This study examines the effect of issue obtrusiveness on the agenda-setting effects of the national network television news. Two competing models are tested: (a) the obtrusive contingency, which holds that agenda-setting effects decrease as the obtrusiveness of, or amount of personal experience with, an issue increases, and (b) the cognitive-priming contingency, which posits just the opposite−that agenda-setting effects increase as obtrusiveness increases. Findings provide no support for the obtrusive contingency; some support is found for cognitive priming. Only modest support for the basic agenda-setting hypothesis is found. Alternative hypotheses are suggested.

No abstract

Many critics contend that corporate newspapers are less vigorous editorially than entrepreneurial newspapers because they are more concerned about the bottom line than about information diversity. This study, which involves a national probability survey of L i l y newspapers, fails to support that belief. Corporate newspapers publish more local editorials and letters to the editor, and a larger number and proportion of editorials and letters that are critical of mainstream groups and institutions. From a broader perspective, these findings may be interpreted as supporting theories which hold that the pace of social change quickens as social systems become more structurally pluralistic.Many mass communication scholars and professionals believe the growth of the corporate form of organization in the U.S. daily newspaper industry during the twentieth century' has reduced diversity in the marketplace of ideas? Critics have charged, among other things, that corporate newspapers publish fewer editorials about local issues, publish fewer editorials that are critical of mainstream groups and ideas, and exercise greater control over their editorial editors and the editorials they write. Corporate newspapers are less vigorous editorially, the critics contend, because they are afraid of offending advertisers, sources, or readers, who may pull their advertising, buy fewer newspapers, or complain about content.Despite the popularity of the critical model, only three empirical studies that have examined the effects of corporate structure on editorialpage content support it. Most studies have found few differences between corporate and entrepreneurial newspapers, and a fair number even suggest that corporate newspapers are more, not less, vigorous editorially (see review below)? Additional research is necessary to clarify the effects. But even if that research shows that corporate newspapers are less vigorous editorially, the critical model would still suffer from an important theoretical deficiency: It fails to account for social change. Taken to its logical extreme, the critical model implies that the content of corporate newspapers inhibits or impedes social change, a supposition that runs contrary to other empirical research which shows that mass media often play an important role in David Demers is assistant professor of communication at Washington State University.

Drawing on social system and referencegroup theory, this study hypothesized that topeditors at large newspapers would bemoresatisfied with their jobs than top editors at small newspapers. Editors on larger newspapers were expected to be more satisfied because increased role specialization gives themgreaterautonomy, their salariesare higher, and their jobs are more prestigious. A national probability sample of top editors at daily newspapers in the United States supports the hypotheses that editors at larger newspapers are more satisfied and that autonomy is a mediating factor, but income is not related to job satisfaction.

Critics contend that corporate news organizations are destroying democracy because they place more emphasis on profits than on information diversity and other nonprofit goals considered crucial for creating or maintaining a political democracy. Research shows that corporate news organizations tend to be more profitable than entrepreneurial news organizations; however, they actually place less emphasis on profits and more on product quality and other nonprofit goals. More importantly, the "critical corporate model" appears to contain a logical flaw, the "approved contradiction," which claims that professional managers should maximize profits more than the owners. This claim contradicts the managerial revolution hypothesis that expects corporate organizations to place less emphasis on profits as power and control in modern organizations shifts from the owners to professional managers and technocrats. This article reviews the managerial revolution hypothesis and concludes that attempts to dismiss it outright are premature.