Abstract
This is a significant, large-scale study, by a team of thirty international communication scholars, of the television news provided by thirty-three stations in seventeen countries, based on content analysis of content, a survey of audiences in thirteen of those countries, and in-depth interviews with gatekeepers in twelve of the countries. The study yields helpful data that support an argument that there is more variety in television news worldwide than what a “global village” model of the world might indicate. The countries were Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Egypt, Germany, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, Japan, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United States. The exclusion of India is particularly unfortunate.
The study determined that in the majority of countries, foreign news receives less coverage and less emphasis than domestic, although absolute volumes varied significantly between countries. Highly specific local factors tended to drive topic choices even of foreign news items. Hard news predominated over soft and sensational news in all countries, and levels of sensationalism in the news were remarkably similar. In terms of topic, the only difference between domestic and foreign was that foreign news was slightly less sensational. The country that was featured most frequently (in all but six of the countries) was the United States; across all countries, more than one-fifth of all the foreign news was located in the United States. Other top-ranking countries included the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Russia, and Germany. Europe was the most covered region (33%), followed by North America (24%), the Middle East (20%), Asia (19%), South America (12%), and Australia/Oceania and Africa (3% each). With the exception of North America, foreign news focuses primarily on the continent in which a given country is located.
Three determining features of news selection were superpower status (USA), the neighboring region, and coverage of regions embroiled in conflict. A high proportion of foreign coverage, up to 70% in the United States, was news that involved the local country’s national interest in some way. The study confirms that news is a form of representation of authority identifying who the authorities are and presenting their versions of reality. Domestic news is more personalized than foreign. Almost half of actors in the news have high status, whereas the second most important category is of members of the general public, often anonymous. In thirteen of the seventeen countries, the presence of politicians and other high-status actors was greater in foreign than in domestic news. In terms of the formal features of news broadcasts the authors identified five country clusters. These ranged from those that were quite “playful,” (including the USA)—using many different tools of presentation—to a “sober” group at the other extreme that used rather few. Both public service and commercial stations were found in each group. Indeed, the study as a whole found far fewer than expected differences between public service and commercial. Where public television is most reliant on advertising and/or has more competitors, it is less likely to exhibit substantial difference from commercial television.
The authors’ survey results found that television news still represented the most relied-on source of information, although a distinction was noted between television-centric and newspaper-centric nations. Women watched television news about as much time as men. Television watching of news increased by age, whereas exposure to online news was negatively related to age. More educated respondents spent slightly less time watching and more time reading newspaper news. Most viewers followed television news primarily to keep up with national or international affairs. The most commonly given reason for not watching foreign news was that there was too much reporting of wars, violence, and disasters.
Publics were generally less interested in foreign than in domestic news. Foreign news interest was higher in smaller and culturally diverse countries. Accidents and natural disasters were among the most interesting topics of foreign news to audiences around the world. The United States was a focus of interest for audiences of all countries. Variations in audience interest were largely explicable by “giant neighbor” effects of proximity, political relevance, and historical and personal ties.
Turning their attention to the gatekeepers, the authors found considerable differences in newsroom size and the numbers of journalists working on foreign news. Gatekeepers consistently mentioned ratings and perceptions of what might be interesting or attractive as major considerations in news selection. Journalists in most countries underestimated the amount of foreign news in their respective nation. They tended to be rather pessimistic about audience interest in foreign news, not knowing how much audiences wanted or what topics they wanted to know about (which were mainly accidents and disasters). Whereas in domestic news there was a meaningful correspondence between what was aired and what audiences wanted, this was less evident in foreign news. But there was a high level of correspondence between news content and audience interest in terms of countries covered.
In his concluding chapter, Akiba Cohen stresses variability, concluding that the findings run counter to what globalization might indicate. Alternatively, one can note that there was sufficient homogeneity to make it possible for contributing scholars to identify distinctive trends. Variability and the stronger salience of domestic over foreign news might suggest that a systemic function of news is to heighten national particularity and obscure the global integration of plutocratic and corporate power. This might be further tested with greater reference to detailed analysis of news coverage of such “big issues” as neo-imperial war, global finance capitalism, resource conflicts, and climate change.