercial channels. This allows us to trace how an increasing number of TV channels and a growing variety of public affairs programmes have changed the information function of TV.

Patterns of audience response

The commercialization of the media landscape is regarded as the main driver behind a trend towards presenting political content on TV in a more entertaining fashion (Delli Carpini and Williams, 2001; Pfetsch, 1996). But have viewers indeed used light information programmes as substitutes for more serious formats, as is often feared? Alternatively, different formats may be watched side by side by the same viewers. Thus, two extreme ways of dealing with an increasingly complex programming could be expected. First, audience specialization refers to the segregation of information seekers and avoiders, and between soft and hard news aficionados. Second, diversification denotes a growing variety of information formats within individual viewing patterns. Explanations for these two response patterns stem from opposing theoretical perspectives on audience behaviour.

Specialization describes increasing differences of information viewing patterns between viewers or media users in general (Schoenbach and Becker, 1989; Tewksbury, 2005). According to the uses-and-gratifications approach to media choice, viewers consciously select programmes based on their needs, interests and preferences (e.g. Rubin, 2009). Consequently, increasing choice offers more opportunities to find and watch programmes that match personal viewing interests. Put to the extreme, specialization could result in a growing gap between viewers who regularly follow news and current affairs and those who completely tune out from any type of political information. Serious information formats would, thus, be primarily watched by politically interested and involved viewers seeking information about public affairs (Ksiazek et al., 2010; Prior, 2007). In addition, light information formats might function as a substitute for serious formats for politically less interested viewers since they also cater to viewing motives different from an interest in news and current affairs (Mende et al., 2012; Pew, 2010). To actually watch programmes that match one’s interest best, viewers need to make active choices from the alternatives available. Thus, specializing in viewing behaviour also requires being aware of one’s viewing interests and willing to actively switch channels (Wonneberger et al., 2011).

Diversification represents an alternative pattern of audience response to a growing diversity of programme choices. In contrast to assumptions of actively selecting audiences, a structural approach to audience behaviour considers television exposure as strongly influenced by aspects of TV programming and of viewing situations (Cooper, 1996; Webster, 2009). As a situational aspect, the time that people are available to watch TV has been regarded as a pivotal premise of exposure to specific programmes (Webster and Wakshlag, 1983). In addition, the awareness of available programmes depends on a viewer’s channel repertoire. Often, viewers only rely on a selection of channels to make their programme choices (Yuan and Webster, 2006). Also co-viewers present in viewing situations influence viewing decisions (Webster and Wakshlag, 1983).

Because of a strong influence of such situational aspects, viewers might be ‘trapped’ by political information programmes regardless of their viewing preferences (Schoenbach and Lauf, 2002, 2004). Indeed, viewers who watched the news accidentally have been found repeatedly (Levy, 1978; Marcinkowski, 2010). With more diversity of public affairs programmes, a strong impact of the viewing context on programme choices may lead to more diverse viewing patterns, including a greater variety of serious and light information formats. Thus, viewers do not solely focus on programmes that match their interests best but watch serious and light information supplementarily (Feldman and Young, 2008; Young and Tisinger, 2006). Of course, viewers may also simply seek more diverse viewing diets, welcoming the opportunities offered by a growing number of viewing alternatives.

Results of a Dutch study suggest that the stability of high levels of exposure to serious news programmes over two decades was related to influences of viewing situations such as the time spent watching TV, co-viewers being present, or watching adjacent programmes on the same channel. Motivational factors such as political interest and the preference for news programmes, in contrast, were less influential (Wonneberger et al., 2011). However, little is known about how viewers include light news and light current affairs formats in their viewing diets, thus about the degree of audience specialization or diversification. While a trend of specialization might be related to an increase of selective viewing choices, diversification might be explained by stronger situational influences on viewing behaviour. Also sociodemographics have been found to influence news exposure. Young people follow the news on TV less often than older people (Delli Carpini, 2000; Mindich, 2005). However, young Dutch people still claim that they get most of their news from TV (Van Cauwenberge et al., 2011). Since an age difference could not be found for exposure to light news programmes (Peeters, 2002), news exposure of the young might shift to those formats. Finally, the better educated typically watch less TV in general and also fewer TV news programmes (Blödorn and Gerhards, 2004). The following research questions address the usage and antecedents of watching different information formats:

RQ1: How have the different information formats been combined by viewers?

RQ2: To what extent have audiences of public affairs information become more specialized or more diversified with an increase of viewing alternatives?

RQ3: To what extent have information viewing patterns been related to viewer interests, situational aspects of watching TV and sociodemographics?

The Dutch viewing environment

The Dutch TV market has been characterized by a steady growth since the introduction of commercial channels in the late 1980s. It developed from a public broadcasting system with two channels in 1988 to about 35 commercial and public service channels offered on cable and more than 50 channels available digitally in 2010. Also the amount of news and current affairs programmes increased over the last two decades (Aalberg et al., 2010; Wonneberger et al., 2012). While public television maintained a rich news and current affairs programming, commercial channels paid less attention to serious political journalism but more to entertainment formats (Curran et al., 2009). Light newscasts on Dutch TV differed in the type and range of issues covered and were considerably more sensational compared to their serious counterparts (Hendriks Vettehen et al., 2005). Although entertaining or sensational forms of presentation have increased, this trend has levelled out, resulting in a coexistence of serious informative journalism and more popular, entertaining information programmes (Brants and Van Praag, 2006; Kleemans et al., 2008).

Data

We used Dutch people-meter data that contain unobtrusively and electronically recorded information of individual viewing behaviour. Since 1987, national television audience research was conducted by Continu KijkOnderzoek (CKO), and from 2002 by Stichting KijkOnderzoek (SKO). Intomart GfK collected audience data from a representative national panel. On average, the panel consisted of all members of about 1,200 households that were selected from about 6,000 households from an establishment survey. The sampling procedure followed the ‘Golden Standard’ – a tool of the Market Research Association (MarktOnderzoekAssociatie) for representative sampling in the Netherlands. Prior to 2007 sampling was based on data from the Dutch Central Bureau of Statistics and the biennial GfK MiniCensus. An annual survey among all panel members provided information on sociodemographics and personal interests. People-meters were installed in every participating household. Every time panel members watched TV, they individually registered as viewers using a separate remote control. The meter recorded which persons were present and which channels were watched. The quality of the data was monitored continuously so that technical problems or other irregularities could be detected. The programming of the major Dutch channels was coded by TV Times (from 2007 MediaXim Nederland), so that watching a channel at a particular time could be allocated to a specific programme (SKO, 2012).

Our sample was based on one week in March of every second year from 1988 to 2010. TV viewing during this time of the year was little affected by weather, holidays or changes in programming schedules. All panel members 13 years and older were included, resulting in a sample size of 22,379 viewers. With a maximum participation of five years, the panel turnover was about 25% per year. As a result, the data set included about 42% of duplicate cases. To test the effect of non-independent observations, all analyses were conducted with the total sample and a subsample excluding duplicate cases. Since the findings for both samples were highly similar, final results of the total, nationally representative sample were presented. We combined people-meter, survey and programme data at the individual viewer level resulting in a very detailed data set that contained the exact programmes watched by every panel member per day including the exact viewing times and the number of co-viewers present. These data were used to calculate measures of exposure to public affairs programmes and overall viewing behaviour.

Public affairs programmes

All public affairs programmes were included that covered political news and current affairs on a local, national, or international level. The programmes were discerned according to their degree of covering public affairs in a more ‘serious’ or more ‘light’ manner (Baum and Jamison, 2006; Brants and Neijens, 1998; Pfetsch, 1996). ‘Serious’ programmes have a clear focus on politics and major public events. The presentation is guided by ideas of journalistic objectivity, characterized by balanced coverage in a neutral sphere. Examples are political debates or interviews. ‘Light’ formats, in contrast, primarily cover soft news or non-public policy issues such as human interest, lifestyle, or celebrity news. Politics may be covered as secondary issues. The presentational style is often entertaining or sensational with a more cheerful, empathic, or excited sphere. Examples are talk, comedy and daily morning or evening shows.

Typical formats of public affairs TV are news and background programmes (e.g. Aalberg et al., 2010). Semantically, these two formats can be discerned according to their degree of ‘openness’ as a text (Eco, 1979; Leurdijk, 1999). News programmes can be considered as ‘closed’, providing a brief overview on a relatively broad range of public affairs issues. News items only give limited possibilities for a profound and extensive presentation of issues or for ample discussions of conflicting perspectives. Background formats or current affairs programmes, in contrast, can offer more detailed and elaborated information on a smaller selection of issues accounting for different viewpoints. Typical forms of presentation are interviews, debates, reports, or documentaries. Since audiences of news and background programmes are confronted with differences in the selection of topics as well as their presentation, these formats were also discerned analytically in this study.

The two dimensions serious–light and news–background yielded four types of political information formats (Table 1). This typology did not include all possible nuances of information formats. Particularly, the serious–light dimension encompasses multiple shadings (see Brants and Neijens, 1998). By concentrating on the main contrasts between information programmes, these four categories allowed a comparison of public affairs programmes over time, and thus changing relationships between TV programming and viewing behaviour. Each programme was assigned to the category that matched its features best based on programme descriptions in programme guides.¹

Table 1.

Typology of public affairs formats with examples of Dutch programming.

Content	Serious	Light
Format	Serious	Light
News	News (‘serious’)	News (‘light’)
	Examples: NOS Journaal, RTL Nieuws	Examples: Hart van Nederland, Editie NL
Background	Discussion, debate and other ‘serious’ current affairs	Talk shows, morning shows and other ‘light’ current affairs
	Examples: Nova, Buitenhof, Netwerk	Examples: Goedemorgen Nederland, De Wereld Draait Door, Pauw & Witteman

The sample period was characterized by a strong increase of serious news programmes and the introduction and moderate increase of light information formats (Figure 1). Although the offer became increasingly diverse, serious news programmes prevailed. In 1988, the only news programme was the public service NOS Journaal. The commercial channel RTL4 introduced a similar format, RTL Nieuws, in 1989. After 2000, the market of serious news became increasingly competitive with new programmes as well as a growing number of short news bulletins throughout the day on public service and commercial channels. While a light news programme was first introduced by public service Nederland 3 with Gewest tot Gewest, this market was taken over by the two national commercial broadcasters with programmes like Hart van Nederland (SBS6, since 1995) and 5 in Het Land (RTL4, since 1998). The increase in light background programming could be ascribed to public service as well as commercial channels although public service programmes prevailed. Popular examples of this format were De Wereld Draait Door (Nederland 3, since 2005) or Goedemorgen Nederland (Nederland 2, 2002–2010). Serious background programmes such as Buitenhof (Nederland 1, since 1997) or Nova (Nederland 2, 1992–2010) were exclusively provided by public service broadcasters throughout the research period.

Figure 1.

Amount of public affairs formats broadcast during one week in March per year.

Measures

Exposure to public affairs formats

Viewers were regarded as exposed to a programme if they watched it for at least five minutes. For every viewer the exact viewing duration in minutes per week was determined per information format. An equal duration of exposure could however result from different viewing styles. To distinguish viewers who watched a small number of programmes without switching away, from those who only watched fragments of many different programmes, the average proportion of programmes watched per programme type was calculated. Since the formats differed in their length, the proportion viewed also enhanced comparability between the formats.

Viewer characteristics

Sociodemographic characteristics were age, gender and education. In the annual survey, political interest was measured on a three-point scale. To determine a viewer’s switching rate, we divided the number of changes between channels by the total number of programmes watched. Viewer availability was the number of hours a viewer watched TV during one week. The channel repertoire was determined by the number of channels a viewer watched for at least five minutes during one week. Co-viewing was defined by the average number of persons that were present when a viewer watched TV.

Results

Informational viewing patterns

Comparable to the programming, serious news programmes dominated information viewing. The increase of serious news, especially from 2002 on, resulted in higher levels of exposure (Figure 2). Some shifts between the other information formats could be observed. In 1988, viewers spent as much time watching serious background programmes as serious news programmes. While exposure to serious background decreased from over 60 minutes to an average of 34 minutes per week in 2010, watching light formats increased over time. Although compared to the other formats, fewer light background programmes were broadcast in 2010, their exposure level ranked second after serious news in that year. As opposed to their broadcast frequency, light news had the lowest level of exposure. These average viewing times imply that light background viewing might have displaced serious background viewing. News exposure, however, was still dominated by serious programmes.

Figure 2.

Average exposure per programme format during one week in March per year.

Average exposure times did not inform about how individual viewers combined these four formats. Therefore, a cluster analysis over all years explored the extent to which different public affairs formats were watched by the same viewers (RQ1). For each of the four information formats, we included the viewing duration and the average proportion of programmes that viewers remained watching. While duration accounted for the quantity of exposure per format, the viewing proportion gauged the degree of following entire programmes versus switching to different channels during exposure. SPSS TwoStep, a hierarchical agglomerative clustering procedure, allowed the inclusion of a large number of cases. Outliers that formed clusters of less than 5% of the sample were excluded from the cluster solution. The number of clusters was determined by the ratio of distance change between the cluster solutions based on the Akaike Information Criterion. The analysis revealed five information viewing patterns that could be discerned according to their overall amount of information viewing as well as the combination of specific formats that were watched (Table 2).²

Table 2.

Typology of information viewers: cluster solution of duration and proportion of exposure to news and current affairs formats.

Cluster description		%	Serious news		Light news		Serious background		Light background
			Duration	Prop.	Duration	Prop.	Duration	Prop.	Duration	Prop.
1	Information avoiders Possible to use a smaller font size to avoid word breaks?	15.2	1.42	0.03	3.48	0.11	4.39	0.09	3.57	0.06
			(6.45)	(0.08)	(9.41)	(0.26)	(12.40)	(0.22)	(11.30)	(0.16)
2	Serious newsviewers	20.8	48.71	0.74	0.78	0.03	2.69	0.05	2.73	0.04
	Serious newsviewers		(44.76)	(0.17)	(2.84)	(0.09)	(6.49)	(0.11)	(8.32)	(0.10)
3	Serious informationviewers	19.0	85.05	0.77	1.38	0.04	70.93	0.71	2.72	0.04
	Serious informationviewers		(66.67)	(0.14)	(4.98)	(0.13)	(59.57)	(0.19)	(7.20)	(0.09)
4	Serious news and mixed background viewers	21.4	117.57	0.76	5.19	0.14	78.81	0.55	87.57	0.71
	Serious news and mixed background viewers		(89.78)	(0.15)	(11.84)	(0.26)	(84.43)	(0.31)	(77.83)	(0.19)
5	All-rounders	22.3	110.57	0.77	50.32	0.81	26.12	0.30	27.24	0.26
			(89.89)	(0.17)	(38.42)	(0.16)	(39.10)	(0.32)	(44.13)	(0.31)
	Outliers	1.3	430.84	0.82	78.73	0.63	225.37	0.65	268.18	0.68
			(259.84)	(0.09)	(84.44)	(0.37)	(190.38)	(0.28)	(185.71)	(0.22)
Total		100.0	82.03	0.65	14.33	0.25	40.39	0.35	29.98	0.24
			(94.76)	(0.30)	(30.38)	(0.37)	(67.37)	(0.35)	(64.01)	(0.33)

Notes: SPSS TwoStep Cluster with Euclidean distance measure, controlling for outliers of ≤ 5%. Ratio of distance change: 2.637. N = 22,379.

Information avoiders

About 15% of the viewers were characterized by very low levels of information exposure. All information formats were watched less than five minutes per week on average. The viewed proportions of all formats were less than 10%.

Serious news viewers

A group of about 21% of the sample spent about 50 minutes per week on serious news programmes. The other programme formats were not relevant for them.

Serious information viewers

About 19% of the viewers showed a clear focus on the serious formats. They spent more than one hour per week on serious news and serious background programmes.

Serious news and mixed background viewers

About 21% of the sample focused on serious news with about two hours of exposure per week. These viewers also spent about 90 minutes per week on the two background formats. Light background programmes were watched less often overall compared to serious background programmes.

All-rounders

Only about 22% of the sample watched all four formats. With an average of 110 minutes per week, most of their information viewing was devoted to serious news. Less than one hour was spent on light news. Typically, all-rounders would watch fractions of background programmes adding up to about half an hour per format.

Finally, about 1% of the sample has been identified as outliers. This group showed the highest amount of information exposure for all formats.

Regarding RQ1, we concluded that viewers showed a considerable overlap between the four information formats, with a clear preference for serious news programmes. Exceptions from this pattern were avoiders who watched no public affairs information and serious news viewers who focused on this one format. Light news programmes were the least important, except for the group of all-rounders. Surprisingly, no viewing pattern exclusively contained light information formats.

Specialization or diversification?

How has exposure to different information formats changed over the last two decades (RQ2)? To identify trends of specialization or diversification, the distributions of the five information viewing patterns were compared over time. Specialization would occur if the share of viewing patterns with a focus on either light or serious information formats had increased. The trend would point to diversification if viewers increasingly watch light as well as serious formats. Most changes of the proportions of the viewing patterns did not follow clear linear trends. While some changes could be related to changes of the programmes available, others were contrary to the developments of programming (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Distribution of information viewer types over time.

In spite of more serious news programmes available, the size of the two groups with a focus on serious information formats – serious news viewers and serious information viewers – gradually diminished over the last two decades. Especially, serious information viewers regressed from about 48% in the early years to becoming the smallest group of about 7% in 2010.

Naturally, the two viewing patterns that included light information formats appeared more frequently over time. With about 30% each, serious news and mixed background viewers as well as all-rounders comprised the majority of the viewers in 2010. The proportion of serious news and mixed background viewers increased after 1992 when more background programmes were introduced, followed by a decrease after 1998. After 2004 the level increased again and almost doubled until 2010 even though the number of available background programmes dropped after 2008. Similarly, more viewers could be attributed to all-rounders when more light news programmes were available after 1996. This increase even continued when the actual amount of light news available dropped after 2002. Surprisingly, the proportion of this pattern decreased after 2006 when more light news became available again.

With more viewing alternatives available after 1988, the share of information avoiders increased from 11% to over 17%. But after 2000, it decreased again to about 13% in 2010.

So, regarding RQ2, we concluded that the increase of viewing alternatives was accompanied by a diversification of information viewing in the Netherlands. Overall, viewers spent more time watching both serious and light information formats. Fewer viewers focused on serious formats over time. But at the same time, no distinct viewing pattern with a focus on light formats developed and information avoidance did not increase permanently.

Determinants of information viewing patterns

Did the trend of diversification coincide with an increase in the influence of situational factors on exposure to public affairs TV compared to aspects of selective programme choice? To explain patterns of information viewing (RQ3), we compared the distributions of viewer characteristics for each viewing cluster (Table 3). To control for interrelationships between the attributes, we tested their influence on information viewing by multinomial logistic regression analyses. Multinomial models were chosen because of the categorical nature of information viewing patterns as the dependent variable. Sample year (ranging from 1 to 12) was included to account for changes over time. Since information avoiders deviated the most from the other viewer groups, this cluster was chosen as the reference group for the model presented in Table 4.

Table 3.

Characteristics of information viewer types: means (and standard deviations).

Cluster		Age	Gender(male in %)	Education	Interest in politics	Switching rate	Viewer availability	Channel repertoire	Co-viewing
1	Information avoiders	32.15	49.3	4.39	1.47	0.85	10.04	7.31	1.13
	Information avoiders	(14.90)		(1.63)	(0.65)	(0.15)	(9.16)	(4.83)	(0.84)
2	Serious news viewers	38.33	50.1	4.21	1.57	0.79	16.19	8.97	1.03
	Serious news viewers	(15.79)		(1.76)	(0.69)	(0.16)	(12.25)	(4.65)	(0.75)
3	Serious information viewers	46.87	51.6	4.06	1.85	0.72	19.72	8.68	0.91
	Serious information viewers	(16.33)		(1.81)	(0.75)	(0.18)	(12.21)	(4.73)	(0.68)
4	Serious news and mixed background viewers	50.48	46.3	4.40	1.96	0.74	26.43	10.44	1.04
	Serious news and mixed background viewers	(16.45)		(1.80)	(0.74)	(0.16)	(14.98)	(4.99)	(0.67)
5	All-	47.02	44.4	4.15	1.60	0.76	29.89	12.12	1.33
	rounders	(15.71)		(1.64)	(0.69)	(0.14)	(15.77)	(4.43)	(0.63)
Total		43.86	48.1	4.24	1.70	0.77	21.69	9.71	1.09
Total		(17.20)		(1.74)	(0.73)	(0.17)	(15.63)	(4.99)	(0.72)

Table 4.

Multinomial logistic regression of viewer characteristics and viewing-related factors on information viewing patterns.

Predictor	Cluster
	2	3	4	5
	Serious news viewers	Serious information viewers	Serious news & mixed background viewers	All-rounders
	B(SE)	B(SE)	B(SE)	B(SE)
Year	−0.09***	−0.21***	0.05***	0.21***
	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)
Age	0.02***	0.05***	0.06***	0.05***
	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)
Gender (male)	0.05	0.06	−0.21***	−0.16**
Gender (male)	(0.05)	(0.05)	(0.06)	(0.06)
Education	0.06***	0.15***	0.16***	−0.02
	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.02)
Political interest	0.19***	0.63***	0.86***	0.29***
Political interest	(0.04)	(0.04)	(0.04)	(0.04)
Switching	−3.46***	−5.58***	−5.80***	−6.37***
	(0.19)	(0.21)	(0.22)	(0.23)
Availability	0.05***	0.07***	0.10***	0.10***
	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)
Channel repertoire	0.09***	0.12***	0.11***	0.16***
Channel repertoire	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)
Co-viewing	0.01	0.08*	−0.25***	0.19***
	(0.04)	(0.04)	(0.04)	(0.04)
Constant	1.02	0.16	−2.26	−1.91
	(0.18)	(0.18)	(0.19)	(0.20)

Notes: Coefficients reflect the change in relative probability of a viewing cluster compared to the reference cluster 1 (information avoiders). N = 22,081. Pseudo-R² (Cox and Snell) = .461. * p < .05 ; ** p < .01 ; *** p < .001.

The findings suggest that information avoiders significantly differed from the other groups in a number of aspects. This was the youngest group, with the lowest political interest, and the highest switching rate. Avoiders spent less time watching TV than other viewers and used fewer channels when they watched. Although their average level of education was relatively high, the regression revealed a negative relationship: All other predictors being equal, higher education increased the likelihood to watch more current affairs programmes.

The other clusters successively included more information formats – from serious news viewing only to all-rounders making use of all four formats. This coincided with a significant increase of age, political interest, viewer availability and channel repertoire over these four patterns. Viewers of these groups also switched relatively less often between channels compared to information avoiders.

Serious news and mixed background viewers had the strongest interest in politics and also the highest level of education. Serious information viewers, in contrast, were highly interested in politics but had the lowest average level of education. They watched TV alone more often than other viewers. All-rounders had the highest number of co-viewers. All-rounders – but also serious news and mixed background viewers – were more often women than men, while gender was relatively balanced for the first three clusters.

The time component revealed more about migration between the viewing patterns. Being an all-rounder, that is watching a mix of serious and light news and background programmes, became more likely over time relative to information avoidance. Avoiders, however, gained members from the groups of serious news viewers, serious information viewers and serious news and mixed background viewers.

In sum, regarding RQ3, we concluded that information viewing patterns were determined by sociodemographics, political interest and aspects of TV viewing situations. Especially information avoiders differed from other viewer groups in most characteristics. It was a combination of less interest in politics and generally spending less time watching TV that kept this group from watching public affairs TV. Accordingly, watching a range of different information formats was related to watching more TV in general, using more channels but switching less often between them. Also political interest had a positive influence on the diversity of serious and light formats used, again pointing to a combination of selective exposure and situational influences. Exposure to all formats clearly increased with age.

Conclusions and discussion

Public affairs information on TV has gone through severe changes over the last two decades. Although possible negative as well as positive effects of watching soft news programmes have been researched from different perspectives, little is known about actual consumption patterns. This study asked to what extent light public affairs programmes were used to substitute or complement serious news and current affairs formats. Based on individual people-meter data, we analysed the composition and antecedents of information viewing in the Netherlands over two decades. As opposed to assumptions of audience specialization, we found viewers spent more time watching more diverse diets of political information programmes. Overall, light programmes with more entertainment elements were used in a supplementary way, not as a substitute for more serious information. Some viewers even avoided the new light formats completely and focused on traditional public affairs formats. Serious news programmes clearly were the most important information programme for the majority of viewers and their relevance has not been replaced by emerging light news formats. However, viewers watched more light background information at the expense of serious background formats.

The diversification of exposure to public affairs TV developed gradually and not as an immediate response to changes in the viewing environment. After a period of orientation, viewers seemed to become familiar with the diversity of programmes and developed a greater autonomy for choosing how much variety they wanted to consume. With more viewing alternatives at the beginning of the 1990s, exposure to public affairs TV decreased. But over time, viewers included the growing offer of more entertaining public affairs programmes into their viewing diets. After getting used to more diversity, viewers were more stable and less influenced by changes in the viewing environment. The strong increase of serious news programmes after 2000, for instance, was accompanied by higher exposure levels. But viewers spent even more time watching the news when actually fewer programmes were broadcast after 2004. Serious background programming, in contrast, was watched less, even though its availability increased after 2002.

Diversification could be explained by a mix of structural influences and selective exposure. Viewers with the highest levels of information exposure devoted more time to watching TV than others. Obviously, by developing viewing routines, viewers create stable viewing situations. This can be watching at specific times, in the same social setting and turning to the same channels. Stable contexts also enable recurring exposure to the same constellation of public affairs programmes. Information avoiders, in contrast, spent less time watching TV and also switched between channels more actively.

Plausibly, personal interest in specific TV content also has an impact on how viewers allocate their viewing time. Generally, politically interested viewers made use of serious and light information formats. Information avoiders, in contrast, were on average the least interested in politics. Contrary to expectations about audience fragmentation, the extent to which politically less interested viewers made use of more opportunities to bypass political information was very limited and did not result in greater information avoidance. The expectation that more light programmes would pull away the less involved viewers could not be confirmed. Further, contrary to expectations: in the Netherlands at least, infotainment formats did not attract politically uninterested viewers that are not exposed to traditional information formats.

Traditionally, news and current affairs formats on Dutch TV have been provided by public service broadcasting, which is perceived as reliable by many viewers (Peeters, 2002). The good reputation and routine schedules of many news and current affairs programmes might have cultivated and strengthened viewing habits. Another reason why public news programmes still have the highest levels of exposure might be that their style has kept pace with the competing light formats, without losing their seriousness. Our relatively broad typology of serious and light news and current affairs programmes could, of course, not account for presentational and content-related changes within each format. The finding of a falling exposure to serious background and growing audiences of light background programmes suggests, however, that viewers indeed appreciate more entertaining formats. The fact that serious formats have also become more entertaining over time might therefore contribute to the stability or increase of exposure levels and prevent viewers from choosing light alternatives over the traditional formats.

Finally, it has often been found that the young in particular increasingly tune out from the news. This study also found that exposure to all kinds of information formats increased with age. Since TV is still the most important news medium for young Dutch people, future research should study information use by the young more extensively.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Dutch Audience Research Foundation (SKO) as well as the Audience Research Department of Netherlands Public Broadcasting (NPO) for making the data available. This work was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (grant number 400-06-021).

Notes

References

Aalberg

Van Aelst

Curran

(2010) Media systems and the political information environment: A cross-national comparison. The International Journal of Press/Politics 15(3): 255–271.

Arpan

Bae

Chen

Y-S

Greene

(2011) Perceptions of bias in political content in late night comedy programmes. Electronic News 5(3): 158–173.

Baum

Jamison

(2006) The Oprah effect: How soft news helps inattentive citizens vote consistently. Journal of Politics 68(4): 946–959.

Bennett

(2003) The burglar alarm that just keeps ringing: A response to Zaller. Political Communication 20(2): 131–138.

Blödorn

Gerhards

(2004) Informationsverhalten der Deutschen. Media Perspektiven 1: 2–14.

Brants

Neijens

(1998) The infotainment of politics. Political Communication 15(2): 149–164.

Brants

Van Praag

(2006) Signs of media logic: Half a century of political communication in the Netherlands. Javnost–The Public 13(1): 25–40.

Cao

Brewer

(2008) Political comedy shows and public participation in politics. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 20(1): 90–99.

Cooper

(1996) The status and future of audience duplication research: An assessment of ratings–based theories of audience behavior. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 40(1): 96–111.

10.

Curran

Iyengar

Lund

Salovaara-Moring

(2009) Media system, public knowledge and democracy: A comparative study. European Journal of Communication 24(1): 5–26.

11.

Delli Carpini

(2000) Gen.com: Youth, civic engagement, and the new information environment. Political Communication 17(4): 341–349.

12.

Delli Carpini

Williams

(2001) Let us infotain you: Politics in the new media environment. In: Bennett

Entman

(eds) Mediated Politics: Communication in the Future of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

13.

Eco

(1979) The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

14.

Esser

(1999) ‘Tabloidization’ of news: A comparative analysis of Anglo-American and German press journalism. European Journal of Communication 14(3): 291–324.

15.

Feldman

Young

(2008) 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. Political Communication 25(4): 401–422.

16.

Grabe

Zhou

Barnett

(2001) Explicating sensationalism in television news: Content and the bells and whistles of form. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 45(4): 635–655.

17.

Guggenheim

Kwak

Campbell

(2011) Nontraditional news negativity: The relationship of entertaining political news use to political cynicism and mistrust. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 23(3): 287–314.

18.

Hendriks Vettehen

Nuijten

Beentjes

(2005) News in an age of competition: The case of sensationalism in Dutch television news, 1995–2001. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 49(3): 282–295.

19.

Hollander

(2005) Late-night learning: Do entertainment programmes increase political campaign knowledge for young viewers? Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 49(4): 402–415.

20.

Kim

Vishak

(2008) Just laugh! You don’t need to remember: The effects of entertainment media on political information acquisition and information processing in political judgment. Journal of Communication 58(2): 338–360.

21.

Kleemans

Van Cauwenberge

D’Haenens

Hendriks Vettehen

(2008) Op Zoek naar Verklaringen voor Sensatie in het Nieuws. Een Vergelijking tussen Nederlandse, Vlaamse, Waalse, en Franse Televisiejournaals. Tijdschrift voor Communicatiewetenschap 36(4): 301–319.

22.

Ksiazek

Malthouse

Webster

(2010) News-seekers and avoiders: Exploring patterns of total news consumption across media and the relationship to civic participation. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 54(4): 551–568.

23.

Leurdijk

(1999) Televisiejournalistiek over de Multiculturele Samenleving. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.

24.

Levy

(1978) The audience experience with television news. Journalism Monographs 55.

25.

Marcinkowski

(2010) Das Fernsehen als Politikvermittlungsfalle: ‘Versehentliche’ Nutzung und ‘beiläufiges’ Lernen von Nachrichten. In: Schemer

Wirth

Wünsch

(eds) Politische Kommunikation: Wahrnehmung, Verarbeitung, Wirkung. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 171–192.

26.

Mende

Oehmichen

Schröter

(2012) Medienübergreifende Informationsnutzung und Informationsrepertoires: Fernsehen, Radio, Zeitung und Internet im Vergleich. Media Perspektiven 1: 2–17.

27.

Mindich

DTZ

(2005) Tuned Out: Why Americans under 40 Don‘t Follow the News. New York: Oxford University Press.

28.

Peeters

(2002) NOS-Journaal, RTL4-Nieuws en het Nieuws van SBS6: Kijkgedrag en Beoordeling in 2001. Hilversum: KLO.

29.

Pew Research Centre for the People and the Press (2010) Americans spending more time following the news. Ideological news sources: who watches and why. Available at: people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/652.pdf.

30.

Pfetsch

(1996) Convergence through privatization? Changing media environments and televised politics in Germany. European Journal of Communication 11(4): 427–451.

31.

Prior

(2007) Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Political Inequality and Polarizes Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.

32.

Rubin

(2009) The uses-and-gratifications perspective on media effects. In: Bryant

Oliver

(eds) Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. New York: Routledge.

33.

Schoenbach

Becker

(1989) The audience copes with plenty: Patterns of reactions to media changes. In: Becker

Schoenbach

(eds) Audience Responses to Media Diversification: Coping with Plenty. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

34.

Schoenbach

Lauf

(2002) The ‘trap’ effect of television and its competitors. Communication Research 29(5): 564–583.

35.

Schoenbach

Lauf

(2004) Another look at the ‘trap’ effect of television – and beyond. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 16(2): 169–182.

36.

SKO (Stichting KijkOnderzoek) (2012) Het kijkonderzoek – Dutch television audience measurement: Methodological description. Available at: www.kijkonderzoek.nl/english/methods/methods-and-calculation.html.

37.

Strömbäck

Shehata

(2010) Media malaise or a virtuous circle? Exploring the causal relationships between news media exposure, political news attention and political interest. European Journal of Political Research 49(5): 575–597.

38.

Tewksbury

(2005) The seeds of audience fragmentation: Specialization in the use of online news sites. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 49(3): 332–348.

39.

Tsfati

Tukachinsky

Peri

(2009) Exposure to news, political comedy, and entertainment talk shows: Concern about security and political mistrust. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 21(4): 399–423.

40.

Van der Burg

Lauf

Negenborn

(2011) Mediamonitor: The Dutch media in 2010. Available at: ds-nt-web26.concepts.nl/dsresource?objectid=11689&type=org.

41.

Van Cauwenberge

Beentjes

D’Haenens

(2011) Een Typologie van Jonge Nieuwsgebruikers in een Multimediaal Landschap. Tijdschrift voor Communicatie wetenschap 39(1): 64–78.

42.

Webster

(2009) The role of structure in media choice. In: Hartmann

(ed.) Media Choice: A Theoretical and Empirical Overview. New York, London: Routledge, pp. 221–233.

43.

Webster

Wakshlag

(1983) A theory of television programme choice. Communication Research 10(4): 430–446.

44.

Wonneberger

Schoenbach

Van Meurs

(2011) Interest in news and politics – or situational determinants? Why people watch the news. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 55(3): 325–343.

45.

Wonneberger

Schoenbach

Van Meurs

(2012) Staying tuned: TV news audiences in the Netherlands 1988–2010. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 56(1): 55–74.

46.

Young

Tisinger

(2006) Dispelling late-night myths: News consumption among late-night comedy viewers and the predictors of exposure to various late-night shows. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 11(3): 113–134.

47.

Yuan

Webster

(2006) Channel repertoires: Using peoplemeter data in Beijing. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 50(3): 524–536.

48.

Zaller

(2003) A new standard of news quality: burglar alarms for the monitorial citizen. Political Communication 20(2): 109–130.

How keeping up diversifies: Watching public affairs TV in the Netherlands 1988–2010

Abstract

Keywords

Patterns of audience response

The Dutch viewing environment

Data

Public affairs programmes

Measures

Exposure to public affairs formats

Viewer characteristics

Results

Informational viewing patterns

Information avoiders

Serious news viewers

Serious information viewers

Serious news and mixed background viewers

All-rounders

Specialization or diversification?

Determinants of information viewing patterns

Conclusions and discussion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Notes

References