2008
DOI: 10.1080/08838150701820809
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Homogenous Agendas, Disparate Frames: CNN and CNN International Coverage Online

Abstract: Although CNN and CNN International represent just a fraction of global news coverage, the networks are widely viewed, crucial agenda-setting agents the world over. This study found that the online versions of these 2 networks were remarkably consistent in telling audiences in America and abroad what to think about. However, American and non-American online audiences received disparate amounts of coverage and were cued how to think about issues in unique ways. These findings and the high level of news homogeniz… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
30
0
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
30
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Second, they cater to different types of audiences and vary in the degree of concentration on public affairs news. CNN is a generalist outlet (Groshek, 2008) the audience of which includes mostly Democrats and Independents (Pew, 2011; Stroud, 2008). USA Today is also a generalist outlet (Gladney, 1993) with centrist leanings (Groseclose & Milyo, 2005).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, they cater to different types of audiences and vary in the degree of concentration on public affairs news. CNN is a generalist outlet (Groshek, 2008) the audience of which includes mostly Democrats and Independents (Pew, 2011; Stroud, 2008). USA Today is also a generalist outlet (Gladney, 1993) with centrist leanings (Groseclose & Milyo, 2005).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies such as the one presented in this article investigate the formal attributes of online news and aim for a broad description of the medium in question. On a general level, content analyses of online news usually either compare online news outlets across a particular national market (Barnhurst, 2010;Boczkowski and de Santos, 2007;Chadwick, 2011;Dibean and Garrison, 2001;Greer and Mensing, 2006;Messner and DiStaso, 2008;Smyrnaios et al, 2010); compare print and online editions of newspapers (Engebretsen, 2006;Oblak, 2005;Song, 2007;van der Wurff, 2008); compare between countries (Dimitrova et al, 2005;Dimitrova and Connolly-Ahern, 2007;Elliott and Greer, 2010;Groshek, 2008;Karlsson, 2010;van der Wurff and Lauf, 2005); or focus on the development of online journalism by investigating the inclusion of citizen journalism (Carpenter, 2010;Choi, 2004), or user-generated content (Jö nsson and Ö rnebring, 2011;Ö rnebring, 2008) in mainstream online media.…”
Section: Previous Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The rationale for using these features to determine agendas is one that has been applied previously [5,28]. In addition, this analytical approach is also based on a rich background of work noting the critical importance of front matter, and headlines in particular, in attracting audience attention and facilitating shorthand interpretations of issues [35,36].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The headlines and topics from each media outlet were categorized into one of 17 possible categories in an adapted codebook used previously in separate publications by Natarajan and Xiaoming [26] and Groshek [5]. The categories in these codebooks were: (1) Accidents/natural disasters, (2) Agriculture, (3) Business/economics, (4) Crime/criminal justice/law and order, (5) Ecology/environment, (6) Education, (7) Health care, (8) Military/national defense, (9) Politics, (10) Race/religion/culture, (11) Social problems/services, (12) Sports, (13) Technology, (14) War/terrorism, (15) Oddities, and (16) Undecided.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation