Page 273 - Comparing Political Communication Theories, Cases, and Challenge

P1: JZL/KDD/KAB P2: JZZ
0521828317c11.xml CY425/Esser 0521828317 June 8, 2004 22:9

Political News Journalists

international in scope, albeit considerably smaller in number (cf. e.g.,
Esser 1998).
Explanatory comparative analyses, however, are virtually nonexistent,
even though the field is of high scientific interest, especially where theo-
riesofnewsselectionareconcerned.Howmuchoftheexplainedvariance
can be attributed – technically speaking – to general patterns of hu-
man behavior and how much to specific circumstances, is an interesting
question. We can presume that cognitive patterns of information re-
ception and processing in humans (cognitive dissonance, schemas, etc.)
belong to general human features and therefore are probably invariant
factors, whereas professional socialization, professional standards, and
formsofeditorial controlbelongtospecific environmental conditions.
This study, for instance, is the first to our knowledge that replicates
Kepplinger’s (1991, 1992) theory of instrumental actualization in an
international context but more comparative research has yet to be car-
ried out.
Our study’s aim, now, is to contribute to the “amounts of explained
variance” in descriptive and explanatory journalism research. It sought
to examine differences and similarities in the way that journalists in
Western democracies do their jobs. Funded by a grant from the Markle
Foundation, our study included Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Sweden,
and the United States as its case studies. They were selected because,
as will be seen, they vary in their press traditions and structures. In
this chapter, we will describe our methodology; present three examples
from our research that illustrate different uses of a comparative survey;
and conclude with some observations about comparative research that
emerged from our study.

SURVEY DESIGN: CROSS-NATIONAL MEDIA
AND DEMOCRACY PROJECT
The five-country project centered on a mail survey of journalists in
Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Sweden, and the United States. The ques-
tionnaire that the journalists of the different countries received was iden-
tical, except in its language (there were English, German, Italian, and
Swedish translations) and in its reference to particular organizations,
such as a country’s political parties and news organizations.
The questionnaire was administered to journalists who were involved
in the daily news process and who worked on news of politics, govern-
ment, and current affairs (including, e.g., coverage of the environment,

253