How market orientation and ethics affected coverage of marijuana legalization

Market Orientation

All news organizations need to attract readers and, more importantly, the revenue it needs to continue operating, so therefore all are market oriented to some extent (Beam, 1998). So, when labeling specific news organizations, researchers must think about where the organization would fall on a continuum from weakly market oriented to strongly market oriented (Beam, 2002). Fundamentally, the more a news organization follows market principles, such as the ones proffered by McManus (1994), the more strongly market oriented it can be labeled. Barnouw (1997) argued that market orientation also can be determined by examining how a news organization treats its audience; the strongly market-oriented newsroom thinks of the audience as customers and tries to provide what they want, while a weakly market-oriented newsroom treats the audience as citizens. Most news organizations fall somewhere in the middle of a continuum bookended by those two types of organizations (Beam, 2002; Ferrucci, 2018a). Regardless of where an organization’s orientation falls on a continuum, though, its effects can be seen on content.

McManus (1994) argued that researchers need to utilize a more thorough conception of the markets journalism competes in. Market theory for news production argues that journalism organizations compete in four markets concurrently: the market for audience, the market for advertising, the market for sources, and the stock market. These markets sometimes overlap. An effective news organization needs success in the audience market because without people consuming its product, it cannot compete in the other markets successfully. The sources market refers to the need to generate and sustain a large number of sources who will provide stories. The advertising market refers to how advertisers have a choice of where to spend their dollars, so news organizations must compete to earn as much advertising as possible because advertising typically funds a news organization. Finally, news organizations compete in the stock market because many news organizations are publicly traded and stock prices determine success in some ways (McManus, 1994). The theory holds that organizations competing in all four markets are the most strongly market oriented.

This study utilizes McManus’s theory as a guide. With that in mind, and guided by previous literature (i.e., Ferrucci, 2015a), all news organizations compete in both the audience market and the sources market out of necessity (Beam, 1998; Ferrucci, 2015c; McManus, 1994). Therefore, how a firm competes in the other two determines its place on the market-orientation continuum. If thought about as part of a continuum, market orientation can vary significantly from one organization to the next, even among ones that, on the surface, seem similar (Soloski, 2013). Matthews (1996) and others found that public ownership—or competing in the stock market—compared to chain ownership alone affects news organizations significantly and places a stronger focus on decisions made to generate more money and not a better product. In this particular study, the two news organizations fit into two distinct categories: strongly market oriented and weakly oriented. The conceptualizations for these categories are adapted from previously published research (i.e., Ferrucci, 2015a, 2015b; Hanusch & Tandoc, 2017).

Strongly Market Oriented

The most pertinent characteristic when placing a news organization on the market orientation continuum is ownership (Shoemaker & Reese, 2014; Shoemaker & Vos, 2009). McManus (1994) presented this unambiguously and argued that nothing impacts news work and the culture of an organization more than public ownership. Plus, only public organizations compete in what McManus dubbed the market for stocks. If market orientation is determined by how intensely an organization concurrently competes in all four markets, then a strongly market-oriented organization must be a public company (Soloski, 2013). Public companies often initiate procedures and practices that intentionally harm the product, in this case the news, because the goals of the news company and its owner often do not align (Downs, 2012). A public news organization owns a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to make sure the overall company’s stock prices increase; a news organization has no legal duty to produce high-quality journalism (Soloski & Martin, 2015). Some studies have found that public ownership forces new organizations to serve at the behest of their audience, which results in a very different view of what news is compared to the same concept at a weakly market-oriented organization (Bagdikian, 2004; Underwood, 1995).

Weakly Market Oriented

If, again, all organizations compete in the audience market and the sources market (McManus, 1994), then their placement on the continuum is based on how strongly they compete in the advertising market and the stocks market. With ownership as a deciding characteristic in determining market orientation, an organization that does not compete in either the stock market or the advertising market qualifies as weakly market oriented (Ferrucci, 2018b; Konieczna & Robinson, 2014). While even the most weakly market-oriented news organization would still be market oriented in some ways (Beam, 2003), a nonprofit would not have to cater to ownership and would then be overseen by very different leadership compared to for-profit news organizations (Ferrucci, 2015a, 2017a, 2018b; Ferrucci, Russell, Choi, Duffy, & Thorson, 2017). Therefore, a nonprofit news organization that does not run advertising is considered weakly market oriented for this study.

Market Orientation’s Effect on Content

Herman and Chomsky (2002) argued that because of the way the U.S. media system is structured with corporate ownership and their claim that a small number of companies own the majority of outlets, news content neatly fits into dominant frames that provide Americans with a specific worldview. However, Herman and Chomsky (2002) examined only a small number of national media while almost all U.S. newspapers (and television stations) are not national. Other work studied how market orientation, and not simply ownership, affects content. Beam (2003) conducted a large content analysis comparing stories published by strongly and weakly market-oriented newspapers and found that strongly market-oriented firms produce less content concerning government and public issues, but far more news surrounding sports, entertainment, and lifestyle topics. McManus (1994) conducted a similar study examining broadcast news outlets and found virtually the same thing. In studies comparing how organizations covered a specific topic, both Ghiglione (1984) and Ferrucci (2015b) found that the strongly market-oriented news organization published significantly more stories about the topic. Tandoc and Thomas (2015) argued, though, that the shift toward more strongly market-oriented organizations and tactics could lead to less ethical news, both in terms of decisions concerning content and other behavior by journalists. Other recent studies find that market orientation impacts the use of technology by journalists, which then can affect content (Ferrucci, 2017b, 2018c; Ferrucci & Tandoc, 2015).

Professionals often balance competing roles, duties, and loyalties (Wilkins, 2016). Journalists owe duty to themselves; readers, viewers, and clients; organizations or firms; professional colleagues; the field or profession; and society. Fidelity, specifically the implied duties of veracity and truthfulness, take on greater proportions because of a journalist’s ethical and professional obligation to tell the truth (Ross, 1930; Wilkins, 2016). Duty ethics, though, are a normative ideal (Shafer-Landau, 2012), and not always practiced in journalism, a field that also has strong utilitarian underpinnings as journalists application of ethics is influenced by market orientation (Frampton, 2015). Therefore, it is important to understand how organizations with differing market orientations cover the same controversial subject matter.

McChesney (1999) argued that there are certain times when the public’s interest in high-quality news aimed at increasing democracy aligns with a strongly market-oriented news organization’s goal of profit, which means both types of organizations will cover the subject matter closely. During the period of 2011 to 2014, the issue of marijuana legalization dominated Colorado news (e.g., Ingold, 2012a). From the time Amendment 64, the ballot measure that decided legalization, was announced in 2011, to when it was voted on in 2012, to when it was implemented in 2014, the issue of legalization consistently appeared in all types of media. Therefore, this study is driven by this research question:

Storytelling

The way both news organizations told stories about the same subject differed greatly in numerous aspects. The way a story is told, both narratively and design-wise, influences how the reader/viewer interprets it. The Independent consistently utilized multimedia components, a longer stories, and links. The Post did not do the same, which created a different storytelling experience about Amendment 64.

The Independent focused primarily on context-driven reporting with a base of information easily accessible to the audience. That means it linked to other stories, even ones from other organizations, whenever possible; Independent stories featured as many as 11 links. These links could show the source of the fact, link to a previous story, link to other news media reporting on the subject, or link to an original referenced digital artifact (Kinney-Lang, 2013). Multimedia components are an essential element for reporting digitally, considering the ease of use for most consumers. The Independent published YouTube videos and primary documents in its coverage of Amendment 64 (e.g., Kersgaard, 2012). For example, two key documents were provided in an article discussing a Colorado state employee’s role in regulating marijuana: an official government letter detailing duties and a government document pertaining to legal differences between medical and recreational marijuana sales (Kersgaard, 2011a). This kind of embedding and linking to government documents occurred throughout the Independent’s articles. It is clear the Independent saw as part of its duty to not only contextualize, summarize, and analyze news pertaining to the government, but also to provide the public with the raw information. This type of storytelling provided the public with more context with which to investigate the issue. The Post never did anything similar. Its stories were told through reporters’ prose and, while possibly mentioning other articles or official documents, did not provide links.

Independent reporters performed ethically by contextualizing, summarizing, and analyzing news about Amendment 64. These journalists primarily performed the duty of fidelity. All journalists make an implicit, and often explicit, promise to report the best obtainable version of the truth. Here, the Independent reporters were using all available means, including hyperlinks to previous stories and other news sites, multimedia components, and primary government documents to tell a complete version of events. Ross (1930) argued that one must observe a right and further the interests of others regardless to our own individual cost. Independent reporters highlighted the work of others, including competitors, to best inform their readers.

Another storytelling aspect that differed between the two organizations concerned the length of stories. While both outlets produced some short pieces and in-depth ones, the Independent’s stories on average were about three times as long. In some cases, the Post published stories with a large amount of statistical graphics and audience polls (Meyer, 2013), but much of the stories were short and lacked complexity. The Independent, however, consistently published longer pieces with more context.

Usage of Stakeholders

The types of sources used by the Denver Post and the Colorado Independent were different not just in scale, but in type. Sources are a key component in any journalistic venture, essentially providing the audience with various opinions, facts, and context surrounding an issue. Because of their differences in terms of storytelling, the organizations also differed considerably in how they utilized sources and stakeholders. Overall, while the two news organizations incorporated almost the same number of official, government sources across the entire data set, the differences in source usage materialized with non-governmental sources. The Post often quoted people from prominent organizations or people with prominent jobs in the area. Only once did the newspaper use an average citizen as a source. The Independent, however, quoted 21 such “regular” sources. This notable difference illustrates a clearly divergent philosophy on source utilization.

Numerous times, the Post and the Independent featured overlapping sources, mostly when dealing with government sources. In other areas, though, the Post favored what could be considered local celebrities. For example, one article featured a family who was on the National Geographic Channel for their medical marijuana business (Ostrow, 2012). Other articles looked at how network late-night hosts were covering Colorado’s pot issues (i.e., Parker, 2012). Other types of sources were high-ranking government officials and the key players from organizations devoted to the marijuana debate. Another type of story appearing on the Post featured short stories with prominent people—local celebrities—providing their thoughts on the amendment.

The Independent, however, did not depend on government officials and focused on locals who were not necessarily closely associated with the debate. For instance, it followed the trials of a Colorado teenager who fought with the state and school board at his high school to take medical marijuana (Kersgaard, 2011a). The story quoted his parents and the boy throughout their coverage. Another set of stories looked at a private citizen’s crop of 75 medical marijuana plants and his subsequent arrest (Kersgaard, 2011b). Essentially, the Independent favored stories about complex legal issues surrounding the amendment, such as how many plants a person could grow and medical marijuana in schools, and told those stories through the lens of private individuals dealing with them. The Post, however, favored experts, such as organization spokespersons, delivering official statements about the issue.

Professionals balance competing roles, duties, and loyalties. One major role of any news organization is to foster a public forum for ideas to be shared, deliberated, and debated. However, a marketplace of ideas can exist only if all relevant voices and all constituent groups can speak and be heard. Here, the Independent journalists are trying to extend the scope of the public debate by giving access to the news media to the otherwise voiceless. Non-official sources such as activists and other ordinary people could present accounts of their experiences and struggles in the Independent, access that the Post typically reserved for official sources and celebrities.

The Independent often featured more diversity in terms of “expert” sources. Robert Corry, an author of Amendment 64, is cited in more than a dozen Independent stories, more than any other source who was quoted in either the Independent or the Post. The Post quoted Corry, but saw him as an advocate rather than an expert (i.e., Meyer & Ingold, 2013). The treatment of Corry as a source belies some fundamental differences between the news organizations. The Independent, on one side, treated Corry an expert because he helped craft the amendment and had a deep stake in legalization. However, the Post counted only people in official roles in government or lobbying organizations as experts. By sticking to a limited definition of expert or stakeholder, the Post fell back on the same sources continuously while the Independent did not.

Societal Impact of Marijuana

The Denver Post and the Colorado Independent focused on covering the impact of marijuana legalization by examining it in two distinct manners. First, each organization focused extensively on the social impact of legalization. The Independent examined this angle far more frequently than the Post. The second manner was economic impact. The Post focused more extensively on this side of the Amendment 64 debate.

Social

The Independent’s coverage concentrated comprehensively on the federal government’s involvement in the issue, especially detailing the government’s raiding of various marijuana growers (Kersgaard, 2011c). A significant amount of coverage also concerned other states banning medical marijuana dispensaries and the direct impacts on residents. For example, the Independent previewed the voting on Amendment 64 by extensively detailing the aftermath of Montana’s vote to make marijuana completely illegal (i.e., Kersgaard, 2011d). While not overt, the Independent’s focus on the negative effects of making marijuana illegal in Montana and other states implied a clearly pro-legalization stance. In effect, the organization advocated for legalization through the telling of these one-sided stories.

The Independent also dedicated space to medical marijuana treatment stories. One article, for example, detailed how the National Cancer Institute added marijuana to its list of cancer treatments (Daly, 2011a). The organization followed this piece by publishing two about potential health ramifications of not allowing marijuana treatment (Daly, 2011b). These stories and others like them always focused on the benefits of marijuana and never the possible negative consequences. Immediately after Amendment 64 passed, the Independent turned its attention to stories pertaining to how local prosecutors would respond to marijuana cases that began before legalization (Kersgaard, 2012). The Post, though, focused on “horserace” coverage of the amendment and the key players involved. These pieces detailed social implications of legalization in a different way: How it would affect the organizations on each side of the debate (i.e., Ingold, 2012b). In one instance, the Post detailed how legalization might allow law enforcement to focus more of its attention on other social ills (Quillen, 2012).

Independent reporters again focused on duties, specifically justice and beneficence. These journalists focused on the equitable and meritorious distribution of pleasure and happiness, focusing on the positive health and economic components of marijuana legalization. They also focused on bettering the lot of others, specifically by focusing on the medical benefits of marijuana. However, this focus also obscured any potentially negative effects, so the coverage lacked ostensibly necessary balance. The Post reporters, however, attempted to cause no harm by focusing less on the social impact and, instead, on horserace coverage.

Economic

The financial aspects of the marijuana business were reported by both outlets before and after Amendment 64 passed. The Post focused much of its coverage on the function of medical marijuana dispensaries before Amendment 64 passed. The viewpoints of medical shop owners and caregivers’ financial states were reported many times. One Post article looked at application fees for medical shops and how these fees are used by the government (Hanlon, 2012). Multiple Post articles examined marijuana advertising and restrictions the government might put on it. The pieces looked at the issue from multiple sides, interviewing advocates for children, business rights groups, and the marijuana dispensaries themselves (i.e., Ingold, 2012c).

The Post revealed the kinds of infighting that occurred between marijuana legalization activists and those crafting Amendment 64 (Ingold, 2011). This clash spilled over after Amendment 64 was passed, and taxes became the next issue pitting pro-legalization lawmakers and pro-legalization activists against each other (Meyer & Ingold, 2013). The Independent wrote about economic issues, but far more infrequently. It featured articles detailing how taxes would be used, and then covered potential tax rates after the amendment passed. Its economic coverage, therefore, was lacking compared to the Post. Both the Independent and the Post frequently covered how businesses such as the Coors brewing company felt about legalization and how it thought marijuana legalization might affect worker productivity and Coors’s own policies (i.e., Kinney-Lang, 2014; Raabe & Vuong, 2013).

The Post’s economic coverage outshone similar Independent coverage. Here, Post reporters practiced fidelity, especially in terms of truth telling. Specifically, they attempted to look beyond the social ramifications of marijuana legalization to analyze a potential law change from multiple perspectives. By doing so, they also, conceivably, broadened the scope of the public discussion. In duty-based ethics, primacy is placed on community; acts should be performed that enhance others in the community. The community here is helped by a broad and deep discussion about marijuana legalization, a discussion that is enhanced by the focus by Post reporters on both social and economic implications of a change in the law.