EUROPEAN MEDIA SYSTEMS SURVEY 2010: RESULTS AND DOCUMENTATION

Marina Popescu with contributions from Gabor Toka, Tania Gosselin, and Jose Santana Pereira

Colchester, UK: Department of Government, University of Essex Downloadable from www.mediasystemsineurope.org

© Marina Popescu, 2011 Part I. Introduction 1 in the EMSS 2010 country-level data sets based How to obtain the data 1 on various recodes and averages of Conditions of use 2 elementary indicators 18-19 How to cite 2 Illustration 7: Composite measures in the EMSS 2010 country-level data sets based Contents Acknowledgements 3 on summing up two weighted averages 20 Part II. Project design 4 Objectives and method 4 Part IV. Data quality 21 Country selection criteria 5 Tests of data validity 21 Respondent selection criteria 6 Data reliability 22 Questionnaire design 6 Illustration 8: Data reliability in the Illustration 1: Except from the questionnaire EMSS 2010 study 24 as the respondents saw it 7 Media channels covered in the survey 8 References 26 The coding of media partisanship 8 Data collection and response rates 9 Part V. Graphical displays 28 Illustration 2: Response rates by national Single items 28 context to the 2010 EMSS survey 11 Composite measures 70 Country by country 120 Part III. Variables and visual displays 12 Single questions about individual media outlets 12 Part VI. Technical Appendix 28 Illustration 3: Outlet-level data on Italy from I. THE EMSS 2010 QUESTIONNAIRE 154 the 2010 EMSS survey 12 II. The coding of national media outlets Single questions about national media in general 13 covered in EMSS 2010 161 Illustration 4: Mapping broad trends 14 III. The coding of political parties in EMSS 2010 165 Illustration 5: Displaying country means IV. Outlet-level variables with their name, coding, with the margin of error 15 wording/construction an reliability in EMSS 2010 169 Composite measures: Weighted averages and V. Country-level variables with their name, multiple-item indices 16 coding, wording/ construction and reliability in Illustration 6: Composite measures EMSS 2010 172 Executive summary The main topics focus on: The remainder of part I of this The European Media Systems • information quality, i.e., accuracy, report presents the data dissemina- Survey (EMSS) provides an argument quality, depth, and tion plan; part II explains the methodo- assessment of national media contextualization in public affairs logical choices of the study and provides landscapes in 34 European coverage; details on implementation; while part III media systems on dimensions that are • media partisanship; discusses the types of measures and particularly relevant for political • the pluralism of political viewpoints visual displays developed and part democracy. It does so via averaging appearing within and across media IV assesses the reliability and validity the opinion of scores of specialist outlets, i.e., internal and external of the data collected. A separately Part I. Introduction experts of each national media diversity; downloadable technical appendix system in the sample. The survey • structural infl uences on editorial presents the questionnaire; the list specifi cally focused on media content; of the 289 media outlets covered by attributes for which no other cross- • journalistic professionalism; the survey; the coding of national nationally comparable indicators ex- • particularities of public television political parties at the media par- ist and the data are made publicly and online news; and tisanship question of the EMSS available. Thus, the EMSS is an • overall expert evaluations of media survey; and descriptive statistics and essential complement to previously credibility, infl uence and performance reliability estimates for all existing data available from in the given national contexts. questionnaire items and composite other sources on the legal, fi nancial, The data were collected from measures obtained. organizational, political, programming several hundred academic specialists and audience characteristics of mass of national media systems with How to obtain the data media in Europe. a cross-nationally standardized We make publicly available all The 2010 EMSS study focused on online questionnaire, and are country- and media outlet-level data both media content and structural made publicly available through the stemming from the study in a variety 1 characteristics, as well as the links www.mediasystemsineurope.org of formats via the study’s website at between the two. website in a variety of formats. www.mediasystemsineurope.org. Users are also encouraged to use own statistical analyses of the data national media system of a particu- the visual displays shown in this can download the complete coun- lar country; and (B) those that asked report in their own presentations or try- and media outlet-level data sets the respondents to assess particular publications. Electronic copies of from the same website in SPSS and media outlets like, say, BBC1 or The nearly-identical images can be found STATA format. We make these Sun. on the study website in Portable graphics and data freely available Network Graphics format. Users who for both reproduction and further Conditions of use wish to use these charts but with analysis in any publication on con- We authorize users to reproduce in the text appearing in a different lan- dition of the proper acknowledgement their own publications any part of the Part I. Introduction guage than English should send an of the source (see the How to cite raw data, any visual display, or any email specifying their request and section below). user-computed statistics from the providing accurate translation of The SPSS and STATA data fi les 2010 EMSS survey on condition that all text in the given charts into the provide the number of valid responses they acknowledge their source of data language of their choice to Gabor and their mean value and estimated as shown below. Toka at tokag at ceu.hu, and enter population standard deviation for each “request for EMSS 2010 charts” in the question and composite measure How to cite subject line. Users who would like to in each of the 34 national contexts. Users of the SPSS, STATA or Excel create their own tables about cross- Users can obtain the standard error fi les downloadable from our website national differences on individual of the mean values by dividing the are kindly requested to identify their variables can download from the estimated population standard source as: same website an Excel fi le that deviation of a variable by the Marina Popescu, Tania Gosselin and contains country-by-country de- square root of the number of valid Jose Santana Pereira. 2010. “Euro- scriptive statistics (national mean, responses. pean Media Systems Survey 2010.” minimum, maximum, standard We provide separate data fi les Data set. Colchester, UK: Department of 2 deviation) for all study variables. about (A) the questions that asked Government, University of Essex. URL: Users who wish to undertake their the respondents to assess the entire www.mediasystemsineurope.org Citations of this report and users of was provided through a British of the project. We would particularly our charts are requested to contain a Academy Postdotoral Fellowship and a like to thank John Bartle, Mikolaj reference to: University of Essex research Czesnik, Zhidas Daskalovski, Marina Popescu with Gabor Toka, initiative support grant to Marina Chris Hanretty, Andrija Henjak, Tania Gosselin, and Jose San- Popescu. The Qualtrics software Stephen Krause, Neophytos tana Pereira. 2011. “European Me- facility used for the online survey Loizides, Frances Millard, Aure- dia Systems Survey 2010: Results was provided by the Department of lian Muntean, Dusan Pavlovic, and Documentation.” Research re- Government at the University of David Sanders, Tom Scotto, Maria port. Colchester, UK: Department of Essex. Tania Gosselin and Jose Spirova, Catalin Tolontan, Dan Part I. Introduction Government, University of Essex. URL: Santana Pereira participated in the Tudoroiu and Stefaan Walgrave for www.mediasystemsineurope.org project as part of their work at the their comments, Stela Garaz and University of Quebec at Montreal Bogdana Buzarnescu for excellent Acknowledgements and the European University Institute research assistance, and Nicoleta This survey would have not been (Florence, Italy), respectively. Nasta and Laura Trandafi r for their possible without the contribution Gabor Toka of the Central European help with fi ne-tuning the graphic and interest of our 838 respondents University (Budapest, Hungary) design of the report. The visual from 34 national contexts, who also provided technical advice throughout displays in this report were generated provided additional information and all phases of the project. using the R 2.13 software. (1) comments that will improve the A number of other friends and col- next wave of the survey planned for leagues shared with us their time 2012. Funding for the 2010 project and insight to help in different stages

3 (1) R Development Core Team (2011). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org/. Objectives and method casting lives up to its mission in the ministerial powers, and party competi- The 2010 European Media Systems contemporary world; or the condi- tion (see Arvanidis et al. 2009; Benoit Survey (EMSS) aimed at fi lling a tions under which the internet can be and Laver 2006; Kitschelt et al. 2009; gap in existing comparative cross- expected to transform political cover- Mair 2001; O’Malley 2007; Schakel national information on national age in media. 2009). The method gained credi- media landscapes. While a substantial Probably the most important reason bility in a range of disciplines from amount of more or less comparable for the existence of this major gap studies of transportation and educa- information is available about media in the information basis of contem- tion through bibliometrics to medical law, regulations, relevant organiza- porary debates about mass media care and information technology, to tions, media fi nances and audience is the diffi culty of generating cross- name just a few (Karrer and Roetting Part II. Project design characteristics in some advanced nationally comparable indicators of 2007; Jerant et al. 2010; Masuoka et democracies, relatively little is known relevant concepts, such as informa- al. 2007; Serenko and Dohan 2011). about how content characteristics of tion quality, political balance and The key methodological idea behind political and public affairs coverage diversity, entertainment value, owner these academic studies as well as compare across nations, especially infl uence, credibility, political impact, such well-known initiatives as Trans- if we move beyond the largest and and so forth. The fi rst, 2010 wave parency International’s Corruption most visible national media markets of the EMSS aimed at addressing Index is to substitute hard-to-obtain in Europe and North America. This this problem by a simple method and cross-nationally often incompa- hiatus is a strong limitation to informed that economists, policy analysts and rable sets of indicators with directly analyses of, for instance, how much social scientists have employed with comparable data on perceptions information and diversity of viewpoints increasing frequency to tackle cum- among experts whose holistic assess- mass media provide in particular bersome measurement problems, for ment of how a country fares according countries; whether cross-national instance, in comparative studies of to some abstract criteria can be easily differences in the above make any corruption, good governance, elec- recorded on quantitative scales. 4 difference in citizen engagement with toral clientelism, policy preferences, The method is certainly not fl awless politics; how public service broad- causes of economic growth, prime (see, e.g., Budge 2000; Ho 2010; Serenko and Dohan 2011), and this available information, then the relia- Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, report will have more to say about bility and accuracy of these aggre- France, Finland, Germany, Greece, the quality of the data obtained in the gated data are bound to exceed the Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithua- 2010 EMSS study in particular. But accuracy of what individual experts – nia, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, the interviewing recognized experts is, in or members of the lay public – think Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Por- principle, a very reasonable means to about the matter in the absence of tugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slo- signifi cantly extend knowledge under such aggregation. vakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the certain conditions, and often gene- The 2010 EMSS study attempted United Kingdom and the Ukraine. rates data of demonstrably high relia- to achieve this aggregation via a sur- The goal was to include as many bility and validity (Hooghe et al. 2010; vey of several hundred specialists of European countries as possible, prio- Part II. Project design Kitschelt et al. 2009; O’Malley 2007; media and politics in 33 European ritizing EU member states and coun- Steenbergen and Marks 2007; White- countries, using a strictly standard- tries with a national public broad- fi eld et al. 2007). These conditions ized, English-language self-com- caster. Luxemburg was dropped from include the existence of an epistemic pletion questionnaire and the the sample because it does not have community of recognizable, know- Qualtrics on-line survey facility (see a public broadcasting entity of its own ledgeable specialists on the subject http://www.qualtrics.com/). The re- and the national TV station RTL Lëtze- matter who share certain standards in mainder of Part II presents key tech- buerg is private. Belgium has two dif- evaluating what is, say, “low” or “high” nical details while part III discusses ferent media systems catering for her on a given scale. variable types and part IV assesses main linguistic communities, and thus Another condition is that we put data quality in the 2010 survey. separate samples of experts and sur- forward questions that these ex- vey questionnaires were developed perts can answer more accurately Country selection criteria for Flemish-speaking and Franco- and reliably than the lay public. The 34 national contexts covered phone Belgium. A similar but even If the hitherto dispersed private know- by the 2010 EMSS study were Aus- more pronounced complexity pre- 5 ledge of these experts on such ques- tria, Flemish- and French-speaking vented us from including Switzerland tions is aggregated into new, publicly Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, in the 2010 survey. Finally, Albania, Bosnia-Herzego- covered. We included experts from views on the topics of interest than vina, Iceland, Montenegro and Turkey academic institutions in political any systematic coding of existing were excluded because of diffi culties science, communication, media stud- descriptive materials on national me- in compiling a database of experts. ies, journalism, European studies, dia systems would be. For the future waves of the study we sociology, and, to the extent possible, have already made steps to include non-academic specialists in media Questionnaire design Albania, Iceland, Switzerland and monitoring, media economics analy- The questionnaire focused on Turkey. We welcome any help from sis, media consultancy, or media/jour- basic media characteristics that are users to expand our data base of nalism training. We have put together deemed essential for the democratic potential respondents in these or a database comprising 1826 experts roles of mass media. These concern Part II. Project design other countries. for the 34 national contexts covered both the content and the structural in the current survey. characteristics of the media, and Respondent selection criteria Due to this strategy we incorporate refer to attributes like political inde- We aim to achieve the highest a more diverse range of scholarly pendence, accuracy, and argument number of qualifi ed respondents for views and methodological orienta- diversity. These have been cherished each country, coming from a diverse tions than those available in interna- by quality professional journalism in range of fi elds related to the topics tional academic outlets in the main modern democracies, whilst public covered by our survey, and irrespec- languages of international commu- policy, at least at one point in time tive of methodological orientation nication. We draw on the knowledge or another, tried to promote them via or position. Therefore, we selected and assessment of the widest range legal norms. Our approach fi ts people whose work – either in re- of those who study these phenome- Williams and Delli Carpini’s (2011) search, teaching or consultancy na by including those whose output, advice not to focus specifi cally on – requires extensive knowledge of due to professional circumstances, how such ideals are refl ected in news the mass media landscape and of is in their native language. Thus the programs but rather meant to gauge 6 mediated social and political phe- survey provides a more systematic their pre-sence throughout all the nomena in one of the 34 systems and consistent aggregation of expert “democratically relevant” attributes of information and information questionnaire, rather than its trans- environments. The main topics lation to multiple languages. (2) of the survey were thus informa- For mundane reasons of tion quality, media partisanship, limited funds we presented the internal and external diver- respondents with a self- sity, structural infl uences over administered questionnaire. An editorial content, journalistic online instrument was preferred professionalism, particularities to a conventional mail survey also of public television and online because recent evidence sug- news, expert evaluations of media gests that the former can achieve a Part II. Project design credibility, infl uence and higher response rate among PhD performance. holders (Barrios et al. 2011). The A key consideration in formu- limited length of the questionnaire lating the questions was cross- was dictated by the same consid- national comparability. Therefore eration. The implemen-tation of the the questions were framed in a survey was assisted by the Qualtrics very general way that was (www.qualtrics.com) software expected to have as nearly iden- for online surveys used both by tical meaning across the widest academics and major corporations. possible range of European coun- An illustration of the visual layout tries as possible, and all respon- followed by all questionnaire items dents were presented with the is shown in the screenshot below. English language version of the

(2) In one instance though, we did provide a French translation to a respondent 7 who asked for it citing problems of comprehension as the reason for stopping in fi lling the questionnaire when half way through. Media channels covered media”, “journalists”, “the internet”, never let to drop below seven and in the survey “public television”, etc. in the given never exceeded ten. The 2010 European Media country as a whole, while a shorter We deliberately decided not to Systems Survey (EMSS) aimed, battery of six questions was asked include radio channels or internet above all, at generating quantitative about a pre-defi ned slate of the sites since it would have been diffi cult indicators of differences and most widely read or watched media both to set up authoritative country- similarities in political coverage outlets. specifi c lists of which of these are between national media systems The questionnaire items where indi- the most important players on the across Europe. The media system of vidual media are rated were always political news market in each of 34 any given country is, however, made repeated for each of the three to fi ve national contexts, and to fi nd Part II. Project design up of dozens, hundreds or even most widely circulated/watched news- respondents who could reasonably thousands of different media papers and television channels in be expected to have substantial fi rst- outlets. No expert is likely to be the given country that provide some hand knowledge of all or at least most familiar with the content of more than public affairs content daily. Irrespec- of these media. a few of these, and in the case of tively of their status or audience, The full list of media outlets subject area specialists these few the (main or only) public covered in each country is shown both likely include all the most widely read television channel was always in the electronic datasets and the and watched sources of political included. The precise number of technical appendix that can be coverage in the country. Therefore, outlets evaluated in each country downloaded separately from the study it would not have been feasible and was chosen depending on the frag- website. would not have provided particu- men-tation of the newspaper and larly reliable in-depth information television markets. Bearing in mind The coding of media partisanship if we had solicited evaluations of the aim to cover the fullest possible An important aim of the project was several dozen media outlets from spectrum of media choices while to ascertain the degree and direction 8 the same respondents in the survey. respecting the time constraints of of political colouring in public affairs Instead, most questions referred to “the respondents, this number was coverage. This question is important but are not particularly partisan, were asked to pick one party both because of the role that and media that are both of neither. from a pre-set list. This eliminated news media play in political The substantive direction of political coding costs and possible coding communications and because of the commitments is, however, only errors. The number of parties on the resulting importance of politically recorded via the fi rst question in the pre-set list varied across countries motivated audiences, advertisers, battery (“select for each media which depending on party system journalists and owners for the political party it agrees with most fragmentation, but always included development of national media often”). This is so because asking the all parties with a separate faction in scenes. The questionnaire items on respondents to place media outlets parliament as well as any signifi cant media partisanship, i.e. the political on specifi c ideological scales (like extra-parliamentary party that the Part II. Project design colour of the specifi c outlets covered, left and right, nationalist vs. cosmo- country experts whom we consulted ask respondents fi rst to “select for politan, etc.) would have produced suggested for inclusion. The full list each media which political party it data of questionable cross-national of parties on the showcard in each agrees with most often”, and then validity and comparability. In national context is shown in the to give an indication of the intensity contrast, linking media outlets to party technical appendix that can be of partisan (“How far is the political sympathies is common and natural in downloaded separately from the coverage of each of the following everyday parlance, and retains very study website. media outlets infl uenced by a party specifi c and multidimensional infor- or parties to which it is close? “) and mation about whether a media outlet Data collection and ideological (“To what extent does is pro-governmental or pro-opposi- response rates each advocate particular views and tional, and what substantive direction The fi rst invitation to the policies?”) commitments in each of public policies it may sympathize respondents was sent by email on media. This allows a differentiation with. 15 December 2009, with further between outlets that are partisan but At the question on “select for each reminders arriving in their mailboxes 9 rather indifferent towards policies, media which political party it agrees in mid and late January and for some outlets that are into policy advocacy with most often”, the respondents countries in early May. Fieldwork for Serbia and interest of the respondents in the respondent did not actively use Macedonia started only in January topic, we achieved generally very the given mailbox, or automatically and May 2010, respectively, because reasonable response rates by ignored messages from unknown of diffi culties in compiling lists of the standards of survey research, senders. In the Czech Republic, possible respondents, but followed ranging from a low of 18.5 per cent in France and the Ukraine, about half the same pattern of four remind- Russia to 70 per cent in Malta and 61.5 of those who read the invitation fully ers sent out at approximately two per cent in Croatia (see details in the completed the questionnaire, while in week intervals. The invitations were table below). In fact, we obtained all other countries the great majority personal and could not be used to more responses per country than of these invitees did so. As the fi rst enter responses in our system if in similar expert evaluations of, for row of the table shows, in Austria, for Part II. Project design forwarded to another email address. instance, party systems and political instance, we sent out 56 invitations, All the data were collected digitally competition that are widely used in of which only 43 were opened, but 34 and all responses, including partial political science. Even in the small- (over 80 percent!) of the experts who ones, were archived. The Qualtrics est countries in the sample we se- read the invitation fully completed the software enabled us to only send cured 7 and 9 respondents – in Malta questionnaire. reminders to those who did not yet and Cyprus, respectively –, which, fi ll in the questionnaire or did not fi n- given the strict criteria followed in ish fi lling it at the fi rst try. In Cyprus, selecting potential respondents, the Czech Republic and Ireland, must be suffi cient to capture what- additional respondents were added ever major variation exists in expert to the sample at the time of the third evaluations of the given media reminders because of the small size systems. of the initial pool of respondents and The most common reason for help that we obtained to extend it not responding was that the initial 10 after the fi eldwork already started. invitation was not opened at all, Thanks, presumably, to the probably because the selected 11 Part II. Project design Illustration 2:Responseratesbynational contexttothe2010EMSSsurvey Latvia Italy Ireland Hungary Greece Germany France Finland Estonia Denmark Czech Republic Cyprus Croatia Bulgaria Belgium (Francophone) Belgium (Dutch-speaking) Austria N Country Invited 30 12 78 28 40 10 33 17 36 23 55 25 52 33 14 68 26 45 29 23 89 41 38 42 17 92 25 46 42 35 65 32 27 25 18 38 23 49 39 30 67 26 61 20 17 42 22 39 46 21 21 9 52 45 13 26 19 31 43 9 45 14 73 31 16 51 19 31 11 67 35 37 43 62 12 56 24 52 24 23 43 24 19 34 34 Read N invitation % Answered N % Ukraine UK Sweden Spain Slovenia Slovakia Serbia Russia Romania Portugal Poland Norway Netherlands Moldova Malta Macedonia Lithuania N Country Invited Read 57 23 96 32 40 15 77 43 33 25 78 41 26 56 35 37 22 26 53 33 40 19 45 59 18 43 23 42 48 13 65 17 49 53 20 71 48 33 26 12 70 25 47 68 38 43 23 18 36 22 50 30 54 53 15 61 27 31 60 24 34 17 35 44 22 10 8 48 50 13 30 15 36 80 7 41 28 38 50 13 68 23 70 43 56 N invitation Answered % N % Single questions about Illustration 3: Outlet-level data on Italy from the 2010 individual media outlets EMSS survey As we saw above, six questions in the 2010 EMSS survey asked the respondents to assess specifi c media outlets. Full descriptive statistics about the responses obtained regarding each of the 289 media outlets are available via our outlet-level data set released through the http://www.mediasystemsineurope.org/ emss/download.htm page. A summary of the key results are shown in a series of charts available as part of the pack that can be downloaded through http://www.mediasystemsineurope.org/

Part III. Variables and visual displays and visual Part III. Variables emss/results.htm. These country profi le charts, exemplifi ed by Illustration 3 below, facilitate within-country comparisons both across media outlets and across the six questions by displaying key descriptive statistics for all media outlets covered in a given country. The charts also give the exact question wording for the six 12 questionnaire items that generated these data. Single questions about national tell how true such varied statements programmes for the average viewer”; media in general were (zero indicating ‘untrue’ and ten or The rest of the data from the ‘true’) as: • Media coverage of public affairs EMSS 2010 study are contained in • “News media enjoy a lot of has a lot of infl uence in political and our country-level data sets, Excel credibility in [COUNTRY]”; policy circles in [COUNTRY]. tables and charts, which are also • “There is little difference The 2010 EMSS survey featured available through the same webpages between the way ‘tabloid’ and ‘quality’ 42 questions of this sort and each as above. Numbered variables (v11a, newspapers cover public affairs”; generates three variables in the v11b, … v12a, … v25b) in the data • “The internet has signifi cantly country-level data set – the set and charts bearing their names broadened the range of actors who average value of expert responses by show country-by-country descriptive can infl uence public opinion”; nation, plus the standard deviation statistics for all questionnaire items • “The political orientation of the most and number of valid responses by but the above mentioned six in the prominent journalists is well-known to national context –, and two charts 2010 survey. These single item the public”; in the downloadable pack of visual variables concern media in general, • “Journalists in [COUNTRY] agree displays. The latter are exemplifi ed referring to the ‘news media’, or on the criteria for judging excellence by Illustrations 4 and 5 below. The

Part III. Variables and visual displays and visual Part III. Variables ‘journalists’, or how politicians or in their profession regardless of their fi rst is a map that facilitates the quick the public relate to media, or how a political orientations”; or identifi cation of patterns in the data, certain type of media fares in the • “Public television in [COUN- with countries not covered by the given country. For instance, the TRY], compared to private television 2010 EMSS survey appearing with expert respondents were asked to channels, provides more boring plain white in the chart. (3)

13 (3) The countries concerned are Belarus, Switzerland, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Albania, and Turkey from Europe as well as Morocco, Tunisia, Libya on the bottom left and Syria on the bottom right of the chart. Illustration 4: Mapping broad trends Part III. Variables and visual displays and visual Part III. Variables

In Illustration 4, for instance, we can see that, as of 2010, news media had the highest credibility in Finland, Sweden, Latvia, Denmark and Germany, and the lowest in Italy, Serbia and Bulgaria.

14 Illustration 5: Displaying country means with the margin of error

The second chart type for these items provides richer and more precise descriptive information, Part III. Variables and visual displays and visual Part III. Variables displaying not only the mean value of the responses for each country but also its margin of error, i.e., the 95% confi dence interval of the mean alongside the names of the countries listed in alphabetic order (see Illustration 5).

15 Composite measures: shows audience-weighted averages channels, and in all of these Weighted averages and of responses regarding several combined. The weighting of the multiple-item indices media outlets. These weighted outlets was necessary since a The country-level EMSS data and averages highlight cross-country widely watched or read outlet the kind of charts exemplifi ed by differences in how public affairs would obviously have more the last two illustrations cover not are covered – in terms of accuracy, infl uence on what is typical in a national only directly measured variables, argument diversity, party political context than an outlet with fewer each based on responses to just a bias, policy advocacy and the owner’s followers. The weights are thus based single question, but also two kinds of infl uence on political aspects of on relative audience sizes, which composite measures. The fi rst coverage – in leading national are included in the outlet-level type, only available for questions newspapers, commercial televi- datasets downloadable from the study assessing individual media outlets, sion channels, public television website. (4)

(4) These weights were derived in three steps. First, separate estimates of audience sizes were obtained for individual television channels (percentage share of each channel in the total television audience as reported in European Audiovisual Observatory (2010)) and newspapers (adult readers per 1000 people in the population as reported in Zenith (2010)). Missing values for Argumenty i Fakty, Moskovskiy Komsomolets and Trud in Russia were substituted with data on circulation per 1000 people from the same source. Missing values for RTBF La Trois in Belgium, HirTV in Hungary, Bergens Tidende in Norway, Part III. Variables and visual displays and visual Part III. Variables Novaya Gazeta in Russia, Danas in Serbia and Vechernie Vesti and Silski Visti in the Ukraine were substituted with the lowest otherwise available estimate in the given country. Missing values for all television outlets in Moldova, Serbia and Ukraine and for all newspapers in Cyprus, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, were replaced with 1. To complete step one, the weight of each media outlet within a national context was linearly transformed so the resulting weights for both newspapers and television channels sum up to 1 within each national context. Second, an estimate of the percentage of adult citizens who watch any television news bulletin every day, and the percentage of adult citizens who read any newspaper every day was obtained for each EU member states from the 2009 European Election Study mass survey (see www.piredeu.eu). Missing data for Norway and Croatia were substituted with the Swedish and Slovenian fi gures, respectively; and the missing data for Macedonia, Russia, Serbia and Ukraine with the Bulgarian fi gures. Third, these country-level data were used to bring the audience-proportional weights of newspapers and television channels to a common denominator for the calculation of weighted averages of all media outlets combined. Namely, the weights of individual newspapers obtained in step one was multiplied by the percentage of adult citizens who read any newspaper every day and divided by the sum of the percentage of adult citizens who watch any television news bulletin every day and the percentage of adult citizens who read any newspaper every day. Similarly, the weights of individual television channels obtained in step one was multiplied by the percentage 16 of adult citizens who watch any television news bulletin every day and divided by the sum of the percentage of adult citizens who watch any television news bulletin every day and the percentage of adult citizens who read any newspaper every day. The second type of composite The one key difference between summing up “party infl uence” and measures in the EMSS study the composite measures listed in “policy advocacy” scores, we obtain aggregates information from multiple Illustrations 6 and those in Illustration a measure of the overall political questions tapping into the same or 7 is that the latter are each based on commitment among a given group of related phenomena. The purpose summing up two weighted average media outlets in a national context. of these indices is to broaden the measures. The logic behind is that To indicate that these measures aim conceptual coverage of the EMSS by summing up “factual accuracy” at more comprehensive concepts variables and to increase the and “argument diversity” we obtain than others in the data set, they were robustness of the available a more comprehensive and abstract constructed as 0-20 scales rather than indicators. A full list of these 37 concept, namely the extent to which conforming to the 0-10 scale range of variables and information about their a given group of media outlets in a all other variables from the survey. content and construction is provided national context show commitment by Illustrations 6 and 7 below. to information quality. Similarly, by Part III. Variables and visual displays and visual Part III. Variables

17 18 Part III. Variables and visual displays and averagesofelementaryindicators Illustration 6:Compositemeasuresin the EMSS2010country-leveldatasetsbasedonvariousrecodes aibe Contentdomain name Variable polgame Gamifi SensationalismaboutPolitics PersonalizationofPolitics sensat pers ihes OverallInformationQualityindex richness Overall InformationQualityindex (alternative infoqual investig Investigative InformationaboutPolicy Journalism policy InformationaboutInternational Affairs internat InformationaboutEconomicIssues econiss OverallInformation Quality index depth nous muto oiisadEoois vrg fmlil niaosfrtesm mean(econiss,internat, policy) Average of multipleindicators forthe same Amount ofPolitics andEconomics infosubs infocomm xdv Overall Political Diversity index extdiv

(alternative B) Commercialization of Political Coverage index (alternative C) Coverage Index

cation ofPolitics A) Original responsestov21 recodedinto Original responsestov21 recodedinto Original responsestov21recodedinto Original responsestov21recodedinto concept Construction rgnlrsosst 2 eoe no recodev21f(0thru5=0)(6=2)(7=4) Original responsestov21recodedinto 0=low orenough10=toomuch 0=low orenough10=toomuch 0=too 0=too 0=too 0=too concept (0-10scale) 0=low orenough10=toomuch rgnlrsosst 2 eoe no recodev21c(0thru5=0)(6=2) Original responsestov21recodedinto vrg fmlil niaosfrtesm mean(pers,sensat, polgame) Average ofmultiple indicators forthesame recodev21g(0thru5=0)(6=2)(7=4) Original responsestov21recodedinto vrg fmlil niaosfrtesm mean(v11b, v17,v18,v19,v20) Average ofmultipleindicatorsfor thesame concept (0-10 scale) vrg fmlil niaosfrtesm mean(v11b, v17,v18,v21e) Average ofmultipleindicatorsfor thesame concept (0-10scale) concept (0-10 scale) Average ofmultipleindicatorsfor the same vrg fmlil niaosfrtesm mean (v13, v14) Average ofmultiple indicators forthesame concept (0-10scale) little little little little (0-10 10=enough ormore 10=enough ormore 10=enough ormore 10=enough ormore scale) recode v21r(5thru10=10) (4=8)(3=6) recode v21d(5thru10= 10) (4=8)(3=6) recode v21b(5thru10=10)(4=8)(3=6) recode v21a(5thru10=10)(4=8) mean (v11b, v15,v16,v17,v18, v19, v20,v21e) SPSS codeforcreatingthevariable (2=4)(1=2) (0=0) (2=4)(1=2) (0=0) (2=4)(1=2) (0=0) (3=6) (2=4)(1=2)(0=0) (8=6)(9=8) (10=10) (7=4) (8=6)(9=8)(10=10) (8=6)(9=8) (10=10) 19 Part III. Variables and visual displays wal Pressure-induced Political Bias - ow_all cnw FculAcrc nNwppr vrg fmlil niaosfrtesm mean(accnews,v15) Average of multipleindicators forthe same Factual Accuracy inNewspapers - ac_news ct Factual Accuracy onTV- ac_tv cal ata cuayi esMda- Aeaeo utpeidctr o h ae mean(accall,mean(v15, v16)) Average ofmultiple indicators forthesame Factual Accuracy inNewsMedia- ac_all epr Media Performanceindex medper medinf Media In nent vrl nentCnrbto ne Aeaeo utpeidctr o h ae mean(internetpos,internet_tradm) Average ofmultipleindicatorsforthesame OverallInternet Contributionindex internet nenp Internet Added Value index intern_p intern_t Internet Signi

bval PublicTelevision Qualityindex PublicTelevision Qualityindex pbtvqall pbtvq rcl JournalisticCultureindex jrncult idp JournalisticIndependence index jindep po Junlsi rfsinls ne Aeaeo utpeidctr o h ae mean (v23b,v23c) Average ofmultipleindicators forthesame JournalisticProfessionalismindex jprof Content domain name Variable Average of All Indicators Average of All Indicators Average of All Indicators Average of All Indicators

(alternative B) (alternative A)

fl uence index fi cance index concept (0-10scale) concept (0-10scale) vrg fmlil niaosfrtesm mean (oinfall, v11d) Average ofmultiple indicators forthesame concept (0-10 scale) vrg fmlil niaosfrtesm mean(acctv, v16) Average ofmultiple indicators forthesame concept (0-10 scale) concept (0-10scale) vrg fmlil niaosfrtesm mean(v24a,v24b,v24c,v24d) Average ofmultipleindicatorsfor thesame concept (0-10scale) concept (0-10scale) vrg fmlil niaosfrtesm mean(v11g, v25a,v25b) Average ofmultipleindicatorsfor thesame concept (0-10scale) concept (0-10scale) vrg fmlil niaosfrtesm mean(v12a,v12b) Average ofmultipleindicatorsfor thesame concept (0-10scale) concept (0-10scale) vrg fmlil niaosfrtesm 10-v12c Average ofmultipleindicatorsforthesame concept (0-10scale) concept (0-10scale) concept (0-10scale) vrg fmlil niaosfrtesm mean(v23d,v22a,v22b,v22d,v22e,v22f, Average ofmultipleindicatorsforthesame mean(v23d,v22a,v22b,v22d,v22e,v22f, Average ofmultipleindicatorsforthesame mean(jprof,jindep) Average ofmultipleindicatorsforthesame vrg fmlil niaosfrtesm mean((10-v11d), v23a) Average ofmultipleindicatorsforthesame Construction v22g, (10-v22c)) v22g) SPSS codeforcreatingthevariable

20 Part III. Variables and visual displays weighted averages Illustration 7:Compositemeasuresin the EMSS2010country-leveldatasetsbasedonsumminguptwo aibenm Contentdomain Variable name andTVChannels Combined andTVChannels Combined Factual Accuracy plus Argument Diversity-Sum ofTwo Weighted Averages forNewspapers partall Party qualall Infl ules ata cuaypu ruetDvriy-Smo w egtdAeae o esaes accnews +argnews Factual Accuracy plus Argument Diversity-SumofTwo Weighted Averages forNewspapers partnews Party qualnews Infl ulrv ata cuaypu ruetDvriy-Smo w egtdAeae o rvt VCanl accprtv+argprtv Factual Accuracy plus Argument Diversity-SumofTwo Weighted Averages forPrivateTVChannels partprtv Party qualprtv Infl ulbv ata cuaypu ruetDvriy-Smo w egtdAeae o ulcT hnes accpbtv+argpbtv Factual Accuracy plus Argument Diversity-SumofTwo Weighted Averages forPublicTVChannels partpbtv Party qualpbtv Infl ulv ata cuaypu ruetDvriy-Smo w egtdAeae o l VCanl acctv+argtv Factual Accuracy plus Argument Diversity-SumofTwo Weighted Averages for All TVChannels parttv Party qualtv Infl uence plusPolicy Advocacy – SumofTwo Weighted Averages forNewspapers unepu oiyAvcc u fToWihe vrgsfrNwppr biasnews+advnews uence plusPolicy Advocacy – SumofTwo Weighted Averages forNewspapers unepu oiyAvcc u fToWihe vrgsfrPiaeT hnes biasprtv+advprtv uence plusPolicy Advocacy –SumofTwo Weighted Averages forPrivateTVChannels unepu oiyAvcc u fToWihe vrgsfrPbi VCanl biaspbtv+advpbtv uence plusPolicy Advocacy –SumofTwo Weighted Averages forPublicTVChannels unepu oiyAvcc u fToWihe vrgsfrAlT hnes biastv+advtv uence plusPolicy Advocacy –SumofTwo Weighted Averages for All TVChannels biasall +advall accall +argall SPSS code Since no previous study collected different groups of experts about the nationally comparative measurement data about media outlets and me- Swedish, Italian, Russian – etc. – before, we have hardly any explicit dia systems with a similar method, media apply the same standards and and authoritative benchmarks questions of data validity and reliabil- benchmarks in answering with a 0-10 available. In fact, the only prior ity in the EMSS 2010 study are of par- scale to a question about whether attempts at making quantitative ticular interest. Below we approach “The journalistic content of public comparisons between countries these questions with standard pro- television in [COUNTRY] is entirely regarding political coverage in cedures applied in quantitative social free from governmental political their mass media concerned press and medical research. interference”? If not, then their freedom in general, or more narrowly Part IV. Data quality Part IV. answers will still refl ect to what the freedom of public television from Tests of data validity extent local expectations are met in the governmental interference. Hence Validity is a concern in any empirical local context. But the cross-national this is what we can compare the data collection: do the indicators comparability of national averages in EMSS data with to see if it provides really measure what they are the responses will be limited if they a valid assessment of cross-national meant to? After all, abstract really apply different standards. differences. concepts like “freedom from gov- The only way to evaluate the The Freedom House organization ernmental interference”, “accuracy” validity of empirical data is to see asks small panels of area specialists or “partisanship”, have no how it compares with other data or to evaluate many aspects of press unambiguously precise observable observations about the same freedom to derive overall scores indicators. The cross-national matter. But exactly because the for each country every year. (5) equivalence of measures is another EMSS data refer to phenomena that pressing concern: do, for instance, were hardly the subject of cross-

21 (5) See http://www.freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-press. Political scientist Chris Hanretty from different experts re each examining the validity of other (2010), in contrast, derived an country) provides as good variables in the EMSS data set. indicator of public television data as coding indirect factual Yet if, in spite of how different the independence with a method measures or relying on detailed meaning of political inference may be in similar to the one used to measure evaluations of each country by small, Russia than in Sweden, the res- central bank independence and coded overlapping panels of area specialists. ponses from multiple groups of factual information about formal rules The correlation between Hanretty’s country specialists to the EMSS on guarantees of independence as score of public television inde- survey provide a cross-nationally valid well as the actual tenure of public pendence and the 2010 Free- measure of press freedom, then

Part IV. Data quality Part IV. television CEOs. The EMSS dom House score of overall press it is at least not unreasonable to survey, in turn, asked a single freedom is 0.56 across the coun- expect that it can do the same for as- question from a group of experts tries in our analysis. In contrast, sessing, say, how much and how regarding each country about our two measures correlate more accurate political information media whether “The journalistic content of strongly (at 0.64 for independence provide in different countries or public television in [COUNTRY] is and -0.78 for owner infl uence) how much the internet transformed entirely free from governmental with either Hanretty’s measure, to the media scene. In any case, we political interference”, and another which they are conceptually closer, welcome any suggestion that can question about the extent to which or (at 0.54 and -0.59) the Freedom direct us to alternative benchmarks that “coverage” on various media outlets, House measure. The stronger can be used for cross-validation but including public television channels, correlations suggest that our may be unknown to us at this point. “is infl uenced by owners”. measures have as strong or Calculating pairwise correlations even stronger predictive validity Data reliability between the scores obtained with regarding the underlying concepts Indicators are more and less reliable these four different measures can than these previous attempts. depending on the extent to which 22 determine whether our measurement Once again, the absence of existing repeated measurements in the protocol (asking a single question benchmarks prevents us from absence of genuine change in the property examined consistently survey had more respondents two coeffi cients. Inter-expert correla- yield the same result. In a content from, say, Sweden than from Malta. tions show the degree of similarity analysis, for instance, data reliability Second, the datum of interest in the between the responses of different is assessed via calculating inter- EMSS survey is, unlike in a typical experts when they assess the same coder correlations between how two content analysis, not the coding object. This measure is fully compa- independent coders assessed the produced by a single coder, but rather rable to an inter-coder correlation that same units of text. the average responses regarding is the commonly used measure of data The EMSS data requires slight- the same object across all experts reliability in content analyses. (6) ly more complicated measures evaluating it in the survey. The second measure is, however,

Part IV. Data quality Part IV. for two reasons. First, for any Both these complications are stan- more relevant for the kind of data given set of objects compared, dard in similar cross-national surveys where each observation is an average whether we measure public of experts, and to calculate measures judgement of multiple judges. This television’s independence from of reliability for this type of data we coeffi cient shows the expected governmental interference in 34 can follow the standards developed in degree of similarity between the national contexts or how accurate the studies of policy and ideological average ratings of the various objects presentation of facts is in 289 media differences between parties before (see by our sample of experts on the outlets, we have more than two Steenbergen and Marks 2007). There- one hand, and the same averages judges for each object, and their fore, our technical appendix shows, for observed by another, independent number also vary quite from one each questionnaire item and compos- sample of experts drawn the same way object to another since the EMSS ite measure in the 2010 EMSS data, on the other. (7)

(6) The only conceptual difference is that inter-coder correlations in content analysis show the degree of agreement between two people assessing the same objects, while inter-expert correlations in cross-national expert surveys show the average agreement across many pairs of experts, each pair evaluating only those objects that they are specialist observers of. Technically, such inter-expert correlations are calculated as the percentage of variance in multiple experts’ ratings of various objects explained by differences between the objects themselves, rather than a simple correlation between two ratings of the same objects. 23 (7) Technically, this measure is computed from inter-coder correlations via the Spearman-Brown formula, i.e. as nr/(1 + (n - 1)r), where n (in our case) is the average number of experts per country, and r is the inter-expert correlation calculated above (see Steenbergen and Marks 2007). 24 Part IV. Data quality 2010 data. composite measuresintheEMSS coeffi the resultsthatweobtainwith Illustration 8:DatareliabilityintheEMSS 2010study The chartbelowsummarizes cients acrossallquestionsand quite unreliableassessmentsof This meansthatwewouldget vary between0.1and0.52. is thatinter-expertcorrelations The fi rst generalconclusion tend to havehigher reliability than items (i.e.,composite measures) based on multiplequestionnaire cross-media differences inquestion. evaluate the cross-country and large poolofspecialists would reliable pictureofhow anysimilarly survey, weobtainafairly responding tothe EMSS2010 for eachcountry/media outlet relatively largenumber ofexperts by averagingjudgements acrossthe very highreliability. That istosay, ble reliability–to0.96,indicating indicating reasonablyhigh,accepta- reliability coef differences. cross-country andcross-media the datarelativetosizeofgenuine simply betoomuchnoiseanderrorin single expert’s judgement:therewould each countryormediaoutletwitha differences if weweretoassess cross-national andcross-media Not verysurprisingly, studyvariables However, theSteenbergen-Marks fi cients rangefrom0.7– 25 Part IV. Data quality do thesemedia[i.e.,eachofthe outlets, suchas,e.g.,“To whatextent questions askedaboutspeci reliable dataareyieldedbysingle some opinionsarepresent?”). in thenewspapersorratherthatonly opinions in[COUNTRY] arepresent “Would yousay thatallmajorpolitical national media(suchas,forinstance, responses toasinglequestionabout Interestingly, however, themost fi c media tend todropslightly. given country, thereliability values across multiplemediaoutletsinthe accuracy inpublicaffairs coverage– instance, ofthedegreeperceived audience-weighted averages–for expertise?” Whenwecalculate on factsbackedbycrediblesourcesand context] provideaccurateinformation media outletsinthegivennational most importantseventotennews between singlemediaoutlets. tween countriesthanthedifferences show lessclear-cutdifferences be- characterize entirenationalcontexts, of multiplemediaoutlets,aimingto too, andthusweightedaverages widely acrossmediawithincountries the factthatperceivedaccuracyvary mathematically speaking,causedby This seeminglyoddresultis, Austin, Anne, Jonathan Barnard and Budge, Ian. 2000. “Expert Karrer, Katja, and Matthias Roetting. Eleonora Galli. 2010. Western Judgements of Party Policy 2007. “Effects of Driver Fatigue Europe Market and Media fact Positions: Uses and Limitations Monitoring - An Expert Survey.” 2010 edition, produced by David in Political Research.” European Paper presented at the 7th Perry, Zenith Optimedia. Journal of Political Research 37 International Conference on References Austin, Anne, Jonathan Barnard and (1): 103-113. Engineering Psychology and Eleonora Galli. 2010. Central Hanretty, Chris. 2010. “Explaining the Cognitive Ergonomics, Held as and Eastern Europe Market De Facto Independence of Public Part of HCI International 2007, and Media fact 2010 edition, Broadcasters.” British Journal of Beijing, China, July 22-27, 2007. produced by David Perry, Zenith Political Science 40 (1): 75-89. Kitschelt, Herbert, Kent Freeze, Optimedia. Ho, Daniel E. 2010. “Measuring Kiril Kolev, and Yi-ting Wang. Arvanitidis, Paschalis A., George Agency Preferences: Experts, 2009. “Measuring Democratic Petrakos, and Sotiris Pavlea. Voting, and the Power of Chairs.” Accountability: An Initial Report 2009. “On the Dynamics of DePaul Law Review 59 (333). on an Emerging Data Set.” Re- Growth Performance: An Expert vista de Ciencia Politica 29 (3): Hooghe, Liesbet, Ryan Bakker, Anna 741-773. Survey.” Contributions to Political Brigevich, Catherine De Vries, Economy 29 (1): 59-86. Erica Edwards, Gary Marks, Lange, Andre (Ed). 2010. European Barrios, Maite, Anna Villarroya, J. A. N. Rovny, Marco Steen- Audiovisual Observatory Year- Ángel Borrego, and Candela Ollé. bergen, and Milada Vachudo- book 2010. Vol. 1 and 2. Online 2011. “Response Rates and Data va. 2010. “Reliability and Valid- version. European Audiovisual Quality in Web and Mail Surveys ity of the 2002 and 2006 Chapel Observatory. Stasbourg. Administered to PhD Holders.” Hill Expert Surveys on Party Mair, Peter. 2001. “Searching for the Social Science Computer Review Positioning.” European Journal Positions of Political Actors: A Re- 26 29 (2): 208-220. of Political Research 49 (5): 687- view of Approaches and a Critical 703. Evaluation of Expert Surveys.” In Estimating the Policy Position of over Governmental Tiers by Rohrschneider, Gary Marks, Political Actors, edited by Michael Identity and Functionality.” Acta Matthew P. Loveless, and Laver. London: Routledge, pp. Politica 44 (4): 385-409. Liesbet Hooghe. 2007. “Do 10-30. Serenko, Alexander, and Michael Expert Surveys Produce Masuoka, Natalie, Bernard Dohan. 2011. “Comparing the Consistent Estimates of Party References Grofman, and Scott L. Feld. 2007. Expert Survey and Citation Impact Stances on European Integration? “Ranking Departments: Journal Ranking Methods: Comparing Expert Surveys in A Comparison of Alternative Example from the Feld of the Diffi cult Case of Central and Approaches.” PS: Political Artificial Intelligence.” Journal of Eastern Europe.” Electoral Science & Politics 40 (3): Infometrics 5: 629-648. Studies 26 (1): 50-61. 531-537. Steenbergen, Marco, and Gary Williams, Bruce A., and Michael O’Malley, Eoin. 2007. “The Power of Marks. 2007. “Evaluating Expert X. Delli Carpini. 2011. After Prime Ministers: Results of an Judgements.” European Broadcast News. Media Re- Expert Survey.” International Journal of Political Research gimes, Democracy, and the New Political Science Review 28 (1): 46 (3): 347–366. Information Environment. 7-27. Cambridge: Cambridge Whitefi eld, Stephen, Milada University Press. Schakel, Arjan H. 2009. Anna Vachudova, Marco R. “Explaining Policy Allocation Steenbergen, Robert

27 28 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v11a

credibility in[COUNTRY] News mediaenjoyalotof Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 29 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v11b

the newsmediaiftheyareinterested insomething Citizens canfi nd in-depthreporting andanalysisin Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 30 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v11c

carefully researchedfactsandanalyses high thatmostnewsmediacannot affordtopresent The productioncostsofhardnews contentareso Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 31 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v11d

pressurizing andbribingindividual journalists infl Politicians, businesspeopleand interest groups uence whatthe newsmediareportandhowby Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 32 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v11e

public affairs “tabloid” and“quality”newspapers cover There islittledifferencebetween theway Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 33 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v11f

journalists iswell-knowntothepublic The politicalorientationofthemost prominent Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 34 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v11g

attention onparticularproblems in [COUNTRY] what isdiscussedbypoliticians by focusingpublic The newsmediahavesigni fi cant in fl uence on Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 35 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v12a

responsive tothepublic The internethasmadejournalism more Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 36 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v12b

actors whocanin The internethassigni fl uence publicopinion fi cant broadened therangeof Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 37 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v12c

competitors oftraditionalmedia outlets Online newsmediaoutletsarenot yetsigni fi cant Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 38 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v13

rather thatonlysomeopinionsare present? in [COUNTRY] arepresentinthenewspapers or Would yousay thatwallmajorpoliticalopinions Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 39 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v14

opinions in[COUNTRY] arepresentinbroadcasting? major politicalopinionsorthatonly somepolitical And howabouttelevision,would yousaythatall ? Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 40 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v15

or notatall? accurate representationofthefacts inpublicaffairs the wholenewspapersin[COUNTRY] provide an Independently oftheabove,would yousaythaton Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 41 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v16

at all? representation ofthefactsinpublic affairsornot say thatonthewholetheyprovide anaccurate And howabouttelevisionchannels, wouldou Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 42 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v17

lot, enoughorrathertoolittleanalysis? affairs, wouldyousaythatnewspapers providea implications ofimportantdevelopments inpublic contextual circumstances,consequences and Thinking nowabouttheanalysis of thecauses, Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 43 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v18

affairs? implications ofimportantdevelopments inpublic little analysisofthecauses,consequences and that theypresentalot,justabout enoughortoo And howabouttelevisionchannels, wouldyousay Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 44 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v19

and analysis? different domainspresentingexpert information how wideistherangeofspecialists from Looking at[COUNTRY]’s newsmediaingeneral, Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 45 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v20

repeated innearlyallmediaoutlets? and informationorthatthesame fewthingsare [COUNTRY] provideavarietyofdifferent stories Would yousay thatthedifferentmediaoutletsin Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 46 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v21a

about economicissuesfacing[COUNTRY]? much, justenoughortoolittleon information Do thenewsmediain[COUNTRY] focus too Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 47 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v21b

about internationalaffairs? much, justenoughortoolittleon information Do thenewsmediain[COUNTRY] focus too Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 48 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v21c

politicians, theircharacterandmotivations? too much,justenoughorlittle onindividual Do thenewsmediain[COUNTRY] focus Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 49 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v21d

between competingpartiesandpoliticians? just enoughortoolittleonpolicy differences Do thenewsmediain[COUNTRY] focus too much, Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 50 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v21e Do thenewsmediain[COUNTRY] focustoo or investigativereportsonimportant issues? much, justenoughortoolittleon information Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 51 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v21f

sensational aspectsofeventsand stories? just enoughortoolittleoninformation aboutthe Do thenewsmediain[COUNTRY] focus too much, Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 52 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v21g

a horse-race,justcompetitionfor power? just enoughortoolittleonpolitics seenasagame, Do thenewsmediain[COUNTRY] focus too much, Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 53 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v22a

channels, providesmorepolitical news? [COUNTRY], comparedtoprivatetelevision Do youthinkitistruethatpublic televisionin Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 54 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v22b

channels, provideswiderrangeof programming? [COUNTRY], comparedtoprivatetelevision Do youthinkitistruethatpublic televisionin Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 55 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v22c

average viewer? channels, providesmoreboringprograms forthe [COUNTRY], comparedtoprivatetelevision Do youthinkitistruethatpublic televisionin Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 56 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v22d

politics andpublicaffairs? channels, providesmorein-depth coverageof [COUNTRY], comparedtoprivatetelevision Do youthinkitistruethatpublic televisionin Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 57 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v22e

channels, providesalesssensationalist style? [COUNTRY], comparedtoprivatetelevision Do youthinkitistruethatpublic televisionin Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 58 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v22f

traditions ofminoritiesin[COUNTRY]? channels, providesmorefocuson thecultureand [COUNTRY], comparedtoprivatetelevision Do youthinkitistruethatpublic televisionin Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 59 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v22g

trustworthy information? private televisionchannels,provides more television in[COUNTRY], comparedto Do youthinkitistruethatpublic Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 60 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v23a

an ethicofservingthepublicinterest Journalists in[COUNTRY] aremotivated by Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 61 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v23b

regardless oftheirpoliticalorientations for judgingexcellenceintheirprofession Journalists in[COUNTRY] agreeonthecriteria Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 62 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v23c

respected innews-makingpractices double-checking andsourcecon completeness, balance,timeliness, basic professionalnormslikeaccuracy, relevance, Journalists havesuffi cient training to ensurethat fi dentiality are Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 63 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v23d

governmental politicalinterference television in[COUNTRY] isentirelyfreefrom The journalisticcontentofpublic Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 64 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v24a

citizens inpublicaffairs? succeed instimulatinggeneralinterest among How fardo[COUNTRY] mediaoutletsin general Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 65 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v24b

parties todebateinfrontofcitizens? succeed inprovidingaforumfor politiciansand How fardo[COUNTRY] mediaoutletsin general Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 66 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v24c

the importantissuesofday? succeed inprovidingavarietyof perspectiveson How fardo[COUNTRY] mediaoutletsin general Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 67 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v24d

citizens? the actionsofgovernment succeed inservingas“watchdog” scrutinizing How fardo[COUNTRY] mediaoutletsin general fi cials onbehalf of Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 68 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v25a

infl Media coverageofpublicaffairs has alotof uence onpublic opinionin[COUNTRY] Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey 69 PART V. Graphical displays / Single items Question: © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey v25b

[COUNTRY] of in Media coverageofpublicaffairs has alot fl uence inpolitical andpolicycirclesin Data: Marina Popescuetal.: 2010European MediaSystems Survey Composite measure: Partisan Bias-Weighted Average of All TV Channels

biastv PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

70 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Owner-induced Political Bias - Weighted Average of All TV Channels

oinftv PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

71 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Factual Accuracy - Weighted Average of All TV Channels

acctv PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

72 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Argument Diversity - Weighted Average of All TV Channels

argtv PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

73 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Policy Advocacy - Weighted Average of All TV Channels

advtv PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

74 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Partisan Bias - Weighted Average of Public TV Channels

biaspbtv PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

75 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Owner-Induced Political Bias - Weighted Average of Public TV Channels

oinfpbtv PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

76 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Factual Accuracy - Weighted Average of Public TV Channels

accpbtv PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

77 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Argument Diversity - Weighted Average of Public TV Channels

argpbtv PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

78 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Policy Advocacy - Weighted Average of Public TV Channels

advpbtv PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

79 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Partisan Bias - Weighted Average of Private TV Channels

biasprtv PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

80 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Owner-induced Political Bias - Weighted Average of Private TV Channels

oinfprtv PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

81 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Factual Accuracy - Weighted Average of Private TV Channels

accprtv PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

82 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Argument Diversity - Weighted Average of Private TV Channels

argprtv PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

83 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Policy Advocacy - Weighted Average of Private TV Channels

advprtv PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

84 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Partisan Bias - Weighted Average of Newspapers

biasnews PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

85 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Owner-induced Political Bias - Weighted Average of Newspapers

oinfnews PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

86 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Factual Accuracy - Weighted Average of Newspapers

accnews PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

87 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Argument Diversity - Weighted Average of Newspapers

argnews PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

88 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Policy Advocacy - Weighted Average of Newspapers

advnews PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

89 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Partisan Bias - Average of Newspapers and TV Channels

biasall PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

90 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Owner-induced Political Bias - Average of Newspapers and TV Channels

oinfall PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

91 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Factual Accuracy - Average of Newspapers and TV Channels

accall PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

92 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Argument Diversity - Average of Newspapers and TV Channels

argall PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

93 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Policy Advocacy - Average of Newspapers and TV Channels

advall PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

94 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Quality index (alternative A)

infoqual PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

95 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Commercialisation of Political Coverage index

infocomm PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

96 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Overall Political Diversity index

extdiv PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

97 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Overall Political Diversity index

extdiv PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

97 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Journalistic Professionalism index

jprof PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

98 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Journalistic Independence index

jindep PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

99 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Journalistic Culture index

jrncult PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

100 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Public Television Quality index (alternative A)

pbtvq PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

101 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Public Television Quality Index (alternative B)

pbtvqall PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

102 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Internet Signifi cance index

intern_t PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

103 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Internet Added Value index

intern_p PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

104 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Overall Internet Contribution index

internet PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

105 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Media Infl uence index

medinf PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

106 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Media Performance index

medper PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

107 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Factual Accuracy in News Media - Average of All Indicators

ac_all PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

108 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Factual Accuracy on TV - Average of All Indicators

ac_tv PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

109 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Factual Accuracy in Newspapers - Average of All Indicators

ac_news PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

110 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Pressure-induced Political Bias - Average of All Indicators

ow_all PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

111 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Factual Accuracy plus Argument Diversity - Newspapers and TV Channels Together

qualall PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

112 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Partisan Bias plus Policy Advocacy - Newspapers and TV Channels Together

partall PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

113 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Factual Accuracy plus Argument Diversity - Weighted Average of Public TV Channels

qualpbtv PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

114 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Partisan Bias plus Policy Advocacy - Weighted Average of Public TV Channels

partpbtv PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

115 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Factual Accuracy plus Argument Diversity - Weighted Average of Private TV Channels

qualprtv PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

116 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Partisan Bias plus Policy Advocacy - Weighted Average of Private TV Channels

partprtv PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

117 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Factual Accuracy plus Argument Diversity - Weighted Average of Newspapers

qualnews PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

118 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries Composite measure: Partisan Bias plus Policy Advocacy - Weighted Average of Newspapers

partnews PART V. Graphical displays / Composite measures displays / Composite Graphical V. PART

119 Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey Data: Marina Popescu et al.: 2010 European Media Systems Survey © EuroGeographics for administrative boundaries 120 Austria PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 121 Bulgaria PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 122 Croatia PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 123 Cyprus PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 124 Denmark PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 125 Duch-speaking Belgium PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 126 Estonia PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 127 Finland PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 128 France PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 129 Francophone Belgium PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 130 Germany PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 131 Great Britain PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 132 Greece PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 133 Hungary PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 134 Ireland PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 135 Italy PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 136 Latvia PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 137 Lithuania PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 138 Macedonia PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 139 Malta PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 140 Moldova PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 141 Norway PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 142 Poland PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 143 Portugal PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 144 Romania PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 145 Russia PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana PereiraandGosselin (2010)atwww.mediasystemsineurope.org 146 Serbia PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana PereiraandGosselin (2010)atwww.mediasystemsineurope.org 147 Slovakia PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 148 Slovenia PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 149 Spain PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 150 Sweden PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 151 Czech Republic PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 152 Netherlands PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana Pereira and Gosselin (2010)at www.mediasystemsineurope.org 153 Ukraine PART V. Graphical displays Source: Popescu, Santana PereiraandGosselin (2010)atwww.mediasystemsineurope.org 154 Questionnaire Qustionnaire entrypage Perspective Political InformationandMedia Systems inComparative The responsesandthe comments when youconsidered necessary. ed anycommentsor information to allourquestionsand ifyouadd- be verygratefulifyou responded dia systemsinEurope.We would questionnaire oncomparingme- Thank youforansweringour scale inthequestionnaire. and 10isalwaysshown abovethe on a0-10scale. The meaningof 0 ion byselectingasingle number to askyouexpressyouropin- remain anonymous. For mostquestions,wewouldlike To what extent do you believe that the following statements are true about the mass media and journalists in [COUNTRY]? Please select 0 if you think that the statement is entirely untrue and 10 if you think that it is absolutely true:

News media enjoy a lot of credibility in [COUNTRY] There is little difference between the way ‘tabloid’ and ‘quality’ Questionnaire Untrue True newspapers cover public affairs. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Untrue True 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Citizens can fi nd in-depth reporting and analysis in the news media if they are interested in something. The political orientation of the most prominent journalists is Untrue True well-known to the public. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Untrue True 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The production costs of hard news content are so high that most news media cannot afford to present carefully researched The news media have signifi cant infl uence on what is discussed facts and analyses. by politicians by focusing public attention on particular problems Untrue True in [COUNTRY]. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Untrue True 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Politicians, business people and interest groups infl uence what the news media report and how by pressurizing and bribing individual journalists. Untrue True 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

155 To what extent do you believe that the following are true about the online news media in [COUNTRY]: The internet has made journalism more responsive to the public. And how about the television channels, would you say that on Untrue True the whole they provide an accurate representation of the facts in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 public affairs or not at all? Not at all accurate Accurate The internet has signifi cantly broadened the range of actors who can 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 infl uence public opinion. Questionnaire Untrue True Thinking now about the analysis of the causes, contextual 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 circumstances, consequences and implications of important developments in public affairs, would you say that newspapers Online news media outlets are not yet signifi cant competitors provide a lot, enough or rather too little analysis? of traditional media outlets. Too little Enough A lot of analysis Untrue True 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 And how about television channels, would you say that they present a Would you say that all major political opinions in [COUNTRY] are pre- lot, just about enough or too little analysis of the causes, consequences sent in the newspapers or rather that only some opinions are present? and implications of important developments in public affairs? Only some opinions All major opinions Too little Enough A lot of analysis 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

And how about television, would you say that all major political Looking at the [COUNTRY] news media in general, how wide is opinions or that only some political opinions in [COUNTRY] are the range of specialists from different domains presenting expert present in broadcasting? information and analysis? Only some opinions All major opinions Just a few specialists Wide range of specialists 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Independently of the above, would you say that on the whole And would you say that the different media outlets in [COUN- newspapers in [COUNTRY] provide an accurate representation of the TRY] provide a variety of different stories and information or that facts in public affairs or not at all? the same few things are repeated in nearly all media outlets? 156 Not at all accurate Accurate Same few Many different 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 157 Questionnaire o ite nuh Too much Too much Too much Enough Too much Enough Too little Enough Too little Enough Too little Too little 0 1 9 2 8 10 7 3 4 5 6 … policydifferencesbetween competingpartiesandpoliticians 0 1 9 2 8 10 7 3 4 5 6 … individualpoliticians,theircharacterandmotivations? 0 1 9 2 8 10 7 3 4 5 6 … informationaboutinternationalaffairs? 0 1 9 2 8 10 7 3 4 5 6 … informationabouteconomicissuesfacing [COUNTRY]? Do thenewsmediain[COUNTRY] focustoomuch,justenoughor littleon… o ite nuh Too much Too much Enough Too much Enough Too little Enough Too little Too little 0 1 9 2 8 10 7 3 4 5 6 power? … politicsseenasagame,horse-race,just a competitionfor 0 1 9 2 8 10 7 3 4 5 6 … thesensationalaspectsofeventsandstories? 0 1 9 2 8 10 7 3 4 5 6 … investigativereportsonimportantissues? 158 Questionnaire outlets in political partyitagreeswithmostoften. media outletsinCOUNTRY? Pleaseselectforeachmediawhich Private Private TV Private TV 3 0 1 Public 2 3 TV 2 4 789 0 5 10 6 1 Newspaper 2 3 TV 1 4 789 0 5 10 6 1 Newspaper 2 3 3 1 0 4 789 5 10 1 6 0 2 3 1 Newspaper 2 4 789 5 10 6 2 3 4 789 0 5 10 6 1 1 2 3 4 789 5 10 6 0 1 2 3 4 789 5 10 6 they dovariousthings. Thinking abouthowvariousmediareport andanalyze politicalnews,pleaseratethemaccording tohowoften o tal Strongly Notatall rvt V3 Menuofparties Menuofparties Menuofparties Menuofparties PrivateTV 3 Menuofparties PrivateTV 2 Menuofparties PrivateTV 1 Menuofparties How faristhepolitical coverageofeachthefollowingmedia PublicTV1 Newspaper 3 Newspaper 2 Newspaper 1 How wouldyoucharacterizethepoliticalcolour ofeachthese fl uenced byapartyorpartiestowhich itisclose? facts backedbycredible sourcesandexpertise? outlets in Private Private TV Private TV 3 0 1 Public 2 3 TV 2 4 789 0 5 10 6 1 Newspaper 2 3 TV 1 4 789 0 5 10 6 1 Newspaper 2 3 3 1 0 4 789 5 10 1 6 0 2 3 1 Newspaper 2 4 789 5 10 6 2 3 4 789 0 5 10 6 1 1 2 3 4 789 5 10 6 0 1 2 3 4 789 5 10 6 Private Private TV Private TV 3 0 1 Public 2 3 TV 2 4 789 0 5 10 6 1 Newspaper 2 3 TV 1 4 789 0 5 10 6 1 Newspaper 2 3 3 1 0 4 789 5 10 1 6 0 2 3 1 Newspaper 2 4 789 5 10 6 2 3 4 789 0 5 10 6 1 1 2 3 4 789 5 10 6 0 1 2 3 4 789 5 10 6 o tal Strongly Never To whatextent dothesemediaprovideaccurateinformation on Notatall Always And howmuchisthepoliticalcoveragein followingmedia fl uenced byitsowners? 159 Questionnaire all sides in political debates? all sidesinpoliticaldebates? essnainls tl 0 2 4 6 8 10 9 8 7 10 9 6 8 5 7 4 10 3 6 10 9 9 5 2 8 8 4 1 10 7 0 7 3 9 6 2 6 8 10 89 7 456 5 3 02 1 1 5 7 4 0 4 6 89 3 7 10 3 456 3 0 2 5 1 2 2 4 1 1 3 0 0 2 1 0 More More focus onthe cultureand traditions ofminorities in[COUNTRY] trustworthy A less sensationaliststyle information More in-depth coverageofpolitics andpublicaffairs More boring programmesfortheaverage viewer Wider range ofprogramming More political news Private TV Private 3 TV Private 0 1 9 10 3 8 2 7 4 56 2 TV Public 0 1 9 10 3 8 2 7 4 56 1 TV Newspaper 0 1 9 10 3 8 2 7 4 56 0 1 Newspaper 3 1 9 10 3 8 2 7 4 56 0 1 Newspaper 2 2 3 4 789 0 5 10 6 1 1 2 3 4 789 5 10 6 0 1 2 3 4 789 5 10 6 they dovariousthings. Thinking abouthowvariousmediareport andanalyze politicalnews,pleaseratethemaccording tohowoften Do youthinkitistruethat publictelevisionin[COUNTRY], comparedtoprivatetelevision channels,provides…: To whatextentdoeseachpresentequallywelltheargumentsof Never Always and policies? Private Private TV Private TV 3 0 1 Public 2 3 TV 2 4 789 0 5 10 6 1 TV Newspaper 2 3 1 4 789 0 5 10 6 1 0 1 3 Newspaper 2 3 1 9 10 4 789 3 8 5 10 2 7 6 0 4 56 1 9 10 3 8 2 Newspaper 2 7 4 56 0 1 9 10 3 8 1 2 7 4 56 0 1 9 10 3 8 2 7 4 56 Nvr Always Never To whatextentdoeseachadvocateparticularviews Untrue True 160 Questionnaire nre True Very much Very much True Untrue opinion in[COUNTRY] True Not atall of citizens? Not atall Untrue in theirprofessionregardlessofpoliticalorientations Untrue the publicinterest. To in[COUNTRY]: whatextentwould yousaythefollowing statementsare true How fardo[COUNTRY] mediaoutletsingeneral succeedin: in[COUNTRY] andjournalists To thatthefollowingapply tojournalism yourknowledge,towhatextentitistrue 0 1 9 2 8 10 7 3 4 5 6 Media coverage ofpublicaffairshas alotofin 0 1 9 2 8 10 7 3 4 5 6 … providingaforumfor politiciansandpartiestodebateinfront 0 1 9 2 8 10 7 3 4 5 6 … stimulatinggeneral interest amongcitizensinpublicaffairs? 0 1 9 2 8 10 7 3 4 5 6 Journalists in[COUNTRY] agreeonthecriteriaforjudgingexcellence 0 1 9 2 8 10 7 3 4 5 6 Journalists in[COUNTRY] aremotivatedbyanethicofserving Thank you very much for taking time to fl uence onpublic nre True Untrue and policycircles in[COUNTRY] o tal Very much Very much True True Not atall fi Not atall Untrue entirely freefromgovernmentalpoliticalinterference. Untrue checking andsourceconfidentialityarerespectedin news-making practices. norms likeaccuracy, relevance,completeness,balance,timeliness,double- cials onbehalfof citizens? 0 1 9 2 8 10 7 3 4 5 6 Media coverage ofpublicaffairshas alotofin 0 1 9 2 8 10 7 3 4 5 6 … servingas‘watchdog’ scrutinizingtheactionsofgovernment of- 0 1 9 2 8 10 7 3 4 5 6 … providingavarietyofperspectives ontheimportantissuesofday? 0 1 9 2 8 10 7 3 4 5 6 The journalisticcontentofpublictelevision in[COUNTRY] is 0 1 9 2 8 10 7 3 4 5 6 Journalists havesuffi fi ll the questionnaire. [END OFQUESTIONNAIRE] cient trainingtoensurethatbasicprofessional fl uence in political 161 Media Outlets eeiia 4St 1 3 Slobodna Dalmacija 8 24Sata 6 NovaTV 1 televizija 3 HTV–Hrvatska 1 3 LaLibreBelgique 24Casa RTL 6 HetLaatsteNieuws 5 RTBFLaTrois 7 Croatia 7 BNTKanal 1 2 1 Nova 2 4 LeSoir 3 BTV NeueKronenZeitung 4 LaDerniere Heure Bulgaria VTM 7 RTBFLaUne 6 5 RTL-TVI DiePresse DeMorgen 1 KleineZeitung Jutarnji 2 RTBFLaDeux 6 5 8 (Francophone) Novi Belgium Austria9TV 7 Ve TV DerStandard 2BE ATV VRTEen DeStandard 5 VT4 ORF2 6 Denevnik 9 VRTCanavas 8 (Dutch-speaking) List 7 2 Belgium Monitor ORF1 Puls List 4 2 Code 5 Gazet Austria 3 Newspaper Trud Code Channelname Country nameCo 4 9 van Antwerpen Name 4 II. Thecodingofnationalmediaoutlets covered in EMSS2010 un tr y na me C ha nn el n am e Co de N ew rj it 4 černji List sp ap er C od e T3 6 It-aoa 3 2 Ilta-Sanomat 6 4 2 Aamulehti 5 3 EestiPaevaleth 8 4 1 MTV3 1 EestiEkspress SL Ohtuleht YLETV2 HelsinginSanomat 7 3 6 4 EkstraBladet TV3 2 JyllandsPosten 8 Postimees YLETV1 Sub Kanal2 5 BerlingskeTidende 7 Nelonen ETV2 6 1 Finland TV3 2 DagbladetPolitiken ETV PBK TV2 MladaFronta Dnes 5 DR2 6 9 1 Estonia 8 Kanal5 TVNova DR1 7 9 Denmark Blesk Prima 5 Ceskatelevize Czech Republic 7 Mega Sigma Code ANT 9 RIK 8 Cyprus RIK Newspaper Code Channelname Pravo 3 Country name 5 1 1 Lidove 1 Simerini 2 Alithia 4 7 6 Novini Haravgi Name Fileleytheros 3 4 2 Co un tr y na me C ha nn el n am e To be continued on thenext page Co de N ew sp ap er C od e 162 Media Outlets V rs ie 3 4 2 IrishDailyStar 8 IrishTimes 7 SundayWorld 6 1 TG4 9 IrishIndependent TV3 5 RTÉ HirTV 1 RTÉ1 Ireland Ethnos 5 1 RTL ATV TV2 2 Hungary M1 4 Aujourd’huien France Alter NET 5 8 Alpha DieWelt ANT1 9 5 1 Klub Magyar Mega LeFigaro Greece 6 7 ProSieben 6 TF1 7 1 RTL Hírlap 8 6 ARD France3 LeMonde TV Sat1 5 ZDF 9 7 Germany Ta 3 France2 Kathimerini M6 8 Blikk Népszabadság Magyar Code 2 France 8 France 4 Newspaper Code Frankfurter Channelname Nea 3 Country name Eleftherotypia 6 Nemzet 9 Allgemeine 5 4 Süddeutsche 2 2 7 Bild Zeitung Zeitung Name Libération 3 3 4 T4 8 NCHnesld 4 9 NRCHandelsblad 8 2 3 AlgemeenDagblat 7 SBS6 DeVolkskrant 6 RTL4 2 Nederland3 Nederland2 1 3 1 3 JurnaluldeChisinau 3 6 TheTimes of Malta ProTVChisinau 1 TheMalta Independent4 7 8 Orizzont 6 DeTelegraaf MoldovaSuverana 5 4 Nazzjon Vakaro Zinios SmashTV 5 6 NetTV Nederland1 The Netherlands OneTV Moldova 1 TV7 7 4 NIT TVM LNK Moldova 5 2 3 IlGiornale Malta LaRepubblica 8 7 BTV LaStampa 6 Timpul 1 2 4 TV3 Canale5 Lithuania LTV1 CorrieredellaSera 5 RAITre Lietuvos 5 BPK RAIDue TV3 LNT 4 1 6 Rytas Latvia LTV RAIUno 1 5 Italia 7 Respublika Diena Latvia 2 Italy Vesti Latvijas 1 7 9 segodnya Avize 3 2 To be continued on thenext page 163 Media Outlets elttaT 0 Gnu 5 3 2 4 4 2 JurnalulNational Adevarul 9 Libertatea Gandul 3 10 8 Expresso 7 Realitatea TV 8 JornaldeNotícias 1 PrimaTV 7 Antena1 Público 4 EvenimentulZilei 6 ProTV 6 1 Rzeczpospolita 1 TVI 2 8 3 SIC CorreiodaManhã 3 GazetaWyborcza RTP2 5 TVR1 4 6 2 SuperExpress BergensTidende TVN 7 Dagbladet 8 Fakt Romania TVP3/TVP reg RTP1 7 5 TVP2 Aftenposten 1 6 Portugal TVN TVP1 Verdens Gang Polsat TV2 5 NRK2 Poland NRK1 TV3 Code Norway Newspaper Code Channelname 9 Country name 9 Name lvka T1 4 Pad 1 4 3 Nový 5 1 Pravda STV2 4 Blic Danas 10 9 4 Politika StudioB 2 STV1 7 TVPink Novaya Gazeta 8 Slovakia Moskovskiy 6 PerviyKanal RTS 1 ArgumentyiFakty TVcentr 5 TV Serbia Ren-TV Rossiya NTV Code 9 7 B92 Russia Newspaper Code Channelname Country name Pravda Kurir 8 3 Trud Name 2 Večernje novosti 6 5 Komsomolets lvna TVS1 Slovenia

TV3 VMria 6 SME 6 TV Markiza VJj 7 TVS2 TV Joj aa Večer 8 Delo3 7 Kanal A POP TV 9 To be continued on thenext page lvnk oie 2 SlovenskeNovice 6 Dnevnik 5 Čas 2 3 4 1 164 Media Outlets V öeog-otn 4 Göteborgs-Posten 3 2 8 SvenskaDagbladet 3 9 7 4 DagensNyheter 1 2 6 Kanal5 1 TV4 ElPeriodico Aftonbladet TV3 8 5 ElMundo SVT2 ABC 6 7 Cuatro ElPaís 5 SVT1 Antena3 TVE2 Sweden TVE1 Telecinco Code Spain Newspaper Code Channelname Country name Name 9 T h u 3 4 2 TheSun 7 TheTimes 8 TheGuardian 6 Channel4 ITV1 BBCTwo 1 DailyTelegraph Five 5 Code BBCOne United Kingdom Newspaper Code Channelname Country name 9 Name 165 III. The coding of political parties in EMSS 2010 To be continued on thenext page NDSV RZS DSB 8 7 SDS 6 ATAKA 5 DPS BSP 1 3 Bulgaria GERB 4 2 FN Ecolo 5 MR CDH PS 4 Belgium (Francophone) 3 2 Groenen SLP SPA 6 VLD 7 5 N-VA CD&V 4 VB Belgium (Dutch-speaking) 3 2 Grüne BZÖ FPÖ 5 4 ÖVP 1 3 Austria SPÖ 2 Country Name Party Name Code 1 1 5 Eesti 4 Estonia Eesti 3 EL-De 2 Liberal RV KF DF SD Denmark Venstre SZ ODS KDU-ČSL 4 6 KSČM 3 5 Czech Republic 3 KOP 2 Evroko 4 KSD-EDEK DIKO 6 7 DISY 5 Cyprus AKEL 4 HDSSB 3 IDS 2 HSLS HSS PartyName HNS SDP Croatia HDZ Country Name Eestimaa Eestimaa Sotsiaal-demokraatlik Isamaa jaRes PublicaLiit ČSSD 2 Keskerakond Reformierakond 1 2 Rød-Grønne 7 Alliance 6 Rahvaliit Rohelised 6 5 Erakond Code 1 5 1 1 1 4 3 166 III. The coding of political parties in EMSS 2010 MDm 3 Verts Nouveau PCF MoDem PS France UMP PS SFP KD VIKR VAS SDP PartyName KOK Finland KESK Country Name SRZ 5 Oikologoi SYRIZA LAOS KKE ND Greece PASOK CSU Grüne Linke FDP SPD Germany CDU MPF PRG FN ete 5 Centre Prasinoi 6 Code 1 1 6 4 2 1 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 6 5 4 3 2 9 8 7 Jobbik 2 MDF SZDSZ PartyName Fidesz-MPSZ Hungary MSZP Country Name Ireland Fianna LMP Labour Fine T Par Latvijas TSP LSP Jaunais Latvia Tautas PS Verdi PDCI PRC UDC PD IDV LN Italy PDL Green Sinn CP -LatvijasZemnieku Savienība7 LPP -LatvijasCeļš 6 ēvzemei unBrīvbai/LNNK Cilvēka Tiesībām Vienotā Latvij8 al 2 Gael en 4 Fein at 5 Party Partija Fail Zaļā Partija 2 Laiks To be continued on thenext page Code 4 3 1 6 5 9 5 4 3 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 3 1 167 III. The coding of political parties in EMSS 2010 PartyName TPP Lithuania TS-LKD Country Name Venstre KRF SP SV Hoyre FRP Norway DNA D66 CU GL PVV VVD SP CDA PvdA The Netherlands AMN PDM PL PLDM Moldova PCRM Azzjoni Partit Partit Malta Alternattiva LiberalųirCentroSąjunga7 LRLS Darbo LSDP Tvarka irTeisingumas auit 3 Laburista Nazzjonalista 2 atj 5 Partija azoai 4 Nazzjonali Demokratika 1 Code 1 2 7 6 5 4 3 2 8 7 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 6 4 3 1 6 JBOO 5 Pravoe JABLOKO Spravedlivaja LDPR KPRF Russia Edinaja PC PRM UDMR PNL PDL Romania PSD PEV PCP BE CSD-PP PSD Portugal PS Samoobrona PD UP PSL SLD PartyName PO Poland PiS Country Name eo 6 Delo osj 1 Rossija To be continued on thenext page P 7 RP Rossija 4 Code 3 2 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 168 III. The coding of political parties in EMSS 2010 NSI LDS SLS SNS DeSUS Zares 5 SDS Slovenia SD KDH 2 LS-HZDS SNS MKP SDKU-DS Slovakia SMER JS PUSP NS LDP SPS DSS SRS SNS PartyName G17+ Serbia DS Country Name Code 10 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 4 3 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 BNP Plaid 2 SNP Liberal Labour Conservative United Kingdom SPU KPU NUNS Ukraine Partija MP VP KD FP C M Sweden SAP PNV CiU UPD IU PartyName PP Spain PSOE Country Name Narodnyj BlokLytvyna Blok JuliïTymošenko yr 5 Cymru einv 1 Regionov eort 3 Democrats Code

4 6 4 3 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 5 1 1 2 6 169 IV. Outlet-level variables at3 ecnaeo xet h Pretg frsodnswonmd e eto nsakn. N/AP See sectiononstacking. N/AP Percentageofrespondents whonamed See sectiononstacking. Percentage ofexperts who Percentageofrespondents whonamed Percentage ofexpertswho Party3 Percentage ofexperts Party2 Party1 Percentageofexperts Party0 nm Nameofmedia outlet Oname onr Nationid country Variable Questionwording/ Variable name ult Mediaoutletid Nameofcountry outlet Cname IV. andreliability inEMSS2010 Outlet-levelvariableswiththeirname,coding, wording/construction hn eimXms fe Paty 3atthequestion. Responsesabout agrees with Party3 think Medium Xmostoften Paty2atthequestion.Responsesabout agrees withParty2 individualmediaoutletsstacked. think MediumXmostoften Paty1atthe question.Responsesabout media outletsstacked. often agreeswithParty 1 Responses aboutindividual who thinkMediumXmost most oftenagreeswith which partyMediumX who donotanswer

label ecnaeo epnet h ae Sescino tcig N/AP N/AP Seesectiononstacking. Percentage ofrespondents whonamed Seesection onstacking. Percentage ofrespondentswho individual media outletsstacked. individual mediaoutlets stacked. media Character stringofname did notanswerthequestion. N/AP codingofidvariables. each mediawithinnationalcontext Character stringofcountryname nqenmrclcdsfrec Sescino h oig N/AP Seesectiononthecoding national context Unique numericalcodesforeach Content Unique numericalcodesfor outlet N/AP of idvariables. Formula See sectiononthe To be continued on thenext page N/AP N/AP Reliability N/AP 170 IV. Outlet-level variables in at9 ecnaeo xet h Pretg frsodnswonmd e eto nsakn. N/AP See sectiononstacking. N/AP Percentageofrespondents whonamed See sectiononstacking. Percentage ofexpertswho N/AP bias Percentageofrespondentswhonamed Seesectiononstacking. Percentage ofexpertswho Party9 N/AP Percentageofrespondents whonamed Seesectiononstacking. Percentageofexperts who Party8 N/AP Percentageofrespondents whonamed Seesectiononstacking. Percentageofexpertswho Party7 N/AP Percentageofrespondents whonamed Seesectiononstacking. Percentageofexpertswho Party6 Percentageofrespondents whonamed Percentageofexpertswho Party5 Party4 Variable Questionwording/ Variable name oinf in hn eimXms fe Paty9atthequestion.Responsesabout Medium Xcoverageis agrees withParty9 think MediumXmostoften Paty8atthequestion.Responsesabout agrees withParty8 think MediumXmostoften Paty7atthequestion.Responses about agrees withParty7 think MediumXmostoften Paty6at thequestion.Responsesabout agrees withParty6 think MediumXmostoften Paty5at thequestion.Responsesabout agrees withParty5 think MediumXmostoften Paty4at thequestion.Responsesabout agrees withParty4 think MediumXmostoften Medium Xcoverageis fl fl uenced byowners uenced byapoliticalparty label individual mediaoutlets stacked. individual mediaoutlets stacked. individual mediaoutletsstacked. individual mediaoutletsstacked. individual mediaoutletsstacked. individual mediaoutletsstacked. rgnlrsossi tce om e eto nsakn. 0.93 See section onstacking. Original responsesina stackedform rgnlrsossi tce om e eto nsakn. 0.92 Seesection onstacking. Original responsesina stackedform Content Formula To be continued on thenext page Reliability 171 IV. Outlet-level variables _l Adec-rprinl Size-dependent weightsfor all N/AP See sectiononweights. Size-dependentweightsfornewspapers Audience-proportional Size-dependent weightsfor Circulation-proportional w_all Size-dependentweights for Size-dependent weightsfor w_news Audience-proportional channels Audience-proportional w_prtv Audience-proportional w_pbtv w_tv adv arg sources acc Variable Questionwording/ Variable name eimXpoie cuae rgnlrsossi tce om e eto nsakn. 0.94 Seesection onstacking. Originalresponsesinastackedform Medium Xprovidesaccurate egt o l ei ult mediaoutlets combined weights forallmediaoutlets weights fornewspapers weights forprivatetv public televisionchannelsonly televisionchannels weights forpublictvchannels 0.91 weights foralltvchannels Seesectiononstacking. particular viewsandpolicies Originalresponsesinastackedform Medium Xadvocates well theargumentsofallsides Medium Xpresentsequally information fromcredible label rgnlrsossi tce om e eto nsakn. 0.9 Seesectiononstacking. Original responsesinastackedform private televisionchannels only Content e eto nwihs N/AP N/AP See sectiononweights. N/AP See sectiononweights. See sectiononweights. Formula e eto nwihs N/AP See sectiononweights. Reliability 172 V. Country-level variables 1e hr sltl ifrne rgnlrsossb h epnet. N/AP Original responsesbythe respondents. There islittle difference public N/AP Originalresponsesby therespondents. v11e Politicians,businesspeople N/AP Originalresponsesby therespondents. v11d Theproduction costsofhard v11c onr Nationid country Variable Questionwording/ Variable name 1a esmdaejyalto Oiia epne ytersodns N/AP Originalresponsesbythe respondents. Newsmediaenjoyalotof v11b Citizens Nameofcountry v11a Cname can V. andreliability inEMSS2010 variableswiththeirname,coding,wording/construction Country-level n am e quality newspapers cover between the waytabloidand bribing individualjournalists and howbypressurizing and what thenewsmediareport and interestgroupsin researched factsandanalyses afford topresentcarefully most newsmediacannot news contentaresohigh that interested insomething news mediaiftheyare reporting andanalysisinthe Qu

credibility in[COUNTRY] es ti on affairs label w or fi di n ndph rgnlrsossb h epnet. N/AP Originalresponsesbytherespondents. nd in-depth ng /C fl uence hrce tigo onr ae N/AP Character stringofcountryname nqenmrclcdsfrec Sescino h oig N/AP Seesectiononthecoding national context Unique numericalcodesforeach Content o nt en t F of idvariables. Formula or mu la To be continued on thenext page Reliabilit N/AP 0.86 0.92 0.71 Reliability 0.91 0.91 y 173 V. Country-level variables v13

v14 are N/AP Originalresponses by therespondents. Online newsmediaoutletsare The internethassigni v12c Theinternethasmade v12b v12a in particular 1g Thenewsmediahave N/AP Originalresponsesbytherespondents. signi The politicalorientationofthe v11g v11f Variable Questionwording/ Variable name ol o a htalmjr rgnlrsossb h epnet. N/AP Originalresponsesby therespondents. Would yousaythatallmajor traditional mediaoutlets present inbroadcasting? opinions or thatonlysomeare you saythat allmajorpolitical n o bu eeiin ol Oiia epne ytersodns N/AP Originalresponses bytherespondents. And howabout television,would rather thatonly someopinions are presentinthenewspapers or political opinionsin[COUNTRY] not yetsigni who canin broadened therangeof actors to thepublic journalism moreresponsive focusing publicattentionon is discussedbypoliticians well-known tothepublic most prominentjournalistsis [COUNTRY] present? fi cant in label problems fl uence publicopinion fi fl cant competitorsof uence onwhat fi cnl rgnlrsossb h epnet. N/AP Originalresponsesbytherespondents. cantly rgnlrsossb h epnet. N/AP Original responsesbytherespondents. rgnlrsossb h epnet. N/AP Original responsesbytherespondents. Content Formula To be continued on thenext page 0.77 0.76 0.78 0.81 0.85 Reliability 0.77 0.93 174 V. Country-level variables v19 v18 v15 Variable Questionwording/ Variable name v16 v17 okn tte[ONR]nw ei n rgnlrsossb h epnet. N/AP Originalresponses bytherespondents. Looking atthe[COUNTRY] newsmedia in presenting expert infoandanalysis? specialists from differentdomains general, how wideistherangeof important developments inpublicaffairs? consequences andimplications of enough ortoolittleanalysis ofthecauses, N/AP you saythattheypresent alot,justabout Originalresponsesbytherespondents. And howabouttelevision channels,would neednl fteaoe ol Oiia epne ytersodns N/AP Originalresponsesbythe respondents. Independently oftheabove,would neednl fteaoe ol o a Oiia epne ytersodns N/AP Originalresponses bytherespondents. Independently oftheabove,wouldyousay hnigaotteaayi ftecue, rgnlrsossb h epnet. N/AP Originalresponses bytherespondents. Thinking abouttheanalysisofcauses, or rathertoolittleanalysis? say thatnewspapersprovide alot,enough developments inpublic affairs,wouldyou and implicationsofimportant contextual circumstances,consequences fi you saythatonthewholeone that onthewholeone public affairsinthepapers? representation ofthefactsin public affairsontelevision? an accuraterepresentationofthefactsin nds in[COUNTRY] anaccurate label fi nds in[COUNTRY] Content Formula To be continued on thenext page 0.75 Reliability 0.7 0.82 0.87 0.89 175 V. Country-level variables aibenm Questionwording/ Variable name 2e otenw ei n[ONR]fcs rgnlrsossb h epnet. N/AP Originalresponses bytherespondents. Dothenewsmediain[COUNTRY] focus N/AP important Originalresponses bytherespondents. Do thenewsmediain[COUNTRY] focus v21e N/AP Originalresponsesbytherespondents. v21d Dothenewsmediain[COUNTRY] focus N/AP Originalresponses bytherespondents. Dothenews mediain[COUNTRY] focus v21c N/AP Originalresponsesbytherespondents. v21b Dothenews mediain[COUNTRY] focus [COUNTRY]? v21a media v20 Variable ol o a httedfeetmda rgnlrsossb h epnet. N/AP Originalresponsesbytherespondents. Would yousay thatthedifferentmedia information oninvestigativereports on too much,justenough ortoolittleon parties andpoliticians? policy differencesbetween competing too much,justenough ortoolittleon their characterandmotivations? information aboutindividual politicians, too much,justenough ortoolittleon information aboutinternationalaffairs? too much,justenoughorlittleon information abouteconomicissuesfacing too much,justenoughorlittleon same fewthingsarerepeatedinnearlyall different storiesandinformationorthatthe outlets in[COUNTRY] provideavarietyof outlets? label issues? Content To be continued on thenext page oml Reliability Formula 0.83 0.75 0.81 0.76 0.81 0.73 176 V. Country-level variables 2d oyutiki stu htpbi eeiin rgnlrsossb h epnet. N/AP Original responses bytherespondents. Do youthink itistruethatpublictelevision N/AP Originalresponsesbytherespondents. v22d Doyouthinkitistruethatpublictelevision N/AP Originalresponses bytherespondents. v22c Doyouthink itistruethatpublictelevision programming? N/AP Originalresponsesbythe respondents. v22b Doyouthinkitistruethat publictelevision news? N/AP Originalresponses bytherespondents. v22a Dothenewsmediain[COUNTRY] focus v21g aibenm Questionwording/ Variable name v21f Variable coverage of politicsandpublicaffairs? television channels, hasmorein-depth in [COUNTRY], comparedtoprivate programmes fortheaverage viewer? television channels,has moreboring in [COUNTRY], comparedtoprivate television channels,has awiderrangeof in [COUNTRY], comparedtoprivate television channels,hasmorepolitical in [COUNTRY], compared toprivate a horse-race,justcompetitionforpower? information aboutpoliticsseenasagame, too much,justenoughorlittleon of eventsandstories? N/AP information aboutthesensationalaspects Originalresponses bytherespondents. too much,justenoughorlittleon Do thenewsmediain[COUNTRY] focus label Content To be continued on thenext page oml Reliability Formula 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.92 0.94 0.9 176 V. Country-level variables 2d oyutiki stu htpbi eeiin rgnlrsossb h epnet. N/AP Original responses bytherespondents. Do youthink itistruethatpublictelevision N/AP Originalresponsesbytherespondents. v22d Doyouthinkitistruethatpublictelevision N/AP Originalresponses bytherespondents. v22c Doyouthink itistruethatpublictelevision programming? N/AP Originalresponsesbythe respondents. v22b Doyouthinkitistruethat publictelevision news? N/AP Originalresponses bytherespondents. v22a Dothenewsmediain[COUNTRY] focus v21g aibenm Questionwording/ Variable name v21f Variable coverage of politicsandpublicaffairs? television channels, hasmorein-depth in [COUNTRY], comparedtoprivate programmes fortheaverage viewer? television channels,has moreboring in [COUNTRY], comparedtoprivate television channels,has awiderrangeof in [COUNTRY], comparedtoprivate television channels,hasmorepolitical in [COUNTRY], compared toprivate a horse-race,justcompetitionforpower? information aboutpoliticsseenasagame, too much,justenoughorlittleon of eventsandstories? N/AP information aboutthesensationalaspects Originalresponses bytherespondents. too much,justenoughorlittleon Do thenewsmediain[COUNTRY] focus label Content To be continued on thenext page oml Reliability Formula 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.92 0.94 0.9 177 V. Country-level variables news-making Journalistshavesuffi source N/AP Originalresponsesbytherespondents. N/AP Journalists in[COUNTRY] agreeon the v23c Originalresponsesbytherespondents. orientations Journalistsin[COUNTRY] aremotivated v23b N/AP Originalresponses bytherespondents. v23a Doyouthink itistruethatpublictelevision trustworthy v22g [COUNTRY]? aibenm Questionwording/ Variable name 2e oyutiki stu htpbi eeiin rgnlrsossb h epnet. N/AP Original responsesbytherespondents. v22f Do youthinkitistruethatpublictelevision sensationalist v22e Variable balance, timeliness, double-checking and accuracy, relevance, completeness, ensure thatbasicprofessional normslike profession regardless of theirpolitical criteria forjudgingexcellence intheir by anethicofserving the publicinterest television channels,providesmore in [COUNTRY], compared toprivate culture andtraditionsofminoritiesin television channels,hasmorefocusonthe N/AP in [COUNTRY], compared toprivate Originalresponsesbytherespondents. Do youthinkitistruethatpublictelevision television channels,hasaless in [COUNTRY], compared toprivate confi label dentiality arerespected in information? practices style? cettann o rgnlrsossb h epnet. N/AP Originalresponsesby therespondents. cient trainingto Content To be continued on thenext page oml Reliability Formula 0.9 0.88 0.91 0.92 0.89 0.81 178 V. Country-level variables aibenm Questionwording/ Variable name 2a ei oeaeo ulcafishsalt rgnlrsossb h epnet. N/AP Original responses bytherespondents. Mediacoverageofpublic affairshas alot N/AP Original responses bytherespondents. of v25a Finally, howfardo[NATIONALITY] media government N/AP Original responses bytherespondents. v24d Finally, howfardo[NATIONALITY] media N/AP Original responses bytherespondents. v24c Finally, howfardo[NATIONALITY] media N/AP Originalresponsesbytherespondents. v24b Finally, howfardo[NATIONALITY] media affairs? N/AP Original responsesbytherespondents. Thejournalisticcontent ofpublictelevision v24a v23d Variable 2b ei oeaeo ulcafishsalt rgnlrsossb h epnet. N/AP Original responses bytherespondents. Media coverage ofpublic affairshas alot of v25b [COUNTRY] in watchdog scrutinizing theactionsof outlets ingeneralsucceed inservingas issues oftheday? variety ofperspectives ontheimportant outlets ingeneralsucceed inprovidinga in frontofcitizens? forum forpoliticiansandpartiestodebate outlets ingeneralsucceedprovidinga general interestamongcitizensinpublic outlets ingeneralsucceedstimulating governmental politicalinterference in [COUNTRY] is entirely freefrom [COUNTRY] in in fl fl uence onpublicopinionin uence inpoliticaland policy circles label offi cials onbehalfofcitizens? Content To be continued on thenext page oml Reliability Formula 0.74 0.85 0.88 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.94 179 V. Country-level variables aibenm Questionwording/ Variable name dt Plc doay-Wihe vrg fAl uinewihe ainlaeae f onr-yonr 0.91 Country-bycountry Audience-weighted nationalaverages of 0.87 Policy Advocacy -Weighted Average of All biaspbtv Party Country-bycountry Audience-weightednationalaverages of 0.87 ArgumentDiversity-Weighted Average of In fl advtv Country-bycountry Audience-weightednationalaveragesof Factual Accuracy -Weighted Average of All argtv acctv oinftv Owner biastv Party In Variable Infl oinfpbtv Owner In cnw FculAcrc egtdAeaeo Adec-egtdntoa vrgso Cutybcuty 0.94 Country-bycountry Audience-weighted national averagesof Factual Accuracy - Weighted Average of accnews Public TVChannels TV Channels All TVChannels TV Channels TV Channels TV Channels Public TVChannels Newspapers une-Wihe vrg f uinewihe ainlaeae f onr-yonr 0.93 Country-bycountry Audience-weightednationalaverages of uence -Weighted Average of 0.94 Country-bycountry Audience-weighted national averages uence -Weighted Average of All label fl fl une-Wihe vrg fAl uinewihe ainlaeae f onr-yonr 0.94 Country-bycountry Audience-weightednationalaveragesof uence -Weighted Average of All une-Wihe vrg f Adec-egtdntoa vrgso Cutybcuty 0.91 Country-bycountry Audience-weighted nationalaveragesof uence -Weighted Average of rgnlrsossrgrigmlil sum ofadv*w_tv. media original responsesregarding multiple sumofarg*w_tv. media original responsesregardingmultiple sumofacc*w_tv. media original responsesregardingmultiple sumofoinf*w_tv. media original responsesregardingmultiple media sumofbias*w_tv. of originalresponsesregardingmultiple Content rgnlrsossrgrigmlil sumofacc*w_news. original responses regardingmultiple sumofbias*w_pbtv. media original responsesregarding multiple media sum ofoinf*w_pbtv. media original responsesregarding multiple outlets outlets outlets outlets outlets outlets outlets outlets To be continued on thenext page oml Reliability Formula 180 V. Country-level variables aibenm Questionwording/ Variable name dal oiyAvcc egtdAeaeo Adec-egtdntoa vrgso Cutybcuty 0.87 PersonalisationofPolitics Country-bycountry Audience-weighted nationalaverages of 0.86 Policy Advocacy -Weighted Average of pers Country-bycountry 0.89 Audience-weighted nationalaveragesof Argument Diversity -Weighted Average of advall Country-bycountry Audience-weighted nationalaverages of Factual Accuracy -Weighted Average of argall accall 0.87 oinfall Owner Country-bycountry Audience-weightednational averagesof biasall Party 0.91 In Policy Advocacy -Weighted Average of Country-bycountry Audience-weightednationalaverages of advnews Infl ArgumentDiversity-Weighted Average of argnews Variable

Newspapers andTVChannels Newspapers andTVChannels Newspapers andTVChannels Newspapers andTVChannels Newspapers andTVChannels Newspapers Newspapers une-Wihe vrg f uinewihe ainlaeae f onr-yonr 0.93 Country-bycountry Audience-weightednationalaveragesof uence -Weighted Average of label fl une-Wihe vrg f uinewihe ainlaeae f onr-yonr 0.95 Country-bycountry Audience-weightednationalaveragesof uence -Weighted Average of rgnlrsossrgrigmlil sumofadv*w_news. original responsesregardingmultiple sumofarg*w_news. original responsesregardingmultiple rgnlrsosst 2 eoe no eoev1 0tr 0.76 recodev21c(0thru 0=low orenough 10=toomuch Original responses tov21recoded into sum ofadv*w_all. media original responsesregarding multiple sum ofarg*w_all. media original responsesregarding multiple sum ofacc*w_all. media original responsesregarding multiple sumofoinf*w_all. media original responsesregardingmultiple sumofbias*w_all. media original responsesregardingmultiple media media Content

outlets outlets outlets outlets outlets outlets outlets To be continued on thenext page (8=6)(9=8) 5 =0)(6=2) (7=4) oml Reliability Formula (10=10) 181 V. Country-level variables aibenm Questionwording/ Variable name est Sensationalism aboutPolitics sensat Variable

ogm Gami polgame

cns nomto bu cnmcIse Oiia epne ov1rcddit recodev21a Originalresponsestov21recoded into InformationaboutEconomicIssues econiss

nent IfrainaotItrainlAfis rgnlrsosst 2 eoe no rcd 2b( hu 0.8 recodev21b (5thru Originalresponsestov21recoded into Information aboutInternational Affairs internat netg InvestigativeJournalism InformationaboutPolicy investig policy noul OverallInformation Qualityindex infoqual

fi cation ofPolitics label 10=toomuch 0=low orenough Original responsestov21recodedinto Content

10=toomuch 0=low orenough Original responsestov21recodedinto

0=too little10=enoughormore

0=too little10=enough ormore rgnlrsosst 2 eoe no rcd 2r( hu 0.75 recodev21r(5thru 0=too little10=enough ormore Original responsesto v21 recodedinto 0=too little10=enough ormore same concept (0-10scale) 0.78 recodev21d(5thru Original responsesto v21 recodedinto vrg fmlil niaosfrte ma v1,v5 0.85 mean(v11b, v15, Average ofmultipleindicatorsforthe To be continued on thenext page 5 =0)(6=2)(7=4) (8=6)(9=8) recode v21f(0thru 5 =0)(6=2)(7=4) (8=6)(9=8) recode v21g(0thru (4=8) (3=6)(2=4) (1=2) (5 thru10=10) (2=4) (1=2)(0=0) 10 =10)(4=8)(3=6) v16, v17,v18, v19, (2=4)(1=2) (2=4) (1=2)(0=0) v20, 10 =10)(4=8)(3=6) 10 =10)(4=8)(3=6) oml Reliability Formula v21e) (0=0) (10=10) (10=10) (0=0) 0.83 0.79 0.76 182 V. Country-level variables et OealIfrainQaiyidxwov5 vrg fmlil niaosfrte en(1b 1, 0.83 mean(v11b, v17, 0.83 Average ofmultipleindicatorsforthe OverallInformationQualityindexw/ov15 mean(v11b, v17, Average ofmultipleindicatorsforthe OverallInformationQualityindexw/ov15 depth richness Questionwording/ Variable name Variable nous muto oiisadEoois vrg fmlil niaosfrte en(cns, 0.8 mean(econiss, Average ofmultipleindicatorsfor the OverallPoliticalDiversityindex 0.82 mean(pers,sensat, AmountofPoliticsandEconomics extdiv Average ofmultipleindicatorsfor the infosubs CommercialisationofPoliticalCoverage infocomm po oraitcPoesoaimidx vrg fmlil niaosfrte en(2b 2c 0.91 mean(v23b,v23c) Average ofmultipleindicatorsforthe JournalisticProfessionalismindex jprof idp Journalistic Independenceindex jindep rcl JournalisticCultureindex jrncult bv PublicTelevision Qualityindex pbtvq bval PublicTelevision Qualityindex pbtvqall

v16 v19v20 v16 v21e Coverage Index index

(alternative A) (alternative B)

label same concept(0-10scale) same concept(0-10scale) same concept(0-10scale) vrg fmlil niaosfrte en(1,v4 0.77 mean(v13,v14) same concept(0-10scale) Average ofmultiple indicatorsforthe same concept(0-10scale) Content same concept(0-10scale) same concept(0-10scale) same concept(0-10scale) 0.93 same concept(0-10scale) mean((10-v11d), Average ofmultipleindicatorsforthe 0.93 mean(jprof,jindep) Average ofmultipleindicatorsforthe same concept(0-10scale)

vrg fmlil niaosfrte en(2d 2a 0.94 mean(v23d,v22a, Average ofmultipleindicatorsforthe

vrg fmlil niaosfrte en(2d 2a 0.95 mean(v23d,v22a, Average ofmultipleindicatorsforthe To be continued on thenext page v18, v21e) v18, v19,v20) internat, policy) polgame) v23a) v22b,v22d, v22e, v22b, v22d,v22e, v22f, v22f, (10 -v22c)) oml Reliability Formula v22g) v22g, 183 V. Country-level variables aibenm Questionwording/ Variable name nent InternetSigni intern_t Variable

nenp Internet Added Value index intern_p nent OealItre otiuinidx vrg fmlil niaosfrte ma itreps 0.79 mean(internetpos, Average of multiple indicatorsforthe OverallInternetContributionindex internet epr MediaPerformance index MediaIn medper medinf cal ata cuayi esMda-Aeae vrg fmlil niaosfrte en(cal en 0.89 mean(accall, Average ofmultipleindicators forthe Factual Accuracy inNewsMedia - Average ac_all ct FculAcrc nT vrg fAl vrg fmlil niaosfrte en(ct,v6 0.9 0.92 mean(acctv, v16) mean(accnews,v15) Average ofmultipleindicatorsforthe Average ofmultipleindicators for the Factual Accuracy in Newspapers- Average Factual Accuracy onTV - Average of All ac_news ac_tv wal rsueidcdPltclBa vrg Aeaeo utpeidctr o h ma onal 1d 0.95 mean(oinfall, v11d) Average ofmultipleindicatorsfor the Pressure-induced PoliticalBias- Average ow_all Channels Sumoftwo weighted averages Factual Accuracy plus Argument Diversity- parttv Party Channels qualtv Infl

of All Indicators of All Indicators Indicators of All Indicators u fToWihe vrgsfrAlT (0-20scale) Sum ofTwo Weighted Averages for All TV (0-20scale) Sum ofTwo Weighted Averages for All TV unepu oiyAvcc Sumoftwoweightedaverages uence plusPolicy Advocacy - fl label uence index fi cance index vrg fmlil niaosfrte 10-v12c Average ofmultiple indicatorsforthe same concept(0-10scale) Content same concept(0-10scale) vrg fmlil niaosfrte ma v4,v4, 0.87 mean(v24a,v24b, Average ofmultiple indicatorsforthe vrg fmlil niaosfrte ma v1,v5, 0.86 mean(v11g, v25a, same concept(0-10scale) Average ofmultiple indicatorsforthe 0.8 same concept(0-10scale) mean(v12a,v12b) Average ofmultiple indicatorsforthe same concept(0-10scale) same concept(0-10scale) same concept(0-10scale) same concept(0-10scale) same concept(0-10scale) To be continued on thenext page v25b) internet_tradm) v24c, v24d) (v15, v16)) ct rt 0.89 acctv +argtv isv+avv 0.94 biastv +advtv oml Reliability Formula 0.81 184 V. Country-level variables aibenm Questionwording/ Variable name pral PartyInfl Sumoftwo weighted averages partall Factual Accuracy plus Argument Diversity - qualall PartyInfl Newspapers partnews Sumoftwoweightedaverages Factual Newspapers Accuracy plus Argument Diversity- qualnews TV partprtv Party Sumoftwoweightedaverages Factual Accuracy plus Argument Diversity- TV Infl qualprtv TV partpbtv Party Sumof two weightedaverages Factual Accuracy plus Argument Diversity- TV Infl qualpbtv Variable u fToWihe vrgsfr (0-20scale) Newspapers andTVChannelsCombined (0-20scale) Sum ofTwo Weighted Averages for Newspapers andTVChannels Combined (0-20scale) Sum ofTwo Weighted Averages for (0-20scale) Sum ofTwo Weighted Averages for Sum ofTwo Weighted Averages for (0-20scale) Sum ofTwo Weighted Averages forPrivate (0-20scale) Sum ofTwo Weighted Averages forPrivate (0-20scale) Sum ofTwo Weighted Averages forPublic (0-20scale) Sum ofTwo Weighted Averages forPublic Channels Channels Channels Channels unepu oiyAvcc Sumoftwoweightedaverages uence plusPolicy Advocacy - Sumoftwo weightedaverages uence plusPolicy Advocacy - Sumoftwoweightedaverages uence plusPolicy Advocacy - Sumoftwoweightedaverages uence plusPolicy Advocacy - label Content cal+agl 0.89 accall +argall 0.94 accnews +argnews 0.86 accprtv +argprtv 0.92 accpbtv +argpbtv isl dal 0.93 biasall +advall 0.91 biasnews +advnews 0.94 biasprtv +advprtv 0.92 biaspbtv +advpbtv oml Reliability Formula