Audience Preferences in Determining Quality News Production of Backpack Journalism

Abstract

The focus of the study centered on television (TV) newsgathering techniques and if the techniques delineated the quality of journalistic presentation. College students (N = 493) were surveyed on preferences of production quality criteria associated with news stories produced by traditional two-person crews and backpack journalists (BPJs). Respondents were shown eight randomly selected videotaped news stories from a TV market that employed both traditional two-person news crews and BPJs. Each news story was judged on perceptions of pacing, camera composition, lighting, voice narration, interviews selected, and script production.

Keywords

survey method uses and gratifications theory broadcast news format newsroom practices business of journalism

Television (TV) news delivery and acceptance have depended on the use of visuals for many years. Capturing the image is essential to visual storytelling and reporting. Capitalizing on the miniaturization of equipment, TV newsrooms have been able to reduce the number of personnel devoted to news gathering (e.g., Higgins-Dobney & Sussman, 2013). Without the constraints of bulky equipment, working alone has become a physically practical alternative for newsgathering and presentation.

One-man bands (OMBs) have been a source for news for small market TV news departments and cable systems for many years. Those stations rely on OMB to accomplish multitask journalism at a fraction of the cost of traditional news. Also known as backpack journalists (BPJs), video journalists (VJs) or solo journalists (sojo) are replacing traditional reporter–photographer news teams (e.g., Bock, 2011; Higgins-Dobney & Sussman, 2013; Wallace, 2009). This phenomenon has promoted the idea of the BPJ who can carry all of the needed tools for TV newsgathering (Walke, 2003) in a single backpack. This jack-of-all-trades journalist, armed with a laptop, microphone, and a small shoulder-mounted camera weighing less than 13 pounds, has everything needed to create a TV news report.

Advancements in computer, camera technologies, and editing software have permitted journalists to gather information and even transmit it via the Internet (Frutkin, 2006). As early as 1980, Bantz, McCorkle, and Baade (1980) recognized portable video equipment was a significant contribution to the TV news industry. But, such advancements have also cut jobs at some stations and potentially affect news content. For example, positions held by photographers and editors may be eliminated when newsrooms shift to BPJs. Traditional news crews at local news stations usually consist of two-person teams comprised of a photographer, also referred to as a photojournalist (Lindenkugel, 1994; Yoakam & Cremer, 1985), and a reporter. The photojournalist’s job duties include shooting and editing video (Lindekugel, 1994) while the reporter writes and voices the story (Diefenbach, 2008). BPJs may be called upon to shoot, report, voice, and edit stories without assistance. The BPJ must be trained not as a media specialist but as a media generalist. Lindekugel (1994) noted a “generalist” has a greater division of labor in smaller TV news markets rather than “specialist” (p. 18).

This technological movement is causing a gradual paradigm shift in newsgathering. It is also changing TV news. The miniaturization of equipment gives an ever-smaller number of news gathers greater abilities to collect and disseminate information on their own. These paradigm shifts in the methods of newsgathering have implications for the profession including profound changes in the character of newsroom economics, the possibility of job elimination and consolidation, the general quality of news broadcasts, and the education (or retraining) of TV broadcast journalists (Potter, 2001). Wallace (2009) noted the innovation in newsgathering affected the quality of news production. The BPJ concept embodies the notion of the multiskilled journalist working within a converged news environment (Deuze, 2004).

Some critics contend (McLean, 2005; Prato, 1999) that combining skill sets may jeopardize the quality of journalist presentation. More importantly, they conjecture that audiences who seek TV news content may perceive differences in the quality of newsgathering and presentation. BPJ is a “Jack of all trades, and master of none” and a deliverer of mediocre journalism (Stone, 2002). Deuze (2008) asserts working solo increases added pressure of multitasking and stress levels of the journalists (Wallace, 2013). Thus, the BPJ concept may put pressure on the quality of the presentation.

This study explores the question of whether the general audience, especially young adults who are Internet savvy, will be able to tell differences in technical quality (Lin, 1992; Shamir, 2007) between TV news stories produced by media generalists (BPJ) and those produced by media specialists (reporter or photographer teams).

Relevant Literature

To understand the importance and implications of quality to the news gathering and dissemination process, it is necessary to evaluate the theoretical foundations that drive news consumption, as well as technical aspects of production including news production criteria, newsgathering and technology, and definitions of quality, each of which is discussed below.

Uses and Gratifications

Backpack journalism’s acceptance is based on the audience perceptions and gratifications obtained from TV news presentation.

Viewing patterns develop out of certain gratification-seeking motivations. Rubin (1983) posited that there are two types of TV viewing users, each with different sets of TV viewing motivations. One type uses the medium for entertainment and time consumption and second, the other, for nonescapist, information seeking. Levy and Windahl (1984) also found a strong correlation was found between increased intention and planning to watch TV and surveillance use.

Uses and gratifications theory assumes audiences will become more active and goal oriented (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1974) in their selection of media. Rubin and Perse (1987) focused on three types of audience activity related to news viewing: intentionally (planned news viewing), selectivity (nonrandom viewing of alternatives in news content, e.g., Levy & Windahl, 1985), and involvement (audience being tuned in and reflecting on the content).

Numerous studies employ the theory of uses and gratifications (Blumler, 1979; Katz et al, 1974; Levy & Windahl, 1984) in order to explain how audiences interpret the visual messages associated with TV news. Addressing the link between a person’s background and social circumstances, McQuail, Blumler, and Brown (1972) categorized four types of gratifications people sought while viewing TV content and used their findings to develop a typology on audience gratifications.

Levy’s early research (1979) investigated the concept of “active” audiences and what they expect to gain from watching TV news. Uses and gratifications theory are used to categorize viewers into four types of motivations (Gantz, 1978). Palmgreen, Wenner, and Rayburn (1980) explored gratifications from a different perspective. They noted two types of gratifications, those sought and those obtained. Bantz (1982) would later redefine McQuail et al. (1972) and his colleagues’ four factors as surveillance, companionship, entertainment, and voyeurism when studying college students’ decision-making process about TV viewership.

The Internet delivers information to the masses on demand. Many young people do not have to wait for a TV news broadcast or watch a cable news channel until it repeats a story of interest. They are inundated with choices for their information seeking (Kaye & Johnson, 2003; Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000). Diddi and LaRose (2006), drawing from the previous research of Henke (1985), O’Keefe and Spetnagel (1973), and Vincent and Basil (1997), proposed that all forms of news media are selected by those with surveillance needs who are seeking local news and in-depth information. They continue, however, “the gratification of surveillance needs has been closely associated with the print media, and television is preferred by those with entertainment and escapism needs” (p. 194). This reinforces previous studies that members of the younger demographic have a tendency to gravitate to TV programs that meet entertainment needs (Bantz, 1982; Blumler, 1979; Lometti, Reeves, & Bybee, 1977; McQuail, Blumler, & Brown, 1972; Rubin, 1985). Pavlik and McIntosh (2005) reaffirm previous research that surveillance and entertainment are key functions in digital mass communication (p. 71) content from a nonlinear storytelling technique applied to news presentation.

Media use increases with age, especially among college students (Henke, 1985; O’Keefe & Spetnagel, 1973). Whether motivated by of course demands or surveillance uses, as students’ progress in their studies contribute to the increase of media consumption. Their motivation which may be attributed to course demands or surveillance use. Vincent and Basil (1997) hypothesized that student’s gratifications sought would drive their media use. Habitual media consumption behavior is different than the ritualistic gratification proposed by Rubin (1984); both still assume active information processing (Diddi & LaRose, 2006).

Shamir (2007), expanding upon Rosengren, Carlsson, and Tagerud (1996) dimensions of quality, states “uses and gratifications criteria as the basis for quality assessments (message—receiver relationship)” (p. 323) when applied to an audience member seeking and obtaining gratification from a TV program. Key elements to enhance realism or believability in TV are based on production values such as “writing, photography, lighting, directing, acting, and editing” (p. 324) when interacting with narrative and content. Shamir’s research examined five genres of TV programming: TV narratives (dramas), news/current affairs, culture/lifestyle shows, soaps/telenovelas, and entertainment/talk shows. Audience preference to TV programs gives pause to examine technical quality (Lin, 1992) or technical excellence (McQuail, 1992) from a news production perspective.

News production criteria

Different facets of TV news have been studied for almost 45 years. There are certain components to TV newsgathering. Aesthetic components such as camera angles or visual framing of events, audio, narration, editing techniques, lighting, and writing may enhance the informational experience of the story.

One of the earliest studies of TV news production suggested that camera composition is an effective way to achieve increasing credibility. Tuchman’s (1973) analysis implied that when Americans are faced with conflicting media reports of the same event, TV visuals are considered more believable than print media. Visuals reinforce news recall better than a news anchor providing oral information (Edwardson, Grooms, & Pringle, 1976). By combining both visuals and oral information, news is considered to be more trustworthy. Gunter (1980) found that image content had a profound effect on the learning process of news items, although Drew and Cadwell’s (1985) study discovered students pay closer attention to audio when presented with redundant visual and aural information in TV news. Audio was the primary channel of information for news recall if the audio and video information matched (Drew & Grimes, 1987).

Production techniques such as pacing (Lindekugel, 1994, p. 136) or sound effects associated in a tabloid style news presentation are not deemed newsworthy by audiences compared to standard presentational styles (Grabe, Zhou, Lang, & Bolls, 2000). Lang, Potter, and Grabe (2003) found that certain production techniques used in writing (e.g., Cummins & Chambers, 2011) and editing were likely to enhance the enjoyability, informativeness, and believability of news stories. Production techniques are part of the aesthetic dimensions, which may include “shot composition or framing, continuity editing or the effective use of lighting to convey emotional tone” (Cummins & Chambers, 2010, p. 5). Cummins and Chambers (2010) further postulate production value can refer to content properties of the message such as a TV news story script.

Lighting can articulate or manipulate perceptions of a viewer’s environment (Zettl, 2011, p. 20). Zettl further proposed flat lighting “assures us of the ‘enlightened’ accuracy of the news” (p. 45). Lighting techniques can add form and texture to an object as in portrait still photography. Video has adapted still methods to add depth and meaning to people, especially in interviews. Interviews enhance the creation of successful news stories and are considered an important element of storytelling (Diefenbach, 2008). Interviews are considered a reflection of reality and add to the authenticity to the pictures (Zettl, 2011, p. 297).

Besides using interviews to provide facts, reporters use narration as an efficient method of supplying additional information to a news story. The assurance of the narrator may help evoke a psychological response in which the viewer expects someone to talk to them. The direct address of narration seems to be more comforting (Zettl, 2011, p. 306) in news presentation.

Newsgathering and Technology

Research on technology in newsgathering provides a basis for the study of backpack journalism. C. Smith’s (1984) research found that 86% of news directors believe technology influences news content. However, stations with satellite newsgathering (SNG) capability created more work for newsgathering personnel (Cleland & Ostroff, 1988). News workers complained that technology was being used as a gimmick, at times overriding news judgments (Berkowitz, 1991). Critics regarded SNG as a tool for filling news holes and complained that it diminished the diversity of types of stories presented to the viewers in three different Texas TV markets (Davie & Lee, 1993). On the other hand, Johnsen (2004) deemed the technology as a success and proposed that digital technologies may alter news producing organizations, especially how videojournalism may have changed the newsgathering process. Fahmy and Smith (2003) acknowledged digital imaging technology of digital images transformed the dynamics of newsrooms, allowed newsmakers greater flexibility, and enhanced and increased information sharing, although it created information storage problems. Wallace (2009) identified a potential shift of acceptance of new technology by video journalists and news crews consisting of reporters and camera operators (photographers).

Defining Quality

Several researchers have examined the concept of quality in TV news. However, there is much disagreement about what “quality” means in TV news. Quality may be defined generally as the “degree to which the characteristics of an entity satisfy highly regarded normative standards” (Shamir, 2007, p. 322). Researchers believe quality is defined as relationship between the message and professional competence of the production (Rosengren, Carlsson, & Tagerud, 1996). When placed within the realm of local TV news, Roberts and Dickson (1984) say it is “synonymous with the station with the highest rating” (p. 392). However, Wulfemeyer (1982) condemns ratings as “more of popularity contest…than a real measure of quality” (p.79) and see quality as more to do with the “format” of the newscast (Wulfemeyer, 1983, p. 325). Ishikawa (1996) expands upon Wulfemeyer by adding, “what is needed today is the organization of professional staff and critics in the fields of production and arrangement of programmes (sic) to let them make quality assessment regularly based on established format” (p. 96). Some studies have sought to identify quality but from a perspective of the content producer (Wulfemeyer, 1982).

Following Hackett’s (1984) and Berelson’s (1952) lead, this study measures technical variables in the presentation of news content by BPJs working solo compared to news teams. The focus on technical quality (Lin, 1992) is useful because it provides a “journalistic ‘core’ of the item which could be assessed by criteria” (Johnsen, 2004, p. 250). These criteria focus on technical TV production values such as editing and shooting video.

Kerr (1990) refers to production values as “often used in attributions of quality-which refers to the quantity of money spent on a programme (sic)” (p. 47). The importance of measuring of production techniques is “to ask the target audience to assess the composing factors of each programme (sic)” (Ishikawa, 1996, p. 92). Wulfemeyer (1982) developed a scale of news content to assess quality in local TV. Seven classifications of content were used: commercials, issues, entertainment, banter, weather, unexpected events, and sports, to measure the quality of newscasts by three San Diego network TV affiliates (CIEBWUS Index Rating or CIR). He found that the CIR scales closely mirrored successful news stations’ content. Roberts and Dickson (1984) posited audiences determine measures of quality and stations’ ratings are linked to popularity. Their findings may or may not be linked to news content or technical quality. Lin (1992), expanding upon Wulfemeyer’s (1983, 1984) research, found technical and reporting quality were top determining factors for reasons in news viewing decisions. Meijer (2003) remarked that news has been categorized too narrowly as either serious and sophisticated or light and popular. She hypothesized that the public quality of news should be examined. Most research into quality was from the perspective of the content producer (Albers, 1996; Hillve & Rosengren, 1996; Leggatt, 1996; Shamir, 2007; Wallace, 2009). Audiences were able to recognize differences in TV production values, and that these production values influenced their interest and enjoyment of programs.

Content producers struggle with providing accurate information when working solo. Giffiths (1998) reported professionals in the British TV industry thought video journalism were a threat to quality broadcasting. Wallace (2009) conducted in-depth interviews with VJs. Some VJs embraced the new technology as a new way of reporting but had difficulties with the overall production. “It is all a big compromise” (Wallace, 2009, p. 694) said one VJ, while another preferred to have help, “If you filmed with a Beta crew, you would have had better quality pictures” (p. 696).

Notwithstanding journalists’ abilities to cover news events, previous studies have found they may be out of touch with their audience. Gans (1979) discovered that journalists’ decisions about what news to cover and how reflected their perceptions of audiences’ preferences. However, their perceptions were found often to be inaccurate. Journalists’ attributions tended to come from their knowledge of highly placed known public officials rather than from common people. Wulfemeyer (1984) likewise found that journalists were unable to predict what stories the audience preferred. Viewers preferred that important events of local or national importance be covered well regardless of the news category (Lin, 1992).

Past research has established that technology played a key role in TV newsgathering (e.g., Berkowitz, 1991; Cleland & Ostroff, 1988; Davie & Lee, 1993; Fahmy & Smith, 2003; Johnsen, 2004; Lacy, Atwater, Qin, & Powers, 1988; Smith, 1984; Wallace, 2009). Johnsen (2004) deemed the technology as a success and proposed that digital technologies may alter news producing organizations, especially how videojournalism may have changed the newsgathering process. Wallace (2009) identified a potential shift of acceptance of new technology by video journalists and news crews consisting of reporters and camera operators (photographers).

Station management desires technology in order to showcase their newsgathering capabilities. News workers are somewhat fearful that technological shifts have affected quality and may lead to job loss (Meijer, 2003). Some audience research has found the use of video may not be as important as audio in TV news recall (Drew & Cadwell, 1985; Drew & Grimes, 1987). Moreover, audiences also have a basic understanding of TV production techniques. Cummins and Chambers (2011) comment on younger viewers “are more critical of the technical quality of news content” (p. 747). Maday counters “Viewers are less concerned about the quality of framing of a shot or the lighting of the shot” (Frutkin, 2006, 30).

What is unknown is the role of technical quality in news presentation. Professionals have mostly defined quality but not the viewing audience, (Albers, 1996; Hillve & Rosengren, 1996; Leggatt, 1996). One such definition is provided by Wallace (2009) who states, “Quality journalism…can be defined as depth of scrutiny” (p. 694). However, measurements of quality of technical criteria (Cummins & Chambers, 2011) have yet to be explored from the perspective of elements of newsgathering techniques (Diefenbach, 2008; Headley, 2013).

This study expands upon the question posited by Johnsen (2004) whether the professional look of news items such as footage and editing (p. 252) will affect quality with the increase usage of videojournalism.

Framing of Research Question

The primary purpose of this study is to explore whether technical attributes/measures impact news consumers’ perceptions of differences in quality between traditional broadcast newsgathering methods and backpack journalism. Prior studies have indicated that viewers perceive differences in technical quality (Shamir, 2007). For example, Shamir (2007) found viewers were able to differentiate aesthetic processes in camera work, lighting, scripting, and editing used in the pursuance of technical excellence. Headley’s (2013) analysis of a news story construction consisted of narration, visuals, interviews, narration, and camera angles. A combination of these enhanced a viewer’s senses, thus adding a persuasive quality as found in documentary work. As such, the following hypothesis is posed.

Research Question 1: Will the audience prefer news stories produced by a traditional newsgathering crew than those produced by a BPJ in terms of technical quality?

News story production is based on six criteria including editing, scripting, narration, subject interviews, lighting, and camera angles. Viewers will able to differentiate stories produced by media generalists (BPJ) and media specialist (traditional two-person news crews) based on these criteria.

Research Question 1a: Will the audience prefer the technical quality of pacing of traditional newsgathering video segments?

Research Question 1b: Will the audience prefer the technical quality of camera shots in the video segments of traditional newsgathering video segments stories?

Research Question 1c: Will the audience prefer the technical quality of lighting in the video segments of traditional newsgathering stories?

Research Question 1d: Will the audience prefer the technical quality of voice narration in traditional newsgathering stories video segments?

Research Question 1e: Will the audience prefer the technical quality of interview-presentation style of traditional newsgathering video segments stories?

Research Question 1f: Will the audience prefer the technical quality of balance in the writing of traditional newsgathering stories video segments?

Method

Researchers examined news-related concepts and used comparison studies to determine differences and similarities. Lin and Jeffres (2001) explored information displayed on websites of different mediums. They postulated content may be different based on media type and whether media type and market size may have an effect upon content, communication, and technical aspects (p. 556). Sundar (1999) compared stories from print and online sources based on four criteria used by news receivers: credibility, liking, quality, and representativeness. His findings acknowledge a “methodological boon to scholars interested in studying similarities and differences in perceptual effects of stimuli” (p. 382). Different media of news content have been compared to one another. Johnson and Kaye (1998) analyzed political content from four different mediums: online newspapers, news magazines, candidate literature, and issued oriented of traditionally delivered versions (p. 325). Huang, Rademakers, Fayemiwo, and Dunlap (2004) explored the relationship between the convergence and quality of news stories across medium platforms of the Tampa Tribune newspaper, WFLA-TV, and TBO.Com.

Previous research suggests the comparison of stories across media presentation styles created by a media generalist and media specialist is plausible.

Stimuli

The 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. newscasts of the ABC, NBC, and CBS network affiliate in a midsized southeastern TV market were recorded from cable feeds with station identification (bugs) during the third week of March. The early evening newscasts were chosen based on previous research found late newscasts were losing more viewers (Pew Research, 2003). Generally, the 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. were determined to be “stronger journalistically” newscast than late evening and usually are higher rated newscasts (Pew Research, 2003).

This particular market was chosen based on researchers’ familiarity with that TV market. The ABC affiliate used both the BPJ model and traditional two-person crew for newsgathering, while the NBC and CBS affiliate employed traditional two-person newsgathering teams (a photographer and a reporter). All stories were coded to determine whether they fit the criteria of a news package (Diefenbach, 2008; Headley, 2013; Lindekugel, 1994), which are defined as, “news stories that are shot in the field and edited together” (Diefenbach, 2008, p. 230). News packages include interview segments and usually reporter narration and require more production attention by newsroom personnel than any other story type.

Once news packages were identified as being potentially produced by a BPJ (ABC affiliate), e-mails were sent to the creators of the news content identified by name on screen or verbally, asking whether they had any help during the production of the news stories. Twelve stories were confirmed via e-mail to be created by a BPJ. The other two network affiliates yielded a combined 23 stories for the week. Stories were assigned by channel designation and order of appearance during the week. All BPJ stories (n = 12) were placed into statistical analysis software (Statistical Package for Social Sciences [SPSS]) to produce a random sample of four. The other affiliate stories (n = 23) were randomized by SPSS to yield four as well. The eight stories were then randomized using a random number generator to determine order of presentation.

Respondents were shown eight videotaped news stories (Edwardson, et al., 1976; Grabe et al., 2000) produced in this local midsized news market. The stories were presented to the respondents in this order:

Ag Day on Capital Hill

Pastor Killed by Goat

Marshall Co. Rabies

Soldier Getting Storm Help

Mayors for Meals on Wheels

School Director Saved by Automatic External Defibrillator (AED)

Sumner Co. School Calendar

Montgomery Co. Attorney Arrest

Stories produced by BPJs fell in the number one, five, six, and seven positions, while news packages by traditional crews occupied positions two, three, four, and eight. The stories fit into various genres (Huang, Rademakers, Fayemiwo, & Dunlap, 2004) including issues, entertainment, and unexpected events (Wulfemeyer, 1982).

The length of each of the segments ranged from 1 min to a maximum of 2 min and 2 s, averaging 1 min and 34 s. The traditional crews’ story length was 1 min and 26 s. Stories produced by BPJs averaged 1 min and 43 s. All stories were shown with added graphics used to indicate the location of the story, the names of the interviewees, the channel numerical designation, and/or the names of narrators.

Research Design

The primary purpose of this study was to explore whether technical attributes and measures impact news consumers’ perceptions of quality between traditional broadcast newsgathering methods and BPJs. The target demographic for this research was younger news consumer because this group is most likely to shape how news information may be delivered in the future. Pingree et al. (2001) reinforce Rayburn and Palmgreen’s (1984) research concerning college students and their gratifications obtained from TV news and do not appreciably differ from the general population (Gordon, Slade, & Schmitt, 1986).

The stories were shown to respondents to elicit their opinions concerning the technical quality of the news stories produced by BPJs and traditional newsgathering crews. Respondents evaluated the news stories’ technical quality across six aspects: pacing, lighting, narration, writing, shot selection, and interviews.

Duplicate questions concerning the six criteria associated with production values were posed about each of the eight news stories. The following questions were asked:

I found the pacing of the story to be:

I found the camera shots to be:

I found the lighting in the story to be:

I found the voice narration to be:

I found the interviews to be:

I found writing (script) of the story to be:

Respondents were given a 5-point Likert-type scale to measure quality. One (1) suggests the stories were of Very low quality, two (2) represented the value of Low quality, three (3) indicated So, so, more or less in the middle, four (4) indicated High quality, while five (5) represented Very high quality. This was an adaptation of Shamir’s (2007) 6-point quality scale.

Population and Sample

The sample size (N = 493) included college-aged students in selected general education public speaking courses required for all university majors. Respondents were also chosen from introductory communication, introductory to news writing, and introductory electronic media courses within the journalism school.

One question was posed to see whether any influence of the stimuli and student’s high school residence were factors in the determining quality factors. Of the geographical regions of the state, 26.9% (n = 132) indicated they attended high school in the area of the stimuli coverage. Statistical analysis found no significance existed on whether geographic familiarity contributed bias toward the stimuli.

Younger demographics such as college students are an important section of the general population to study TV news usage habits. The Pew Research Center (2007, p. 8) has found that audience members 18–29 years of age say that they prefer local news (76%) compared to network (74%) or cable (73%) as a primary news source. Although the new media seem to be the first choice for information gathering (Kaye & Johnson, 2003), the Internet news audience found local TV news the most favorable (78%), tied with newspapers as a traditional form of media preference (Pew, 2007, p. 1).

Of the 493 respondents, 56.8% were female and 38.3% were male (n = 469, 23 with missing or incorrect data). The respondents were self-identified racially as Caucasian (81.7%), Black (7.9%), Hispanic (2.2%), Asian (4.7%), and Other (2%). In the age category, 40.6% of respondents identified their age-group as 18–19 years of age. Two hundred and four of respondents indicated they were 20–21 years of age (41.4%), followed by 22–23 years of age (12.8%), 24–25 years of age (1.2%), and 26 or older (1.6%). Eight-two percent of respondents were between the ages of 18 and 21.

When asked to indicate their education level, 32% indicated they were “Freshmen,” 32.9% “Sophomore,” 20.3% “Junior,” and 10.8% with “Senior” standing. Respondents having a graduate school education comprised less than 1% of the group.

Findings

The research question sought to explore audience preferences of production quality of news stories produced by traditional newsgathering techniques and BPJ techniques.

Paired t tests were implemented to compare differences in perceptions of quality among the eight different news stories. Half of the stories were produced by BPJs and the other half produced by two or more news personnel (traditional photographer/ reporter teams). Stories produced by the BPJs were coded as “general” (for “media generalist”), while the others were coded as specialist to indicate news personnel with narrowly defined job duties.

To test the reliability of the criteria for measuring quality of pacing, camera shots, lighting, narration, interviews, and writing, the Cronbach’s α ranged from .78 to .88

Research Question 1 sought to explore audience preferences of production quality of news stories produced by traditional newsgathering techniques and BPJ techniques. Overall, the respondents, regardless of their previous exposure to news, found differences in four of the six criteria designed to measure quality. Statistically significant (p ≤ .05) was found in the technical criteria of story pacing (p = .004), lighting (p = .036), narration (p < .001), and interview choice (p = .001). The technical criteria of writing and camera composition were not found to be statistically significant. Since four of the six criteria were statistically significant, it is plausible to conclude that respondents do prefer stories produced by traditional newsgathering teams as opposed to BPJs based on technical quality (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Preferences of Criteria Compared to Media Generalists and Media Specialists.

		Average Mean	Standard Deviation	t	df	Significance (Two-Tailed)
Pacing	General	3.33	.692	−2.925	492	.004
Pacing	Specific	3.42	.664
Shots	General	3.15	.701	−1.633	492	.103
Shots	Specific	3.20	.672
Lighting	General	3.20	.694	−2.103	492	.036
Lighting	Specific	3.25	.656
Narration	General	3.46	.707	−3.770	492	.000
Narration	Specific	3.56	.668
Interviews	General	3.32	.751	−3.381	492	.001
Interviews	Specific	3.43	.685
Writing	General	3.33	.717	1.257	492	.209
Writing	Specific	3.30	.716

Statistical analysis found no differences in the preferences stories of the general student population enrolled in the public speaking courses and those enrolled in the journalism school.

Discussion

Students’ perceptions of stories produced by BPJs were somewhat clarified in this study. They showed preference toward four of the six technical criteria. Of those criteria, the audience indicated higher quality of stories produced by two-person teams rather than by a BPJ. These findings support the main research question of the research study.

Those four production criteria included lighting, narration, interviews, and pacing. It can be speculated that these criteria were singled out based on each one connected to skill levels that require some degree of experience and expertise in journalism. If placed within the context of a traditional newsgathering crew consisting of a photojournalist and reporter, the criteria functions are divided into technical or nontechnical roles.

For example, lighting can be considered an art as well as a skill. The ability to manipulate light has proved a daunting task for many video journalists. The film industry relies heavily on people who can fulfill the requirements asked by the director. A lighting director is just that, one who’s sole purpose is to analyze the situation and provide assistance to help establish a mood for the camera. In TV newsgathering, the same problem exists. But, today’s local electronic news gathering (ENG) crews do not have the luxury of having a technician on hand to provide assistance. The traditional photojournalist is responsible for lighting, sound, and capturing the essence of the story for editing later. They have developed certain rituals and routines to assure quality and efficiency of workflow. A BPJ may not have time to worry about lighting.

This leads to the next point, pacing. The photojournalist can alter the presentational style of the news stories during the editing process. If the content is simplistic such as traffic problems, the photojournalist may choose to use “flashier” edits to speed up the pacing of the story. Respondents may subconsciously recognize this due to being subjected to fast-paced editing techniques in music videos, commercials, or car chases in film. If the content is complex, then slower and less frequency of shot changes may be used to illustrate the story’s message. A photojournalist in a two-person team usually serves as the editor. A BPJ may not have same skill levels.

It is the primary responsibility for the photojournalist to shoot interviews well and with good sound quality. It is up to the reporter to choose what interview segments fit within the story structure. Interview segments or sound bites are used to tell the story or enhance complex information in it. A weak sound bite may not answer the audience’s question about the information and may disrupt the flow of information. Students preferred the segments presented in the stories as chosen by a reporter than those by a BPJ.

The narration of the story is tied to the writing style. However, the respondents in this study separated the two. Respondents did not have access to scripts and relied upon hearing the information. The ability to present ideas orally is the basic function of the reporter or narrator. A simple sentence may be interpreted differently by using voice inflection on certain words. The reporter or narrator chooses to enact this upon their discretion as long as it is not perceived to inject bias. Narration encompasses such effects as tonal quality, audio delivery and voice inflection. The listener may find certain vocal styles to be soothing, informative, or even annoying. In this study, female reporters’ tonal quality may have persuaded the respondents to notice those stories, as human interest stories. The injured soldier story had potentially sympathetic visuals but offered a reassuring female voice track. This may have played on emotion and the students reacted favorably to the story.

Writing and camera shot composition are considered some of the most important parts of newsgathering. Academia has stressed these concepts in these two areas, suggesting they are part of the basic foundation in the newsgathering process. In this study, the respondents did not show a particular preference in either criterion.

With four of the six recognized technical quality criteria used in TV news production to be found statistically significant in this study, the research question is affirmed.

This may indicate the audience is not quite ready for BPJ as a whole based on technical presentation. Overall, respondents preferred two thirds of the study’s stories produced by two-person newsgathering crews. They were able to differentiate lighting techniques but not shot composition. They preferred the narration, which is an extension of the writing. But respondents indicated no preference for either BPJ or traditionalist news team in writing. Students may appear to misunderstand the question I found the camera shots to be…” Lighting techniques are part of what the camera sees. The visuals of editing or pacing are tied to visual composition. The students may have found some camera shots particularly disturbing or even humorous. However, there is no conclusive evidence to indicate why this materialized in the study.

What is known is that the news stories presented in this study produced by traditional photojournalist or reporter crews were preferred by students over those produced by a BPJ as measured in terms of six criteria of quality. Industry reports (Young Broadcasting, 2007) have hinted that BPJ is a technique designed as a last ditch newsgathering effort to attract audience members. However, it is not the only contributing factor. Solid news judgment is needed whether news is produced by a BPJ or not. It has been posited that BPJs are best served to cover simple planned events or human interest stories. If complex issues are neglected, regardless of the coverage, credibility becomes an issue.

Results from this study also indicate students are still somewhat active TV news viewers, competing in a virtual world of information. Previous studies indicate a decline in watching TV news by this demographic. The Internet may have eliminated the need to plan daily activities around news times. Technologies such as digital video recorders have eliminated where audience members need to be at certain times to receive TV news information. However, those who watch news are still conducting active searches for TV news content. Apparently, students may still obtain gratification from information being presented in TV news stories.

Even though the Internet offers convenience and increasing credible information, student viewers appear to have not completely abandoned the traditional news world. This gives some hope to slowing down the migration to younger viewers to a completely virtual newscast. TV stations are offering greater content, at times repurposed for web delivery. Station management has recognized this web migration and suggests directing their audiences to seek more story information on their particular “web channels.”

How does this affect backpack journalism? Young adult viewers of TV news mention information from news is more important than the entertainment value. Earlier studies by Vincent and Basil (1997) suggested that entertainment was a key factor in uses and gratifications of the TV medium by younger demographics. This study confirms this demographic pays extra close attention to the video medium.

Respondents were able to specify preferences in production values associated with news presentation. In terms of news production values, students preferred stories by traditional newsgathering means as opposed to BPJ produced stories. News management may see BPJ as more of an economic factor. Storytelling and informational delivery may be taking a backseat. This study suggests BPJ newsgathering is not as widely accepted by the younger audience as management may think. News management may continue toward the migration toward solo newsgathering, but the younger audience members may be turned off by what they see. In other words, younger viewers may accept change at a much slower pace than news managers expect.

With regard to the hypothesis, academics may find positive to see younger demographics prefer stories with a higher standard in terms of technical quality. In today’s virtual world of YouTube, the results from the hypotheses indicate a level of video sophistication thought lost to the Internet or shows such as America’s Funniest Home Videos. It is apparent most respondents can tell whether something is visually or technically unappealing and thus the results seem to reflect that, which supports the hypothesis.

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

There are several limitations to the study’s design and implementation. One concern to be addressed is the limited amount of stories to choose as visual stimuli. The 5-day period, in which a total of 35 stories fit the criteria to be considered news packages (Diefenbach, 2008; Headley, 2013), could have been larger. The midsized southeastern market offers newscasts at 4 p.m., 5 p.m., 6 p.m., and 10 p.m. The Fox affiliate has a 9 p.m. newscast, which is considered their premiere newscast for the day. However, taping newscasts by network affiliates gives the opportunity to select stories that are going head-to-head with each other seeking greater audience shares. This suggests more resources will be dedicated to the newsgathering process during competitive newscast times (Pew Research, 2003). By taping more newscasts and multiple weeks, there will be a greater pool of news stories that have the chance of being selected. However, March is not considered a TV sweeps period where resources are allocated to “special reports” designed to influence particular demographics. The data collection took place during a seemly “normal” week of news related events.

This survey did not include questions concerning credibility of visual stimuli presented to respondents. TV news presentation is viewed as a credible medium for information delivery. If any news medium is perceived to be not credible, then audience members will seek sources that they believe to present the facts and truths. For the purpose of this study, credibility is a peripheral variable but not the part of the focus to determine quality of a news stories based on technical presentation.

This study demonstrates that newsgathering production values are measurable, but further research is needed to provide insights into how production values may be improved.

BPJ does not appear to be a newsgathering fad. They are now being used in both print and broadcast journalism. The Gannett Corporation (2008), which owned 85 daily and 900 nondaily newspapers along with 23 TV stations in the United States in 2008, implemented the BPJ standard in top 25 TV markets. They were one of the first media corporations to implement the mobile journalist (mojo) concept, similar to BPJ. As of August 2007, Gannett had 261 cameras on the U.S. streets with 474 journalists trained in the BPJ concept. H. Nielsen (personal communication [Personal email correspondence, August 14, 2007]) states that the BPJ “is a news and sales initiative.”

A 2012 survey of communication graduates noted the use of video on the job has nearly doubled to 16% in the last 6 years (Becker, Vlad, Simpson, & Kalpen, 2012), while writing, reporting, and editing for a broadcast platform has risen to 15.6%, up 2.1% since 2006.

Economics may force perceived quality criteria into a diminished role to provide images to a public hungry for video. However, if TV news is to survive, then cutting staff and forcing them into greater multitasking roles may not be the answer. McLean (2005) found that each video journalist (BPJ) “took on the responsibility for three different workers” (p. 335, e.g., Young Broadcasting, 2007) implies a “profit-to-jobs paradigm” (p. 335).

The BPJ approach to newsgathering is designed for those news workers that can handle technological advancements (Johnsen, 2004). It can be inferred that when newsrooms abandoned typewriters for computers, there were some who did not feel comfortable with the change. This technological advancement was an improvement just like the switch from film to ENG. However, BPJ is more than just a technological advancement; it constitutes a paradigm shift in newsgathering and news presentation. This shift may promote further problems in training, staffing, and station morale.

In their Securities and Exchange Commission filing for 2006, Young Broadcasting (2007) argues the move to BPJs will result in a more efficient use of resources and provide more content. “The cost of equipping a VJ is significantly less than equipping a three-person field crew” (p. 5). The goal of local news stations is to brand the station’s local news franchise to increase revenue and broadcast cash flow, while strengthening audience loyalty. Their goal to achieve this is “principally through the quality of its local news programming and by targeting specific audience groups with special programs and marketing events” (Young Broadcasting, 2007).

As backpack journalism becomes more prevalent in TV newsgathering, additional research is needed to determine whether this model is satisfying the needs of news consumers. The concept of quality, which is associated with something of value, needs to be explored further. It should not simply be assumed that younger audiences have particular preferences or motivations with regard to the news—for example, that they are motivated by a desire for entertainment or prefer light popular news (Meijer, 2003). However, these assumptions should be challenged and systematically investigated. This study attempts to provide groundwork for future research on specific production elements that comprise news presentations. The findings provide a quantitative glimpse into how audiences define technical aspects of quality. It lays the groundwork for the next step of investigating patterns of perceptions. To understand how BPJ is received, longitudinal studies can provide insight into whether the public will accept this style of newsgathering presentation over the long term, with more exposure to it.

A final suggestion for future research is the need for a systematic ratings analysis of stations that implement the BPJ phenomenon. A longitudinal ratings study will indicate long-term trends of acceptance or rejection of the newsgathering technique by audiences and help stations decide how to prepare audiences for the shift in approaches. Some stations have attempted abrupt wholesale changes to their newsrooms with little success (G. Smith, 2007). Others have shifted to a hybrid style of newsgathering where an estimated 20–40% of information is gathered by BPJ. If the general public’s preferences mirror those of the younger audiences in this study, it may be wise for news organizations to move slowly and cautiously toward the adoption of the BPJ approach to newsgathering.

Footnotes

Author’s Note

Charlie Gee is now affiliated with Lincoln Memorial University, Harrogate, TN, USA.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Albers

(1996). Quality in television from the perspective of the professional programme maker. In Ishikawa

(Ed.), Quality assessment of television (pp. 101–143). Luton, England: John Libbey Media.

Bantz

(1982). Exploring uses and gratifications: A comparison of reported uses of television and reported uses of favorite program types. Communication Research, 9, 352–379.

Bantz

McCorkle

Baade

(1980). The news factory. Communication Research, 7, 45–68.

Becker

Vlad

Simpson

Kalpen

(2012). 2012 annual survey of journalism and mass communication graduates. Retrieved March 1, 2014, from http://www.grady.uga.edu/annualsurveys/Graduate_Survey/Graduate_2012/Grdrpt2012mergedv2.pdf

Berkowitz

(1991). Assessing forces in the selection of local television news. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 35, 245–251.

Berelson

(1952). Content analysis in communication research. New York, NY: Free Press.

Blumler

(1979). The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Communication Research, 6, 9–36.

Bock

(2011). You really, truly, have to “be there” Video journalism as a social and material construction. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88, 705–718.

Cleland

Ostroff

(1988). Satellite news gathering and news department operations. Journalism Quarterly, 65, 946–951.

10.

Cummins

Chambers

(2010). Balancing form and content in TV news: How production value impacts credibility and perceived economic value of content. Paper presented at the Broadcast Education Association Conference, April 16, 2010, Las Vegas, NV.

11.

Cummins

Chambers

(2011). How production value impacts perceived technical quality, credibility and economic value of video news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88, 737–752.

12.

Davie

Lee

(1993). Television news technology: Do more sources mean less diversity? Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 37, 453–464.

13.

Diddi

LaRose

(2006). Getting hooked on news: Uses and gratifications and the formation of news habits among college students in an internet environment. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50, 193–210.

14.

Diefenbach

(2008). Video production techniques: Theory and practice from a concept to screen. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

15.

Drew

Cadwell

(1985). Some effects of video editing on perceptions of television news. Journalism Quarterly, 62, 828–849.

16.

Drew

Grimes

(1987). Audio-visual redundancy in TV news recall. Communication Research, 14, 452–461.

17.

Deuze

(2004). What is multimedia journalism. Journalism Studies, 5, 139–152.

18.

Deuze

(2008). Understanding journalism as newswork: How it changes, and how it remains the same. Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture, 5, 4–23.

19.

Edwardson

Grooms

Pringle

(1976). Visualization and TV news information gain. Journal of Broadcasting, 20, 373–380.

20.

Fahmy

Smith

(2003). Photographers note digital’s advantages, disadvantages. Newspaper Research Journal, 24, 82–96.

21.

Frutkin

(2006). Talent vs. technology. MediaWeek, 16, 2006.

22.

Gans

(1979). Deciding what’s news. New York, NY: Pantheon.

23.

Gannett. (2008). Gannett Company profile. Retrieved June 3, 2008, from http://www.gannett.com/about/company_profile.htm

24.

Gantz

(1978). How uses and gratifications affect recall on television news. Journalism Quarterly, 55, 664–672.

25.

Gordon

Slade

Schmitt

(1986). The “science of the sophomore” revisited: From conjecture to empiricism. Academy of Management Review, 11, 191–207.

26.

Grabe

Zhou

Lang

Bolls

(2000). Packaging television news: The effects of tabloid on information processing and evaluative responses. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 581–598.

27.

Gunter

(1980). Remembering television news: Effects of picture content. The Journal of General Psychology, 102, 127–133.

28.

Hackett

(1984). Decline of a paradigm? Bias and objectivity in news media studies. In Gurevitch

Levy

(Eds.), Mass communication review yearbook (pp. 251–274). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

29.

Headley

(2013). Social moments in solo videojournalism: Conveying subjective social reality through editorial vision and video. Digital Journalism, 1, 64–81.

30.

Henke

(1985). Perceptions and use of news media by college students. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 29, 431–436.

31.

Higgins-Dobney

Sussman

(2013). The growth of TV news, the demise of the journalism profession. Media, Culture & Society, 35, 847–863.

32.

Hillve

Rosengren

(1996). Swedish public service television—Quality of sale. In Ishikawa

(Ed.), Quality assessment of television (pp. 231–252). Luton, England: John Libbey Media.

33.

Huang

Rademakers

Fayemiwo

Dunlap

(2004). Converged journalism and quality: A case study of the Tampa tribune news stories. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 10, 73–91.

34.

Ishikawa

(1996). The assessment of quality broadcasting: Research in Japan. In Ishikawa

(Ed.), Quality assessment of television (pp. 89–98). University of Luton Press.

35.

Johnsen

(2004). News technology: Deconstructing and reconstructing news. Nordicom Review, 25, 237–257.

36.

Johnson

Kaye

(1998). Cruising is believing? Comparing internet and traditional sources on media credibility measures. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 325–340.

37.

Katz

Blumler

Gurevitch

(1974). Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37, 509–523.

38.

Kaye

Johnson

(2003). From here to obscurity? Media substitution theory and traditional media in an on-line world. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54, 260–273.

39.

Kerr

(1990). Never mind the quality…. In Mulgan

(Ed.), Question of quality (pp. 43–55). Suffolk, NY: St. Edmundsbury Press.

40.

Lacy

Atwater

Qin

Powers

(1988). Cost and competition in the adoption of satellite newsgathering technology. Journal of Media Economics, 1, 51–59.

41.

Lang

Potter

Grabe

(2003). Making news memorable: Applying theory to the production of local television news. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47, 113–123.

42.

Leggatt

(1996). Quality in television: The views of professionals. In Ishikawa

(Ed.), Quality assessment of television (pp. 145–167). Luton, England: John Libbey Media.

43.

Levy

(1979). Watching TV news as para-social interaction. Journal of Broadcasting, 23, 69–80.

44.

Levy

Windahl

(1984). Audience activity and gratifications: A conceptual clarification and exploration. Communication Research, 11, 51–78.

45.

Levy

Windahl

(1985). The concept of audience activity. In Rosengren

Wenner

Palmgreen

, (Eds.), Media gratifications research: Current perspectives (pp. 109–122). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

46.

Lin

(1992). Audience selectivity of local television newscasts. Journalism Quarterly, 69, 373–382.

47.

Lin

Jeffres

(2001). Comparing distinctions and similarities across websites of newspapers, radio stations, and television stations. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 555–573.

48.

Lindekugel

(1994). Shooters: TV news photographers and their work. Westport, CT: Praeger.

49.

Lometti

Reeves

Bybee

(1977). Investigating the assumptions of uses and gratifications research. Communication Research, 4, 321–338.

50.

McLean

(2005). When head office was upstairs: How corporate concentration changed a television newsroom. Canadian Journal of Communication, 30, 325–342.

51.

McQuail

(1992). Media performance: Mass communication and the public interest. London, England: Sage.

52.

McQuail

Blumler

Brown

(1972). The television audience: A revised perspective. In McQuail

(Ed.), Sociology of mass communications (pp. 135–165). Middlesex, England: Penguin.

53.

Meijer

(2003). What is quality television news? A plea for extending the professional repertoire of newsmakers. Journalism Studies, 4, 15–30.

54.

O’Keefe

Spetnagel

(1973). Patterns of college students’ use of selected news media. Journalism Quarterly, 50, 543–548.

55.

Palmgreen

Wenner

L. A.

Rayburn

J. D.

(1980). Relationships between gratifications sought and obtained: A study of television news. Communication Research, 7, 161–192.

56.

Papacharissi

Rubin

(2000). Predictors of internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 175–196.

57.

Pavlik

McIntosh

(2005). Convergence and its consequences. Reading, 3, 67–73.

58.

Pew Research Center. (2003). Does ownership matter in local television news? Retrieved January 2, 2014, from http://www.journalism.org/2003/04/29/does-ownership-matter-in-local-television-news/

59.

Pew Research Center. (2007). Views of press values and performance: 1985–2007. Retrieved September 4, 2007, from www.people-press.org/reports/pdf/348.pdf

60.

Pingree

Hawkins

Hitchon

Gilligan

Radler

Kahlor

… Kannaovakun

. (2001). If college students are appointment television viewers… Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45, 446–463.

61.

Potter

(2001). Point, shoot, and ask. American Journalism Review, 23, 64.

62.

Prato

(1999). Photogs: New cameras a lumbar of love. Electronic Media, 18, 1999.

63.

Rayburn

Palmgreen

(1984). Merging uses and gratifications and expectancy—Value theory. Communication Research, 11, 537–562.

64.

Roberts

Dickson

(1984). Assessing quality in local TV news. Journalism Quarterly, Summer, 61, 392–398.

65.

Rosengren

Carlsson

Tagerud

(1996). Quality in programming: Views from the north. In Ishikawa

(Ed.), Quality assessment of television (pp. 3–48). Luton, England: John Libbey Media.

66.

Rubin

(1983). Television uses and gratifications: The interactions of viewing patterns and motivations. Journal of Broadcasting, 27, 37–51.

67.

Rubin

(1984). Ritualized and instrumental television viewing. Journal of Communication, 34, 67–77.

68.

Rubin

(1985). Media gratifications through the life cycle. In Rosengren

Wenner

Palmgreen

(Eds.), Media gratifications research: Current perspectives (pp. 195–208). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

69.

Rubin

Perse

(1987). Audience activity and television news gratifications. Communication Research, 14, 58–84.

70.

Shamir

(2007). Quality assessment of television programs in Israel: Can viewers recognize production value? Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35, 320–341.

71.

Smith

(2007). WKRN: Using video journalist to break out of the pack. Feedback, 48, 4–8.

72.

Smith

(1984). Newsgathering technology and the content of local television news. Journal of Broadcasting, 28, 99–102.

73.

Stone

(2002). The backpack journalist is a “mush of mediocrity.” Retrieved on January 23, 2008, from http://ojr.org./ojr/workplace/1017771634.php

74.

Sundar

(1999). Exploring receiver’s criteria for perception of print and online news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76, 373–386.

75.

Tuchman

(1973). The technology of objectivity: Doing ‘objective’ TV news film. Urban Life and Culture, 2, 3–26.

76.

Vincent

Basil

(1997). College student’s news gratifications, media use, and current events knowledge. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 41, 380–392.

77.

Walke

(2003). Comments of the National Association of Broadcasters, June 30, 2003. Retrieved on April 13, 2006, from www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-735R

78.

Wallace

(2009). Watchdog or witness? The emerging forms and practices of videojournalism. Journalism, 10, 684–701.

79.

Wallace

(2013). The complexities of convergence multiskilled journalists working in BBC regional multimedia newsrooms. International Communication Gazette, 75, 99–117.

80.

Wulfemeyer

(1982). Developing and testing method for assessing local TV newscasts. Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 59, 79–82.

81.

Wulfemeyer

(1983). The interests and preferences of audience for local television news. Journalism Quarterly, 60, 323–328.

82.

Wulfemeyer

(1984). Perceptions of viewer interests by local TV journalists. Journalism Quarterly, 61, 432–435.

83.

Yoakam

Cremer

(1985). ENG: Television news and the new technology. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

84.

Young Broadcasting. (2007). United States Securities and Exchange Commission, Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from http://msnmoney.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1?ID=5797770&SessionID=3j4iW8rKa9jhGu9

85.

Zettl

(2011). Sight sound motion: Applied media aesthetics (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.