Kim Moody Thesis (PDF 3MB)

Political Information Choices in a Media Saturated Environment: Credibility or Convenience?

Kim Elizabeth Moody BSc(AES) (Griffith), GradDipLib&InfSt (QUT)

Submitted in fulfilment of the QUT Doctor of Philosophy

School of Media and Communication Creative Industries Faculty

2011

Supervisory Team

Principal Supervisor Dr Jason Sternberg Creative industries Faculty

Associate Supervisors Professor Clive Bean Faculty of Education

Professor Helen Partridge Faculty of Science and Technology

Professor Christine Bruce Faculty of Science and Technology

Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made.

______Kim Elizabeth Moody

Acknowledgements (in no particular order)

I would like to say thank you…

To my parents, Peter and Carol Moody, for teaching me to always ask ‘why?’

To Professor Gillian Hallam for pointing out that this was an option

To Professor Helen Partridge for kicking things off

To Dr Jason Sternberg for bringing things to a close

To Professors Clive Bean and Christine Bruce for clarity and wisdom

To my brother, Greg Moody, for telling me I could when I thought I really couldn’t

To all my friends for support and distraction (as needed), but with Special Mention going to Dr Iain Brownlie, Dr Shelley Wilkinson and (soon to be Dr) Liz Ellison for outstanding efforts in diversion, understanding and generally lightening things up when they got too heavy

To my beloved furry boys who started this with me, but didn’t see the end: Boofy and Brady, I miss you, my special boys

To my beloved furry and finned boys who did see this to the end: JiJu, Cheddar and Hal, for cuddles, company and supervision

To the staff of QUT Library, most especially the Document Delivery Staff, who sourced countless articles for me without complaint

And above and beyond all these, my endless thanks and appreciation go to Janet Fitzgerald, without whose emotional, psychological, intellectual, financial and practical support none of this would have been achievable. You mean more to me than words can express.

Abstract This thesis examines the ways in which citizens find out about socio-political issues. The project set out to discover how audience characteristics such as scepticism towards the media, gratifications sought, need for cognition and political interest influence information selection. While most previous information choice studies have focused on how individuals select from a narrow range of media types, this thesis considered a much wider sweep of the information landscape. This approach was taken to obtain an understanding of information choices in a more authentic context - in everyday life, people are not simply restricted to one or two news sources. Rather, they may obtain political information from a vast range of information sources, including media sources (e.g. radio, television, newspapers) and sources from beyond the media (eg. interpersonal sources, public speaking events, social networking websites). Thus, the study included both media and non-news media information sources.

Data collection for the project consisted of a written, postal survey. The survey was administered to a probability sample in the greater Brisbane region, which is the third largest city in Australia. Data was collected during March and April 2008, approximately four months after the 2007 Australian Federal Election. Hence, the study was conducted in a non-election context. 585 usable surveys were obtained. In addition to measuring the attitudinal characteristics listed above, respondents were surveyed as to which information sources (eg. television shows, radio stations, websites and festivals) they usually use to find out about socio-political issues.

Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to explore patterns of influence between the audience characteristics and information consumption patterns. The results of this analysis indicated an apparent difference between the way citizens use news media sources and the way they use information sources from beyond the news media. In essence, it appears that non-news media information sources are used very deliberately to seek socio- political information, while media sources are used in a less purposeful way. If media use in a non-election context, such as that of the present study, is not primarily concerned with deliberate information seeking, media use must instead have other primary purposes, with political information acquisition as either a secondary driver, or a by-product of that primary purpose. It appears, then, that political information consumption in a media-

saturated society is more about routine ‘practices’ than it is about ‘information seeking’. The suggestion that media use is no longer primarily concerned with information seeking, but rather, is simply a behaviour which occurs within the broader set of everyday practices reflects Couldry’s (2004) media as practice paradigm.

These findings highlight the need for more authentic and holistic contexts for media research. It is insufficient to consider information choices in isolation, or even from a wider range of information sources, such as that incorporated in the present study. Future media research must take greater account of the broader social contexts and practices in which media-oriented behaviours occur. The findings also call into question the previously assumed centrality of trust to information selection decisions. Citizens regularly use media they do not trust to find out about politics. If people are willing to use information sources they do not trust for democratically important topics such as politics, it is important that citizens possess the media literacy skills to effectively understand and evaluate the information they are presented with. Without the application of such media literacy skills, a steady diet of ‘fast food’ media may result in uninformed or misinformed voting decisions, which have implications for the effectiveness of democratic processes. This research has emphasized the need for further holistic and authentically contextualised media use research, to better understand how citizens use information sources to find out about important topics such as politics.

Keywords Media as practice Media literacy Media diets Information repertoires Political information Media scepticism Need for cognition Media gratifications Human information behaviour Political communication Australia Table of Contents Statement of Original Authorship 5 Acknowledgements 7 Abstract 9 Table of Contents 11 List of Tables 15 List of Abbreviations 17 Glossary of Key Terms 17

Chapter One: Introduction 19 Introduction 19 Research problem and approach 20 The research study 23 Significance of research 23 Research limitations 24 Thesis overview 25 Conclusion 28

Chapter Two: The Australian Media Landscape 29 Introduction 29 Australia 29 The role of the media 30 Media regulation in Australia 31 Media ownership concentration in Australia 35 Australian attitudes towards the media 38 Australian media sectors 39 Newspapers 40 Broadcast media 41 The Brisbane media landscape 48 Digital and Internet Media 49 Conclusion 50

Chapter Three: The Literature on Audience Characteristics: Independent Variables for the Study 51 Introduction 51 Situating the present study within the broader Australian media and communications research tradition 51 Media scepticism – the development of a construct 55 Need for cognition (NFC) 62 Media gratifications 65 Political Interest 78 Conclusion 84

Chapter Four: Information Consumption Patterns: Dependent Variables 87 Introduction 87 Information repertoires and media diets 87 Socio-political information 88 Media versus non-news media information sources 89 Socio-political information repertoires 92 11

Media diets 92 Mainstream/non-mainstream media diet 93 Private/public media diet 99 Tabloid/broadsheet media diet 101 Conclusion 104

Chapter Five: Research Methods 107 Introduction 107 Sample and procedure 107 The survey technique 110 Survey development 116 Measuring the independent variables 117 Measuring the dependent variables 128 Descriptive statistics of the dependent variables 135 Statistical analyses 135 Conclusion 137

Chapter Six: Findings 139 Introduction 139 Background to hypotheses tested in the study 140 Multiple linear regression 143 Independent variables – unique contributions 149 Media Scepticism 149 Need for Cognition 154 Media Gratifications Sought 159 Political interest 163 Dependent variables - the models 166 Mainstream/non-mainstream media diet 167 Private/public media diet 168 Tabloid/broadsheet media diet 170 Television socio-political information repertoire 171 Radio socio-political information repertoire 174 Print media socio-political information repertoire 177 Internet socio-political information repertoire 179 Non-news media socio-political information repertoire 180 Overall socio-political information repertoire 182 Conclusion 184

Chapter Seven: Discussion 189 Introduction 189 Media use versus non-news media information source use 190 The perceived homogeneity of the Brisbane media environment 195 The diminished importance of trust, or, the irony of media literacy 199 No election, no information-seeking: Everyday media practices in a media saturated society 205 The role of convenience in media use 206 Evidence for the role of convenience in information selection 208 Summary so far 213 Why media practices? 214 The media as practice paradigm 215 Media-oriented practices in the current study 218 Everyday practices: some basic principles. 218 Media ‘talk’ as a media practice 222 Conclusion 229

Chapter Eight: Conclusion and recommendations 231 Introduction 231 Summary of project 232 Significance of the project 237 Limitations of the project 238 Measurement concerns associated with the media scepticism scale 240 Recommendations for future research 244

References 247

Appendix 1: Survey Instrument Appendix 2: Survey Cover Letter Appendix 3: First Reminder Letter Appendix 4: Second Reminder Letter Appendix 5: Participant Information Sheet Appendix 6: Pilot Study Appendix 7: Categorisation of information sources listed in free text portions of survey section 2. Appendix 8: Mainstream vs non-mainstream classification of Information sources listed in the questionnaire Appendix 9: Tabloid versus broadsheet distinction as applied to media sources in the study Appendix 10: Low news content versus high news content radio stations Appendix 11: Ethics Approval Certificate Appendix 12: Correlations Table

List of Tables Table 3.1: Common media gratifications sought dimensions 69 Table 4.1: Atton’s typology of alternative and radical media with examples 95 Table 4.2: Summary of characteristics traditionally associated with ‘tabloid’ and ‘broadsheet’ categories 103 Table 5.1: Survey contact points and response rates 109 Table 5.2: Comparison of research-relevant sample characteristics with population characteristics 111 Table 5.3: Methods to address common implementation and design issues of self- administered surveys 113 Table 5.4 Reliability and validity of indexes and scales 118 Table 5.5: Factor analysis results for the gratifications sought scale 127 Table 5.6: Measurement of Control Variables 128 Figure 5.1: Mainstream/non-mainstream media diet calculation 133 Figure 5.2: Private/public media diet calculation 133 Figure 5.3: Tabloid/broadsheet media diet calculation 133 Table 5.7: Descriptive Statistics of Dependent Variables (N=585) 135 Table 6.1: Summary of hypotheses tested 143 Table 6.2: Recoding of categorical variables in preparation for regression analysis 146 Table 6.3: Summary of the relative predictive ability of each of the constructs with regard to the media diets and SPIRs analysed 147 Table 6.4: Comparisons of means between media sceptics and other respondents 149 Table 6.5: Multiple regression results for the media scepticism variable against each of the media use models (extracted from Table 6.3) 150 Table 6.6: Comparisons of media diet means between media sceptics with high and low levels of political interest 152 Table 6.7: Comparisons of means between high NFC and low NFC respondents 155 Table 6.8: Multiple regression results for the NFC variable against each of the media use models (extracted from Table 6.3) 156 Table 6.9: Statistically significant mainstream/non-mainstream media diet regression results by NFC level 157 Table 6.10: Summary of impact of gratifications sought variables in each of the models (extracted from Table 6.3) 160 Table 6.11: Comparisons of means between politically interested respondents and others 164 Table 6.12: Multiple regression results for the political interest variablea against each of the media use models (extracted from Table 6.3) 165 Table 6.13: Statistically significant variables and their beta values (Mainstream/non-mainstream diet) 167 Table 6.14: Statistically significant variables and their beta values (Private/public diet) 168 Table 6.15: Statistically significant variables and their beta values (Tabloid/broadsheet diet) 171 Table 6.16: Statistically significant variables and their beta values (Television SPIR) 172 Table 6.17: Summary of the statistically significant variables with regard to the television SPIR/ media diets analysed 172 Table 6.18: Statistically significant variables and their beta values (Radio SPIR) 174 Table 6.19: Summary of the statistically significant variables with regard to the radio SPIR/ media diets analysed 175 15

Table 6.20: Statistically significant variables and their beta values (Print SPIR) 177 Table 6.21: Summary of the statistically significant variables with regard to the newspaper SPIR/ media diets analysed 178 Table 6.22: Statistically significant variables and their beta values (Internet SPIR) 180 Table 6.23: Statistically significant variables and their beta values (Non-news media SPIR) 181 Table 6.24: Statistically significant variables and their beta values (all sources) 183 Table 6.25: Summary of patterns of influence of independent variables on the different media consumption models 186 Table 7.1: Summary of patterns of influence of the key independent variables on the different media consumption models (shaded areas indicate information quality-focused variables) 192 List of Abbreviations

ABC Australian Broadcasting Corporation ACMA Australian Communications and Media Authority ALP Australian Labor Party APC Australian Press Council CMH Consolidated Media Holdings ISP Internet Service provider NFC Need for cognition PBL Publishing and Broadcasting Limited PTR Political talk radio SBS Special Broadcasting Service SPIR Socio-political information repertoire U&G Uses and gratifications WAN West Australian Newspapers

Glossary of Key Terms

Media diet An approach by which information consumption patterns are analysed in the thesis. A media diet describes the range of information sources used by an individual with reference to the diet’s relative composition of two characteristics. For example, the mainstream/non-mainstream media diet describes the extent to which an individual relies on mainstream versus non-mainstream informaton sources. Three media diets are used in the study: mainstream/non-mainstream, tabloid/broadsheet and private/public. See Chapters Four and Five for further details.

Media gratifications One of the audience characteristics used in the thesis. Media gratifications relate to the motivations individuals have for using the media. Specific gratifications considered in the present study are: Surveillance gratifications – motivations relating primarily to the need to be informed Entertainment gratifications – motivations relating primarily to enjoyment Escape gratifications – motivations relating primarily to diversion See Chapter Three for further details.

Media literacy Media literacy refers to an individual’s ability to access, understand, evaluate and create media content (European Commission, 2007). It incorporates critical literacy dimensions enabling the individual to understand the meanings and agendas implicit in media content (Andersen, 2006; Warnick, 2002). In late modern, developed societies, media literacy is considered a vital skill for the development of active citizenship and an effective democracy.

Media scepticism One of the audience characteristics used in the thesis. It relates to the subjective opinion the audience member holds with regard to the trustworthiness of the mainstream media as a whole, rather than to any particular media source. See Chapter Three for further details.

Need for cognition (NFC) One of the audience characteristics used in the thesis. Drawn from the psychology literature, it relates to the tendency to enjoy thinking, and the need to understand the experiential world. See Chapter Three for further details.

Non-news media information sources Non-news media information sources are information sources from beyond the news media, such as blogs, social networking sites, friends and family, politicians and public speaking events. The media/non-news media distinction is explicated further in Chapter Four.

Political interest One of the audience characteristics used in the thesis. It relates to the level of interest the participant has in politics. In the current thesis, four interest levels are used: no interest, not much interest, some interest and a good deal of interest. See Chapter Three for further details.

Socio-political information repertoire (SPIR) An approach by which information consumption patterns are analysed in the thesis. It refers to the number of resources individuals use to find out about socio-political issues. SPIRs are developed in the study for various media types: Internet, print media, newspapers, radio, television, non-news media, and all media. See Chapters Four and Five for further details. Chapter One: Introduction

Introduction It is frequently said we live in a media saturated society (Ang, 1996; Bird, 2003). Certainly, few would argue the range of information sources available to the citizens of late modern societies is greater than at any previous time in history. However, while our society may be saturated by the media, individuals need not be (Bird, 2003). Every day, people make decisions regarding which information to pay attention to, ignore and avoid. In some spheres of life, these daily decisions have limited consequences, while in others, the repercussions may be greater. The realm of politics is one in which the consequences may be wider-reaching.

An informed citizenry is believed to be essential to the effective functioning of democracy (Berelson, Lazarsfeld, & McPhee, 1954; Lippman, 1913), making the issue of where citizens obtain their political information a core factor in the health of a democracy (Jones, 2004; Vincent & Basil, 1997). In Australia, where the project discussed in the following thesis has been conducted, voting in government elections is compulsory, with fines for non- compliance. This means that, informed or not, the vast majority of eligible citizens vote. In such an environment, the daily information choices Australians make with regard to political information is of particular concern. Exclusive use of poorly researched, biased or scandal-oriented political reporting, for example, may result in uninformed or misinformed voting decisions, which have implications for the effectiveness of our democracy.

In most modern liberal democracies, the task of informing the population about political issues and events has been traditionally conducted by the media (Chadwick, 1998; Jones, 2005; Pinkleton & Austin, 2002; Ward, 2006). However, the assumed centrality of the mass media to the dissemination of political information warrants re-examination in light of the rapid and continual development of new, digital communication technologies such as SMS, email and Web 2.0. The 2007 Australian Federal election, for example, saw the successful use of the Kevin07 website by the Australian Labor Party to promote Prime Ministerial candidate Kevin Rudd (Flew, 2008), as well as unprecedented use of the Internet in campaigning, with candidates from many parties employing online communication tools such as Facebook, YouTube and MySpace to a greater extent than in previous elections

(Chen, 2008). As Crook notes, since the 2007 Australian Federal election, “the Internet is now and remains the only medium in which all those involved in elections are present” (n.d., p.2) – politicians, commentators and voters.

Digital and Internet technologies, particularly Web 2.0 capabilities, are blurring traditional distinctions with regard to the roles of creator, consumer and distributor of media and information products (Goggin, 2010). Technological convergence also increases the fluidity with which media consumption may occur, with media products available through multiple mechanisms (e.g. television, mobile phone, computer Internet connection). This can be expected to modify media habits, as previously rigidly scheduled media products are now effectively available at any time and place, provided an Internet connection is available.

The information landscape seems significantly broadened and complicated by the emergence of such digital communication technologies. Of particular concern is their capacity to narrowly tailor information exposure, fragmenting the public sphere and potentially eliminating the “shared public world” which the mass media once facilitated (Couldry & Markham, 2006, p.256). In such an environment, “the question of what information flows reach us and how we select from them becomes more – not less – urgent” (Couldry, 2002, p.27).

Research problem and approach This doctoral project was conceived around a single question, based on the casual observation that Australians in general seem fairly sceptical about the media. The question that originally drove this thesis was: if people distrust the media, does this affect their information choices when it comes to important topics such as politics? My immediate academic background prior to commencing this project was in the human information behaviour discipline. The human information behaviour discipline is concerned with “the totality of human behavior in relation to sources and channels of information, including both active and passive information-seeking and information use” (Wilson, 2000, p.49). My interest in citizens’ information choices therefore was not limited to the use of mass media sources. Rather, I was interested in the broader information landscape from which Australian citizens select information. Thus, the overarching research problem for the current project became:

How do audience characteristics (media scepticism, need for cognition, media gratifications and political interest) influence the information choices of Australians, with regard to socio-political information?

Previous studies exploring information choices have tended to focus on a narrow range of media types, for example, comparing print media use to television use (Vincent & Basil, 1997), or looking solely at motivations for Internet use (Kim, 2006). However, as the information environment increases in complexity, driven as it is by rapid changes in technology, the range of paths by which individuals may traverse that environment also grows. If we are interested in a holistic view of information consumption, a multiple-source approach to studying these journeys through the information environment must be taken. The current study takes such an approach, considering a broad sweep of the information landscape, including media (e.g. television, newspapers, radio) and non-news media1 (e.g. public speaking events, social networking sites, interpersonal communication) information sources.

The resulting project has two components. Firstly, it is concerned with whether and in what way, a range of personal characteristics influence peoples’ information decisions. Secondly, it is concerned with the unique set of information sources which results from the information choices made by each individual.

With regard to the audience characteristics component, four key constructs were identified for use in the study: media scepticism, need for cognition, media gratifications and political interest. Media scepticism and media gratifications both emerge from the discipline of media and communication studies, whilst need for cognition is drawn from psychology. Each of these constructs may be measured quantitatively, and existing instruments for such measurements exist.

With regard to the set of information sources, two concepts have been applied to facilitate analysis and interpretation of these information sets: information repertoires and media diets. An information repertoire is effectively a list of information sources used by an individual to find out about a particular topic (Reagan, 1996). Media diets provide a greater

1 The term ‘non-news media’ refers in the current thesis to information sources from beyond the news media, such as blogs, social networking sites, friends and family, politicians and public speaking events. 21

insight into the composition of information repertoires, by describing the repertoire in terms of its relative composition of two types of information sources. For example, one media diet used in the study measures the relative composition of public service versus commercial media sources.

Sinclair describes the Australian media and communication research field as drawing on both US and British models and approaches, and as “selectively combin*ing+ and modify*ing+ them in accordance with our own national reality” (Sinclair, 2010, p.15). As initially conceived, the present project very much follows in this tradition. The overall research approach is empirical, using quantitative methodologies and focusing on the micro-level (the personal characteristics of individuals), which are features traditionally associated with US communications research (Putnis, 1986; Sinclair, 2010). However, the analysis of media diets in the project focuses on broader societal considerations (such as industry structure and ownership), and to an extent on the production and consumption of meaning (such as mainstream versus alternative viewpoints), both of which are more typically associated with European communication models (Putnis, 1986).

As will be seen in the Discussion chapter of this dissertation, neither of these approaches succeeds in explaining the research findings adequately. In seeking to understand what respondents are actually doing in relation to the media, I have therefore turned to a third research approach, the emerging media as practice paradigm (Couldry, 2004). The media as practice paradigm enables us to approach media use from a different perspective. Rather than using the relationship between the audience and the text as a starting point, the media as practice approach examines media behaviours as they occur within the broader set of everyday social practices. This is particularly relevant to the findings of the current study, which reveal a distinction between the very deliberate way in which non- news media information sources are selected, as compared with the seemingly incidental way in which media sources are chosen.

The research study Data collection for the project was conducted via a self-administered written questionnaire, distributed by mail to a random sample of adults residing in the Brisbane region of Australia. Data collection was conducted in three waves, during March and April 2008. A total of 585 usable completed surveys were received, reflecting a response rate of 39 percent. Data were then analysed statistically, predominantly by multiple regression.

Significance of research The current study makes a number of significant and unique contributions to the research literature. This project represents the first application of the media scepticism construct and scale outside the US and Israel. Introduced to the literature by Yariv Tsfati in his doctoral thesis, media scepticism refers to “a subjective feeling of alienation and mistrust toward the mainstream news media” (Tsfati, 2002, p35). Tsfati has used the construct to explore media use in both US and Israeli contexts (for example, Tsfati & Cappella, 2003, 2005; Tsfati & Peri, 2006).

Repeated opinion polls and studies have found the Australian population to be highly distrustful of the media. For example, since the annual Roy Morgan 'Image of Professions' survey poll began in 1979, the highest rating that newspaper journalists have achieved on the ‘honest and ethical’ question has been 14 percent, dropping at times as low as 7 percent (in the late 1990s) (Roy Morgan Research, 2008) (this is further discussed in Chapter Three). With such a high degree of distrust towards the media amongst the Australian population, it is important that the impact of this distrust is examined. Through the application of the media scepticism construct, the current project specifically examines the impact of distrust on information consumption with regard to the important topic of politics.

This project also differs from much existing media use research with regard to the complexity of the media use variable itself. Hasebrink & Popp note that “it is a stunning observation that the core aspect, i.e., media use itself, is [in media research] mostly operationalised as one single variable” (Hasebrink & Popp, 2006, p.370). Further, many existing studies isolate information behaviour, rather than studying it within authentic contexts. For example, laboratory studies in which information choices are observed in a

highly structured and manipulated way (for example Brader, Valentino, & Suhay, 2004; Crigler, Just, & Belt, 2002; Huang & Price, 2001); or in overly simplified contexts, such as studies which explore information choices from within a very narrow (and therefore unrealistic) range of media options (for example Henningham, 1985; Kim, 2006; Vincent & Basil, 1997). Even when use of more than one or two media are considered, typically the approach is to consider use of each of the individual media types separately, rather than to look at the overall pattern of information use (the information repertoire) (Hasebrink & Popp, 2006). The present study takes the latter approach, by considering information source selection from a wide range of information sources, including mediated and non- mediated sources, and by considering overall information use patterns, in addition to specific media format usage.

In analysing these media use patterns, I use two approaches, the socio-political information repertoire and the media diet. An information repertoire refers to the distinct media consumption pattern for any given individual, for a specific topic of interest (Reagan, 1996). The current study represents the first application of the socio-political information repertoire (SPIR) construct. The media diet construct provides greater content description than the repertoire construct. Tsfati’s operationalisation of the media diet construct considered, for example, the relative composition of ‘mainstream’ versus ‘non-mainstream’ media (Tsfati, 2002). In the current project, the media diet construct will be applied in an Australian context for the first time. Finally, by reconceptualising Tsfati’s media diet construct (2002) to incorporate media ownership and journalistic quality dimensions, the study uniquely customises the media diet construct for the Australian media context.

Research limitations The current research project is limited in terms of scope and methodology. The primary scoping limitation relates to the geographic parameters of the research. Participants are limited to residents of the Brisbane City Council region. This limitation is necessary in order to enable respondents to select from a range of specific (named) information sources, which is required to enable the mainstream/non-mainstream and tabloid/broadsheet distinctions applied in the information consumption models.

One methodological limitation relates to the use of the self-administered questionnnaire. Self-report methods are necessarily limited by what respondents actually know about their attitudes and personal characteristics, and are willing and able to articulate (Jobe, 2000). In the case of a written survey, they are also limited by the literacy and linguistic skills of the respondent. However, self-report measures are amongst the most used methods employed for data collection in the social sciences (Chaffee & Schleuder, 1986; Given, 2008; Neuman, 2006), and they are considered particularly appropriate for questions relating to self- reported beliefs and behaviours, such as in the current study (Neuman, 2006).

The study is also sensitive to the specific categorisations used in the media models. For example, the mainstream/non-mainstream distinction employed in the study is based on a particular definition of ‘non-mainstream media’ (as being media which have a stated commitment to information quality). This definition may differ to that used by other researchers, and such distinctions may impact on the outcomes of otherwise similar studies. For this reason, the information and media type definitions and distinctions applied in this project are explicitly described and explained in Chapter Four, providing maximum clarity for the reader.

Thesis overview This research project is conceptualised in two parts. Firstly, there are audience characteristic constructs suspected of influencing information source selection. In statistical terminology, these represent the independent variables. Secondly, there are the outcomes of information source selection – that is, the information consumption models. In statistical terms, these are the dependent variables. This distinction has been applied to the structure of the report for ease of comprehension. The report proceeds as follows.

Chapter One: Introduction The current chapter has provided a context for the research, introduced the research problem and identified the original contributions and limitations of the project.

Chapter Two: Australian Media Landscape This chapter provides an overview of the Australian media landscape. The chapter first introduces the unique geographic and demographic characteristics of Australia, and the impacts these have on the media landscape. The chapter then briefly considers the role of the media in late modern society, with specific reference to ‘public interest’ functions. It then introduces the three sectors of the traditional Australian media: public service,

commercial and community media (which manifest in broadcasting and print media formats). Legislative and regulative controls pertaining to each of these sectors are outlined, and their implications with regard to the public interest role of the media are discussed. High concentration of media ownership is a distinctive characteristic of the Australian media sector, and the implications of this high ownership concentration for the Australian media are examined. Finally, the chapter discusses the Australian public’s attitudes towards the media, as measured in commercial opinion polls as well as scholarly studies.

Chapter Three: The Literature on Audience Characteristics - Independent Variables for the Study This chapter firstly contextualises the present study within the broader media research traditions. It then reviews and critiques the literature surrounding the attitudinal and psychological constructs used in the research: 1. media scepticism 2. need for cognition (NFC) 3. media gratifications 4. political interest

Particular attention is paid to associations between these variables and information source selection, including the reporting of previous relevant research findings. A series of 14 hypotheses are derived from the literature in this chapter, to be tested in the current project.

Chapter Four: Information Consumption Patterns - Dependent Variables This chapter reviews and critiques the literature relating to information repertoires and media diets. It then reconceptualises the media diet concept for greater relevance to the Australian context by introducing media ownership and quality considerations through the private/public and tabloid/broadsheet media diets.

Chapter Five: Research Methods This chapter provides a detailed description of the methods used to explore the research problem. The chapter describes the research population and sample, research procedure, development of the research instrument and the measurement of each of the key constructs. Factor analysis of each of the measurement scales is included in this chapter, as are the reliability measurements for each of the scales.

Chapter Six: Findings This chapter introduces the statistical procedures employed in the project. It then presents the findings of the statistical analyses, including t-tests and multiple linear regression analyses for each of the nine original models (mainstream/non-mainstream, private/public and tabloid/broadsheet media diets, and the Internet, print media, radio, television, non- news media and overall socio-political information repertoires) as well as a further five models which were developed during the analysis to further clarify the results (newspaper SPIR and the radio low/high news, newspaper tabloid/broadsheet, television news tabloid/broadsheet and television current affairs tabloid/broadsheet media diets). The findings are first considered from the perspective of the key independent variables (media scepticism, NFC, media gratifications and political interest), working through each to determine to what extent each of these variables influence the information consumption models. Next, the findings are considered from the perspective of the dependent variables (media diets and socio-political information repertoires), looking at the influence of multiple independent variables on each model.

Chapter Seven: Discussion This chapter discusses the study’s findings with particular concern for overarching patterns across all 14 models considered in the study: the Internet, print media, newspaper, radio, television, non-news media and overall SPIRs; and the mainstream/non-mainstream, private/public, tabloid/broadsheet, radio low/high news content, newspaper tabloid/broadsheet, television news tabloid/broadsheet and television current affairs tabloid/broadsheet media diets. In doing so, a distinction is revealed between use of news media sources and use of non-news media sources. This distinction is explored and explained with reference to the media as practice paradigm. Finally, media talk is identified as a specific example of a media practice.

Chapter Eight: Conclusion and Recommendations This chapter provides an overview of the research project. It identifies the unique contributions the project makes to the research literature, and discusses the limitations of

the study. Specific attention is given to previously unidentified concerns regarding the media scepticism scale, which emerged throughout the study. Recommendations for future research are proposed.

Conclusion This chapter has introduced and contextualised the research presented in this thesis. The research problem was stated, and the methodological approach described. The significance of the study has been proposed, and the limitations of the research approach have been identified. Finally, the structure of the dissertation was outlined. Chapter Two will provide an overview of the Australian media landscape. Structural and legal factors impacting on the media landscape will be identified, and the implications of these factors for audience attitudes will be discussed.

Chapter Two: The Australian Media Landscape

Introduction The previous chapter introduced the project, providing brief information regarding the research problem, research methods, significance, limitations and structure of the thesis. As stated in Chapter One, the geopolitical context for the study is Brisbane, Australia. A basic knowledge of the Australian media landscape is therefore essential to understanding the context for the thesis. The present chapter provides an overview of the Australian news media industry structure. The chapter will include a discussion of the legal factors which impact on the media landscape. The key differences between the three major sectors of the traditional Australian news media (public, commercial and community) will also be identified. Perhaps the most significant characteristic of the Australian media landscape is the high concentration of media ownership, and this will be specifically discussed. As attitudes towards the media are central to the study, evidence regarding the attitudes Australians hold with regard to the media will also be included. The chapter will conclude with a summary description of the Brisbane media landscape and a brief consideration of the impact of digital and Internet technologies on the media sector. The chapter will address only those aspects of the traditional media industry which primarily pertain to news and political information provision, such as the press, television and radio.

Australia Australia is a geographically large nation with a comparatively tiny population. Australia’s landmass measures approximately 7.7 million square kilometres, and currently has a population of roughly 22 million people (Australian Government, 2010). This equates to a population density of less than three people per square kilometre (Australian Government, 2010), as compared with 31 people per square kilometre in the USA (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009), and 250 people per square kilometre in the UK (Office for National Statistics, 2009). The majority of the population (64 percent) live in Australia’s eight capital cities, Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Canberra, Hobart and Darwin (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010), resulting in a heavy population density around the Australian coastline, and very low population density throughout the centre of the continent. In fact, OECD figures identify Australia, along with Canada and Iceland, as having the most uneven population distribution of all nations (Australian Communications and Media Authority,

2009). This relatively low population density and dispersed distribution pattern results in the Australian media industry having a small market and high barriers to entry, due in part to the infrastructure costs associated with such a geographically dispersed population (Cunningham, 2010). It also means that “while broadcast services can be provided to many urban Australians relatively efficiently, providing the same services —including television— to people in smaller regional and rural areas requires more intense planning and effort” (Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2009).

The Australian population is characterised by a high degree of ethnic diversity. At the 2006 Australian Census, Indigenous Australians (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people) comprised 2.3 percent of the population, whilst 22.2 percent of residents were born outside of Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006a). Of people born overseas, the most common countries of birth were England, New Zealand, China, Italy, and Viet Nam. With regard to linguistic diversity, 79 percent of people stated they spoke only English at home. The most common languages other than English spoken at home were Italian, Greek, Cantonese, Arabic, and Mandarin (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006a).

The role of the media The role of the media in society can be viewed from two perspectives: that the media exists to deliver what interests the public, or that the media exists to deliver what is in the public interest (Jolly, 2007). This distinction introduces the fundamental difference between the commercial and public service media in Australia. The issue of ‘what interests the public’ is easy to determine through ratings and circulation figures. The issue of what is ‘in the public interest’ is perhaps not so readily determined. Jolly provides the following outline (Jolly, 2007, p.10): [The public interest relates] to the capacity of the media to provide citizens with the information, education and quality entertainment they need to participate in political and social life – to be interested citizens… It is possible to conclude from such a definition that, unlike other industries, the media is unique in this capability.

Cunningham notes public service media in Australia have “complex nation-building roles – delivering key information and news and current affairs unburdened by commercial interests, and thus performing a key informal educative function” (Cunningham, 2010, p.46). Public interest is thus concerned with “matters of the common good rather than just private profit”, although public interest standards can be applied to any kind of media, regardless of ownership structure (Croteau & Hoynes, 2006, p.150). To this end, in pursuing the public interest, the media needs to provide at least the following:

 Diversity - reflect the range of views and experiences which are present in a democratic society  Innovation – in both form and content, fostering creative, original ideas and programs reflecting the vibrant nature of the society  Substance – must include substantive news and entertainment, address significant issues, devoid of sensationalism, and promote civic participation  Independence - provide independent viewpoints not indebted to the either government or corporations (Croteau & Hoynes, 2006, p.150-1)

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s (ABC’s) Charter has been crafted with close attention to these public interest media functions (Jolly, 2007). Commercial media, on the other hand, are entirely unburdened by these concerns. The standard business model prioritises profits, not public interest, and the Australian Government has far fewer media content regulations than the UK or even the US (Jones & Pusey, 2008). The issue of diversity of media ownership and content is an ongoing issue in Australia, at the heart of which are the needs of regional Australian audiences, and it is here that we find a primary role for community media (Meadows, Forde, Ewart, & Foxwell, 2007). These issues will be further discussed later in the chapter.

Media regulation in Australia While Australia’s public service broadcasters, ABC and SBS, are each governed by their own legislation, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 and the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 respectively, the commercial media are ruled by a range of regulatory and legislative frameworks.

Government control with regard to the media industry in Australia is achieved through generic legislation relating to commercial activity (specifically the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975), as well as through the media-specific Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Gardiner-Garden & Chowns, 2006). In 2006, amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 were passed by Parliament, taking effect in April

2007. The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Act 2006 significantly altered the rules with regard to ownership of media resources in Australia. The two central concerns of the new legislation were changes to cross media ownership rules and the relaxation of the previous restrictions to foreign investment in the Australian media.

Cross media ownership The aim of cross media ownership restriction is to increase diversity of media control. It is traditionally believed that diversity of media ownership will lead to diversity in the views and issues presented in the media, which is one of the key public interest roles of the media (Cunningham, 2010). Increased ownership concentration is also typically associated with fears regarding “abuses of political power and public trust” (Schultz, 2002, p.107). This is of particular importance with regard to socially and politically important content such as news and current affairs. The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Act 2006 restricts ownership of commercial television, radio and major newspapers. These three media are termed ‘regulated platforms’ in the legislation. The new rules prohibit two situations. Firstly, a single person may not control more than two out of three regulated platforms in any particular licence area. Secondly, the new cross-media rules forbid transactions which would create an ‘unacceptable media diversity situation’, in which less than five (in metropolitan areas) or four (in regional areas) independent regulated platforms or media groups operate in a licence area (Cunningham, 2010). Despite claims by the Government that the new cross media rules would increase diversity, they have in reality concentrated media ownership into the hands of even fewer corporate entities (Warren, 2007). The implications of increased ownership concentration will be discussed later in the chapter.

Foreign ownership Foreign ownership of Australian media resources has long been restricted in various ways (Given, 2002). In 1951, Prime Minister Menzies stated that the question of foreign ownership boiled down to: whether the Government should permit or even encourage a state of affairs in which the most intimate form of propaganda known to modern science that is being conducted in this country, one that is going into every home and is reaching every man, woman and child in this country, should be in the hands of people who do not belong to this country. (Commonwealth of Australia. House of Representatives, 1951)

While the fierce nationalism of this statement strongly reflects the era in which it was made, the arguments for limiting foreign control of the media have differed little over the past 60 years. The reasoning behind such controls is essentially related to the perceived power of the media and its role as the Fourth Estate. It is believed that Australian ownership will ensure a greater commitment to supporting Australian democracy through responsibly informing society and keeping those in authority accountable (Warren, 2007). As one journalist put it, “Australian broadcasting should not just be about business and profit – there are public interest issues at stake” (Roy Morgan Research, 2006b, p.1). A 2006 survey of Australian journalists also revealed concerns regarding the maintenance of Australian culture, such as in the following comments (Roy Morgan Research, 2006b, p.1):

[I] prefer to have a boss who understands the culture of the country we work in.

*The media+ should be Australian owned. We don’t want a homogenised (or worse still – Americanised) global media system.

With the 2006 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Act, specific restrictions on foreign ownership of media were removed, and replaced with the requirement that such foreign investments be individually approved by the Treasurer (Cunningham, 2010). This amendment triggered a rush of foreign investment in existing Australian media companies, particularly by overseas-based private equity firms, and a significant reduction in media ownership diversity (Cunningham, 2010; Dwyer, 2008; Warren, 2007). The resulting increased control of Australian media content by private equity investors is considered to have serious implications for the diversity and quality of Australian media products over time, due to their primary focus on short term profits rather than public interest concerns. Dwyer notes “*p+rivate equity investors are notoriously conservative and they aim to make savings through cost cutting (usually interpreted to mean laying–off journalists or production staff) and by not paying for more expensive, or innovative content, or for research intensive, investigative content” (Dwyer, 2008). Such priorities are clearly at odds with the public interest roles of the media outlined above.

Local content The public interest, content diversity and cultural concerns raised above are also expressed via regulations for minimum required levels of local content in broadcast media. Local content rules were first introduced in the early 1960s, however maintaining levels of local content has been an ongoing concern (Jolly, 2007). Currently, the Australian Content Standard 2005 requires all commercial free-to-air television licensees to broadcast an annual minimum of 55 percent Australian programming between 6am and midnight (Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2010a). There are also specific minimum annual sub-quotas for Australian (adult) drama, documentary and children’s programs (Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2010a).

Maintaining local content levels is of particular concern in regional areas (Jolly, 2007). Regional areas can be characterised as having low audience numbers, and therefore limited economic profit , while costs of production can be higher due to geographic remoteness. Following a 2007 ACMA investigation into the issue of local radio content in regional areas, the latest local content rules for regional radio were implemented, requiring all regional commercial radio broadcasting licensees to broadcast a minimum number of minutes of material of local significance every day, during daytime hours (Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2010c). Local content is defined as “material that is hosted in, produced in, or relates to the licence area” (Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2010c). The number of minutes ranges from five minutes for racing and remote area service licences, 30 minutes for small licences and three hours for all other licences (Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2010c).

Other regulatory controls Different sectors of the Australian media are subject to different forms of regulation. The print media are subject to self-regulation via the Australian Press Council (APC). The APC is funded by press proprietors, and Cunningham notes “the Press Council’s rulings in response to complaints about media practice are an extreme example of feather-like, rather than even light-touch, regulation” (Cunningham, 2010, p.36). Commercial and community broadcast media are subject to Federal regulation, currently through the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cunningham, 2010). In the main, the provisions of the Act are administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), including planning the radio frequency spectrum for radio and television broadcasts, issuing and renewing broadcast licenses, administering rules pertaining to the diversity of media content, and encouraging self-regulation of the industries through codes of practice (Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2010b). Jones & Pusey note that by world standards, content regulation with regard to political communication in Australia is notably lacking, failing to employ regulatory devices to encourage high journalistic standards or the public interest functions of the media (Jones & Pusey, 2008). The bulk of regulation for the Australian media industry, then, consists of self-regulation through industry codes of practice.

In such a laissez faire context, the current Federal Government’s planned mandatory censorship of the Internet stands in stark contrast. The Internet has proved itself to be difficult to regulate, however, the current Federal Government has stated its intention to install a compulsory Internet filter across all Internet traffic into Australia. This proposal is controversial, with the both the Australian public and most Internet Service Providers strongly opposed to the proposal (Murn, 2009). The filter is expected to slow Australian broadband speeds (which are already slow by international standards) by between 3 and 86 percent, and tests have shown even the most ‘successful’ filters to restrict access to a very large number of innocuous websites (Cunningham, 2010; Maurushat & Watt, 2009; Murn, 2009). Concerns have also been raised regarding the likelihood of ‘censorship creep’, in which legal websites which nevertheless are considered distasteful by the government, are added to the banned list (Maurushat & Watt, 2009; Murn, 2009). If the filter is introduced, Australia will be the first Western government to formally censor the Internet, a behaviour more commonly associated with authoritarian regimes such as China and Iran (Maurushat & Watt, 2009).

Media ownership concentration in Australia Media ownership concentration in Australia is amongst the highest in the world (Cunningham, 2010). While figures regarding precisely who owns what, post-the 2006 amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act, are difficult to locate, media ownership concentration before the amendments came into effect was already the highest in the Western world (Denemark, 2005).

In 2005, Murdoch’s News Corporation controlled two-thirds of Australia’s newspaper titles and dominated capital city circulation (Warren, 2007). For example, News Corporation

accounted for 68 percent of capital city circulation on weekdays and 78 percent on Sundays, followed by Fairfax Media at 22 percent of the same weekday market and 20 percent of the Sunday market (Warren, 2007). Similarly, the television market was dominated by three networks, with Channel Seven owning licences which reached 73 percent of the population, Channel Nine reaching 52 percent and Channel Ten reaching 66 percent (Warren, 2007). The remaining licence areas were dominated by content syndicated by these three networks, via regional affiliates.

Recent changes to media ownership legislation under the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Act 2006 have only increased this ownership concentration (Cunningham, 2010). Immediately these new rules came into effect in April 2007, a flurry of media ownership transactions significantly altered the Australian media sector, ultimately resulting in even greater concentration of ownership than existed under the previous Act (Cunningham, 2010).

High concentration of media ownership is considered a serious issue because it is believed to reduce content diversity, which is a particular concern in relation to news and current affairs (Cunningham, 2010). However, Internet technologies are believed to have the potential to reduce such concerns in two ways. Firstly, the minimal barriers to entry associated with the Internet should lead to a proliferation of media content (Cunningham, 2010), including news coverage from diverse sources such as major media corporations, smaller independent publishers, individuals and organizations. Secondly, the reduced costs associated with publishing via the Internet should make it more viable for major media organisations to target multiple niche audiences through diversifying content (Cunningham, 2010). The extent to which the Internet actually delivers these benefits in practice remains to be seen.

Submissions to the 1992 Select Committee report on the Australian Print Media highlighted concerns regarding the impact of ownership concentration on content diversity, and offered a wide range of anecdotal evidence of content intervention by newspaper proprietors and senior managers. The submissions emphasised that media ownership concentration “increases the risk of such abuse… *which is+ contrary to the public interest” (Australia. Parliament. House of Representatives. Select Committee on the Print Media, 1992, p. 262).

A Roy Morgan survey of Australian journalists, conducted shortly before the passing of the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Act 2006 revealed that 82 percent of respondents believed the proposed changes would negatively affect the integrity of media reporting (Roy Morgan Research, 2006b). The predicted reduction in ownership diversity was raised as a particular concern in journalist comments (Roy Morgan Research, 2006b, p.1): Too few owners means more aggregation. Fewer newsrooms, fewer jobs, shortened career paths, less diversity of opinion

…media power needs to be dispersed to ensure various opinions are made public

It’s a disaster for independent thought; it concentrates too much power in too few hands

By far the highest profile individuals in the Australian commercial media sector in recent history have been Rupert Murdoch and the late Kerry Packer. These men are not only renowned for their long term dominance of the Australian media market (Murdoch through his ownership of News Corp from the 1950s to the present day; and Packer through his ownership of PBL (which in turn owned Channel Nine and ACP Magazines) from 1974 until his death in 2005), but also for their interventionist approaches to proprietorship (McNair, 2009; Rundle, 2005). Both men have been blatant in their manipulation of media processes and content to suit their own political and business agendas (see for example Barry, 2007; Dempster, 2005; Manne, 2005c; McKnight, 2005; Tiffen, 2006). Packer’s influence over government media policy was such that in the early 1990s, the Minister for Transport and Communications became known as the ‘Minister for Channel Nine’ within insider circles (Barry, 2007; Turner, 2005). With regard to censorship of media content, it is alleged that Packer’s establishment of a bullying culture made overt censorship unnecessary - self- censorship by his employees ensured that any topics disliked by Packer, such as critical stories about his business dealings or his friends, were simply omitted from coverage by ACP publications and Channel Nine (Barry, 2007).

Murdoch has a reputation for greater content intervention than Packer, particularly on political issues (Barry, 2007). For example, Murdoch gave direct instructions that all his newspapers would take a pro-war stance during the Iraq War (Manne, 2005c). His newspapers also frequently attack political parties which do not support his own political

views, such as (in recent years) the ALP and The Australian Greens (Manne, 2005c; Mint, 2005). In a recent case, the Murdoch Herald Sun’s attacks on the Australian Greens during the 2004 Australian federal election campaign were found by the APC to be “irresponsible journalism”, containing a significant number of false claims regarding The Greens’ policies, and lacking fairness and balance (Australian Press Council, 2005).

This willingness to prioritise financial and personal interests over those of the public are reflected in media law reform in Australia. Tiffen notes that Australian politicians are fearful of the power of these media moguls, and therefore cater to their needs when developing media policy (Tiffen, 2002). Schultz also notes that in the media ownership law reforms of the 1980s much discussion surrounded the business needs of the media proprietors, but there was no debate regarding the importance of media ownership controls to the public interest (Schultz, 1989). An outcome of this lack of concern for the public interest and Fourth Estate responsibilities of the media in media policy is that it leaves the commercial proprietors substantially free of obligations to provide the means of informed citizenship… *and+ contributes to an atmosphere in which the PSBs *public service broadcasters+ appear ‘biased’ in their pursuit of the conventional ‘watchdog’ goals of high journalism. They are thus vulnerable to punitive attacks on their critical independence and funding by both major parties when in government (Jones & Pusey, 2008, p.588)

The combined effect of high media ownership concentration and interventionist media proprietors can be particularly damaging with regard to content diversity, as fewer news perspectives are available, and those which are available are highly partisan. A 2006 Roy Morgan survey of Australian journalists revealed more than half had at some point felt unable to be critical of the company or owner they worked for. One third had felt obliged to take into account the political position of their employer when writing stories, and half had felt obliged with regard to the business interests of their employer (Roy Morgan Research, 2006b). An alarming 38 percent stated they had at some point been instructed to comply with the company or owners commercial position in their stories, and 17 percent with the company or owner’s political position (Roy Morgan Research, 2006b). These findings emphasize concerns regarding media bias and content diversity.

Australian attitudes towards the media The concerns regarding Australia’s high concentration of media ownership are well known to most Australians. Indeed, debates regarding the quality and trustworthiness of the Australian media are a regular component of media content. As will be further discussed in Chapter Three, examples include regular television programming, such as ABC’s Media Watch and The Chaser’s War on Everything (which stopped broadcasting in 2009) and its “What Have We Learnt from Current Affairs This Week” segment. Both shows highlight inadequacies, errors and unethical conduct in Australian news journalism. Similar criticisms of the media may be found in books, and the publicity events associated with their launches, by high profile Australian intellectuals (e.g. Hamilton & Maddison, 2007b; Manne, 2005a; Turner, 2005). In recent years, accusations of bias aimed towards the ABC by various political actors have also been made.

It is known that discussions regarding media bias, when conducted in the public arena, decrease public trust in the media (Watts, Domke, Shah, & Fan, 1999). It is certainly the case that the Australian public has little faith in the media. Repeated investigations into public attitudes towards the media in Australia, by both commercial polling firms and academic researchers, have revealed consistently negative opinions. The regular Roy Morgan 'Image of Professions' poll began in 1979. In the three decades since its inception, the highest approval rating that newspaper journalists have achieved on the ‘honest and ethical’ question has been 14 percent, dropping at times as low as 7 percent (in the late 1990s) (Roy Morgan Research, 2008). Other recent findings include 85 percent of Australians believing that newspaper journalists are ‘often biased’ (Roy Morgan Research, 2007a), 69 percent that media ownership is too concentrated (Phillips, Tranter, Mitchell, Clark, & Reed, 2008), and 74 percent that the media are more concerned with profits than with informing society (Roy Morgan International, 2006), while only two percent of Australians expressed ‘a great deal of confidence’ in television reporting (Bean, Gow, & McAllister, 2003). Focus group research commissioned by SBS found that young, culturally and linguistically diverse Australians view the news media as trivial, exploitative, negative, biased, irrelevant, lacking diversity, and perpetuating racist stereotypes (Ang, Brand, Noble, & Sternberg, 2006). The issue of mistrust of the Australian media is further discussed in Chapter Three.

Australian media sectors Newspapers, television and radio are the media formats traditionally associated with the term news media. While newspapers in Australia are entirely dominated by commercial interests, broadcast media in Australia can be split into three main sectors: public service

media, commercial media and community media. The remainder of the chapter will consider each of these sectors and formats.

Newspapers Ownership of Australian newspapers is even more highly concentrated than the other media sectors. Australia’s small population, combined with significant barriers to entry (due to high infrastructure costs) and diminishing readership levels, inhibit new competitors in this market (Cunningham, 2010, p.36). The global decline in newspaper circulation over recent decades is replicated in Australia, with the number of daily newspapers sold per capita almost halving between 1980 and 2007 (Tiffen, 2010). By comparison, newspaper circulation in the UK dropped by a quarter in the same time period, and in the US it declined by only a fifth (Tiffen, 2010). This rapid reduction in readership was due in part to a cut in the number of titles available, for example, between 1988 and 1993 every Australian afternoon newspaper closed (Tiffen, 2010).

More than 90 percent of daily metropolitan circulation in Australia is owned by two proprietors: News Corp and Fairfax (Tiffen, 2010). The only daily title independent of these two companies is the West Australian, however, post-the 2006 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Act, the Seven Network has invested in West Australian Newspapers (WAN), with the result that in Perth “the highest rating free-to-air TV network in Western Australia now has indirect control of the highest circulation daily newspaper and the second most popular online news site (thewest.com.au)” (Cunningham, 2010, p.44). News Corp, controlled by Rupert Murdoch, has long controlled roughly 70 percent of newspaper titles in Australia (Cunningham, 2010), including many of the local, free community papers. News Corp also provides the popular news.com.au website, which aggregates news from all News Corp titles. With the exception of Sydney and Melbourne, all Australian cities have only one local daily print newspaper (Tiffen, 2010). Fairfax is associated with three of Australia’s quality broadsheets: The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian Financial Review (Tiffen, 2009), as well as owning the online-only Brisbane daily, the Brisbane Times. Tiffen notes that, whilst Fairfax has “traditionally allowed a greater degree of editorial independence than other press companies… financial stress and management upheavals have eroded such traditions” (Tiffen, 2009, p.386).

Broadcast media With regard to news and current affairs coverage, broadcast media in the contemporary Australian context refers predominantly to radio and television formats, and it is these which will be the primary focus of this section. The vast majority of broadcasters also maintain an Internet presence, although the level of service provision (for example through podcasting or video on demand services) varies. Also varying is the degree of Internet- specific content which is made available, for example community radio stations frequently do not have the resources required to develop additional content specifically for the Internet (Forde, Meadows, & Foxwell, 2002). It is worth noting also that the Australian free- to-air television broadcasting system is currently in the process of transitioning from analogue to digital transmission, with the analogue signal planned to cease in 2013 (Department of Broadband Communications and the Digital Economy, 2010). This section will first consider the public service broadcasters, followed by the commercial and community broadcasters.

Public service broadcasting in Australia Public service broadcasting has a long history in Australia. What is now known as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) was established in 1932 with the passing of the Australian Broadcasting Commission Act (Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), n.d.). Today, the role of the ABC is outlined in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), 2008). A second public service broadcaster, the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), was established in 1978 “to provide special multilingual broadcasting services for ethnic communities” (Special Broadcasting Service, 2010d). Today, the role of SBS is specified in the Special Broadcasting Services Act 1991. The Charters of both public broadcasters, outlined within the relevant legislation, have been framed to reflect public interest criteria. For example, the ABC is required to provide programs which ”contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community; and… programs of an educational nature… that will encourage awareness of Australia and an international understanding of Australian attitudes on world affairs” (Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), 2008). Similarly, SBS’s principal function is to “provide multilingual and multicultural radio and television services that inform, educate and entertain all Australians and, in doing so, reflect Australia's multicultural society (Special Broadcasting Service, 2010a). To this end, SBS must

also perform specific nation-building functions such as increasing “awareness… understanding and acceptance of the cultural, linguistic and ethnic diversity of the Australian people”, whilst “presenting many points of view and using innovative forms of expression” (Special Broadcasting Service, 2010a). Notably, ABC and SBS are the only Australian broadcast networks with regular Indigenous programming, such as the weekly television programs Message Stick (ABC) and Living Black (SBS).

The ABC has a number of national radio networks: Radio National, which offers in-depth treatment of national and international issues; ABC NewsRadio, which provides Australia’s only 24/7 news and current affairs radio coverage; youth network Triple J, which provides a combination of music, youth culture, news and current affairs coverage, and a range of genre-specific music stations (Griffen-Foley, 2010, p.125). In addition to these national networks, the ABC also runs 60 ABC Local Radio stations, which cater specifically to local communities; the international service, Radio Australia; and also broadcasts parliamentary proceedings (Griffen-Foley, 2010). ABC television (now called ABC1) was launched in 1956. Two digital channels, ABC2 and the children/youth-focused ABC3, were launched in 2005 and 2009 respectively. Podcasting and video on demand services were made available in 2006. The ABC is funded primarily by the Australian Government, however the Corporation has experienced significant and repeated funding cuts since the 1980s: operational base funding was cut by more than 30 percent in real terms between 1985 and 2004 (Dempster, 2005).

News and current affairs are a primary focus at the ABC, with more than 15 different news and current affairs programs in regular production, ranging from daily to weekly broadcasts (Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), 2010). In keeping with the ‘public interest’ focus of the ABC Charter, the ABC enjoys a reputation for journalistic excellence (Ang et al., 2006; Bean, 2005; Harrington, 2008; Turner, 2005), a matter which will addressed in greater detail in Chapter Four. Despite this reputation, since the mid-1970s, the ABC has endured sustained attacks on its integrity from the political right wing, who claim the network to exhibit a left wing bias (Dempster, 2005, p.106; Flew & Harrington, 2010; Simons, 2005). The ABC has been repeatedly cleared of these charges of bias through a series of internal and external reviews conducted in 1998, 2001 and 2004 (Inglis, 2006). In fact, Turner suggests that the decision to move election debates from the ABC to Channel Nine reflects a tacit acknowledgement of the ABC’s journalistic excellence by Australian politicians. In short, “they know they will get an easier ride” on the commercial station (Turner, 2005, p.97). Jones & Pusey (2008) note that such attacks against the public broadcasters are made more likely by the absence of regulatory benchmarks in Australia regarding media content (Jones & Pusey, 2008). Without sustained journalistic competition from the commercial networks, the ABC’s emphasis on the ‘watchdog’ goals of high journalism can appear biased to those who are in power, and thus subject to journalistic scrutiny.

SBS Radio began in 1975, and today broadcasts to all capital cities and regional centres in Australia, with programs in 68 different languages (Special Broadcasting Service, 2010b). SBS Television began broadcasting in 1980 with programs in more than 100 languages. In 2009, SBS launched its digital television station, SBS2 (Special Broadcasting Service, 2010c). On-demand digital programming is also available online. SBS is majority funded (80 percent) by the Australian Government, with this income supplemented by advertising, sponsorship, and sales of goods and services (Special Broadcasting Service, 2010d). SBS claims to offer more news and greater news variety than any other Australian television network, providing more than 130 hours of news programming per week, sourced from 22 different countries (Special Broadcasting Service, 2010c). Each of SBS Radio’s 68 language programs contains Australian and international news, and there is also a focus on community issues (Griffen-Foley, 2010). As with the ABC, SBS journalism is well respected within the community. For example, a large scale community survey conducted in 2000 for the Australian Broadcasting Authority found that both public broadcasters were identified as providing the most credible news and current affairs in Australia (Brand, Archbold, & Rane, 2001). A more recent study also found both the ABC and SBS to be “highly praised… for their continuing commitment to news and information that empowers audiences and citizens”, underscoring the public interest function served by both public service networks (Ang et al., 2006, p63).

Commercial radio Radio broadcasting in Australia began in the 1920s. By 2007, there were 274 commercial radio licences on issue (Griffen-Foley, 2010). As with the other media sectors in Australia, commercial radio is characterised by a high ownership concentration. There are three major owners in the metropolitan radio station market: Austereo, ARN and DMG, while the regional market is dominated by Macquarie Southern Cross Media (Griffen-Foley, 2010).

Griffen-Foley (2010) notes that news and current affairs coverage on the commercial radio networks has been largely replaced by talkback shows. Talkback radio in Australia increased in political prominence during the Prime Ministership of John Howard (1996-2007), due to his preference for political communication via talkback radio shows, particularly that of his fervent supporter, broadcaster Alan Jones (Masters, 2007). While Howard claimed to favour talkback radio for the direct contact it afforded him with individual citizens (Masters, 2007), this approach also enabled him to effectively sidestep the scrutiny and questioning of professional journalists (Ester, 2007; Faine, 2005).

One of the highest profile controversies in Australian radio was the ‘cash for comment’ scandal of 1999. Originally broken by ABC television’s Media Watch program, the scandal ultimately revealed two of Australia’s most renowned talkback stars of the period, John Laws (‘The King’ of Australian radio (Griffen-Foley, 2010)) and Alan Jones, had taken money from various large corporations (including Optus, Qantas and the Australian Bankers’ Association) in exchange for favourable commentary (as opposed to declared advertising) (Griffen-Foley, 2010; Masters, 2007). These undeclared sponsorship arrangements were contrary to the Commercial Radio Codes of Practice. The cash for comment scandals (which were essentially repeated, with the same two broadcasters under fire, in 2004) highlighted the ineffectiveness of industry self-regulation (Griffen-Foley, 2010; Masters, 2007).

Commercial television Commercial television commenced broadcasting in Sydney and Melbourne in 1956, with Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth following in 1959 (Flew & Harrington, 2010). As stated previously, the Australian free-to-television broadcasting system is in the process of changing from analogue to digital transmission, and so the range of free-to-air channels available to Australians currently varies according to the capabilities of the television which is used. There are three analogue free to air commercial stations: Seven, Nine and Ten. Each of these now broadcast additional stations via a digital signal, although much of the content of these digital channels consists of reruns of overseas and Australian programming. All three commercial networks offer online products such as video-on- demand. The Nine Network also produces the high profile news website, NineMSN. Television is the preferred source for news amongst Australian audiences (Phillips et al., 2008; Roy Morgan Research, 2007b).

Post- the 2006 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Act, ownership of the commercial television networks is a complex affair, however as with other media sectors, the media ownership concentration has actually increased as a result (Cunningham, 2010). The Nine Network has long been associated with the Packer family’s PBL Media company (and particularly with the interventionist proprietorship of Kerry Packer), which controlled the network through various business arrangements from the early 1960s until 2007 (Barry, 2007; Cunningham, 2010). In 2007, 50 percent of the Nine Network was sold to private equity firms, and PBL Media, now called Consolidated Media Holdings (CMH), reduced its share to less than one percent. The Seven Network has traditionally been associated with the lower profile media proprietor Kerry Stokes, however 50 percent of the Seven Network was sold to private equity firms in 2007, with Stokes also investing in CMH at this time (Cunningham, 2010). Network Ten has not traditionally been associated with any particular media proprietor, but has for some time been over 50 percent owned by overseas investors.

Pay television was introduced in Australia in the mid-1990s, however, until recently it experienced a very low take-up rate, due to a combination of structural and cost reasons. For example, an unwillingness to share infrastructure between the two main carriers, Foxtel and Optus, resulted in Australian subscription rates almost five times that of the rest of the world (Flew & Harrington, 2010). However, industry restructuring in 2002 resulted in a more competitive model (Flew & Harrington, 2010), and by mid-2009, 28 percent of Australian homes had a pay television subscription (Screen Australia, 2009). It must be noted, however, that even amongst subscriber households, the four most-viewed channels are free-to-air (Flew & Harrington, 2010). Pay television channels with drama programming are required to allocate at least ten percent of their programming budget to new Australian content (Screen Australia, 2009).

Community broadcasting Community radio began in Australia in the early 1970s, and community television commenced two decades later (Meadows et al., 2007). Community broadcasters play an important role in both information provision and community development, and are of particular importance for Indigenous and ethnic communities (Meadows et al., 2007). For example, through interviews with both Indigenous and non-Indigenous audiences of

Indigenous community radio and television, Meadows et al (2007, p.1) identified that these media play a range of community-building roles, including:

 organising community life;  providing education, particularly for young people;  providing alternative news and information which “avoids stereotyping of Indigenous people and issues”; and  contributing to cross-cultural dialogue by breaking down racial stereotypes.

The importance of community media to provide diversity of information, views and representations becomes greater as ownership of the Australian commercial media continues to concentrate (Meadows et al., 2007).

By 2007, there were 358 community radio licences on issue in Australia, with around 70 percent of these located regionally (Griffen-Foley, 2010). With commercial stations withdrawing from regional areas for economic reasons, community radio is providing the only source of local news and information for many regional towns (Forde et al., 2002). However, while 80 percent of community stations include some news programming, frequently this is a syndicated service. Of those stations which broadcast syndicated news, 51 percent broadcast the community sector’s own National Radio News service, 13 percent broadcast the community sector news program Undercurrents, 12 percent broadcast BBC, Sky News or the National Indigenous Radio Service, and almost 40 percent turn to commercial news, typically Macquarie News or Southern Cross News (Forde et al., 2002). While a major research project conducted by Forde et al (2002) revealed the provision of alternative information and news was not a primary goal for most community radio stations, there were some key exceptions (Forde et al., 2002). Notable in terms of the current study is that Brisbane’s 4ZzZ youth radio station is one such exception. With the motto “AGITATE, EDUCATE, ORGANISE”, 4ZzZ aims to “challenge the status quo by providing radio access for community members and issues not often represented in the mainstream media” (4ZzZ Brisbane, n.d.). Whether the provision of news is viewed as a primary goal by community radio producers or not, it is important to note that for audiences, local news and information is a key reason for tuning into community radio (Meadows et al., 2007).

Beyond the provision of news and information, community radio performs a range of functions. Community radio stations often cater to smaller communities such as regional, ethnic or indigenous communities, or to marginalized or disadvantaged populations, for example, gay and lesbian populations, religious minorities, or the print handicapped (Foxwell, 2001; Price-Davies & Tacchi, 2001). Community radio stations may also provide airtime for musical styles overlooked in mainstream programming, such as jazz and blues music, or local and independent music (Foxwell, 2001).

Community radio stations also play a role in community-building through the process of local content creation and the associated training of an estimated 4,000 to 5,000 volunteers each year (Forde et al., 2002). Community radio also provides an important site for journalism students’ work experience, with Indigenous radio stations particularly involved in journalism programs, making an important contribution to reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians (Forde et al., 2002). In addition, community radio provides airspace for the self-representation of Indigenous Australians, particularly through the Brisbane-based National Indigenous Radio Service (Griffen-Foley, 2010). Australia’s ethnic communities are also represented, with more than 100 community radio stations broadcasting in languages other than English (Forde et al., 2002).

The community radio sector receives minimal funding from the Federal Government, representing only ten percent of the sector’s income. The bulk of funding, then, comes from fundraising efforts, sponsorship by local business and subscribers. While grants are available through other government and arts institutions, applying for them is a resource- intensive process, and competition for the few grants available is fierce (Forde et al., 2002). This funding arrangement is leading to increasing commercialisation of the sector, leading to concerns that the altruistic ideals regarding community building and democratic participation are being eroded in the fight for economic survival (Forde et al., 2002).

As of 2007, 85 community television licences were on issue in Australia, including 79 Indigenous licences, four permanent community television stations (including Brisbane’s Briz31) and two narrowcast licences (Meadows et al., 2007). Combined, Australia’s community television stations have a reach of 3.6 million people, and more than 3,000

volunteers are involved in the sector (Meadows et al., 2007). Funding for community television is achieved through sponsorships (Australian Government, 2007).

Recent research into community television revealed audiences turn to these stations to access alternative information, presented in non-traditional formats, as well as for diverse programming, particularly from niche interest groups (Meadows et al., 2007). Community television, in contrast to community radio, plays an “informational, rather than connective, role in relation to communities”, as well as providing an important alternative to the public and commercial television networks (Meadows et al., 2007, p.90).

The Brisbane media landscape With regard to the Brisbane newspaper industry, Brisbane residents have the choice between one local print daily, News Corp’s tabloid The Courier Mail and one local online newspaper, Fairfax’s Brisbane Times, in addition to the national dailies, The Australian (News Corp), and The Australian Financial Review (Fairfax’s specialist financial paper).

Broadcast media in Brisbane is more diverse than the print media. Five major television networks service the Brisbane region, with three commercial (Channels 7, 9 and 10) and two public service networks (SBS and ABC1) currently still available via the analogue signal. Each of these networks also has an array of digital stations available to viewers with digital receiving equipment. The majority of content on both the commercial and public service television networks is syndicated, although the commercial networks and ABC do produce Brisbane-based news and current affairs programming. Brisbane has one community television station, Briz31, which develops some local content in addition to national and international material, and “attempts to reflect and encourage community identity and cultural diversity” (Briz31, n.d.).

A wide range of radio stations are available to Brisbane-based listeners, however local production of news and current affairs is limited. A 1996 study of Brisbane commercial and public service radio revealed the ABC, through its various radio stations (including Triple J, Radio National and ABC Local Radio), was the “only significant provider of current affairs radio”, and the largest provider of news in the Brisbane market (Turner, 1996c, p.1). At that time, the ABC offered the only locally produced news content on Brisbane radio (Turner, 1996c). Recent figures for local news production are difficult to obtain, however by 2003, radio news produced by Southern Cross Broadcasting was being syndicated to 177 of Australia’s 253 commercial stations (Javes, 2003). ABC Local Radio (612 ABC) and community station 4ZzZ are notable for their production of Brisbane-based news content. Whether Brisbane’s radio news is locally produced or syndicated, with the exception of ABC’s Radio National, NewsRadio and Local Radio, radio news coverage is typically brief.

Digital and Internet Media Whilst not the primary focus of the present thesis, the influence of digital and internet media on the Australian media landscape must be acknowledged. Rapid advances in technology and culture have resulted in marked and continuing changes in the Australian media environment, even over the three year duration of the present study. With regard to political information, blogs in particular have “developed a role in politics”, with both independent bloggers and established media organisations routinely producing political- themed blogs (Goggin, 2010, p.251). Technorati (2009), the blog research and ranking website, describes blogs as a “new arm of the fourth estate”, and notes their rapid rise in popularity, particularly since 2004. Use of blogs and social networking sites is now the fourth most popular online activity globally (Nielsen Online, 2009). Use of social networking media such as Facebook and MySpace is now an established media habit for many Internet users (Goggin, 2010). From December 2007 to December 2008, the amount of time spent on social networking sites by Australian Internet users increased by four percent of the total time spent online (Nielsen Online, 2009). Such social networking sites played a highly visible role in the 2007 Australian Federal Election, with leaders and ministers of the major parties endeavouring to connect with voters through these media (Chen, 2008; Goggin, 2010). Blogs and social networking sites also exemplify the blurring of the traditional roles of media consumer, producer and distributor (Goggin, 2010), increasing the complexity of the media landscape.

Also increasing in complexity are media consumption habits, with Australians increasingly consuming more than one medium at a time. For example, a 2008 study found that 48 percent of Australians have used the Internet whilst listening to the radio, and 58 percent whilst watching television (Nielsen Online, 2008). The increasing functionality of mobile devices such as mobile phones adds yet another layer to media habits, as media products may be consumed virtually anywhere (and any time) that an Internet network exists.

Conclusion This chapter has provided an overview of the Australian news media landscape. Particular attention was paid to uniquely Australian characteristics, such as the low and dispersed population density of the nation, which increases the barriers to entry of the traditional media. The role of the media was considered, with specific reference to the media’s role in serving the public interest. Media regulation in Australia was described, including cross media and foreign ownership legislation, requirements for local content and regulatory systems, and the implications of these for the public interest functions of the media were discussed. Another key feature of the Australian media, the high level of ownership concentration, was specifically addressed, along with its implications with regard to media content diversity. Evidence of the Australian public’s highly sceptical attitude towards the media was also presented. Finally, a brief description of the current circumstances of each of the traditional Australian news media sectors: public service, commercial, community, newspapers and broadcast media, was provided. Now that the cultural and legislative background to the study has been described, the next chapter will situate the current project within broader Australian media communications research traditions, and introduce the independent variables to be explored in the study. Chapter Three: The Literature on Audience Characteristics: Independent Variables for the Study

Introduction Chapter Two described the Australian news media environment, which is the context for this thesis. It provided an overview of the Australian media landscape, including structural and legal factors, and their implications for Australians’ attitudes towards the media.

The current chapter begins to explore the literature pertaining to the current project. As stated in Chapter One, the current project explores the research problem: how do audience characteristics (such as media scepticism) influence the information choices of Australians, with regard to socio-political information? In order to explore this problem, the project has two components. The first component relates to the audience characteristics which may influence information decisions, whilst the second component is concerned with the outcomes of those information decisions – the resulting media consumption patterns. The current chapter is concerned with the first component. After situating the current project within broader Australian media communications research traditions, four factors suspected of influencing media use will be considered specifically: media scepticism, need for cognition, media gratifications and political interest. A series of hypotheses through which to explore the research problem will also be identified.

Chapter Four will then consider some ways in which media consumption patterns may be meaningfully analysed and interpreted, and will introduce the concepts of the socio- political information repertoire and the media diet.

Situating the present study within the broader Australian media and communications research tradition In the early days of Australian media studies, British traditions tended to predominate (Sinclair, 2002). A flurry of Australian research from the 1950s to the 1970s concerned itself with structural and attitudinal aspects of different media formats and institutions. Probably the most influential media researcher at that time was Henry Mayer, who reported on industry structure, and attitudes towards newspapers from the 1940s to the 1960s (Mayer, 1964). Mayer draws on a wide range of sources, from letters to the editor, to interviews 51

with media proprietors and editors, as well as academic critiques and readership surveys. With regards to bias in the Australian press, Mayer found evidence of a generally anti-Labor stance across most newspapers, but believed this was due less to partisanship of the press proprietors, and more a result of newspapers being “part of the political machinery of society”, in which Labor supporters were simply underrepresented (Mayer, 1964, p.148). A 1960 survey of Sydney residents similarly revealed poor opinions of the press, compared with other media. The press was seen as reporting “too much sensationalism” (a view held by 58 percent of respondents, compared with 29 percent for radio and 35 percent for television), and only 36 percent of respondents viewed the press as “unbiased” (compared with 58 percent for radio and 50 percent for television) (Mayer, 1964, p.237). Despite this, newspapers were still viewed as the best source for news (67 percent of respondents, compared with 45 percent for radio and 59 percent for television) – a finding Mayer attributes to “the expectation of ‘bias’… becoming so habitual that it arouses little indignation” (Mayer, 1964, p.238).

Mayer continued to research both politics and the media until his death in 1991, and his later research incorporated sociological, ethical, structural and policy considerations pertaining to the media, particularly with regard to news and political information (Tiffen, 1994). Another researcher, Aitkin (1972), used 1967 and 1969 data to explore audience perceptions of political bias in newspapers, radio and television. Television and radio news faired well, with roughly 80 percent and 90 percent of respondents, respectively, perceiving these sources to be without party bias. Newspapers were viewed less favourably, with more than 30 percent of respondents believing newspapers to be biased against the Australian Labor Party (ALP) (Aitkin, 1972).

Western & Hughes (1983), reported on data from 1966 and 1979, providing a detailed analysis of audience media use, including audience perceptions of radio, television and newspapers with regard to political bias, political coverage and quality of reporting. Political bias was perceived to have increased between 1966 and 1979 (Western & Hughes, 1983). Newspapers were viewed as the most biased of all media, and radio as the least biased. Partisans of all persuasions tended to view the media as biased against their party, although regardless of partisanship, the ABC was seen as less biased than the commercial networks. As in the earlier research by Aitkin, newspapers were again viewed as being fairer to the Coalition than to the ALP. More highly educated respondents in particular saw the press as biased against the ALP, regardless of their partisanship (Western & Hughes, 1983). With regard to performance of the different media, there is a clear shift in most of the perceived quality dimensions away from newspapers and towards television between 1966 and 1979. For example, in 1966, 55 percent of respondents believed newspapers provide the most complete news, with 25 percent favouring television in this regard. By 1979, only 34 percent favoured newspapers, while television was seen by 48 percent of the sample as providing more complete coverage (Western & Hughes, 1983). This pattern is repeated throughout the remaining performance quality dimensions (intelligence of presentation, quickest reporting, performance of public good, fairness, clearest understanding of issues, best understanding of leaders) – television is seen to have improved relative to newspapers in all regards. Radio remains largely unchanged between the two timeframes. In both datasets, it is perceived as better than the other media in only one regard, speed of reporting, presumably reflecting the technological constraints associated with the different media at the time (Western & Hughes, 1983).

Brisbane news media (newspapers, television and radio) were the specific target of research by Henningham (1979), who considered attitudes such as trust, satisfaction and perceptions of fairness across the different media formats. Television was found to be the most trusted format, and newspapers the least trusted, with almost two thirds of respondents dissatisfied by the press. In line with the findings of Western & Hughes (1983), a large minority of respondents viewed newspapers as being unfair to the ALP (Henningham, 1979).

Much of this early research concerned itself with structural issues, drawing primarily on the political economy approaches commonly exhibited in the European media and communication studies traditions (Sinclair, 2002). Such structural issues, such as public versus private media ownership, remain relevant today, and are reflected in the current research project through the media diet construct (please refer to Chapter Four). In more recent years, Australian media communications scholars have begun to research in ways more aligned with the American tradition, which is “strongly empirical and micro in its scope” (Sinclair, 2010, p.16). Recently, while surveys conducted by professional opinion polling firms have sought public opinions on the media, scholars have instead focussed on professional critiques of media content and conduct. Public intellectuals have found much to criticise in the Australian media landscape, particularly pertaining to representations of

political news, including issues of deliberate censorship by interventionist media moguls (Manne, 2005c; Tiffen, 2006; Ward, 2006); political bias; inaccurate, incomplete or misleading information; misleading framing of news items; and homogenous cultural and political representations which do not reflect the diverse, multicultural and pluralist nature of modern Australian society (see for example Beecher, 2005; Hamilton & Maddison, 2007a; Manne, 2005c; Rundle, 2005; Ward, 2006). Concerns have also been raised regarding the deliberate censorship of the mainstream media by the former Howard Federal Government (Ester, 2007; Hamilton & Maddison, 2007a; Ward, 2006), as well as the more subtle effect of corporate agendas on media content diversity (Beecher, 2007; Chadwick, 1998; Lewis, 2001). Such criticisms are not necessarily unique to the Australian media sector, however, the high concentration of media ownership which is a feature of the Australian media industry may increase the significance of the concerns.

Discussions of media bias, when conducted in the public arena, have been found to decrease public trust in the media (Watts et al., 1999). When people have low trust in the mainstream media, one option they may exercise is to turn to non-mainstream media sources (Tsfati, 2002), such as independent media. However, specific conditions in the Australian media environment may reduce the likelihood of this. Media ownership in Australia is highly concentrated, for example with 68 percent of national and capital city newspaper circulation in Australia controlled by News Corp (Gardiner-Garden & Chowns, 2006). This ownership concentration, combined with the relatively low population density of the nation, drastically reduces the availability of alternative news sources. In such an environment, the issue of how scepticism effects media selection, and what Australian media diets actually look like, as explored in this project, takes on in increased significance.

Australian media and communications researchers, then, can be seen to draw on both European and American traditions. Sinclair describes the resulting hybrid Australian media and communications tradition as one which “fuses (‘European’) critical theory with (‘US’) attention to empirical detail, [and] is premised on an understanding of industry structure and functioning and, perhaps also maintains an eye on policy implications” Sinclair (2002, p.34). The current project follows in this hybrid Australian tradition. The conceptions of media diet utilised in this research (to be described in Chapter Four) draw strongly on the political economy theories commonly exhibited in the European media and communication studies traditions. This, however, is complimented by the behavioural, psychological and quantitative research methods to be described in the remainder of the current chapter, which are more commonly found in the US mass communications field.

Media scepticism – the development of a construct Trustworthiness is believed to be an important factor when selecting an information source (Chen & Hernon, 1982; Hertzum, Andersen, Andersen, & Hensen, 2002). It is generally assumed by media researchers that audience members wish the political information they obtain to be accurate (Tsfati & Peri, 2006). Indeed, news media are typically evaluated by critics in terms of “how effective the texts of news stories are at conveying information about the world to readers and viewers” (Bird, 2003, p.22). If this assumption is true, given that citizens traditionally have little opportunity to verify media reports with independent information, they will seek media sources which they believe to be credible. Trustworthiness and credibility are closely entwined, particularly with regard to information sources (Hovland & Janis, 1959; Rotter, 1967).

Indeed, amongst the earliest findings of media credibility research was that people state a preference for, and spend more time using, media formats they find credible (Westley & Severin, 1964), and avoid political content in media which they perceive to be biased (Becker, 1979). Similar findings are still found today in relation to the Internet. For example, reliance on political blogs for information has been found to be strongly positively associated with perceptions of blog credibility (Johnson & Kaye, 2004; Johnson, Kaye, Bichard, & Wong, 2007), while distrust in the traditional media has been shown to increase reliance on online sources which are independent from the traditional media (Kim, 2006), including official campaign websites (Bimber & Davis, 2003). To quote Hertzum et al, “trust is at play whenever people exchange information” (2002, p.577). The importance of credibility as a heuristic for information selection is even more important in the face of information overload (Schweiger, 2000).

The issue of public trust in the media has long been researched in the American media communications tradition. Prior to the 1960s, credibility was viewed by researchers as a static characteristic of media sources (Tsfati, 2002). From the 1960s onwards, however, credibility began to be seen as a characteristic applied by the audience to the media source, rather than a characteristic of the media source itself. As such, concepts including

perceived credibility (for example, Pinkleton & Austin, 1998), trust in the media (for example, Bennett, 1999; Jones, 2004; Ladd, 2006) and media cynicism (Cappella & Jamieson, 1997; Pinkleton & Austin, 1998) began to be explored, with a consistent focus on the causes of media distrust (Tsfati, 2002). More recently there has been a move away from assessing the causes of distrust, and towards a consideration of the consequences of media distrust, which is of particular significance in the realm of political communication. With this development has emerged the new construct, media scepticism, which is defined as “a subjective feeling of alienation and mistrust toward the mainstream news media” (Tsfati, 2002, p35).

The media scepticism construct differs from prior concepts of media credibility by incorporating affective dimensions. It relates to the subjective opinion the audience member holds with regard to the mainstream media as a whole, rather than to any particular media source (Tsfati, 2003b; Tsfati & Cappella, 2003). It taps into feelings that journalists are not fair or objective, news reports are often incomplete and media corporations are more interested in profits than accuracy. In incorporating these affective dimensions, the media scepticism construct has similarities with media cynicism. However, cynicism implies that distrust of the media is problematic, a view which Tsfati (2002) does not share. Indeed, one of the goals of media literacy, which is viewed as an essential skill for democratic citizenship by both UNESCO and the European Commission (European Commission, 2007; Penman & Turnbull, 2007), is a healthy scepticism towards the media (Kealy, 2004; Thoman & Jolls, 2004), so that media literate citizens question the images and messages presented to them, rather than simply accepting those messages at face value (Gillmor, 2008). Hence, rather than being viewed with alarm, scepticism towards the media should perhaps be considered an important characteristic for democratic citizenship.

Cognitive schemas and media scepticism The media scepticism construct is based on the assumption that “people have some cognitive schema for what ‘the media’ are”, and that people will have attitudes towards ‘the media’ in general (Tsfati, 2002, p38). A schema is defined as “a cognitive structure that represents knowledge about a concept or type of stimulus, including its attributes and the relations among those attributes” (Fiske & Taylor, 1991, p98). As such, schemas are concerned with the general case rather than specific instances, and involve a degree of abstraction (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). The assertion that people have a pre-existing schema for ‘the media’ is supported with several types of evidence:  questions about the news media tend to have an unusually low rate of “don’t know” responses in surveys (Tsfati, 2002, p67)  attitudes towards the media tend to be stable over time (Ladd, 2006, p29; Tsfati, 2002)  attitudes toward the media appear to be resilient even across somewhat different survey wordings (Ladd, 2009, p29)

Schemas act as heuristics which help us to interpret the things, people and situations we encounter. They can be triggered very rapidly in response to a stimulus, and once cued, “affect how quickly we perceive, what we notice, how we interpret what we notice, and what we perceive as similar and different” (Fiske & Taylor, 1991, p.122).

Schemas may be formed from first-hand experience, or from received information (Fiske & Taylor, 1991, p.147). They may be culturally shared or culturally derived, for example through repeated exposure to “creative representations of the everyday world… and the way words are used in varied contexts to classify and link culturally relevant objects and practices” (Strauss & Quinn, 1992, p.269). Importantly, schemas can tend to reduce a person’s perception of variability within a group (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). For example, schemas about race can lead to beliefs such as ‘Chinese people are all the same’, thus reducing perceived variation amongst the group ‘Chinese people’.

Schemas exist at different levels of abstraction (Fiske & Taylor, 1991, p.177). For example, an individual may have a schema relating to ‘the news media’ as an institution, but they may also have a schema specifically about ‘television news’ as distinct from ‘newspapers’. Individuals hold a range of schemas in their minds, and in any given situation it is possible that a variety of different schemas may have relevance. Which of these schemas will be triggered can depend on a range of factors, including the appropriate level of abstraction for the situation and the proximity of the schema to their conscious awareness (i.e. whether a schema was already on their mind) (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). While it is anticipated that any given schema will only be at the forefront of one’s mind for a few hours, once the schema is triggered, it is more readily brought to mind in a future situation (Perse, 2001). Given the media-saturated nature of 21st century Australian society, it seems possible that

any existing mental schema for ‘the media’ is likely to linger in reasonable proximity to consciousness for most citizens.

Gamson (1988) suggests the media have their own version of schemas, which work at a cultural level. Calling these ‘packages’ relating to different topics, Gamson claims each package consists of a theme and a counter-theme, and these are both derived from and feed the broader culture. Hence each of us, as members of that broader culture, internalize both messages (1988). In the case of the media ‘package’, for example, the theme may be that the media cannot be trusted, with a counter-theme of the media as the fourth estate, or vice-versa. The resulting schemas are then moderated within individuals by personal experience.

Recent survey data would indicate people do indeed have attitudes associated with ‘the media’ in general, and these attitudes are distinct from their ideas about specific media outlets. For example, a 2006 Morgan Poll found 71 percent of Australians believe the media is not sufficiently objective, while 49 percent of the same cohort agreed with the statement “I trust more small media organisations or bloggers than big media organisations” (Roy Morgan International, 2006). Similarly, focus group research commissioned by SBS revealed different attitudes towards the public broadcasters (ABC and SBS) than towards commercial media outlets, with the public broadcasters “highly praised… for their continuing commitment to news and information that empowers audiences and citizens” (Ang et al., 2006, p63). This would indicate people have an opinion on ‘the media’ as an entity, but may have differing opinions on particular media (e.g. ‘small media organisations’; ‘public broadcasters’) when specifically asked. The advent of new media such as citizen journalism and blogs can be expected to make such attitudinal research, and the media landscape itself, even more complex.

Media scepticism – evidence for American scepticism about the media can be explored through the findings of public opinion polling, which began in the 1930s (Ladd, 2006). While it is difficult to directly compare the wide range of methods used to measure public attitudes throughout the subsequent eight decades, it does appear that overall, trust in the media has declined. For example, a 1939 poll revealed only 21 percent of respondents believed the press had ‘abused its freedom in any way’ (Ladd, 2006, p19). By 1973, however, confidence in the press was down to an average score of less than 0.6 on a scale of 0 to 1 (where 1 is ‘a great deal of confidence’), and by 2002 this had almost halved to roughly 0.3 on the same scale (Ladd, 2006, pp34-36). More recent polling by Gallup (conducted in 2005/6) revealed only 32 percent of Americans expressed confidence about the “quality and integrity of the media” (English, 2007).

Similarly bleak attitudes towards the media can be seen around the globe. The same Gallup public opinion survey found that in 60 of the 128 nations surveyed, including Germany (41 percent), United Kingdom (38 percent), Russia (29 percent) and Taiwan (14 percent), less than 50 percent of respondents had confidence in the media.

In Australia, trust in the media is similarly scarce, with only 40 percent of Australians surveyed in the 2005/6 Gallup Poll having confidence in the media (English, 2007). The situation is apparently worsening, with a 2006 Morgan Poll revealing 74 percent (up 3 percent in 12 months) of Australians believing the media are more concerned with profits than with informing society and 71 percent (up 4 percent) believing the media is not sufficiently objective (Roy Morgan International, 2006). As stated previously, culturally and linguistically diverse Australians aged 16 to 40 have been found to view the news media as trivial, exploitative, negative, biased, irrelevant, lacking diversity, and perpetuating racist stereotypes (Ang et al., 2006).

A 2007 poll revealed 85 percent of Australians believed newspaper journalists are ‘often biased’ (74 percent for television reporters and 69 percent for talkback radio announcers), whilst 62 percent of Australians believed newspaper journalists ‘often get their facts wrong’ (55 percent for television reporters, 51 percent for talkback radio announcers) (Roy Morgan Research, 2007a). In 2008, only 16 percent of respondents rated television reporters as being ‘highly’ or ‘very highly’ ethical and honest, as compared to, for example, nurses (89 percent), police (66 percent) and lawyers (35 percent) (Roy Morgan Research, 2008). In the same poll, newspaper journalists were viewed as ethical and honest by only 14 percent of respondents, whilst talkback radio announcers recorded a result of 18 percent. It is worth noting also, that all the journalists’ ratings reported here actually reflect an increase in trust as compared with the previous year’s results (Roy Morgan Research, 2008).

Australians’ attitudes towards journalists have in fact been consistently negative for some time. For example, since the annual Roy Morgan 'Image of Professions' poll began in 1979, the highest rating that newspaper journalists have achieved on the ‘honest and ethical’ question has been 14 percent, dropping at times as low as 7 percent (in the late 1990’s) (Roy Morgan Research, 2008). In keeping with these findings, the 2001 Australian Election Study, which looks at public opinion and social attitudes at the time of each Australian federal election, found only 1 percent of respondents had ‘a great deal of confidence’ in the press (2 percent for television), with a further 18 percent expressing ‘quite a lot of confidence’ (25 percent for television) (Bean et al., 2003).

An Australian study from 1982 found a preference for political news items was negatively associated with the statement “I watch TV news because you can trust the information they give you” (Henningham, 1982, p.420). This association is interesting, as it indicates that, in that sample at least, the less people are interested in political news, the more they believe the news can be trusted. Conversely, the more people are interested in political news, the less they believe the media can be trusted. While the sample size was fairly small (N=93) and unrepresentative (university students), this still raises an interesting point: perhaps is it the perceived poor quality of political coverage specifically which leads to Australian audiences being so sceptical of the media.

Media scepticism and media use The suggestion that scepticism towards the mainstream media might alter media consumption patterns relating to political information is underpinned by the assumption that people desire accurate political information (Tsfati & Peri, 2006). Furthermore, as people are generally unable to independently verify media reports about politics, in the interests of accuracy, they will select sources they believe to be credible. People who do not find the mainstream media credible (i.e. media sceptics), would therefore be expected to rely less on mainstream media, and more on non-mainstream media and non-news media information sources. Indeed, media scepticism, as conceptualised by Tsfati, has already been found in US and Israeli studies to influence media consumption patterns. In these studies, people who are sceptical towards the mainstream media display a preference for using non-mainstream media over mainstream sources (Tsfati, 2002; Tsfati & Cappella, 2003, 2005; Tsfati & Peri, 2006). Thus:

H1: Media scepticism will be associated with greater reliance on non- mainstream media; H2: Media scepticism will be associated with greater reliance on non-news media information sources.

Beyond the mainstream/non-mainstream distinction, there are other ways in which the Australian media is traditionally conceptualised, which have credibility dimensions. The distinction between privately-owned and public service media is one, in which public service media (the ABC and SBS networks) typically have a better reputation for journalistic quality than the commercial networks (Ang et al., 2006; Bean, 2005; Turner, 2005). Another common distinction is between tabloid and broadsheet media, in which tabloid media are generally seen as less credible (Pieper, 2000; Turner, 2005). These concepts, and the media diets associated with them, will be further discussed in Chapter Four. As media sceptics are concerned about media quality, it is possible that these other quality-related dimensions may have an impact on media use. Therefore:

H3: Media scepticism will be associated with greater reliance on public service media; H4: Media scepticism will be associated with greater reliance on broadsheet information sources.

Media scepticism – critiquing the approach As a relatively new construct, specific critiques are not available in the literature to date, however, drawing on general research into schemas and attitudes does suggest potential concerns. Firstly, as noted previously, schemata operate at different levels of abstraction. It may be that a schema relating to such a broad construct as ‘the media’ is too abstract to influence choices at a media product level. That is, media selection behaviour may be influenced by less abstract schemata, such as those relating to ‘newspapers’, ‘local news’, or ‘commercial television’, rather than the higher-level ‘the media’ schema which the current scale taps into.

Secondly, research has shown that attitudes derived from direct experience are more likely to influence behaviour than are attitudes derived from indirect experience (Doll & Ajzen,

1992; Fazio & Zanna, 1981). Therefore, we would expect the degree to which an individual’s media scepticism is based on a culturally-derived schema rather than personal experience to moderate the level of influence such scepticism would have on media choice behaviour.

Finally, research in the field of social psychology has revealed that predicting behaviour based on attitude towards an object is generally less successful than predicting behaviour based on attitudes towards the behaviour (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005). That is, measuring attitudes towards the mainstream media is less likely to help us predict media choice than is measuring attitudes towards using the mainstream media.

Media scepticism research in Australia To this author’s knowledge, the current project will represent the first application of Tsfati’s media scepticism construct outside of the USA and Israel.

Need for cognition (NFC) Need for cognition (NFC) is a construct which initially emerged in the psychology literature of the 1950s. It was first defined as “a need to structure relevant situations in meaningful, integrated ways… a need to understand and make reasonable the experiential world” (Cohen, Stotland, & Wolfe, 1955, p291). That NFC is a ‘need’ was justified because it drives behaviour toward a goal, and because an individual experiences tension if that goal is not attained (Cohen et al., 1955). Later researchers defined NFC as “a tendency to engage in and enjoy thinking” (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982, p116). Research has shown NFC to be stable over short periods (seven weeks) and intermediate time intervals (eight months) (Cacioppo, Petty, Feinstein, & Jarvis, 1996). NFC has been shown to correlate with political interest (Bizer et al., 2002; Condra, 1992; Liu & Eveland, 2005), and with education level (Liu & Eveland, 2005), and high NFC people have been found to be more involved in political activity (Condra, 1992). Finally, people with high NFC are believed to be more active information processors, resulting in them displaying higher issue differentiation with regard to presidential election campaigns (Ahlering, 1987).

NFC has been observed in a wide range of contexts (for a good summary, see Cacioppo et al., 1996), although it is perhaps most commonly applied in the disciplines of persuasive communication and cognitive information processing. Most relevant to the current study however, is the smaller field of research which considers NFC, information seeking, and news media use. These types of NFC research will be the focus of the remainder of this section.

Need for cognition, information seeking and media use Experimental research has found that individuals with high NFC seek a greater diversity of information when solving problems (Nair & Ramnarayan, 2000). Similarly, research into everyday life information seeking has revealed that individuals with high NFC are more likely to seek information to help them with a variety of activities, and are more likely to use the media for information seeking, than individuals with low NFC (Cacioppo et al., 1996).

High NFC people tend to prefer content-oriented and issue-relevant media sources for political information, while low NFC people prefer media sources which require less cognitive effort (Condra, 1992). In line with these findings, comparisons of television and newspaper use have indicated that people with low NFC prefer and use more television (lower cognitive effort) than people with high NFC (Darley, 1992; Klein & Holt, 1991). High NFC has also been associated with greater intent to watch presidential debates, and with slightly increased actual viewing of the debates (Ahlering, 1987). Thus:

H5: Lower NFC scores will be associated with increased reliance on television for political information.

Because people with high NFC enjoy thinking, it is expected they will prefer central route processing of information, which requires more cognitive effort, over peripheral processing (Perse, 2001). Central route processing focuses on facts and issues, whilst peripheral processing relies on peripheral cues such as perceived source credibility or attractiveness (Cacioppo, Petty, Kao, & Rodriquez, 1986; Perse, 2001). Perse (1992) designed a study to investigate the role played by NFC in specific news content preferences, and used government stories on local television news as an example of content which requires greater cognitive effort to attend to. Perse found NFC to be directly and positively associated with attention to the more cognitively challenging government stories on television news programs.

Cognitive effort can be viewed as a ‘cost’ associated with use of certain types of media, in terms of a cost/benefit approach to media selection. Additional ‘costs’ associated with media use may be temporal, financial and opportunity costs (Pirolli & Card, 1999), and physical effort, particularly in the case of non-news media sources (eg. public speaking events, interpersonal communication, direct contact with politicians), which must be actively sought out. Given the preference of high NFC people for multiple and diverse information sources (Nair & Ramnarayan, 2000), and their willingness to expend additional cognitive effort in exchange for political information, it may also be true that high NFC people are more willing to pay higher costs generally to obtain diverse information sources. Thus:

H6: High NFC scores will be associated with increased use of non-news media sources

Interactions between NFC and media credibility have been implicated in attitude formation. The attitudes of low NFC individuals towards the first Gulf War were found to be more positive, the more trust they had in the media (Klein & Holt, 1991). Interestingly, attitudes of high NFC individuals were found to be more negative, the more trust they had in the media (Klein & Holt, 1991). This difference may be explained by higher use of television news by low NFC individuals, hence their exposure primarily to heavily censored government propaganda, as opposed to the broader information base of print and radio news sources (Klein & Holt, 1991).

However, some research contradicts this theory. For example, experimental research found that individuals with both low and high NFC employ heuristics to judge print communications, specifically by the reputation of the publication (e.g. tabloid versus broadsheet), rather than evaluating the content of the communication (Kaufman, Stasson, & Hart, 1999). Similarly, Arpan & Peterson’s (2008) experimental findings were that NFC was only weakly (and not significantly) related to a willingness to use a news source again after bias had been identified in one of its stories. Thus, finding bias in a particular story may be less important in judgements of the source than that source’s general reputation, regardless of degree of NFC.

US-based news media use research has found that at high levels, NFC moderates the negative impact of media scepticism on mainstream media use, resulting in an increase in usage of both mainstream and non-mainstream media (Tsfati, 2002; Tsfati & Cappella, 2003, 2005). Similarly, in the context of the US presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, positive correlations were found between NFC and use of both newspapers and television news (Bizer et al., 2002; Liu & Eveland, 2005). That is, people with high NFC simply seem to utilise a greater number of information sources overall. Hence:

H7: High NFC will be associated with greater use of information sources overall.

Need for Cognition research in Australia Whilst the NFC scale itself has been tested for cultural relevance with an Australian sample (Forsterlee & Ho, 1999), it has never to this author’s knowledge been applied in Australia in the context of information seeking or media use research. The current project therefore represents the first application of the NFC construct in an Australian information use context.

Like other psychological constructs, NFC cannot be measured directly, but is instead measured by use of an index of survey questions. Details and critique of the index to be used in the current research will be discussed in Chapter Five of this thesis.

Media gratifications The uses and gratifications (U&G) tradition has its roots in the mass communication research of the 1940s. It “represents an attempt to explain something of the way in which individuals use communications, among other resources in their environment, to satisfy their needs and to achieve their goals, and to do so simply by asking them” (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1974, p21). U&G has been described as a functional approach in that it considers the way the media is used by individuals and society (Rothenberg, 2004). The U&G approach can and has been be applied in a wide range of contexts involving mediated communication (Lin, 1996). It also has relevance for the information seeking field, and has been previously employed in information seeking research by Chatman (Case, 2002).

The underlying assumptions of U&G are:

1. Audience members are active, purposive and goal-directed in their use of the media. 2. Audience members take the initiative for selecting particular media to gratify specific needs. 3. The media is not the only source of need satisfaction. Non-news media sources may compete with media sources to satisfy audience needs. 4. Audience members are sufficiently self-aware of their reasons for using the media to be able to self-report about the needs they seek. 5. A variety of social and psychological factors influence the information behaviour of any individual. (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1973; Katz et al., 1974; Rubin, 2002)

A key criticism of the U&G approach concerns the issue of whether media use is the result of a purposive attempt on the part of the audience to fulfil needs, or whether it is simply a result of chance or situational circumstances (Lin, 1996; McGuire, 1974). U&G researchers generally admit media use probably results from a combination of both purposive and circumstantial factors (Katz et al., 1974; McGuire, 1974), and that individual audience members will vary in their degree of purposive and selective media use (Rothenberg, 2004). However, even when active seeking of additional information is performed, individuals tend to return to the same information sources they obtain general news information from (Gantz, Fitzmaurice, & Fink, 1991). McGuire notes individuals return again and again to the same media outlets, even when other outlets are equally accessible to them, and these individual choices “tend to distribute themselves… in a pattern too far from random to be attributable to chance” (McGuire, 1974, p.169). Further, the ‘pull’ nature of new media such as the Internet, which typically requires the conscious selection of a website and/or the formulation of a search term, is likely to mean new media users are more purposeful (Kaye & Johnson, 2006), and have a greater conscious awareness of their media use goals (Ancu & Cozma, 2009).

As a result of these debates, U&G researchers have distinguished two fundamental categories of media use: goal-oriented (also termed instrumental or content-oriented) and ritualistic (also termed habitual or process-oriented) (Lin, 1996; Wenner, 1985). Goal- oriented media use typically relates to information-focussed gratifications such as surveillance, and tends to be associated with use of specific content such news, while ritualistic media use typically relates to diversionary gratifications such as entertainment and escape, and is associated with more general media use (Rubin, 1983, 1984).

Some researchers have questioned whether audience members actually have conscious awareness of their motivations for media use (Krcmar & Strizhakova, 2009), and whether, even with conscious awareness, they are able to communicate them to researchers (Becker, 1979). Strizhakova & Krcmar (2003) suggest media use decisions may be based on both conscious and non-conscious factors. They postulate that for ritualised media use (e.g. regular soap-opera viewing), non-conscious factors may dominate, whereas for goal- oriented media use (eg. news viewing), conscious factors may be at the fore. The existence of unconscious dimensions to media use motivations calls into question the appropriateness of self-report to measure these motivations, particularly with regard to ritualistic media use. Strizhakova & Krcmar’s (2003) empirical research into the accessibility of motives however, provides little support for these claims, with fewer than one percent of media gratifications items eliciting ‘don’t know’ responses. Respondents did appear more aware of their motivations for viewing their favourite movie and for using the Internet than they were for watching television. However, as the researchers note, this is likely to reflect the generally less purposeful use of television (compared with films or the Internet), rather than a lack of awareness of motivations (Strizhakova & Krcmar, 2003).

Becker raises the concern that many of the approaches used to measure gratifications assume an awareness by the researcher of the full range of gratifications available to media users (Becker, 1979). Perfect awareness of the range of gratifications sought is not possible, due simply to the large variations between people. The problem is particularly notable in the case of quantitative survey research, where only a finite (and reasonably brief) list of gratifications can be presented to the respondents, lest the survey become unwieldy.

Another criticism of the approach relates to the proliferation of many different media gratifications typologies, without any consistent attempt to unify these typologies across different media types (Krcmar & Strizhakova, 2009). Indeed, even when the same media types are being researched, it is common for different terminologies to be applied to what seem to be conceptually similar gratifications (Wenner, 1985). This issue is further elaborated in the next section of the current chapter.

With regard to the measurement of U&G, self-report is the most common data collection approach. Typically, subjects are presented with a series of statements regarding their motivations for using a particular medium, and are asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement with each statement, using a Likert-type response scale. While early studies ranged from posing a single statement per gratification, more recent studies have preferred more reliable multi-item scales, in which several statements (items) relate to each gratification. After this, factor analysis is conducted to determine the underlying motivational themes. Three main constructs may be measured: media uses, media gratifications sought and media gratifications obtained. Media gratifications sought and obtained represent refinements to the original focus on media use. Gratifications sought refer to the motivations people have for using media, while gratifications obtained are those that are achieved through media use (Krcmar & Strizhakova, 2009). The media gratifications sought aspect attempts to unearth motivations for both goal-directed and ritual media use, and will be the focus of this thesis.

Media gratifications sought Media gratifications sought are the reasons people turn to the media, or in other words, the needs they hope will be fulfilled by the media. A range of gratifications sought typologies have been identified. Some of the most commonly occurring dimensions and their varying labels are described in Table 3.1. As far as possible throughout this chapter, consistent terminology for the gratifications is used to enhance clarity. To date, gratifications sought have most commonly been applied to analysis of genre/information type use (e.g. news media use, soap opera use) or format type use (eg. print media versus television).

Table 3.1: Common media gratifications sought dimensions Gratification Types of statements relating to this Related citations gratification (“I use the media...”) Information To understand what is going on in politics. (Althaus & Tewksbury, 2000; seeking/surveillance To keep up with political happenings. Beaudoin & Thorson, 2004; Garramone, Harris, & Anderson, To help me judge what political leaders are 1986; Kaye & Johnson, 2002; really like. McQuail, Blumler, & Brown, 1972; To find out things I need to know about Parker & Plank, 2000; Rubin & daily life. Step, 2000; Vincent & Basil, 1997) Companionship & social Because it’s something to do when friends (Parker & Plank, 2000) relationships come over. So I can get away from the rest of the family or others. Because it makes me feel less lonely. Entertainment/diversion Because it is enjoyable. (Althaus & Tewksbury, 2000; Because it is thrilling. Garramone et al., 1986; Kaye & Johnson, 2002; Rubin & Step, 2000; To be entertained. Vincent & Basil, 1997) To pass the time when I don’t feel like doing anything else. Personal identity To compare my ideas with those of others. (Garramone et al., 1986) To give me interesting things to talk about. To learn what others are thinking. To get support for my ideas. Guidance/decision-making To help me judge who is likely to win an (Althaus & Tewksbury, 2000; election. Beaudoin & Thorson, 2004; Kaye & To help me make up my mind how to vote Johnson, 2002) in an election. Passing I use the media when I have nothing better (Althaus & Tewksbury, 2000; time/boredom/habit to do. Parker & Plank, 2000; Rubin & I use the media just because it’s on. Step, 2000; Vincent & Basil, 1997) I use the media when there’s no one else to talk or be with. Anticipated To prepare me for future political (Beaudoin & Thorson, 2004; Kaye interaction/social utility discussions. & Johnson, 2002) To give me something to talk about with others. Escape/relaxation It helps me get away from everyday (Parker & Plank, 2000; Rubin & worries. Step, 2000; Vincent & Basil, 1997) It helps me when I want to be cheered up. It helps me relax. Para-social interaction Because reporters are like people I know. (Levy, 1978; Wenner, 1982) Because the reporters give a human quality to the news. To compare my own ideas to what the commentators say. The newscasters are almost like friends you see every day.

Media gratifications associated with media consumption for news and politics Media gratifications research has to date been conducted on both topic-specific media contexts and general media contexts. Due to the abundant literature on media gratifications, this section will be restricted to a discussion of the findings of U&G studies most salient to the present research. Thus, this section will focus on media gratifications sought research relating specifically to news and political information. The comprehensiveness of this section has been further restricted by the unavailability of some of the older studies, such as conference papers presented in the 1970s and 1980s. However, in most of these cases, more recent research by the same authors is included. Hence we can expect most viewpoints and findings to be incorporated in some way in what follows.

Media gratifications and news Most U&G research into news consumption has focused on the different gratifications associated with various news media formats. The findings of such studies frequently contradict each other. In this section, I will provide a sample of previous U&G studies, with a primary focus on the gratifications identified and the usage dimensions considered.

Early exploratory research into television news identified a range of gratifications. In terms we would recognise today, the gratifications found were surveillance, para-social interaction, social utility, guidance, excitement and escape (Levy, 1978). As time has gone by, researchers have increasingly employed regression analysis to better understand the gratifications in terms of their degree of influence. For example, Rubin & Perse (1987) found that television news viewing is primarily associated with the seeking of entertainment gratifications, followed by time passing gratifications, with surveillance gratifications lagging behind significantly. Beaudoin & Thorson (2004) found reliance on a combination of television news and newspapers was most strongly associated with surveillance gratifications, followed by social utility and guidance.

Using data collected in the pre-Internet era, Vincent & Basil (1997) similarly found that US college students seeking entertainment gratifications turned more to television than they did to print use. However, students seeking surveillance gratifications reported higher use of all news media considered (television news, magazines and newspapers). Contradicting these findings, Kippax & Murray (1977) found Australian audiences primarily seek surveillance gratifications from television news programs, whilst other US data (Palmgreen, Wenner, & Rayburn, 1980) found a combination of surveillance, social utility and guidance factoring together as a primary motivation for television news viewing, followed by entertainment and finally parasocial needs. Different again are the findings of a US community sample, in which television news viewing was not positively associated with any gratifications significantly, but was instead negatively associated with time passing and social utility motivations (Rubin, 1981).

More recently, researchers have begun to consider Internet news sources. A comparison of gratifications sought by US community members from online news media outlets versus traditional newspapers revealed identical sets of gratifications (Lin, Salwen, & Abdulla, 2003). In this study, the researchers separated out the traditional surveillance gratification into two dimensions: information scanning (referring to information use involving higher cognition/learning), and information skimming (referring to less engaged skimming of news items with less focus on detailed content). For both media formats, the primary gratifications sought were entertainment gratifications, followed by information scanning, interpersonal communication and finally information skimming. However, online news had a higher rate of information scanning, whilst newspapers had a higher rate of information skimming. This may result from navigational aspects of the two media: online sources may be rapidly searched using the website’s search engine to locate specific content of interest which can then be viewed in detail, whereas newspapers must be manually browsed (skimmed) to locate salient content (Lin et al., 2003).

Kim (2006) considered a range of different online news services, finding the primary gratifications associated with mainstream news websites were convenience/guidance and surveillance, while news portals were mostly used for social utility and convenience, and blogs were used for guidance and social utility.

Some researchers have gone beyond a consideration of basic media formats. For example, Wenner (1982) explored the gratifications sought associated with dependency on network news shows versus the 60 Minutes current affairs program. He found parasocial interaction to be negatively associated with 60 Minutes viewing, whilst surveillance gratifications were positively associated. Entertainment and interpersonal utility were not significant

contributors. He found no significant associations between any of these gratifications sought and network news dependency.

The at times conflicting findings relating to news gratifications have led some researchers to explore whether the different gratifications sought from news media may be related to specific news content. In one of the few Australian applications of U&G in a specific news context, Henningham (1982) considered the relationship between gratifications sought and specific television news content in an Australian university student sample. The study was slightly unusual in that, while scales were used for the gratifications sought, no factor analysis was conducted on the gratifications, but rather individual scale items were compared to specific subject matter. A preference for political news items was found to be positively associated with decisional utility gratifications. In line with the findings of Rubin (1983) that informational gratifications seekers prefer a narrower range of media than ritualistic gratifications seekers, Henningham’s study also found that surveillance (informational) gratifications are associated with a narrower range of news content (science & medicine, major disasters and light entertainment) than entertainment gratifications (light entertainment, celebrity news, ordinary people’s achievements, accidents, demonstrations, crime and human misfortune).

Henningham (1985) later conducted a similar survey, however with a larger, community- based sample from Australia’s three most populous cities, Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. A preference for political content in television news was positively associated with firstly surveillance gratifications sought, followed by guidance, whilst parasocial interaction was negatively associated. Entertainment and interpersonal utility gratifications in contrast, were associated with other news content, such as human interest, tragedy and sport.

Diddi & LaRose (2006) in their research amongst US college students, considered a wide range of news sources, and using factor analysis, divided them into six categories: depth coverage, broadcast news, cable news, Internet news, newspapers and comedy news. ‘Depth coverage’ included news from a range of formats, such as Internet chat rooms, Time magazine, National Public Radio and local newspapers. ‘Comedy news’ included shows such as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, David Lettermen and Jay Leno. Each news source was allocated to one category only. People seeking surveillance gratifications preferred Internet news, cable and broadcast TV news, and newspapers, but not in-depth news sources or comedy news sources. People seeking escape gratifications turned to in-depth news sources, cable TV news, comedy news, and Internet news, but not to newspapers or broadcast TV news. Time passing time gratifications were only significantly associated with comedy news, whilst entertainment gratifications were only associated with Internet sources (Diddi & LaRose, 2006).

Research into the use of YouTube for news by US college students revealed different gratifications for viewing as opposed to sharing news videos (Hanson & Haridakis, 2008). Similar to the findings of Diddi & LaRose described above, surveillance gratifications predicted viewing of traditional news videos, whilst entertainment gratifications predicted viewing of comedy news videos. Interpersonal expression gratifications led students to share both types of videos, but comedy news videos were also shared in the pursuit of entertainment gratifications.

Perse (1992) designed a study to investigate the role played by gratifications sought and NFC in specific news content preferences, and used government stories on local television news as an example of content which requires greater cognitive effort to attend to. Amongst a US purposive (non-random) community sample, Perse found that informational/utility gratifications were positively associated with attention to government stories, while time passing gratifications were negatively associated with this more effortful content. In looking at the relationships between NFC and gratifications, Perse found NFC to lead to the seeking of informational/utility gratifications (Perse, 1992). The model tested in the study also suggested a link between NFC and entertainment gratifications, but not with time passing gratifications. Hence:

H8: High NFC scores will be associated with surveillance and entertainment gratifications, but not with escape gratifications.

Media gratifications and political information seeking In contrast to research reported above relating to news in general, U&G research into political information seeking has tended to focus on specific media sources.

In surveying US voters regarding their motivations for using the political content of newspapers and television, Becker (1979) found gratifications for the two different media were very similar, with surveillance and vote guidance being at the fore. Other motivations included reinforcement, excitement and social utility. Across a range of studies, Becker sometimes employed multi-item scales and sometimes open-ended questions to measure gratifications sought and also avoidance motivations. Very similar results came from each approach, with the exception that the open-ended avoidance questions elicited a response not included in the scales: that individuals avoided political content in newspapers, television or radio because of perceived media bias (Becker, 1979). Telephone interviews during the 1984 US Presidential Election revealed that people seeking surveillance gratifications had a preference for factual and issue-related political news content, as opposed to more highly mediated content, such as statements of journalists’ opinions, or horse-race style coverage of the campaign which focuses on the electon as a competitive event (Garramone, 1985).

In early research into online information sources, Garramone, Harris & Anderson (1986) took a different approach to measuring gratifications sought. Their study, conducted within a US university community, used open-ended questions, followed by response coding to unearth motivations for using a political “computer bulletin board system” (an early, dial-up version of modern online discussion boards). Use of the bulletin board was motivated equally by surveillance, personal identity and diversion gratifications (Garramone et al., 1986).

A decade later, a 1996 online survey targeted towards politically-interested Internet users was used to explore gratifications sought from the Internet, specifically with regard to political information, and in the context of a US presidential election (Kaye & Johnson, 2002). Guidance was found to be the primary motivation for using the Internet, followed by surveillance, entertainment and social utility. In this election context, people with less trust in government used the Internet for guidance, whilst those with more trust in government used it for entertainment (Kaye & Johnson, 2002).

Kaye & Johnson built on this 1996 election research by conducting more refined surveys during the 2000 and 2004 US presidential election campaigns (Kaye & Johnson, 2004, 2006). The differences between these two surveys largely reflect changes in the Internet and information environment generally between the two elections. The 2000 survey focused on politically interested web users, while the 2004 survey focused on politically interested individuals who were heavy users of the Internet for political information, reflecting the extent to which the Web had come to be seen as a major information source, central to the information repertoires of many people. Further, the 2000 survey investigated gratifications associated with three distinct Internet technologies: websites, bulletin boards/e-lists and chat forums. The 2004 survey added blogs and instant messaging (combined with chat rooms) to this list. Political websites were found to be primarily used for guidance and entertainment/social utility gratifications in the 2000 election, but primarily for convenience (“access information at any time”) and surveillance needs in the 2004 election. Bulletin boards and e-lists were used mostly for entertainment and surveillance gratifications in the 2000 election, but for convenience and surveillance in 2004 (Kaye & Johnson, 2004, 2006). These shifts from entertainment to convenience may indicate the authority with which the Web has begun to be viewed, as well as the extent to which it has become an everyday technology – communication technologies are not convenient unless they are simple to use and part of one’s everyday information landscape.

Chat forums were associated primarily with guidance and entertainment/social utility gratifications in 2000, whilst in 2004, chat rooms/instant messaging were primarily used for social utility (Kaye & Johnson, 2004, 2006). Similar to bulletin boards, use of blogs was mostly associated with surveillance and convenience needs (Kaye & Johnson, 2006). Whilst these are the primary gratifications associated with each type of Internet resource, it must be noted surveillance gratifications did play a significant role in use of all technologies, with the single exception of chat forums in the 2000 sample. The 2004 sample also identified an information-checking function of Internet sources, with bulletin boards, blogs and chat rooms all associated with activities such as “to check on the accuracy of traditional media”, “to get a wide variety of viewpoints”, or to obtain “information that I can’t get from traditional media”, suggesting not only that the traditional media is viewed with scepticism, but also that the Internet is now viewed, at least by some, as a source of legitimate and diverse political information (Kaye & Johnson, 2006). Recent Australian research has also highlighted this aspect of online news use, with Internet users identifying the ability to hyperlink to original sources, conduct Google searches to check information accuracy or obtain further information, and obtain more than one point of view, as key reasons for their preference for Internet news sources (Daniel, Flew, & Spurgeon, 2009).

Kaye’s extensive and ongoing research into the use of blogs for political information has identified a new typology of gratifications which is specific to blog use: information seeking/media checking, convenience, personal fulfillment (which incorporates a range of emotional needs as well as social utility), political surveillance (watching the political landscape), social surveillance (finding out about others’ perspectives and opinions) and expression/affiliation (Kaye, 2005). Of these, the informational gratifications have been found to be strongly positively associated with perceived credibility of blogs (Johnson et al., 2007).

A recent large-scale US survey into the use of political blogs indicates daily readers of political blogs primarily seek surveillance gratifications, followed by political expression and finally entertainment gratifications (IPDI, 2006). Less frequent readers of blogs differed from the daily readers only in presenting a slightly lower need for political expression through blogs, with surveillance and entertainment dominating. Whilst not explored by the researcher specifically as a gratification, 84 percent of daily readers stated that they read the comments placed on the blogs by other readers, and 41 percent stated they post comments themselves either ‘sometimes’ or ‘very often’, which could indicate a social utility or personal identity gratification operating also. Of note also is the degree to which political blogs were viewed as providers of alternative information. Ninety-two percent of daily readers believe that blogs report information ignored by the mainstream media and 92 percent also believe that blogs provide a different perspective on news. These views were also held by less frequent blog readers, at rates of 71 percent and 82 percent respectively (IPDI, 2006).

In the UK, research has also been conducted into the gratifications associated with subscribing to political party e-newsletters. The sample was drawn from both the Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats Party e-newsletter subscriber lists, presumably resulting in a sample with high levels of political interest. Information seeking (surveillance gratifications) was by far the primary reason for subscribing. Interestingly, more than half of respondents specified they wished to receive direct, unmediated information from the parties (Jackson & Lilleker, 2007). In a similar vein, Garramone (1985), in a community sample during a US presidential campaign, found people seeking surveillance gratifications preferred live coverage and news reports to the more highly mediated editorial commentaries.

With regard to social networking media, Ancu & Cozma (2009) found people use politicians’ MySpace pages primarily for social utility gratifications, followed (in order of magnitude) by surveillance and entertainment. Their research was conducted during the 2008 US presidential election campaign, amongst a predominantly young adult sample. Interestingly, MySpace was viewed as a source of information by the youngest audiences, with older users tending to view MySpace more as a source of entertainment.

Media gratifications research in Australia Beyond the research of Henningham described above, few examples of U&G research in an Australian context are available in the literature, and those which are available often do not have a news/political information focus. For example, Kippax & Murray applied U&G to general mass media use (1980), amongst a Sydney community cohort, however without any focus on news specifically. Another Australian study analysed the content of the John Laws talkback radio program, and applying a U&G framework, found evidence the show fulfilled entertainment, surveillance and personal identity/sense of belonging gratifications (Appleton, 1999).

Summary of the media gratifications sought literature Given the widely varying approaches of the research described above, it is difficult to summarise the findings, however, some common themes do emerge. Surveillance and entertainment gratifications appear to be the strongest with regard to news media use generally, and are associated with use of a wide range of media types, including online news, television news, newspapers and magazines. The Internet appears to be used very purposefully as a source of information by people with high levels of interest in politics, and by people with low levels of trust in the government. Beyond these particular groups of people, however, the Internet seems to appeal to a wide range of gratification seekers, including surveillance, entertainment, escape and social utility. Traditional media forms, such as television news and newspapers, appear to be primarily associated with entertainment and surveillance gratifications, whilst comedy news is mostly associated with entertainment and escape, rather than surveillance gratifications.

Application of media gratifications in the current project The application of gratifications sought in the current thesis differs from the approaches outlined in this section. The current study considers the ways in which gratifications sought may influence media diets (to be discussed further in Chapter Four). That is, in addition to considering the relationship between specific gratifications and individual media types, this study also considers the relationship between specific gratifications and overall media use patterns, providing a more holistic picture of the political information worlds which influence citizens’ democratic practices. Whereas some previous studies have considered gratifications’ association with media content such as specific types of news stories or news genres, this thesis considers instead associations between gratifications sought and media qualities such as mainstream, non-mainstream, tabloid, broadsheet, commercial and public service. It will also be the first study to explore relationships between media scepticism and media gratifications.

The current project also differs in terms of the sample used. Much of the research reported in this section draws on US samples of either college students or people with high levels of political interest. This thesis instead draws on a random sample from an Australian community context, providing insights into the media behaviours of Australian citizens.

Details of the gratifications sought measurement instrument to be used in the current research will be discussed in Chapter Five of this report.

Political Interest It is perhaps unsurprising that individuals will use a greater number of information sources to find out about topics of interest to them, than they will to find out about topics that interest them less (Reagan, 1996). Equally unsurprisingly, active information seeking beyond the news headlines is more likely to occur on topics of interest to the respondent (Gantz et al., 1991). Recent Norwegian research has found that political interest is associated with increased use of television, radio, online newspapers and political party websites during an election campaign (Karlsen, 2010). Furthermore, use of the Internet during an election campaign is more instrumental (i.e. more information-focused) amongst the politically interested (Karlsen, 2010).

People with a high level of interest in politics use the Internet in specific ways for political information. For example, 1996 data revealed that people interested in politics tend to use the Internet for vote guidance, surveillance, entertainment and social utility (e.g. to have something to talk about with friends) gratifications (Kaye & Johnson, 2002). In US research conducted in 1996 and 2000, vote guidance was the primary gratification sought from use of the Web and Internet chat rooms, but was the weakest gratification associated with email lists and bulletin boards (Kaye & Johnson, 2004), which may indicate a lack of credibility associated with the latter resources. Convenience emerged in 2000 as the third strongest predictor of Internet use amongst politically interested respondents (after entertainment/social utility and surveillance gratifications) (Kaye & Johnson, 2004), and the second strongest predictor of political blog use (after surveillance and media checking) (Kaye, 2005). By 2004, convenience had become the primary motivation for visiting political websites (Kaye & Johnson, 2006).

In the context of the 2000 US presidential election, political interest was positively associated with media use, and was also linked positively to NFC (Bizer et al., 2002). Interest in political campaigns is typically a function of general interest in politics. Analysis of citizen use of political campaign websites during the US 2000 presidential campaign found individuals most likely to visit campaign sites for informational purposes were not those with the greatest or the least campaign interest, but rather those with moderate interest (Bimber & Davis, 2003). This may be because people with high political interest are also likely to feel quite knowledgeable about campaign issues, whereas voters with moderate campaign interest may not feel as knowledgeable, yet are “intrigued enough to seek out issue information” (Bimber & Davis, 2003, p.117). This contrasts with Reagan’s finding that as a person’s interest in a given topic increases, so to does their information repertoire associated with that topic (Reagan, 1996). Conversely, Wenner found motivations to avoid political news to be related to lack of interest in an election campaign (Wenner, 1983). It stands to reason then, that politically interested individuals will generally have larger socio- political information repertoires than people with little interest in politics. Hence, this thesis argues:

H9: High levels of political interest will be associated with larger socio- political information repertoires.

People with high levels of political interest appear to be turning increasingly to the Internet to provide information not available through the traditional media, particularly in the case of high profile conflicts or campaigns. This may be due to the paucity of political coverage in the traditional media, reduced in quantity and quality by the increasing emphasis on economic imperatives and corporate agendas (Tumber, 2001). US data reveals television coverage of election campaigns is diminishing, for example, 805 minutes of network campaign coverage in the 2000 US presidential election versus 1,400 minutes in the 1992 election (Bimber & Davis, 2003). Similarly, political news soundbites are also contracting, with the average US Presidential campaign soundbite in 1968 being 43 seconds long (Hallin, 1992), as compared to 7.73 seconds in 2004 (Bucy & Grabe, 2007). While older soundbite data does not exist for the Australian media, the 2007 election campaign saw an average soundbite length of under seven seconds (Young, 2008).

In addition, election coverage by the traditional media is increasingly focused on ‘horse- race’ aspects of the campaign (i.e. reporting the election as a competitive event) rather than policy issues. This type of horse-race coverage has been found to be less strongly related to surveillance gratifications, which are instead focused around factual as opposed to opinion-based political news content (Garramone, 1985). Kellner notes coverage of the 2004 US Presidential Election by the major television networks in the US focused on polls and the election process (the horse-race aspect), rather than policy issues (Kellner, 2005). Content analysis of media coverage of the previous two US Presidential Elections indicates this phenomenon is not new, with 71 percent of stories in the 2000 campaign focusing on horse-race aspects, up from 48 percent of stories in the 1996 campaign (Lichter, 2001).

In the UK the situation appears no better, with 84 percent of opinion poll references during the 2001 UK General Election television coverage reporting on horse-race rather than policy issues (Brookes, Lewis, & Wahl-Jorgensen, 2004). Similarly, media coverage of the last three Australian Federal Elections has attracted claims of ‘presidential style’ treatment. Television coverage of the 2001 Australian Federal Election was distinctly presidential in style, with the greatest airtime devoted to stories about the leaders of the two major parties, to the extent that each of the leaders attracted roughly three times the airtime that their party received (Denemark, Ward, & Bean, 2007). The 2004 Australian Federal Election campaign extended this trend, with a major emphasis on the personalities, rather than the policies, of the two leaders (Adams, 2005). In short, the media is providing smaller amounts of political information, and what they do provide is increasingly mediated and negative, focusing on “power tactics at the expense of issue substance” (Blumler & Gurevitch, 2001, p.2).

The Internet, with its varied content and producers, appears to be filling the gaps. In the US, citizens are turning to the Internet because they feel the media do not provide adequate political information, and to obtain political information not available elsewhere (Howard, 2005). In general, campaign website use in the 2000 US presidential campaign was by politically interested people who supplemented (rather than displaced) their use of traditional media, particularly newspapers, with the web (Bimber & Davis, 2003). Similarly, the 2003 Iraq War saw unprecedented use of the Internet as a source of information not provided by traditional news outlets, including live and uncensored audio and video feeds from within battle regions, depth analysis, alternative viewpoints, and blogs from citizens and journalists caught in the conflict (Hamdy & Mobarak, 2004). However Goot (2008) warns that news website coverage of the 2007 Australian Federal Election, whilst being less presidential in focus than the traditional media, fell far short of providing fair coverage to the range of contenders. Greater emphasis was given to the Prime Minister and Government (64 percent of mentions) over the Opposition (34 percent of mentions), whilst the minor parties received a level of coverage far below their vote share (Goot, 2008).

Political interest has also been linked to a preference for unmediated, or, at least, less journalistically mediated information, such as direct communications from political parties and special interest groups. UK research into subscribers to political party e-newsletters revealed that between 54 and 64 percent of the people surveyed had subscribed in order to receive direct, unmediated information from the parties (Jackson & Lilleker, 2007). This was in fact the fourth most common reason selected, after the desire to be informed of party policy, party activities and current issues. While the desire for policy, activity and issue information no doubt indicates a need for greater information depth than that typically provided by the media, the desire for direct, unmediated information may reflect a concern with regard to bias or lack of accuracy in mediated information. In the US, Internet users with high levels of political interest use political blogs to fact-check the information reported in the mainstream media. Information seeking/media checking and political surveillance were the gratifications most strongly associated with political interest,

followed by convenience, social surveillance, expression/affiliation and finally personal fulfillment (Kaye, 2005).

Similarly, interviews with Swedish political activists aged 16 to 20, of both mainstream (i.e. political party-based) and alternative persuasions, revealed their distrust and disillusionment with the mainstream media. In their view, the media “hardly cover their issues and when they finally do they tend to get them all wrong” (Dahlgren & Olsson, 2005, p.15). This gap in issue coverage is highlighted by US research that reveals major differences in the issues which attract the most attention in blogs and on Twitter and those on which the mainstream media focus (Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, 2010a). During 2009, blogs and the mainstream press shared the same headline story only 13 times out of the 47 weeks studied, whilst the Twitter top story was the same in only 4 of the 27 weeks studied (Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, 2010a). These gaps in issue relevance and concerns regarding journalistic reliability encourage use of non-news mediated information. These young activists use the Internet to seek out primary political information which they can be confident has not been distorted by the media, for example through political party and political activist group websites (Dahlgren & Olsson, 2005).

Norris (2003) examined the Eurobarometer2 data from Spring 2000 to determine use of political party websites across the 15 European Union member states. Ten percent of respondents who had Internet access at home had visited a political party website in the three months prior to the survey (Norris, 2003). These party websites were most visited by individuals who are active political participants, and were least used by citizens who self- identify as politically central (on the right-left spectrum) and by people who vote for politically central parties (Norris, 2003). Norris speculates that the reduced use of political party websites by politically central citizens may indicate that these individuals are less politically interested.

In the 2005 Norwegian General Election campaign, young people (aged 17 to 24) were the greatest users of political party websites, but not the greatest followers of the campaign via online newspapers (Karlsen, 2010). Karlsen (2010) believes this preference for unmediated information via political party websites, rather than mediated information from online newspapers, amongst those with the least electoral experience reflects the type of

2 The Eurobarometer survey is conducted twice per year by the European Commission, to measure public opinion and social attitudes in European Union member states. information new voters require – basic information about party positions and policies, which they are less likely to obtain from media coverage. Similarly, American data indicates non-news media websites are being used to deepen voter understanding of particular issues – a depth of information they are clearly not obtaining from the media (Howard, 2005). Between 1996 and 2002, use of the websites of politicians, political candidates and parties, non-partisan groups and community groups decreased by up to 27 percent, whilst use of issue-specific websites increased by 23 percent (Howard, 2005).

In summary, it appears politically interested citizens seek out non-news media information sources to provide a depth of coverage not available through the mass media. It also appears that at least some of these citizens prefer to obtain political information from primary sources (such as political party or activist websites), rather than risk incomplete, inaccurate and possibly biased coverage of important issues by the media. Thus:

H10: High levels of political interest will be associated with higher use of non-news media3 information sources.

Kim (2006) incorporated a mainstream/non-mainstream dimension to an analysis of online source use, finding that politically interested individuals who distrust the traditional media turn to blogs for political information, but not to mainstream news websites or news portals, presumably as these are likely to provide the same information as traditional mainstream media. Similarly, a 2004 sample of politically-interested Internet users identified use of bulletin boards, blogs and chat rooms were all associated with distrust towards the mainstream media. These media were used “to check on the accuracy of traditional media”, “to get a wide variety of viewpoints”, or to obtain “information that I can’t get from traditional media”, suggesting not only the traditional media is viewed with scepticism, but also that the Internet is now viewed as a source of legitimate and diverse political information (Kaye & Johnson, 2006). Diverse and alternative viewpoints are associated in the current study with non-mainstream media sources (as will be further discussed in Chapter Four). Thus:

3 The category ‘non-news media sources’ will be defined and discussed further in Chapter Four. 83

H11: Media sceptics who have high levels of political interest will prefer non-mainstream media sources.

The concerns regarding the accuracy of the media, described above, may also indicate that political interest is associated with an increased desire for high quality information about politics. The tabloid/broadsheet distinction, as will be discussed in Chapter Four, is expressly associated with journalistic quality, with broadsheet media defined by their commitment to traditional journalistic standards and ethical reporting. Further, as discussed in Chapter Two, in Australia, public service media in general have better reputations for journalistic quality than do the commercial media (Ang et al., 2006; Bean, 2005; Harrington, 2008). Data collected during the 2001 Australian Federal Election certainly supports these notions, with 45 percent of SBS television news viewers and 54 percent of ABC television news viewers reporting a high level of interest in politics, compared with only 26 to 31 percent of viewers of commercial news programs similarly interested in politics (Bean, 2005). Thus:

H12: Media sceptics who have high levels of political interest will prefer public service media sources. H13: Media sceptics who have high levels of political interest will prefer broadsheet media sources.

Finally, political interest has been found to correlate with high NFC (Bizer et al., 2002; Condra, 1992; Liu & Eveland, 2005). Thus:

H14: People with high levels of political interest will have higher NFC than people with low levels of political interest.

Conclusion This chapter has sought to situate the current project within the broader media communications research traditions. The project was identified as having a hybrid approach, incorporating both political economy and empirical research approaches. The chapter also introduced and reviewed the range of key attitudinal and psychological constructs (independent variables) to be considered in this project: media scepticism, NFC, media gratifications and political interest.

Media scepticism was defined, and its development as a construct described. Evidence for the existence of media scepticism amongst Western societies was explored. Previous applications of media scepticism were outlined, particularly as they relate to information seeking, and from these findings, a range of hypotheses were developed for the present study.

NFC was introduced as a construct. Applications of the NFC scale in information seeking research were described, and again hypotheses were drawn for the present study.

Media gratifications were introduced in the broader context of the U&G research tradition. A range of media gratifications sought dimensions common to news media use were explained, with specific attention on the three incorporated into the present project: surveillance, entertainment and escape gratifications.

Finally, evidence for the influence of political interest on information behaviour was presented, and a range of hypotheses were developed based on the findings in the research literature.The following chapter will introduce the range of approaches which will be used to analyse and interpret media consumption patterns in the current project: socio- political information repertoires and media diets.

Chapter Four: Information Consumption Patterns: Dependent Variables

Introduction The previous chapter contextualised the present thesis within the broader media and communication research traditions, situating it as a hybrid of political economy and empirical approaches. The chapter then introduced and reviewed the literature relating to each of the key independent variables in the study: media scepticism, need for cognition (NFC), media gratifications sought and political interest, focusing on the associations between these variables and information selection. From this review of the literature, a range of hypotheses regarding information selection emerged, to be tested in the study.

The current chapter will consider the second aspect of this thesis: the information consumption patterns which result from information selection decisions. This chapter will explore different options for considering these patterns to enable useful analysis and interpretation. Specifically, the information repertoire and media diet constructs will be introduced. Each of these constructs will be explored with regard to their relevance to the present study context, and modifications suggested where required. In this way, the chapter will detail the socio-political information repertoire construct, and suggest three media diets: the mainstream/non-mainstream, private/public and tabloid/broadsheet media diets, which have been specifically designed to suit the contemporary Australian context.

Information repertoires and media diets As stated previously, individuals tend to return again and again to the same media outlets when seeking information about a particular topic (Gantz et al., 1991; McGuire, 1974). This behaviour results in a distinct media consumption pattern for any given individual, their ‘information repertoire’ (Reagan, 1996). Reagan (1996) found individuals have distinct information repertoires for specific topics, and the size of these repertoires (in terms of number of sources used) increases as interest in a topic grows. The existence of personal, topic-specific information repertoires raises questions about the appropriateness of studies which focus on the use of a single medium (Reagan, 1996). Further, as the information environment increases in complexity, the range of paths by which individuals may traverse 87

that environment also grows, including “a path along which media have minimal direct significance” (Couldry, 2006, p.187). Certainly, if we are interested in a holistic view of information consumption, a multiple-source approach must be taken, including the consideration of information sources beyond the mass media.

The current study, concerned with how and where individuals obtain political information to stimulate and support their democratic participation, takes such an approach. Unlike the bulk of media audience studies which have focused on individuals’ selection of information sources from within a small range of options, the current study considers a much broader sweep of the information landscape, including media (e.g. television, newspapers, radio) and non-news media (e.g. direct political party communications, public speaking events, interpersonal) sources.

This thesis gathers media usage data on more than 120 separate information sources for each survey respondent. As such, identifying an appropriate method of meaningfully analysing and interpreting this data was paramount. While each individual has a unique repertoire of socio-political information sources, to enable analysis, patterns amongst these distinct repertoires must be identified. For this, I employ two constructs: ‘socio-political information repertoires’ and ‘media diets’. These will be further discussed later in the chapter. However I first wish to revisit what I mean by ‘socio-political information’, ‘media’ and ‘non-news media’.

Socio-political information The word ‘political’ has multiple definitions and connotations. The definition intended in the current project is a broad one, generally based around the OED definition: “*r+elating to or concerned with public life and affairs as involving questions of authority and government; relating to or concerned with the theory or practice of politics” *my italics+ (Oxford English Dictionary Online, 2007). Thus, ‘socio-political information’ refers to much more than simply information about the workings of government or elections. This approach has similarities with the ‘public world’ versus ‘private world’ distinction, where ‘public’ refers to “things or issues which are regarded as being of shared concern, rather than of purely private concern” (Couldry, Livingstone, & Markham, 2006, p.4). Such a distinction is not objective and fixed, but is deliberately left open to interpretation by the individual. Media versus non-news media information sources As stated in Chapter One, the present project extends beyond a consideration of mass media information sources alone, attempting to obtain a wider view of the information landscapes from which Australians retrieve socio-political information. As such, in addition to collecting data regarding the use of traditional mass media products such as newspapers, television and radio, the project also addressed the use of information sources from beyond the media, such as blogs, social networking sites, friends and family, politicians and public speaking events. In order to meaningfully analyse the media consumption patterns which emerged from the research, it was useful to collate individual use items into categorical groups, including a distinction between ‘media’ and ‘non-news media’ information sources. For the purposes of the present study, this categorisation was made according to two information source characteristics: content mediation and cost requirements.

With regard to content mediation, I assert that ‘news media’ sources are overtly mediated in some organised way, by a professional information gatekeeper, such as an editor or producer. This mediation may ensure journalistic integrity, such as when ensuring fact- checking has been conducted, or that all sides of an issue are given an opportunity for expression. However, such mediation may also be used to ensure the content of a media product ‘tows the company line’. Herman & Chomsky (1994) identify the ownership concentration and profit-focus of major mass media corporations, and their concomitant reliance on advertising, as filters which influence news content. Given (2002) notes that media proprietors are known to direct or omit news coverage in certain ways, or to employ people who will do so. Senior editors can “become the proprietor’s ‘voice’ within the newsroom, ensuring that journalistic ‘independence’ conforms to the preferred editorial line”, which may be focused on influencing business deals, public opinion, or the political environment (McNair, 2009, p.50-1).

Rupert Murdoch, of News Corp (which owns 70 percent of Australian newspapers), and Kerry Packer, former proprietor of PBL (which for many years owned Australia’s Nine Network and ACP Magazines, amongst other interests), are especially renowned for their interventionist approaches to media proprietorship (McNair, 2009; Rundle, 2005). Murdoch in particular is unapologetic about this approach; for example, his admission with regards to coverage of the Iraq War that his newspapers “have indeed supported Bush’s foreign

policy. And we remain committed that way” (Manne, 2005c). Indeed, in September 2002, a News Corp newspaper, the Hobart Mercury, printed an editorial which took a position against the Iraq Invasion. The newspaper was subsequently instructed by head office to alter its position, which it did (Manne, 2005c). Packer was perhaps even more blatant at times, such as when he perceived that former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating had failed to fully support his requests regarding Government pay TV policies, and in response publicly switched his allegiance from Paul Keating to John Howard (who subsequently became Prime Minister at the next election) (Dempster, 2005). A 2006 Roy Morgan survey of Australian journalists revealed 53 percent of respondents had at some point felt unable to be critical of the company or owner they worked for. In addition, 32 percent had felt obliged to take into account the political position of the company or owner they worked for, and 50 percent to account for the commercial position taken by the company or owner (Roy Morgan Research, 2006b). An alarming 38 percent stated they had at some point been instructed to comply with the company or owner’s commercial position, and 17 percent with the company or owner’s political position (Roy Morgan Research, 2006b).

Major advertisers can also exert an influence on content via proprietors and editors, such as car manufacturer Chrysler pressuring editors in the US not to publish material on homosexuality or other “provocative” topics (McNair, 2009, p.52). Similarly, CBS and ABC reporters in the US were pressured by food company sponsors, who also own tobacco interests, to apologize for, or censor, stories critical of the tobacco industry (Bagdikian, 1997). Advertiser influence need not be so overt, because media networks also tend to pre- empt sponsor concerns, effectively self-censoring (Hoynes, 1994; Shoemaker & Reese, 1996). In addition to modifying content or tone, owners and advertisers may also influence the gatekeeping part of the media process, the point at which stories are selected for coverage or rejected completely. A 1999 survey of news correspondents from five of the major US networks revealed that 20 percent had felt pressured by their network owners to either include or reject a story, and seven percent felt similarly pressured by advertisers (Price, 2003). Even editorial checking with regard to ‘balance’ can result in bias, as “a story that supports the status quo is generally considered to be neutral and its objectivity is not questioned, while one that challenges the status quo tends to be perceived as having a ‘point of view’ and therefore biased” (Beder, 2004, p.207). Mediation can thus act as a form of censorship. A 2000 Australian survey revealed audiences are well aware of these influences, with ‘media owners’, ‘big business’ and ‘commercial sponsors’ being the top three perceived influences on news and current affairs content, according to more than 85 percent of respondents (Brand et al., 2001).

In contrast, by my definition, ‘non-news media information sources’ do not routinely involve this type of deliberate and organised mediation. In making this assertion, I am in no way suggesting that non-news media sources are devoid of bias, nor am I suggesting they are devoid of journalistic integrity. Rather, I am simply pointing to the reduced likelihood of mediation by a third party. Non-news media information sources offer the sender and receiver a more direct communication opportunity. For example, live public speaking events contain an element of spontaneity. Even if the prepared speech has been reviewed by sponsors, once the speaker stands at the podium, s/he may disseminate whatever information they want, within legal limits. Political party newsletters, on the other hand, whilst most likely written by the party’s communication professionals, are not subject to fact-checking or bias-elimination by an independent source, and are hence not mediated in the sense implied here.

The second distinction between media and non-news media sources is that of the number of resources required for their use. Seeking, obtaining and processing information is a costly exercise, requiring resources such as money, time, energy and cognitive ability (Atkin, 1973). The cost attributes associated with information use thus include financial cost, length, comprehensibility, signal clarity, prominence and accessibility, as well as opportunity costs (e.g. attending a public lecture may require one to miss a simultaneously scheduled social event) (Atkin, 1973; Pirolli & Card, 1999). ‘Media’ products are created with these factors in mind. They are deliberately developed for ease of consumption (Atkin, 1973), with careful attention paid to factors such as language level, structure of argument and page layout. Similarly, media products generally aim for the widest distribution possible, being available at newsagents, delivered to your door, broadcast into your home, or downloaded to your mobile phone. Media products tend therefore to be easy to use, reasonably cheap to obtain and readily accessible.

‘Non-news media’ sources, on the other hand, are likely to require greater effort to locate, obtain and engage with. E-newsletters require the effort of finding and subscribing to them. Public speaking events may be financially costly, are temporally fixed (with the associated opportunity costs), require the cognitive effort of interpreting predominantly auditory information in real time, and require the physical effort of booking the tickets and travelling 91

to the event. Facebook requires the cognitive effort to navigate its increasingly complex interface, and the financial costs of a computer/mobile phone and Internet connection.

Using these distinctions, the following information sources have been identified as non- news media for the purposes of the current research project: social networking media (e.g. YouTube, MySpace, Facebook); direct communications with political parties, charities, lobby groups or politicians; public speaking events (e.g. book launches, festivals); books and documentaries4; zines; interpersonal communication (e.g. with friends and colleagues); and active engagement with Internet search engines (e.g. creating and conducting a Google search).

Socio-political information repertoires Building on Reagan’s (1996) finding that individuals use different information repertoires for different topics, I introduce the idea of the socio-political information repertoire (SPIR), which refers to the range of resources individuals use to find out about socio-political issues. For the purposes of the present analysis, the SPIR is further refined according to specific characteristics of the sources used. For example, each respondent has a television repertoire, which reflects the degree of reliance on television as a political information source for that person, relative to other respondents. Similarly, each respondent has a print media SPIR, a non-news media SPIR, and so on. The range and calculation of SPIRs utilised in the project is further discussed in Chapter Five.

Media diets Anderson & Hanson (2009, p.1204) provide a succinct explanation of the concept of the ‘media diet’: [i]n most circumstances media content and form are more important than time spent. A media diet metaphor is proposed as an alternative approach that includes both amount of exposure and program content across media platforms.

Thus, while an information repertoire refers to a list of information sources used, a ‘media diet’ typically incorporates some sort of content description. For example, the ‘sexual media diet’ construct has been developed within the health sciences. Such a diet is

4 While it is acknowledged that books and documentaries generally have some form of editorial input, they are included here as non-news media sources because of the increased resources required for their use, particularly in terms of cognitive, financial and opportunity costs. calculated by weighting frequency of media use by the frequency of sexual content in those media (Brown et al., 2006), hence providing a measure by which to compare the content of different sexual media diets.

In the current study, I draw on and expand Tsfati’s conceptualisation of the media diet (Tsfati, 2002), which describes information repertoires by considering their relative composition with regard to some dichotomous characteristic. In Tsfati’s case, the dichotomy is ‘mainstream’ versus ‘non-mainstream’ media. Considering dichotomous characteristics enables the researcher to measure media diets quantitatively (for example, by a simple subtraction of non-mainstream usage from mainstream usage), enabling advanced statistical analysis. The remainder of this chapter will consider a range of different conceptual approaches to the media diet construct.

Mainstream/non-mainstream media diet In his US research, Tsfati explored the impact media scepticism has on media diets, which he conceptualised as a comparison of the number of mainstream versus non-mainstream media sources used by a news consumer. He found media sceptics’ media diets incorporated fewer mainstream news sources and more non-mainstream news sources than non-sceptics (Tsfati, 2002; Tsfati & Cappella, 2003), with this impact moderated in individuals who scored highly on a need for cognition scale (Tsfati, 2002; Tsfati & Cappella, 2005). While this is an interesting finding, Tsfati’s mainstream/non-mainstream media distinction deserves some consideration.

Tsfati makes a number of statements describing non-mainstream media. For him, non- mainstream media: 1. present themselves as alternatives to mainstream media institutions; 2. are sometimes easier for the average person to participate in; 3. attempt to present alternative information and a different point of view from the mainstream media; and 4. are very cynical about mainstream media (Tsfati, 2002, p311).

In the research literature, the term ‘non-mainstream media’ appears to be less commonly employed than the term ‘alternative media’. Atton notes there is some confusion between

the two terms (Atton, 2002), although there does appear to be significant overlap in their definitions. Hamilton notes that from a mass culture perspective, alternative media’s role is to unmask the “dominant ideology” (Hamilton, 2000), reflecting point 3 above. Downing similarly notes alternative media “focus on challenging the structures of power”, as opposed to mainstream media which “focus on hegemonic integration” (Downing, 2003, p.626), reflecting the above points 1, 3 and to some extent 4. Similarly, for Couldry, alternative media is about challenging “the concentration of symbolic power in media institutions” (2002, p.25). Also in this vein are definitions which consider mainstream media as those which “target the largest possible share of the public”, while alternative media target smaller, niche segments (Tsfati & Peri, 2006, p.168). Such an approach may be operationalised by using economic criteria, with mainstream media having high levels of funding, while alternative media are smaller budget affairs (Atton, 2002). Vercellotti & Brewer (2006) extend the role of alternative media far beyond Tsfati’s ‘non-mainstream’ definition, seeing it additionally as an antidote to the mainstream media and an advocate for minority groups.

Atton summarises the many definitions of alternative and radical media into a six point typology, consisting of three product characteristics (content; form; and reprographic innovations/adaptations) and three process characteristics (distributive use; transformed social relations, roles and responsibilities; and transformed communication processes) (Atton, 2002). Table 4.1 considers range of media types which might be included in a contemporary interpretation of Atton’s typology. It must be noted that Atton’s typology is somewhat dated in the context of social media. Social media such as blogs and social networking sites utilise Web2.0 technologies which enable a greater degree of variety in form (eg. multimedia capabilities), reprographic innovation (eg. HTML) and distribution (eg. e-newsletters, Twitter). These technologies also blur formerly rigid distinctions between information producers, distributors and consumers, for example in the case of blogs. Such characteristics are just as likely to be incorporated into the websites of traditional media producers such as The Australian newspaper as they are to be utilised by producers dedicated to alternative information provision. It is therefore Atton’s content characteristic which remains the clearest identifier of alternative media as described in the previous paragraph.

Table 4.1: Atton’s typology of alternative and radical media with examples Type Explanation Examples Content Politically or socio-culturally Radical street press (eg. Green Left radical; news values Weekly newspaper); zines; indiemedia.org; community media (eg. ZzZ radio, Bris31 television station5); independent documentaries Form Graphics; varieties of Zines; indiemedia.org; independent presentation; aesthetics documentaries; e-newsletters; blogs Reprographic Desk top publishing; Zines; websites; blogs; e-newsletters innovations photocopying; HTML Distributive Alternative distribution Zines, radical street press (eg. Green use methods/sites; Left Weekly); Websites; blogs; e- clandestine/invisible newsletters; text messaging; distribution networks indiemedia.org Transformed Reader/writers; collective Blogs; websites; community media (ZZZ social relations, organization; de- radio; Bris31 television station); zines; roles, professionalisation of indiemedia.org responsibilities journalism, publishing, etc Transformed Horizontal linkages; networks Websites; blogs; text messaging; e- communication newsletters; email lists; telephone; processes indiemedia.org (adapted from Atton, 2002, p.27)

For some, alternative media can range from performance art and graffiti, to websites and underground political papers (Downing, 2003), however, Tsfati’s scope for non-mainstream media is far narrower. Tsfati selects only political talk radio (PTR) and Internet sources as non-mainstream, while daily newspapers and television news are considered mainstream. This fairly broad distinction is due in part to his reliance on a secondary analysis of existing datasets, however, his rationale for such a breakdown highlights some interesting differences between the US and Australian media contexts.

Tsfati explains he considers PTR non-mainstream, because American PTR is frequently critical of public institutions, including the media itself; and because it is more accessible to the “average person” through the call-in nature of the program format (Tsfati, 2002, p311). Internet sources are considered non-mainstream because of a perceived independence (due to minimal barriers to entry – it is not restricted to only the large media corporations) which enables them to critique the media and other institutions. Internet sources are further considered non-mainstream due to their often interactive nature, which allows

5 ZzZ radio and Bris31 television are Brisbane-based community broadcasters 95

audience members to contribute to the information source (e.g. through comments fields), and potentially provide alternative content and viewpoints. Tsfati is careful to note that both mainstream and non-mainstream content may occur within either set of media, but maintains that on balance, his distinction is reasonable.

In order to consider the appropriateness of such a distinction to the Australian media landscape, I will now address each of these media types in turn, from an Australian perspective.

Political talk radio / Talkback radio Talkback radio, the Australian equivalent of PTR, has a different reputation to its American counterpart. If, as Tsfati (2002) implies, American PTR has a reputation for critiquing public institutions, Australian talkback radio is in contrast seen alternatively as “a crucial part of the structure through which contemporary party politics is prosecuted” (Turner, 2007, p78), as a place where extreme displays of identity politics are rehearsed (Hartley & Green, 2006), or as a tool for community building (particularly in regional areas) (Ames, 2007).

The mainstream political role was cemented during the Prime Ministership of John Howard (1996-2007). In this period, radio shifted from being a “useful” political tool, to being “pivotal” (Faine, 2005, p.177). Talkback radio was Prime Minister Howard’s preferred means of disseminating political information to the public (Ester, 2007; Lee, 2007), and thus the daily agenda setter of the news cycle (Faine, 2005). It has been suggested that Howard’s preference for talkback radio over other forms of media coverage is due in large part to talkback radio’s reputation for allowing politicians to speak directly to the public, thereby bypassing professional journalistic critique and scrutiny (Faine, 2005).

The second, extremist political role of talkback radio can be seen in the part talkback radio star Alan Jones played in the Cronulla Beach riots of December 2005. Plans for the premeditated race riots between ‘Anglo-Celtic’ Australians and Australians of ‘Middle- Eastern’ appearance, were given regular coverage in the days leading up to the riots by Alan Jones, one of Australia’s most successful talkback radio hosts, with Jones himself claiming “I’m the person that’s led this charge” (Hartley & Green, 2006, p.355). This is merely the most recent high profile association between commercial talkback radio and extremist racial views (for a summary of other cases, see Gould, 2007).

At the other end of the spectrum, locally-based talkback radio in regional Australia can perform community-building functions, by providing a forum for the discussion of local issues and the local implications of broader issues, as well as by supporting local community events, such as hospital fundraisers (Ames, 2007).

Thus, talkback radio in Australia can be seen as a diverse medium. It has become both a central cog within the public institution of government and a medium for the dissemination of radical and extreme political views, whilst also performing community-building functions in regional Australia. Australian talkback radio cannot, therefore, be pigeon-holed wholesale as a medium which is critical of public institutions, as is implied in Tsfati’s categorisation of US PTR as non-mainstream.

Tsfati’s second rationale, that talkback radio may be easier for the average person to participate in, is countered by the tight screening processes which are conducted prior to a caller being allowed to participate in any such show. The degree to which participation by ‘average people’ is enabled is strictly determined by the show producers, who pre-screen callers to ensure they fit the show’s tenor (Gillman, 2007; Salter, 2006). Alternative viewpoints are ironically thus only likely to be represented in the show if they suit the agenda of the show’s producers and sponsors.

Internet It must be noted that the landscape of the Internet has changed significantly in the seven years since Tsfati’s thesis was completed. A vast array of news and political information sources now abounds on the Internet, including online versions of traditional corporate news outlets (e.g. NineMSN.com, news.com.au); independent, non-corporate, democratically organised news collectives (e.g. Independent Media Centre (indymedia.org)); independent but commercial political information services (e.g. Crikey, NewMatilda); professional non-profit political blogs (e.g. Larvatus Prodeo); and personal blogs. While it is true that some of these sites present themselves as alternatives to the mainstream media; that some present non-mainstream viewpoints, and that some provide opportunities for input from their audience, a great many do not. Political coverage in online newspapers, for example, is subject to the same journalistic filters as traditional news formats (Karlsen, 2010). Further, these distinctions amongst online content are not

lost on the Internet-using public. Kim found individuals who believe that traditional media lack credibility “are more likely to rely on alternative political sources, such as portal*s+ and blogs, rather than on news sites directly maintained by traditional news organizations” (Kim, 2006, p.198). It is certainly the case that the bulk of the content of mainstream news websites is the same as that provided by traditional news organizations (Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, 2009). To group the entire Internet together as a ‘non- mainstream’ media outlet therefore seems inaccurate at the present time.

A different approach to the mainstream/non-mainstream distinction For the reasons outlined above, it is this author’s contention that in the increasingly complex modern political information environment, attempting to make mainstream/non- mainstream distinctions at the channel level (e.g. Internet vs newspaper) is simplistic and inaccurate. Although undeniably more complicated and time consuming, a nevertheless more useful approach may be to consider the source originator’s stated commitment to non-mainstream or alternative information provision. Applying Tsfati’s basic definition of non-mainstream media as those that “present themselves as alternatives to the mainstream media institutions” (Tsfati, 2002, p. 311; 2003a), we can refer to mission statements, slogans or similar, to distinguish the mainstream from the non-mainstream. In this way, non-mainstream media are identified by having a stated commitment to the provision of information diversity. So for example, information generated by the Channel 9 News Network will be considered mainstream regardless of the delivery platform (e.g. TV, Internet or podcast), on the basis that their corporate documents and promotional materials make no reference to alternative viewpoints (in fact, they make no reference to being an information provider, or to information standards at all). On the other hand, Brisbane radio station 4ZzZ’s website makes explicit the station’s self-identified role of “presenting news and opinions not found in mainstream media” (4ZzZ Brisbane, n.d.), so would be considered non-mainstream despite its quite traditional delivery platform (radio).

Such an approach enables a much finer level of granularity in any consideration of media diets and the impact of media scepticism. However, the Australian media landscape lends itself to other conceptualisations of media diets, as is discussed in the remainder of this chapter.

Private/public media diet Regardless of how it is operationalised, the mainstream/non-mainstream or mainstream/alternative media distinction may be less useful in the Australian media context than it is in the US context. As discussed in Chapter Two, Australia has one of the highest media ownership concentrations the world (Rahkonen, 2007). For example, 68 percent of national and capital city newspaper circulation is controlled by News Corp (Gardiner-Garden & Chowns, 2006). In such an environment, the volume of, degree of access to, and usage of non-mainstream media sources, relative to mainstream sources, may be so insignificant as to make meaningful comparisons difficult. How then should researchers conceptualise the media diets of Australians?

Another option could be to consider the consumption of public service versus commercial media. Looking at the dominant news source in Australia, television, Pay TV uptake in Australia remains at reasonably low levels (24 percent penetration in 2007) (Paul Budde Communication, 2008), with the five national free-to-air stations still dominating the market. Of these, two are publicly funded broadcasters, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and the multicultural Special Broadcasting Service (SBS)6, with each creating products not only in television but also in radio, online and print formats. The roles, scope and funding of both public broadcasters are defined and protected by Federal Government legislation. Significantly, in light of the earlier discussion regarding stated missions and goals, both public broadcasters differ from the commercial networks in having a stated commitment to the provision of quality information (Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), 2006; Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), 2002). It perhaps follows that both also have a reputation for higher quality journalism than that offered by their commercial competitors (Ang et al., 2006; Bean, 2005; Harrington, 2008; Turner, 2005). In a large scale survey conducted in 2000 for the Australian Broadcasting Authority, public television and public radio were identified as the most credible news and current affairs sources in Australia (Brand et al., 2001). Respondents’ reasons for their trust in public media included the lack of interventionist media owners, the lack of corporate sponsor influence, the commitment to quality standards at the ABC, and the depth and range of news coverage at both the ABC and SBS (Brand et al., 2001). In contrast, free-to-air

6 In 1991, legislative changes to the Special Broadcasting Bill allowed the introduction of limited advertising on SBS television, as a supplement to government funding. Advertising began in the 1992/3 financial year. Government funding currently provides around 80 percent of SBS’s income (Special Broadcasting Service, 2010d). 99

commercial television and radio ranked last in the list, after public television and radio networks, the Internet, Pay TV and newspapers (Brand et al., 2001).

ABC news and current affairs is commonly believed to be the best in Australia, despite severe funding cuts from the mid-1980s onwards, and repeated charges of bias from the political right wing (Dempster, 2005, p.106; Simons, 2005, p.125). Both internal and external reviews of ABC election coverage, conducted in 1998, 2001 and 2004, consistently found the coverage to be impartial, balanced and accurate (Inglis, 2006). In fact, only 0.7 percent of citizen complaints to the ABC relate to perceived political party bias (Simons, 2005, p.145). Newspoll7 surveys of attitudes towards the ABC, conducted in 2002 and 2003, revealed that ABC’s major news and current affairs programming (television’s 7pm ABC News, 7.30 Report, and radio’s AM/PM and The World Today), was believed to be “balanced and even handed” by 85 to 95 percent of users (Newspoll, 2003). This reputation for excellence has followed the ABC into the online environment, with Internet users in a recent study noting ABC news websites to contain “independent journalism”, “higher quality news”, “close to politically neutral”, and “objective, informative, non- sensationalised news” (Daniel et al., 2009, p.14). These favourable attitudes contrast sharply with the disdain with which Australian journalism in general is held, for example with 85 percent of Australians perceiving newspaper journalists as ‘often biased’ (74 percent for television reporters and 69 percent for talkback radio announcers) (Roy Morgan Research, 2007a). Certainly the volume of election television coverage reveals a clear difference between public and commercial media. During the 2007 Australian Federal Election, the commercial channels allocated on average 1:40 minutes to each election item, whilst the public broadcasters allowed on average 2:38 minutes (Young, 2008). Similarly, commercial station soundbites averaged 6.19 seconds, compared with an average 7.65 seconds on the public broadcasters (Young, 2008). As mentioned in Chapter Two, Turner notes that tacit acknowledgement of the ABC’s superior political journalism is evidenced by the decision to hold federal election debates on Channel 9, rather than on the national broadcaster, because “it suits the politicians’ interests: they know they will get an easier ride” (Turner, 2005, p.97).

It is already known that significant political differences exist between the television news audiences of these public broadcasters and those of the commercial networks (Bean, 2005).

7 Ironically, Newspoll is owned by commercial media conglomerate News Corp. Viewers of the Australian public television network news tend to self-identify to the left of the political ideology spectrum, whereas commercial news viewers tend to self-identify to the right (Bean, 2005). Partisan allegiances also follow this pattern, for example, with the commercial audiences preferring the conservative parties (Liberal Party of Australia, National Party, One Nation Party), the ABC audience preferring the ALP and the Greens, and SBS audiences supporting the ALP and the Greens to an even greater extent than ABC audiences, and also preferring the Democrats (Bean, 2005). Demographic distinctions also separate the audiences, with the commercial news shows more popular with people aged 25 and under, SBS news more popular with the 25 to 44 age bracket, and ABC appealing strongly to the over 65 age group. Education is one of the strongest distinctions between audiences, with 36 percent of ABC news viewers and 34 percent of SBS news viewers having a university degree, compared with 12 to 16 percent of the commercial news viewers (Bean, 2005). Given the differing reputations for journalistic quality enjoyed by public versus private media outlets, such a distinction may also prove useful in analyses of the consequences of media scepticism in the Australian context.

Tabloid/broadsheet media diet Another distinction familiar in the Australian context is between ‘tabloid’ and ‘broadsheet’ journalism. This distinction is difficult to make with precision, nevertheless the terms are generally understood to convey a sense of credibility (broadsheet) versus untrustworthiness (tabloid) (Pieper, 2000). Experimental research has confirmed that the tabloid/broadsheet distinction plays a primary role in judgements regarding the credibility of media reports, having a greater impact than specifically placed credibility-enforcing content (e.g. academic references) or strength of argument (Kaufman et al., 1999).

Pieper found that while the line between the two forms of journalism is often spoken about by audience and journalists alike as an almost tangible boundary, in practice, the line is commonly crossed from both directions (Pieper, 2000), particularly in the pursuit of higher ratings and reduced production costs (Beecher, 2005; Harrington, 2008). For example, US tabloid newspaper the National Enquirer refused on principal to publish photos from the car crash which killed Princess Diana, reflecting a level of taste and ethics not generally associated with tabloid journalism; while broadsheet media were found to have published unsubstantiated rumours as fact, and conducted paparazzi-style stalking during the

101

Lewinsky/Clinton Presidential scandal (Pieper, 2000). In Australia, as in many other Western societies, tabloid topics such as celebrities, gossip, lifestyle and trivia has become standard content in both tabloid and quality media (Beecher, 2005; Lumby, 1999). Nevertheless, a range of behaviours have come to be associated with the practice of tabloid journalism, including ‘foot-in-the-door’ interrogating, hidden cameras, paid interviews, paparazzi-style intrusive photography, rapid edits, emotive music and lighting, and dramatized ‘re- enactments’ (Bird, 2003; Lumby, 1999; Pieper, 2000; Poynting & Noble, 2003; Turner, 2005).

In addition to these specific practices, tabloid journalism is seen as blurring the line between information provision and entertainment, tending to focus on the private lives of individuals, especially in the spheres of “scandal, sports and entertainment” (Deuze, 2005, p.862). Tabloid journalism is generally considered to be of low journalistic quality, not adhering to the stated standards and ethics of traditional journalism (Pieper, 2000). For example in the realm of Australian television, Turner notes that a concern for journalistic quality is replaced by a focus on “making stories that could be effectively promoted through… advertising teasers” (Turner, 2005, p49). Further, tabloid journalism is characterised by shallow, limited or superficial coverage of the topic at hand, and a heavy reliance on images rather than content (Lumby, 1999; Turner, 2005). Perhaps the ultimate difference between the two genres is that broadsheet media acknowledge some level of public responsibility, an echo perhaps of the Fourth Estate ideal, which is not necessarily shared by tabloid sources (Turner, 1996b).

Harrington provides the following summary of the “loose” distinction between tabloid and broadsheet categories (Table 4.2):

Table 4.2: Summary of characteristics traditionally associated with ‘tabloid’ and ‘broadsheet’ categories Popular Quality Tabloid Broadsheet Soft Hard Trash Value Personal Political Private Public Popular culture High culture Emotional Rational Lay knowledge Expert knowledge Celebrity Intellectual Consumer Citizen Trivial Serious Feminine Masculine Profit Service Micro-politics Macro-politics Wants Needs (Harrington, 2008, p.269)

Lumby stresses that, while we can use such markers to distinguish these two media categories, this distinction will not necessarily tell us about the political value of a particular story, or how effectively the story is communicated to the audience (Lumby, 1999). However, the tabloid/broadsheet media distinction does tend to carry within it assumptions regarding the different audiences of the two media, with tabloids assumed to appeal to immature and ill-informed individuals, while broadsheets are perceived to be preferred by better educated, higher-order thinkers (Lumby, 1999). Whether such an assumption is valid or not, the two media forms ultimately have the same aim: to appeal to their target audience. Thus, while broadsheets may offer more detailed analysis of political and business affairs, and employ greater numbers of experts to inform their stories than do tabloids, this is not a value-neutral position, but one which reflects the perceived preferences of their target audience (Lumby, 1999). In other words, there is more than one way to present news and political information.

Complaints regarding the tabloidization of the Australian media go back at least as far as 1842, when the press was accused of being “contemptible panderers to the depraved appetites of a vicious population” (Mayer, 1964, p.94). As Lumby points out, this means that tabloid-type stories have not only always been a part of the media, but that the “more high-minded ideals of journalism – objectivity and serving the public good – have evolved

103

right alongside” the tabloids (Lumby, 1999, p.30). However, there are claims that in recent years, the extent of tabloidization has spread, so that in the contemporary Australian media market, “‘soft’ infotainment has mostly displaced ‘hard’ news on television” (Harrington, 2008, p272). Looking at media diets using this tabloid/broadsheet distinction may therefore be a useful method of analysis for the current study.

Using the distinctions outlined in this section, it is easy to identify Australian tabloid media outlets such as television shows Today Tonight and A Current Affair, and broadsheet outlets such as Foreign Correspondent and The 7.30 Report. However, other media types are more difficult to assess. For example, the Australian morning shows Sunrise and Today undoubtedly display a heavy focus on entertainment news. However, these shows also provide more traditional, if brief, coverage of the serious news stories of the day. In fact, few would argue that the high media profile afforded Kevin Rudd through his spots on the Sunrise show in the 12 to 18 months prior to the 2007 Australian Federal Election, helped to form an important base for his successful election campaign (Simms, 2009). Other shows, such as 60 Minutes, once enjoyed a reputation for high quality journalism, but have over time moved increasingly towards the tabloid end of the spectrum (Lumby, 1999). Newspapers are easier to categorise, given their continued adherence to the physical form of the tabloid-sized versus the broadsheet-sized format which gave us the terms ‘tabloid’ and ‘broadsheet’ in the first place (Lumby, 1999). The smaller, tabloid-sized daily newspapers, such as Brisbane’s Courier Mail, are today still associated with tabloid-style journalism, while broadsheets, such as national paper The Australian, are generally associated with quality journalism.

Conclusion Socio-political information repertoires provide a holistic approach to considering the range of information sources used by individuals to obtain political information. However, to enable analysis of such information repertoires beyond the simple measure of size (number of sources accessed), the media diet concept is useful. Media diets may be constructed along a variety of media characteristics. Previous research has considered the mainstream/non-mainstream media diet. For the current study, two additional media diets are proposed, due to their perceived relevance to the Australian media industry specifically: the private/public media diet and the tabloid/broadsheet media diet. This chapter has introduced these constructs conceptually. The next chapter will detail the measurement of these and all other constructs in the study, and will specify the research methods employed.

105

Chapter Five: Research Methods

Introduction The previous two chapters have provided an overview of the literature pertaining to the key constructs applied in the current study. Chapter Three focused on the independent variables, namely media scepticism, need for cognition (NFC), media gratifications sought and political interest, and the ways in which they may be expected to influence media consumption behaviours. Throughout the chapter, a range of research hypotheses were developed, based on the literature, which are to be tested in the current project. Chapter Four focused on the dependent variables in the study, media diets and socio-political information repertoires (SPIRs). These constructs were introduced and explored for their relevance to the Australian political information context, and for their capacity to assist in a meaningful interpretation of Australians’ information behaviours.

The current chapter will describe and justify the research approaches and procedures used in the project. The sampling procedure, survey development and administration processes will be detailed. A critique of the approaches used is included, with explanations of the various ways in which the identified limitations have been addressed. Specific details of the measurement of each of the independent and dependent variables will also be provided, with the factor analysis results for the scale-based independent variables (media scepticism, NFC and media gratifications).

Sample and procedure The present study employed a written, postal questionnaire to measure the key constructs of the research: media scepticism, NFC, media gratifications, political interest and information source use, as well as collecting data for demographic control variables, such as gender, political partisanship and age. Statistical factor analysis and linear regression analysis was then employed to investigate possible relationships amongst the variables, using SPSS 16.0 software. The survey instrument, accompanying letters, and participant information sheets are included in Appendices 1 through 5. Details of the pilot study are included in Appendix 6.

107

The current project is focused around the selection, by citizens, of specific information sources from the information landscape available. Information landscapes differ across geographic regions, and therefore, to simplify data collection and analysis, it was decided that the survey should be restricted to a specific geographic region with a reasonably consistent information landscape. To this end, the survey population for the research project was originally to be the adult population of the Brisbane City Council (BCC) region, with the Australian Electoral Roll identified as the most appropriate sample frame for this cohort. The Electoral Roll was selected in large part because it includes a high proportion (95 percent) of eligible voters (Australian Electoral Commission, 2008), thus providing significant coverage of the Brisbane adult population. However, in practice, obtaining a satisfactory sample frame for the BCC region was not possible, because searches of the Electoral Roll by members of the public can only be defined according to federal electoral divisions, not local council geographic areas.

For this reason, the survey population for the project became the combined population of the federal electoral divisions of Bonner, Brisbane, Griffith, Lilley, Moreton, Oxley and Ryan, which geographically approximate the BCC area. A probability sample of 1,500 individuals from these regions was drawn from the Australian Electoral Roll during February and March 2008, using a random number table. In a probability sample, each individual in the survey population has an equal chance of being selected, reducing the likelihood of selection bias (non-sampling error) (Lohr, 1999, p15). Names and addresses were harvested in equal numbers from the electoral roll for each of the seven divisions.

Following the Tailored Design Methodology (Dillman, 2000), multiple contact points were employed in order to improve the response rate (Shoemaker & McCombs, 1989). Table 5.1 provides details of each contact point and the resulting response rates. All contacts were made during March and April 2008, approximately four months after the 2007 Australian Federal Election. As this research refers specifically to political information behaviour, the political context in which data collection occurred should be noted.

The 2007 Australian Federal Election resulted in a landslide victory for the Australian Labor Party (ALP), against the previous Liberal/National Coalition Government which had held office for 12 years. Interest in politics amongst the electorate is believed to increase during an election campaign (O'Cass & Nataraajan, 2003). Citizen interest in the 2007 election campaign was particularly high, with 81 percent of people surveyed in the 2007 Australian Election Study claiming to have ‘some’ or ‘a good deal’ of interest in the election campaign (Bean, McAllister, & Gow, 2008), up from 74 percent in the 2004 Federal Election (Bean, McAllister, Gibson, & Gow, 2005), and 70 percent in the 2001 Federal Election (Bean et al., 2003). Although data collection occurred 15 to 18 weeks after the election, political interest remained at high levels, with 83 percent of people surveyed in the current study reporting having ‘some’ or ‘a good deal’ of interest in politics.

Table 5.1: Survey contact points and response rates Mail Date Contents Number of Total responses Cumulative Out responses (cumulative) response rate MO1 11th  introductory letter 246 246 16.4% March  participant 2008 information sheet  questionnaire  stamped return envelope MO2 19th  reminder letter 168 414 27.6% March 2008 MO3 2nd April  reminder letter 175 589 39.3% 2008  participant information sheet  questionnaire  reply paid return envelope

In the present project, the initial mail out was sent to all 1,500 individuals in the sample, with subsequent mail outs reducing in number as respondents were removed from the mail out list. Names were removed from the mail out list following each contact point, for any of the following three reasons:  the respondent returned a completed survey  the respondent requested to be removed from the list  the mail was undeliverable at that address

Of the 589 questionnaires returned, 4 were discarded because of insufficient completion (more than one entire questionnaire section not completed), resulting in an overall usable sample of 585 questionnaires, and a usable response rate of 39 percent.

The research methods literature varies widely with regard to what constitutes an acceptable survey return rate. Hager, Wilson, Pollak & Rooney (2003) found recommendations of between 50 percent and 75 percent, but note that achieving such high

109

response rates is not always possible. Wimmer & Dominick state from their own professional experience actual response rates for mail surveys are as low as one percent, however a meta-analysis from the journalism and communications literature between 1999 and 2001 revealed mail survey response rates of 21 to 70 percent, with an average of 45 percent (Wimmer & Dominick, 2006). Cook, Heath & Thompson (2000) similarly report typical response rates for paper-based mail surveys to range from less than 40 percent to 70 percent.

Response rate depends on a variety of design and implementation factors which will be discussed later in this chapter. Cook, Heath & Thompson (2000) stress that response representativeness is ultimately more important than response rate, and this will be discussed later in the chapter.

The survey technique A written, self-administered questionnaire was developed for the project. Self-administered surveys are appropriate for sensitive topics (such as political partisanship and income), as the associated anonymity reduces social desirability bias (Bourque & Fielder, 2003; Groves et al., 2004). Self-administered surveys are also inexpensive relative to other forms of data collection (Bourque & Fielder, 2003). Possible sources of error exist in any empirical research, and those associated with survey data collection are discussed below.

Sources of Error There are four types of error associated with the survey technique: non-response, sampling, coverage and measurement. Each of these will be discussed below.

Non-response error “occurs when a significant number of people in the survey sample do not respond to the questionnaire and have different characteristics from those who do respond, when these characteristics are important to the study” (Dillman, 2000, p10). Non- response error is significant because it relates to the representativeness of the sample, that is, the extent to which the researcher can infer characteristics of the population, based on the characteristics of the sample (Hager et al., 2003). As non-respondents have, by definition, not provided any personal information, determining whether this group of people have distinctive and relevant characteristics is difficult (Hager et al., 2003). In the absence of this information, one approach to inferring the representativeness of the sample is to compare the characteristics of the sample respondents with the characteristics of the population from which they are drawn. For the current sample and population, such a comparison is provided in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2: Comparison of research-relevant sample characteristics with population characteristics Characteristic Brisbane population* Sample population Sample difference Gender Male 49.4% 44.2% -5.2% Female 50.6% 55.8% +5.5% Age** 18-24 15.4% 6.8% -8.6% 25-34 20.6% 15.0% -5.6% 35-44 19.4% 21.0% +1.6% 45-54 16.8% 18.3% +1.5% 55-64 12.8% 20.0% +7.2% 65+ 15.1% 18.8% +3.7% Education University qualification 41.9% 40.2% -1.7% Gross Annual Household Income*** Nil 1.1% 2.9% +1.8% $1-20,000 12.3% 9.7% -2.6% $20,001-40,000 21.6% 11.6% -10.0% 40,001-60,000 20.6% 16.3% -4.3% 60,001-100,000 24.1% 24.9% +0.8% 100,000+ 20.3% 34.5% +14.2% Internet Access Some home Internet 69.0% 81.0% +12.0% access Political partisanship# Australian Labor Party 37.1% 37.7% +0.8% Liberal Party 36.3% 37% +0.7% National Party 3.7% 0.9% -2.8% Greens 5.6% 4.9% -0.7% Other party 1.8% 3.1% +1.3% No party 15.5% 16.5% +1.0% *Brisbane population data extracted from the 2006 Census data, relating to the Brisbane Local Government Area (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006b). **Census age percentages have been adjusted to reflect the ratio of each age group against the 18 year old and above population, in line with the sample data. ***ABS income brackets differ to those used in the present study, so these comparisons are approximate only. #Partisanship data not available for the Brisbane population specifically. As this variable is significant in the current study however, it has been included here. Population data included is for the Australian population, drawn from the 2007 Australian Election Study (Bean et al., 2008).

As Table 5.2 indicates, the sample differs from the Brisbane population by being slightly skewed towards more female respondents, and towards older respondents. The rate of university qualifications within the sample is very similar to that of the Brisbane region as a whole. The household income distribution varies somewhat between the current sample and the Brisbane region overall. Most notably, the sample included ten percent fewer households with incomes in the $20-40,000 bracket, and 14 percent more households in 111

the $100,000+ bracket, than would be expected from the Brisbane region in total. Income is commonly found to be associated with Internet access (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009b), so the higher rate of home Internet access in the sample (81 percent of homes in the sample, as opposed to 69 percent in the Brisbane census data) is perhaps explained by this income distribution difference. This difference may also in part be a result of the two year gap between the census data collection (2006) and the survey data collection (2008). On average during that period, Australian home Internet access increased from 64 percent of households in 2006/7 to 72 percent of households in 2008/9 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009a, 2009b). Finally, partisanship of the sample is very similar to that of the broader Australian population, the largest difference being that there are fewer National Party identifiers in the sample than in the Australian population.

Sampling error exists because information is collected from a subset, rather than from the entire population. This type of error is strongly dependent on sample size, and impacts on the precision of sample survey estimates (Dillman, 2000, p9). With a probability sample, the degree of sampling error can be estimated with precision, and from this we can determine what size sample is required for generalisability of our results. Dillman calculates that a sample size of 384 will deliver a 95 percent confidence interval with a sampling error of 5 percent, from a population of one million or more (2000, p207). In the current study, the use of a probability sampling technique, and the resulting sample size (585 responses), means the results of the study are generalizable to the population from which the sample was drawn (i.e. the adult Brisbane population).

Coverage error is caused when the sample frame from which a survey sample is drawn is not comprehensive (Dillman, 2000, p9). A range of potential sample frames were identified for the Brisbane population, each having some limitations with regard to coverage. For example, lists of rate payers exclude individuals who do not own property in Brisbane, the telephone book excludes individuals without landlines or with silent phone numbers, and the electoral roll excludes residents who are not enrolled to vote or do not have the right to vote. Despite this limitation, the electoral roll was deemed the best available sample frame for the current project. Australia’s compulsory voting system does ensure that 95 percent of eligible voters are on the electoral roll at any given time (Australian Electoral Commission, 2008), providing significant coverage of the Brisbane population.

Measurement error is a result of poor question or questionnaire construction, and results in responses which are inaccurate or cannot be meaningfully interpreted (Dillman, 2000, p9). The risk of measurement error was minimised in the current study through the application of established survey principles, use of the Tailored Design Method (Dillman, 2000), and piloting during questionnaire construction. These elements are further discussed later in the chapter.

Survey design issues The use of self-administered surveys requires the researcher to address a range of implementation and design issues. Table 5.3 lists the main issues associated with surveys, along with the methods employed to address them in the current study.

Table 5.3: Methods to address common implementation and design issues of self- administered surveys Design issues Method for addressing issues in current study Samples may be unrepresentative Sample representativeness can be maximised by ensuring a random (Bourque & Fielder, 2003) sample selection process, and adequate sample size, both of which were achieved in the current study. With regards to the representativeness of the sample, a comparison of the key demographic characteristics of the current sample and the overall Brisbane population are included in Table 5.2. Instructions may be inconsistent Complete instructions were included on the survey coversheet. The (Bourque & Fielder, 2003) survey was designed to be easy to use without additional instruction, according to the well-established principles of the Tailored Design Method (Dillman, 2000). Objective of the study must be clear Objective of the study was outlined on the cover page, and specific and not complex (Bourque & objectives of each survey section were briefly explained at the beginning Fielder, 2003) of each section. Closed-ended questions are The survey consisted entirely of closed-ended questions, although preferred (Bourque & Fielder, 2003) optional free text fields are provided where appropriate. Possibility of question order bias Question order bias was of minimal concern in the present study, (Bourque & Fielder, 2003; Groves et however, it was anticipated that placing the media scepticism items at al., 2004) the beginning of the questionnaire may encourage opinions about the mainstream media as an institution, rather than individual media outlets, which may have occurred had these questions been placed after the media usage items. Sensitive to design and layout Layout designed according to the well-established principles of the problems (Groves et al., 2004) Tailored Design Method (Dillman, 2000) May result in lower rates of data The user-friendly design of the survey, based on established survey completeness (Groves et al., 2004) construction guidelines as well as pre-test and pilot feedback, maximised item response. In addition, most sections of the survey were not incredibly sensitive to item-non-response. Written format – non-English This remains a disadvantage of the current study. speaking people or those with literacy problems may not be able to complete the survey (Bourque & Fielder, 2003)

113

A final concern associated with self-administered surveys is the difficulty of motivating people to complete the questionnaire (Bourque & Fielder, 2003; Dillman, 2000), which has obvious implications for response rate and sample size. Based on Social Exchange Theory, Dillman (2000) highlights three elements which must be addressed to maximise survey participation: rewards, costs and trust. Rewards are what one expects to gain from an activity, costs are what one spends in order to gain the rewards, and trust is the belief that ultimately the rewards will outweigh the costs (Dillman, 2000). Following the suggestions of Dillman, each of these elements was addressed as follows:

1. Maximising rewards:

 The personalised cover letter and survey instrument were worded to show positive regard for the respondent, to stress their importance to the project, and to thank the respondent for their participation.

 The cover letter was also worded to tap into group values, for example by stressing the importance of their contribution to the study in providing Australian data to the international research community.

 Salience refers to the degree to which an item stands out from the rest (Dillman, 2000), and can refer to a range of different aspects with regard to mail surveys. Issue salience “has been found to have a strong, positive correlation with response rate” in mail surveys (Sheehan & McMillan, 1999, p.47). During pre-testing and piloting of the questionnaire, anecdotal feedback indicated many individuals found the survey topic of media scepticism and media use intriguing, and were keen to learn of the results. This apparent issue salience was capitalised on by placing the media scepticism and media use items at the start of the survey, to pique participants’ interest in the study. Respondents were also offered the opportunity of contacting the researcher to find out the results of the study if they wish.

2. Reducing social costs:

 Social costs were reduced by designing the survey with usability in mind. The survey featured a consistent, clear layout and a simple response mechanism, and was designed to appear short and easy to complete.

 The anonymity and confidentiality of the survey were stressed in the cover sheet and the instrument.

3. Establishing trust

 Use of the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) logo on the cover sheet emphasized the association with a well known Brisbane university. University sponsorship is also known to be a highly effective way to increase mail survey response rates (Wimmer & Dominick, 2006).

 Contact details for the researcher were provided, conveying a sense of accessibility and legitimacy.

 Every cover letter in each mail out was individually signed by the researcher in blue ink, emphasizing a personal connection between the researcher and the respondent.

 The use of stamped (as opposed to reply paid) return envelopes is believed to develop a ‘social contract’ between researcher and respondent (Dillman, 2000), which helps to establish trust. In essence, it is believed that this works because the researcher has made a financial contribution to the respondent up-front, thus generating goodwill. Research has shown the use of postage stamps tends to increase response rates over reply paid envelopes (Armstrong & Luske, 1987; Shoemaker & McCombs, 1989). Therefore, in the first mail out, envelopes with postage stamps were used. Due to budget limitations, the final mail out used reply paid envelopes. Overall, 75 percent of completed surveys were returned using the stamped envelopes, with only 25 percent (148 surveys) returned using the reply paid envelopes.

115

Survey development Questions in the survey were organised in line with accepted survey principles, with questions of greatest salience at the beginning (e.g. the questionnaire opens with the media scepticism scale items, to capture the respondent’s interest), questions relating to sensitive information at the end (e.g. questions relating to income and political partisanship), and all questions arranged in a logical manner with explanatory sentences at the beginning of each survey section (e.g. “In this section, we want to find out why (if at all) you may be interested in socio-political issues”) (Dillman, 2000). Possible order effects were also considered in the arrangement of survey sections (Dillman, 2000), resulting in the media scepticism items being placed at the beginning of the questionnaire, to encourage opinions about the mainstream media as an institution, rather than about individual media outlets, which may have occurred had these questions been placed after the media usage items.

Response scales were made uniform as far as possible throughout the survey (Dillman, 2000). For example the same Likert scale (strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, strongly agree) was used for the media scepticism, need for cognition, and uses and gratifications scales. A ‘don’t know’ response category was not provided in these scales. ‘Don’t know’ responses may be appropriate for questions of fact, where the respondent may genuinely not know the answer. However, in questions relating to opinions and attitudes, the respondent would be expected to have an answer (Brace, 2004). In such cases, providing a ‘don’t know’ response can lead the respondent to simply select ‘don’t know’ because it is easy, rather than consider the question. For this reason, a ‘don’t know’ category was not included.

Further design considerations employed in the questionnaire included a consistent page and section layout throughout, to enhance ease of use for respondents (Dillman, 2000). The questionnaire was produced in booklet format (A4 cover size), as booklets have been shown to illicit better response rates than other questionnaire formats (Shoemaker & McCombs, 1989).

Pre-test and pilot The survey instrument was pre-tested amongst five individuals of varying educational and income levels, all of whom fell within the survey population. Pre-test feedback regarding survey layout and question wording was then incorporated into the instrument. Following pre-testing, a pilot survey was conducted with a sample size of 50. Further refinement of the instrument was conducted based on the pilot responses. Pre-testing and piloting of the instrument indicated the survey would take approximately ten minutes to complete. Level one (low risk) ethics approval was obtained for the survey procedure from the QUT Research Ethics Committee (Approval # 0700000728). Level one (low risk) ethical clearance is required for “human research with no significant risks or ethical issues” (QUT Research Ethics Office, 2007). A copy of the Ethics Approval Certificate is included in Appendix 11.

Measuring the independent variables The present study incorporates four key constructs to be employed as independent variables: media scepticism, need for cognition, media gratifications sought and political interest. With the exception of political interest, these constructs are measured using multi- item scale instruments. When selecting or developing instruments with which to measure such constructs, it is vital to evaluate the reliability and validity of those instruments, as they are central to the credibility of the research findings.

Reliability is concerned with “the variability of answers over repeated conceptual trials” (Groves et al., 2004, p261). Two commonly considered aspects of reliability are temporal stability and internal consistency (Netemeyer, Bearden, & Sharma, 2003). Temporal stability is typically tested by administering the same instrument to the same group on two different occasions, and measuring the correlations between the two resulting sets of scores (Netemeyer et al., 2003). Internal consistency refers to the extent to which the scale items measure the same underlying attribute (Aron, Aron, & Coups, 2009). Internal consistency is typically measured by the use of Cronbach’s alpha, with a minimum level of .7 believed to be acceptable within the social sciences (Nunnally, 1978).

Validity refers to the degree to which an instrument measures what it sets out to measure (Netemeyer et al., 2003). Validity can be assessed in a variety of ways, including content validity, construct validity and criterion validity. Content validity is concerned with the extent to which the instrument “reflects a content domain” (DeVellis, 2003, p49). Construct validity is “the extent to which the measure is related to the underlying construct”, as opposed to other constructs which are known to exist (Groves et al., 2004, p50). Construct validity has two dimensions: convergent validity which considers the relationship between

117

one instrument and another instrument that measures the same construct; and discriminant validity which considers the relationship of an instrument which measures a similar but conceptually different construct (Netemeyer et al., 2003). Criterion validity compares the performance of an instrument with some other “gold standard” for the construct (DeVellis, 2003, p50), and therefore can only be measured if such a standard exists.

Temporal stability, convergent validity and discriminant validity of the instruments used in the present study have been assessed and found to be acceptable through previous applications, and therefore were not measured in the current project. Internal consistency needs to be evaluated with every application of the instrument. Table 5.4 summarises the reliability and validity of the instruments used in the current project.

Table 5.4 Reliability and validity of indexes and scales PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS CURRENT STUDY Instrument Temporal Convergent Discriminant Internal Internal stability validity validity consistency consistency Media Yes, over Good (r=.53; Moderate to Excellent: α=.90 Good: α=.82 scepticism short periods p<0.001). good. Measured in Tsfati (2002) (Tsfati, 2002) Measured by via bivariate content associations with analysis of a interpersonal related data trust measure source. (r=.05) and (Tsfati, 2002) political ideology measure (r=-.20). (Tsfati, 2002) Need for Yes, over Good Good (conclusion Very good to Excellent: cognition 18- short to (conclusion based on meta- excellent: α α=.90 item index intermediate based on analysis of the ranges from .85 periods meta-analysis literature) to .97 across 9 (Cacioppo et of the (Cacioppo et al., different al., 1996) literature) 1996) applications (Cacioppo et (Cacioppo et al., 1996) al., 1996) Gratifications Information Information Information not Good to very Entertainment sought not available not available available good: α ranges subscale good: from .76 to .89 α=.81 for different subscales Surveillance across 2 subscale very different good: α=.85 applications (Diddi & Escape LaRose, 2006; subscale very Vincent & Basil, good: α=.85 1997)

Measuring media scepticism Media scepticism in the current project was measured using the existing Media Scepticism Scale (Tsfati, 2003b) with minor alterations based on feedback from pre-testing and piloting of the survey instrument. The scale was originally developed by Tsfati based on existing news credibility and media cynicism measures. Reliability of the Scale in Tsfati’s application was excellent, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .90 (Tsfati, 2003b). The current study achieved a Cronbach’s alpha of .82. The eight items used in the current study were:

Thinking about the traditional media (newspapers, television and radio) in general, please tick whether you believe: 1. The media can be trusted 2. The media tell the whole story 3. The media are accurate 4. The media are fair 5. Media organizations can be trusted to report the news fairly 6. I have a lot of confidence in the people running media institutions in Australia 7. Would you say the news media usually help society to solve its problems or get in the way of society solving its problems? 8. Which do you think the news media care more about, in general? Being first to report a story or being accurate in reporting a story?

Items one to six employed a five point Likert scale response (strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree or disagree, agree, strongly agree). The remaining items offered an either/or response between the two alternatives described in the questions. In some cases, respondents indicated they wished to respond in between the two options for questions seven and eight. In these cases, their responses were coded as the average of the two extreme options.

It should be noted that items seven and eight in the Media Scepticism Scale caused a reduction in Cronbach’s alpha. In full, the scale achieved an alpha value of .82. Exclusion of item seven (‘would you say the news media usually help society to solve its problems or get in the way of society solving its problems?’) would result in an alpha value of .89, while exclusion of item eight (‘which do you think the news media care more about, in general? Being first to report a story or being accurate in reporting a story?) would result in an alpha value of .83. However, excluding these

119

items would invalidate comparisons with previous applications of the scale (Pallant, 2007). Therefore, as the alpha value is still good with these items included, they were included in the analysis.

Convergent validity considers two constructs which are theoretically similar, and estimates the degree to which the measures of those constructs converge. Tsfati estimated the convergent validity of the Media Scepticism Scale by comparing individuals’ media scepticism scale scores to their statements in a series of online political discussion groups. In the transcripts of 60 discussion group conversations, each participant’s comments regarding the media were identified as either pro-media or con-media. Pro and con statements were counted for each participant, and a score was calculated to indicate the proportion of positive to negative statements. This score was compared with those same respondents’ scores on the Media Scepticism Scale. The resulting correlation was good (r=.53; p<0.001), indicating good convergent validity for the Media Scepticism Scale.

Discriminant validity considers two constructs which are not theoretically similar, and estimates the degree to which the measures of those constructs effectively discriminate between them. Tsfati estimated the discriminant validity of the Media Scepticism Scale by calculating bivariate associations between it and an interpersonal trust measure (r=.05), and also a political ideology measure (r=-.20). These correlations indicate a good distinction between the scale and interpersonal trust, and a moderate distinction between the scale and political ideology.

Factor analysis of media scepticism scale in the current dataset The eight items of the Media Scepticism Scale were subjected to principal components analysis (PCA). PCA is a data reduction technique which is used to summarise large sets of variables by looking for clumps in the data (Kroonenberg, 2008). In this way, underlying components can be identified. Prior to performing PCA, the suitability of the data for factor analysis was assessed. Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed the presence of many coefficients of .3 and above. The Kaiser-Meyer Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity are two different methods by which we can check whether the degree of correlation between the variables is sufficient to conduct a PCA or factor analysis (Pallant, 2007). The KMO value was .91, exceeding the recommended value of .6 (Kaiser, 1970, 1974) and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Bartlett, 1954) reached statistical significance, supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix.

An eigenvalue measures the amount of variance explained by each successive factor or component (Netemeyer et al., 2003). Typically, only components with eigenvalues exceeding 1 are considered meaningful. PCA revealed the presence of one component with an eigenvalue exceeding 1, explaining 56.4 percent of the variance. Another way of determining which factors to retain for further analysis is by using Catell’s scree test (Catell, 1966), in which a plot of the eigenvalues is inspected to identify the point at which the curve flattens out. Factors after this point are generally excluded. An inspection of the screeplot revealed a clear break after the first component, and so it was decided to retain the one component for further investigation. This was further supported by the results of parallel analysis. Horn’s parallel analysis (Horn, 1965) compares the size of the eigenvalues with those obtained from a data set of the same size which is random (and therefore can be expected to have no common factors) (Netemeyer et al., 2003). Only the eigenvalues which are greater than those from the random dataset are retained. The current parallel analysis showed only one component which meets this criterion.

In the current study, the Media Scepticism Scale achieved a Cronbach’s alpha of .82, indicating good internal consistency within the scale items. This is comparable with the previous application of the Scale, which reported a Cronbach’s alpha of .90 (Tsfati, 2003b). It should be noted that in the current study, items 7 and 8 of the Scale actually reduced Cronbach’s alpha, suggesting they may not in the current sample be measuring the same latent variable (media scepticism) as the other items. However, these items will be retained in the present study to enable direct comparison of results with the work of other researchers.

The media scepticism score as calculated in the current study has a possible range of 0-32, with 32 indicating the highest degree of scepticism towards the mainstream media. In the current sample (N=560), media scepticism scores ranged from 6 to 32, with a mean of 23.16. The negative skewness statistic (-.486) indicates that the sample was skewed towards scepticism, however, with large samples such as this, the effect of skewness on further analyses disappears (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

121

It is interesting to compare these Australian media scepticism results with US data. Tsfati’s investigation of media scepticism in the US, using the same Media Scepticism Scale, resulted in quite a different distribution. The mean media scepticism score for the US sample is less sceptical than that of the Australian sample. On a scale of 0 to 32, where 0 indicates no scepticism and 32 indicates highest scepticism, the Australian sample mean was 23.2 compared with the US sample mean of 18.0. The samples also skew in different directions, with the Australian distribution skewed towards greater scepticism and the US skewed towards less scepticism. (Dr Yariv Tsfati, personal communication, October 16th 2008). Such a high level of media scepticism may indicate an Australian culture of distrust which has implications for the way the media is discussed and used. Such culturally-derived distrust may influence media usage in different ways to distrust arising from personal experience. These themes will be explored in Chapter Eight.

Measuring need for cognition Initial measurements of NFC in the literature utilised a 34-item index (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982). Later an 18-item form of the instrument was developed and tested, and found to be a reliable and more efficient form of measurement for NFC than the longer version (Cacioppo, Petty, & Kao, 1984). Strong evidence has been found for the validity of NFC, indicating that it is conceptually autonomous from similar traits such as intelligence and personality (Fleischhauer, Enge, Brocke, Ullrich, & Strobel, 2010). Concerns were raised by the original researchers regarding the possibility of social desirability bias, due to the apparent purpose transparency of the scale (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982; Cacioppo et al., 1984). However, when tested for social desirability bias, even amongst a university student sample, deliberately chosen because such a cohort is likely to place high importance on the appearance of thoughtfulness, only a very slight bias was found (Hunt, Stevens, Chatterjee, & Kernan, 1994).

The factor structure underlying the 18-item index has been repeatedly tested across both student and general community samples, with one dominant factor emerging, explaining between 30.9 percent and 38.8 percent of the variance, depending on the dataset (Forsterlee & Ho, 1999; Sadowski, 1993). Internal reliability of the 18-item index is also good, with Cronbach’s alpha falling between .85 and .97 across 9 different applications (Cacioppo et al., 1996). In a review of more than 30 different applications of the NFC index over a 14 year period, Cacioppo et al (1996) determined the scale to have good convergent and discriminant validity. To test for cross-cultural appropriateness, the 18-item index was applied in an Australian general public context and was found to perform well (Forsterlee & Ho, 1999). In the current research, the 18-item index was used within the written survey. Some minor changes to item and response option wording were made, based on feedback from pre-testing and piloting of the index. The 18 items used in the current study were:

1. I prefer to deal with complex things rather than simple things 2. I like to have the responsibility of handling a situation that requires a lot of thinking 3. Thinking is not my idea of fun 4. I would rather do something that requires little thought than something that is sure to challenge my thinking abilities 5. I try to anticipate and avoid situations where there is a likely chance I will have to think in depth about something 6. I find satisfaction deliberating long and hard for hours 7. I only think as hard as I have to 8. I prefer to think about small, daily projects to long-term ones 9. I like tasks that require little thought once I’ve learned them 10. The idea of relying on thought to make my way to the top appeals to me 11. I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems 12. Learning new ways to think doesn’t excite me very much 13. I prefer my life to be filled with puzzles that I must solve 14. The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me 15. When doing an important task, I prefer it to be intellectual and challenging rather than requiring little thought 16. I feel relief rather than satisfaction after completing a task that required a lot of mental effort 17. It’s enough for me that something gets the job done, I don’t care how or why it works 18. I usually end up deliberating about issues even when they do not affect me personally

All items employed a five point Likert scale response (strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree or disagree, agree, strongly agree). Items 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16 and 17 were reverse- coded.

Factor analysis of need for cognition scale in the current dataset The 18 items of the Need for Cognition Scale were subjected to PCA. Prior to performing PCA, the suitability of the data for factor analysis was assessed. Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed the presence of many coefficients of .3 and above. The KMO value was .93, exceeding the recommended value of .6 (Kaiser, 1970, 1974) and Bartlett’s

123

Test of Sphericity (Bartlett, 1954) reached statistical significance, supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix.

PCA revealed the presence of two factors with eigenvalues exceeding 1 (6.839 and 1.541). However, as with previous applications of the scale, only the first factor was retained following examination of the screeplot (see for example Cacioppo et al., 1984; Perri & Wolfgang, 1988; Sadowski, 1993). The retained factor explained 38.0 percent of the variance, which is comparable with previous applications of the scale, for example 37 percent (Cacioppo et al., 1984); 31 percent (Sadowski, 1993); 39 percent (Perri & Wolfgang, 1988).

In the current study, the NFC Scale achieved a Cronbach’s alpha of .90, indicating very good internal consistency within the scale items. This is comparable with previous applications of the scale, which have reported Cronbach’s alphas of between .85 and .97 across 9 different applications (Cacioppo et al., 1996).

Measuring media gratifications sought A number of indexes have been developed to measure the wide variety of media gratifications identified in previous research. The current study used a 22-item index based on a longer (27-item) scale developed by Vincent & Basil (1997). The index was originally developed for a news and current events context, and so was readily applicable to the political information context of the current study. The 22 items used in the present study have previously identified three gratifications factors with good reliability (Cronbach alphas for each factor included in parentheses): surveillance (.89), escape (.88) and entertainment (.85) (Vincent & Basil, 1997). A more recent application of the same index, again in a news/current events context, has yielded similar reliability levels (.89, .86 and .76 respectively) (Diddi & LaRose, 2006). Minor wording changes were made to make the items relevant to various media formats, and a shorter version was used to make the index less onerous for respondents. The 22 items used in the current study were:

I pay attention to socio-political information in the media and on the Internet… 1. to help me get away from everyday worries 2. to find out things I need to know about daily life 3. because it shows me what society is like nowadays 4. because it helps me when I want to be cheered up 5. because it is entertaining 6. to help me judge what political leaders are really like 7. so I can learn about what might happen to me 8. because it helps me to take my mind off things 9. because it’s enjoyable 10. so I can keep up with what the government is doing 11. because it’s exciting 12. so I can talk with other people about what’s covered 13. because it helps me satisfy my curiosity 14. to help me relax 15. because it amuses me 16. so I can learn what is going on in the country and the world 17. because it helps me learn things about myself and others 18. so I can understand the world 19. because it makes me want to learn more about things 20. because it sometimes gives me a good laugh or cry 21. because it is thrilling 22. because it helps me forget about work/school

All items employed a five point Likert scale response (strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree or disagree, agree, strongly agree).

Methodological issues associated with the measurement of media gratifications Two issues need to be mentioned here, which were initially raised in Chapter Three. Firstly, Becker (1979) raises the concern that many of the approaches used to measure gratifications assume an awareness by the researcher of the full range of gratifications likely to be sought by audiences from the media. Perfect awareness of the range of gratifications sought is not possible, due simply to the large variations between people. This issue combines with that of survey length as a problem for quantitative survey methodologies such as that employed here. In the present study, for ease of completion and to simplify data collection, a series of 22 Likert-scale questions relating to media gratifications were offered to the respondents. It is of course possible that respondents seek gratifications beyond the 22 options listed, and the current study will have failed to measure these. This remains a limitation of the study. An associated concern relates to the proliferation of many different media gratifications typologies throughout the literature (Krcmar & Strizhakova, 2009). To avoid contributing further to this problem of term

125

proliferation, I have applied the same terms for gratifications sought as used by Vincent & Basil (1997).

Factor analysis of the media gratifications scale in the current dataset The 22 items of the Media Gratifications Scale were subjected to PCA. Prior to performing PCA, the suitability of the data for factor analysis was assessed. The KMO value was .91, exceeding the recommended value of .6 (Kaiser, 1970, 1974) and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Bartlett, 1954) reached statistical significance, supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix.

PCA revealed the presence of four factors with eigenvalues exceeding 1 (7.276, 3.394, 1.144, 1.007), explaining 33.1 percent, 15.4 percent, 5.2 percent and 4.6 percent of the variance respectively. However, an inspection of the screeplot revealed an apparent break after the second factor, and the results of parallel analysis similarly indicated a two factor solution. Due to the lack of agreement between these approaches, a further technique, oblimin rotation, was conducted to further clarify the underlying factor structure. The rotated four-factor solution revealed that five items loaded strongly (above .4) on factor three (see Table 5.5). A three factor solution is consistent with the previous application of this scale (see Vincent & Basil, 1997). A consideration of the three factors revealed each to be conceptually coherent and reasonably consistent with the three factors derived by Vincent & Basil. As a result, three factors were retained in the analysis. The remaining two items were dropped from further analysis.

The first three factors from the analysis were then used to develop three subscales for use in subsequent analyses: entertainment, surveillance and escape. The three subscales had good internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alphas of .81, .85 and .85 respectively. Table 5.5: Factor analysis results for the gratifications sought scale Factor Eigen Variance Scale items Loading# value explained 1: Entertainment 7.276 33.1% Because it’s enjoyable .660 Because it helps me satisfy my curiosity .655 Because it is entertaining .642* So I can talk with other people about what’s .606 covered Because it’s exciting .501* Because it amuses me .408* 2: Surveillance 3.394 15.4% So I can understand the world .750 So I can learn about what might happen to .689* me To help me judge what political leaders are .668 really like So I can learn what is going on in the country .666 and the world So I can keep up with what the government is .664 doing Because it helps me learn things about myself .616* and others Because it shows me what society is like .571 nowadays Because it makes me want to learn more .565* about things To find out things I need to know about daily .486* life 3: Escape 1.144 5.2% To help me get away from everyday worries .799 Because it helps me to take my mind off .752 things Because it helps me when I want to be .714 cheered up Because it helps me to forget about .548* work/school To help me relax .463* 4: 1.007 4.6% Because it sometimes gives me a good laugh -.730 or cry Because it is thrilling -.654 *Indicates items which had secondary loadings on other factors #Loading after oblimin rotation with Kaiser Normalization

Political interest The political interest measure in the current survey is identical to that of the Australian Election Survey8. Respondents are asked “Generally speaking, how much interest do you usually have in what’s going on in politics?”. Four response options were provided: none, not much, some and a good deal. Unlike the other key independent variables, media scepticism, NFC and media gratifications, political interest was included in the final section

8 The Australian Election Survey is a national survey of public opinion and social attitudes, which is conducted around the time of each Australian federal election. 127

of the survey. This aligns with Dillman’s (2000) recommendation to place potentially sensitive questions towards the end of the survey instrument.

Measuring the control variables Kippax & Murray (1977) stress the importance of controlling for social and situational variables in order to determine the independent impact of other variables. For this reason, data was also collected on age, gender, country of birth, income, education, internet access, work/study hours and partisanship, although not all of these factors were used in the final analysis. The construction of these questions typically followed that of established surveys, such as the Australian Census and the Australian Election Survey. Details of these measurement approaches are included in Table 5.6.

Table 5.6: Measurement of Control Variables Variable name Measurement approach Gender Male and female options were provided, as per the Australian Census. Age Year of birth was requested, which was later converted into approximate age at time of data collection. Country of Tick box options were provided for the most common nationalities reported in the birth Brisbane area, with an additional, ‘other country (please specify)’ option. Indigenous Respondents were asked whether they identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait identification Islander. Income Household income before tax was requested, with tick box income ranges provided as per the Australian Census. Education Highest completed level of education was requested, with tick box education level options ranging from primary school through to research higher degree, with an additional, ‘other (please specify)’ option. Internet access Four options were provided to describe the nature of their Internet access: at home, at work/uni, somewhere else, none. Work/study Respondents were asked how many hours they spend on work and study hours combined. Partisanship Tick a box options were provided for the highest profile political parties, with additional ‘other’ and ‘no party’ options. The two major parties in Australian politics are the Australian Labor Party (commonly considered to be on the left of the political spectrum) and the Liberal Party of Australia (which frequently forms a coalition with the National Party of Australia, both of which are commonly considered to be on the right of the political spectrum). For ease of analysis and interpretation, the remaining responses were collapsed into two broader groups: minor parties, and no party.

Measuring the dependent variables The current project focuses on a range of media consumption patterns, including media diets (as discussed in Chapter Four), as well as SPIRs (such as reliance on television, or the Internet). To enable each of these media consumption patterns to be constructed, data collection focused on respondents’ use of specific information sources. This section will firstly discuss the way in which this raw information use data was collected. Secondly, the calculation of each of the dependent variables will be explained.

Data collection: information source use As stated previously, the focus of the current project is not simply on citizen use of information related to formal, party politics, but rather to the broader realm of socio- political information. In keeping with this approach, the current project provided no definition to participants. Instead, each survey question relating to information source includes the following clarifying statement:

Examples of socio-political issues include interest rates, workplace relations, health care, climate change, reconciliation, religious tolerance, immigration, terrorism, and many other topics

This range of examples is intended merely to illustrate that the term refers to more than simply the realm of formal party politics, whilst leaving the delineation of precise boundaries to the respondent.

The cover letter distributed with the questionnaire also oriented respondents to this broader description, with the following statement:

The study is about the ways in which Brisbane residents find out about social and political issues such as interest rates, workplace relations, health care, climate change, reconciliation and immigration.

The centrality of the media to the dissemination of political information within modern liberal democracies is reflected by the bulk of studies relating to ‘media’ use, rather than political information resource use. Media exposure is the most commonly used measure of media use (Martinelli & Chaffee, 1995), and refers to the frequency with which an individual is exposed to a particular media outlet. Media exposure measurements rely on self-report, for example, by asking the number of days in the past week an individual has watched the evening television news. Such an approach has its limitations.

One limitation of the media exposure approach is that frequency of exposure to a medium is not necessarily related to that medium’s usefulness in relation to a specific issue (such as learning about politics) (Gandy, Matabane, & Omachonu, 1987). For example, television 129

news viewing is generally associated with lower levels of knowledge than newspaper reading (Lambert, Curtis, Kay, & Brown, 1988; Roberts & Bachen, 1981), while talk radio listening has been found to increase listeners’ levels of political knowledge (Bennett, 1998).

A second limitation of the media exposure approach is that frequency of exposure is necessarily related to the regularity with which the medium is made available. For example, newspapers are issued daily, as opposed to books which are issued much less frequently, with the result that meaningful exposure comparisons cannot be made across the wide range of different information sources being considered in the current study.

Further, particular media are likely to be selected to satisfy specific needs (e.g. newspapers for information, television for entertainment) (Atkin, 1973; Elliott & Quattlebaum, 1979; Flanagin & Metzger, 2001; Katz, Gurevitch, & Haas, 1973; Wenner, 1985), or to learn about specific topics (Hietbrink, 1996; Pinkleton, Reagan, Aaronson, & Chen, 1997), so that simple exposure frequency will not meet the needs of the present study, to discover which information sources are used to find out about political issues.

For these reasons, the commonly used media exposure measure was not used in the current study. Rather, respondents were asked about the information sources that they ‘usually used’ to find about ‘important socio-political issues’. This approach invited a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response for each information source, whilst indicating the use of that source to find out about politics specifically. Allowing individuals to define what is ‘usual’ for them in terms of media use, rather than specifying actual rates of use (e.g. read the newspaper every day, once a week, once a month) is also likely to reduce the risk of social desirability bias, as no ‘acceptable’ levels of media use are suggested in the survey instrument.

While every effort was made to include a wide listing of likely political information sources in the questionnaire, based on online radio station listings, magazine distribution lists and television guides, inevitably omissions occurred. In recognition of the vast array of potential information sources, free text fields were also included throughout this section of the questionnaire. A handful of information sources were mentioned in the free text fields repeatedly, and these have been subsequently listed as individual data items in the dataset, as follows:  New Idea (magazine)  Woman’s Day (magazine)  ABC News Radio (radio)  4BH (radio)  The Daily Show With Jon Stewart (television)  Jay Leno (television)  The Colbert Report (television)  The West Wing (television)  Meet the Press (television)  Landline (television)  BBC/BBC News (various formats)  CNN/CNN Today (various formats)  Bloomberg (various formats)  Sky News/Sky News Business (various formats)  Fox news (various formats)  News.com.au (online)

It must be acknowledged, however, that as these items did not appear in the original question list, it is likely that their use may have been under-reported by survey respondents.

Information sources listed in the free text fields which attracted fewer than four responses were categorised in one of five ways: 1. Other mainstream news sources – this would include sources that have news/politics as a key focus, and are mainstream, e.g. New York Times.

2. Other non-mainstream news sources – this would include sources that have news/politics as a key focus, and are non-mainstream, eg. Catholic Leader.

3. Other – other sources listed which do not have news/politics as a key focus, eg. Desperate Housewives. These items were discarded from further analysis in the present project.

4. Active Net search – search engines, such as “Google search” or “Yahoo search”.

5. Other social networking sites: eg. Bebo

For a listing of the specific information sources in each of these categories, please refer to Appendix 7.

While most information source use items relate to mass media resources, the survey deliberately collected data on non-news media information sources also, to broaden

131

knowledge of respondent’s political information landscapes. As discussed in Chapter Four, the current study distinguishes non-news media information sources by their difference from the media in two specific ways:  not being overtly mediated by a professional information gatekeeper, such as an editor or producer; and/or  requiring greater ‘costs’ (temporal, financial, cognitive, opportunity) to obtain and consume.

Using this distinction, the following items were categorised as non-news media sources:  YouTube  MySpace  Facebook  Other social networking websites  Documentary films  Books  Zines  Active web searching (e.g. Google search)  Direct correspondence from political parties or politicians  Direct correspondence from charities or activist groups  Public speaking events (book launches, festivals)  Interpersonal sources (e.g. friends and family)

Non-news media sources were not included in the calculation of any of the media diets, as the media diets specifically focus on use of the media. Non-news media sources were included where relevant in the SPIRs.

Calculating the mainstream/non-mainstream media diet As stated previously, the current study will differ from the work of Tsfati (2002) in its distinction of mainstream and non-mainstream media by focusing at the information source level, rather than the channel level. As discussed in Chapter Four, non-mainstream media are here identified by having a stated commitment to the provision of information diversity (see Appendix 8 for further details).

Following Tsfati (2002), mainstream/non-mainstream media diets of individual respondents were determined using a simple calculation (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1: Mainstream/non-mainstream media diet calculation

Mainstream/non- (# of mainstream information (# of non-mainstream information mainstream media = sources ‘usually used’ to find out - sources ‘usually used’ to find out diet about politics) about politics)

For explanations of the mainstream/non-mainstream distinction applied, please refer to Chapter Four of this report. For the rationale for the mainstream/non-mainstream distinction of specific information sources, please refer to Appendix 8.

Calculating the private/public media diet As discussed in Chapters Two and Four, Australia has two public service media networks, ABC and SBS, each of which also produce print products. The private/public media diet scores for individual respondents were determined using a simple calculation (Figure 5.2).

Figure 5.2: Private/public media diet calculation

Private/public (# of privately owned media (# of public service media sources = - media diet sources ‘usually used’ to find out ‘usually used’ to find out about about politics) politics)

For explanations of the private/public distinction applied, please refer to Chapter Four of this report.

Calculating the tabloid/broadsheet media diet Tabloid and broadsheet media were distinguished in the current project with reference to a range of characteristics, including the proportion of time/space devoted to coverage of ‘hard’ news; the depth of news coverage; and the use of explicitly tabloid reporting techniques such as ‘foot-in-the-door’ interrogating, hidden cameras, emotive music and lighting, and dramatized ‘re-enactments’ (as discussed in Chapter Four). The tabloid/broadsheet media diet scores for individual respondents were determined using a simple calculation (Figure 5.3).

Figure 5.3: Tabloid/broadsheet media diet calculation (# of tabloid media sources (# of quality information sources Tabloid/broadsheet = ‘usually used’ to find out about - ‘usually used’ to find out about media diet politics) politics)

133

For explanations of the private/public distinction applied, please refer to Chapter Four of this report. For the rationale for the tabloid/quality distinction of specific information sources, please refer to Appendix 9.

During the analysis phase of the project, a further four media diets were developed to enable further exploration of the data. The additional media diets were calculated using the same subtraction technique detailed above. The additional media diets explored were newspaper tabloid/broadsheet, radio low/high news coverage, television news tabloid/broadsheet media diet and television current affairs tabloid/broadsheet. These will be further detailed in Chapter Six.

A note on the operationalisation of the mainstream/non-mainstream distinction In researching the more than 120 individual information sources included in the survey, it became apparent that commercially owned media sources rarely made any stated commitment to information diversity, or indeed, to prioritising information quality (please refer to Appendix 8 for further details). Profit was frequently the only stated priority identified by commercial media outlets. This has resulted in a degree of overlap between the privately owned and mainstream categories, and between the publicly owned and non- mainstream categories: 74 out of the 92 mainstream sources (80 percent) are privately owned, while 20 out of the 39 non-mainstream sources (51 percent) are public service media.

Calculating other socio-political information repertoires Characteristic-specific SPIRs have been measured by simply calculating the number of information sources of that particular type ‘usually used’ for political information. For example, the television SPIR is calculated by simply counting the number of television sources the respondent indicates they ‘usually use’. Specific SPIRs calculated and used in subsequent analyses are:  Internet SPIR  Print media SPIR  Newspaper SPIR  Radio SPIR  Television SPIR  Non-news media SPIR (which includes sources such as social networking websites, YouTube, zines, web searching, documentary films, public speaking events (such as book launches, festivals, conferences), interpersonal communication, direct communication from politicians, political parties, charities, activist groups)  Overall SPIR (which includes all sources, both media and non-news media)

Descriptive statistics of the dependent variables Table 5.7 summarises the descriptive statistics for the 14 dependent variables explored in the project. It is important to note that the range of possible scores differs across the 14 variables, hence means cannot be directly compared between variables.

Table 5.7: Descriptive Statistics of Dependent Variables (N=585) Dependent Variables Min Max Range Mean Standard score score Deviation Mainstream/non-mainstream media -4.0 28.0 32.0 8.4 5.0 diet* Private/public media diet* -14.0 22.0 36.0 3.0 5.9 Tabloid/broadsheet media diet* -28.0 3.0 31.0 -5.6 4.5 Internet SPIR 0.0 8.0 8.0 1.2 1.5 Print media SPIR 0.0 11.0 11.0 2.9 1.8 Newspaper SPIR 0.0 9.0 9.0 2.4 1.4 Newspaper tabloid/broadsheet media -4.0 2.0 6.0 0.6 1.3 diet* Radio SPIR 0.0 7.0 7.0 1.7 1.3 Radio low/high news coverage media -5.0 4.0 9.0 0.0 1.6 diet* Television SPIR 0.0 26.0 26.0 7.0 4.5 TV news tabloid/broadsheet media diet* -15.0 3.0 18.0 -2.7 3.1 TV current affairs tabloid/broadsheet -10.0 3.0 13.0 -0.9 2.2 media diet* Non-news media SPIR 0.0 10.0 10.0 1.8 1.6 Overall SPIR 2.0 43.0 41.0 15.1 7.4 *The method of calculation used for each of the media diets results in higher/more positive values indicating a greater reliance on the first-named media type. For example, a high or positive score on the mainstream/non- mainstream media diet indicates greater reliance on mainstream sources, while a high or positive score on the private/public media diet indicates greater reliance on privately owned (commercial) media.

The correlations table for all the variables used in the models is included in Appendix 12.

Statistical analyses A range of statistical techniques were performed on the data: factor analysis, independent samples t-tests and multiple linear regression. Factor analysis was required because three of the independent variables in the study (media scepticism, NFC and media gratifications)

135

are measured using multi-item scales. As described earlier in this chapter, factor analysis was conducted on each of these scales, to determine the underlying components of the scales.

Independent sample t-tests are used to determine whether the mean scores of two unrelated groups are significantly different (i.e. whether there is a greater difference between the groups than could be attributable to chance) (Aron et al., 2009). In this study, t-tests were performed on each of the independent variables, to provide a preliminary examination of differences between ‘high’ and ‘low’ scoring respondents. For example, a t- test identified that people with high levels of interest in politics have higher average NFC scores than people with low levels of political interest.

Finally, a series of multiple linear regressions were performed to test the predictive ability of the nine original models in the study:  mainstream/non-mainstream media diet  private/public media diet  tabloid/broadsheet media diet  Internet SPIR  print media SPIR  radio SPIR  television SPIR  non-news media SPIR  overall SPIR

To further explore the data, an additional five models were developed during the analysis phase of the study:  newspaper SPIR  newspaper tabloid/broadsheet media diet  radio low/high news coverage media diet  television news tabloid/broadsheet media diet  television current affairs tabloid/broadsheet media diet

These are detailed further in Chapter Six.

Multiple linear regression is a statistical technique which tests how well each of a range of independent variables in a model is able to predict changes in the dependent variable (Aron et al., 2009). For example, in the current study, multiple regression has been used to identify the extent to which media scepticism can predict changes in television use, independently of the effect of other variables in the model (e.g. age and gender).

In some cases, preliminary data manipulation of categorical variables was required, to prepare them for the t-tests and regression analyses. Details of these manipulations are included in Chapter Six, along with the results of the t-tests and regressions.

Conclusion This chapter has described the research approaches used in the current project, and provided justifications for the selection of each. It has also identified the limitations of the approaches chosen, and the attempts made to address these concerns. Details of the measurement of each of the variables in the project is included, as well as an introduction to the range of statistical techniques applied. Chapter Six will report on the findings of the data collection, and provide the details and results of the specific statistical analyses conducted.

137

Chapter Six: Findings

Introduction The previous chapter described and critiqued the research approaches and procedures employed in the project to explore the research problem: how do audience characteristics (media scepticism, need for cognition (NFC), media gratifications and political interest) influence the information choices of Australians, with regard to socio-political information? Data collection for the project was achieved via a written questionnaire, distributed by mail to a probability sample drawn from the Brisbane adult population. The data was then analysed statistically, predominantly through the application of multiple linear regression. Multiple regression was chosen because it enables the researcher to identify the unique contribution of each independent variable (in this case, each of the audience characteristics) to the dependent variable (in this case the media diets and socio-political information repertoires (SPIRs)). The previous chapter detailed the sampling procedure, survey development and administration processes used. The limitations of the chosen approaches and techniques were identified and addressed. Specific details of the measurement of each of the independent and dependent variables were provided, and the factor analysis results for the scale-based independent variables (media scepticism, NFC and media gratifications) reported.

The findings of the study are reported in this chapter. The chapter is structured as follows: I will first recap the background to each of the hypotheses included in the study. I will then consider each of the key independent variables in turn - media scepticism, NFC, media gratifications sought and political interest – reporting the results of the research hypotheses associated with each one. Finally, I will consider the findings as they relate to each of the six original socio-political information repertoires (Internet, print media, radio, television, non-news media and overall) and three original media diets (mainstream/non- mainstream, private/public, tabloid/broadsheet). A further five models (newspaper SPIR, newspaper tabloid/broadsheet media diet, radio low/high news coverage media diet, television news tabloid/broadsheet media diet, television current affairs tabloid/broadsheet media diet) emerged as a result of the analysis, and these will be detailed. A broader interpretation of these findings will be included in Chapter Seven.

139

Background to hypotheses tested in the study Previous studies have found that people who are sceptical of the media (media sceptics) display a preference for using non-mainstream media over mainstream sources (Tsfati, 2002; Tsfati & Cappella, 2003, 2005; Tsfati & Peri, 2006). This preference is assumed to be driven by the desire for credible political information, and the fact that, by definition, media sceptics do not find the mainstream media credible. Sceptics therefore are expected to look beyond the mainstream media for political information. The present study incorporates two types of information sources which fall outside the mainstream media: non- mainstream media and non-news media information sources. Thus, the first two hypotheses tested were that media scepticism will be associated with greater reliance on non-mainstream media (H1), and that media scepticism will be associated with greater reliance on non-news media information sources (H2). Both these hypotheses were supported, although the degree of influence of media scepticism on media selection in these models was small, explaining roughly one percent of the variation in each diet. These findings indicate that while trust does play a small role in information selection, other factors probably play a greater role.

Beyond the mainstream/non-mainstream distinction, there are two other ways in which the Australian media landscape is commonly conceptualised: the distinction between commercial and public service media, and the tabloid/broadsheet distinction. These categories incorporate information credibility dimensions, with Australia’s public broadcasters enjoying a better reputation for journalistic quality than the commercial networks (Ang et al., 2006; Bean, 2005; Turner, 2005), and with broadsheet media considered more credible than tabloid media (Pieper, 2000; Turner, 2005). As media sceptics are concerned about information quality, two further hypotheses were developed: media scepticism will be associated with greater reliance on public service media (H3) and media scepticism will be associated with greater reliance on broadsheet media (H4). The first of these hypotheses was supported by the data: media sceptics do rely on slightly (0.6 percent of variation in diet) more public service media than non-sceptics. However, there was no association between media scepticism and the tabloid/broadsheet media diet, so H4 was not supported by the data. That media scepticism does not significantly influence the tabloid/broadsheet media diet, and that its influence on non-news media information source use and the mainstream/non-mainstream and private/public media diets is so small, again raises the issue that other factors must be far more influential than media scepticism and trust. This matter is discussed in detail later in the chapter, and is further explored in Chapter Seven.

Previous research has found low levels of NFC to be associated with greater use of television (Darley, 1992; Klein & Holt, 1991), presumably because television requires less cognitive effort to consume (Condra, 1992). Thus I hypothesised that lower NFC scores will be associated with increased reliance on television for political information (H5). This hypothesis was not supported. Even when television sources were separated into tabloid and broadsheet categories, NFC did not make a significant impact on program choice.

As NFC is a measure of how much an individual enjoys thinking, it is expected that people with high levels of NFC will be more willing to engage with information sources which require greater effort to use (Perse, 1992, 2001). As discussed in Chapter Four, non-news media information sources require greater effort to consume. Given the preference of high NFC people for multiple and diverse information sources (Nair & Ramnarayan, 2000), and their willingness to expend additional cognitive effort in exchange for political information, I hypothesised that high NFC scores will be associated with increased use of non-news media sources (H6), and with larger information repertoires generally (H7). NFC in the present study was associated with only one media consumption model: the non-news media SPIR. It appears high NFC does make people willing to expend extra effort to use non-news media information sources, as postulated in H6. As with the media scepticism findings, however, that NFC fails to contribute to any other SPIR or media diet indicates that other factors must be playing a more influential role on media selection. This matter is discussed in detail later in the chapter, and is further explored in Chapter Seven.

Previous research has found high levels of NFC to be associated with purposeful informational/utility and entertainment gratifications sought, but not with diversionary gratifications (Perse, 1992). Therefore, I hypothesised that high NFC scores will be associated with surveillance and entertainment gratifications, but not with escape gratifications (H8). This hypothesis was supported by the findings, indicating a link between NFC and purposeful information seeking, as will be further discussed in Chapter Seven.

141

Interest in a topic is predicted to result in larger information repertoires relating to that topic (Reagan, 1996). Indeed, political interest has been found to lead to increased media use to find out about politics (Bizer et al., 2002). Conversely, Wenner found motivations to avoid political news to be related to lack of interest in an election campaign (Wenner, 1983). I therefore hypothesised that high levels of political interest will be associated with larger socio-political information repertoires (H9). This hypothesis was partly supported, with high levels of political interest associated with greater use of information sources overall, and with increased use of print media and radio specifically.

Political interest has also been linked to a preference for unmediated, or, at least, less journalistically mediated information, such as direct communications from political parties and special interest groups (Dahlgren & Olsson, 2005; Jackson & Lilleker, 2007; Norris, 2003). I therefore hypothesised that high levels of political interest will be associated with higher use of non-news media information sources (H10). The findings did not support this hypothesis. It seems that in Australia, political interest does not result in a willingness to seek out these more costly information sources.

Previous research has found that media sceptics who are interested in politics tend to turn to non-mainstream online information sources, often “to check on the accuracy of traditional media”, “to get a wide variety of viewpoints”, or to obtain “information that I can’t get from traditional media” (Kaye & Johnson, 2006; Kim, 2006). Diverse and alternative viewpoints are associated in the current study with non-mainstream media sources. I therefore hypothesised that media sceptics with high levels of political interest will prefer non-mainstream media sources (H11). These concerns regarding the accuracy of the media may also indicate that political interest is associated with an increased desire for high quality information about politics. For this reason, I further hypothesised that media sceptics who have high levels of political interest will prefer public service media (H12), and media sceptics who have high levels of political interest will prefer broadsheet media (H13). Media sceptics who are interested in politics were indeed found to prefer public service (H12) and broadsheet media sources (H13). However, these respondents were found to prefer mainstream over non-mainstream resources (H11). These findings reflect a concern for journalistic quality, but not for information diversity.

Finally, political interest has been found to correlate with high NFC (Bizer et al., 2002; Condra, 1992; Liu & Eveland, 2005). I therefore hypothesised that people with high levels of political interest will have higher NFC than people with low levels of political interest (H14). This hypothesis was supported by the data.

These hypotheses and the findings are summarised in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1: Summary of hypotheses tested H# Hypothesis Supported? 1 Media scepticism will be associated with greater reliance on non-mainstream Yes media. 2 Media scepticism will be associated with greater use of non-news media Yes information sources. 3 Media scepticism will be associated with greater reliance on public service Yes media. 4 Media scepticism will be associated with greater reliance on broadsheet media. No 5 Lower need for cognition scores will be associated with increased reliance on No television for political information. 6 High need for cognition scores will be associated with greater use of non-news Yes media information sources. 7 Need for cognition will be associated with larger overall socio-political No information repertoires. 8 High need for cognition scores will be associated with surveillance and Yes entertainment gratifications, but not with escape gratifications. 9 Political interest will be associated with larger socio-political information Partly repertoires. 10 Political interest will be associated with greater use of non-news media No information sources. 11 Media sceptics who have high levels of political interest will prefer non- No mainstream media sources. 12 Media sceptics who have high levels of political interest will prefer public Yes service media sources. 13 Media sceptics who have high levels of political interest will prefer broadsheet Yes media sources. 14 People with high levels of political interest will have higher need for cognition Yes than people with low levels of political interest.

Multiple linear regression This study used multiple linear regression to examine nine models of media consumption. Multiple linear regression is a statistical technique which tests how well each of a range of independent variables in a model is able to predict changes in the dependent variable (Aron et al., 2009). In order to explore the socio-political information behaviour of the respondents, each media consumption model contained a different conceptualisation of media consumption patterns:  mainstream/non-mainstream media diet  private/public media diet 143

 tabloid/ broadsheet media diet  Internet SPIR  print media SPIR  radio SPIR  television SPIR  non-news media SPIR  overall SPIR

A further five media consumption models were developed during the analysis, to further explore the findings:  newspaper SPIR  newspaper tabloid/broadsheet media diet  radio low/high news coverage media diet  television news tabloid/broadsheet media diet  television current affairs tabloid/broadsheet media diet

Linear regression requires the dependent variables in each model to be expressed as a single numerical value for each respondent. As is described in Chapter Five, to achieve this, two basic approaches were used. The SPIRs were measured by simply adding up the number of information sources in each category that each respondent identified they used for socio-political information. For example, the television SPIR was calculated by adding up the number of television programs used by each respondent to find out about politics. Thus, each respondent has a particular television SPIR numerical score.

The media diets are slightly more complex, as they reflect the relative composition of the diet with regard to some dichotomous characteristic. To achieve a single numerical value for each respondent’s media diet, subtraction is used. For example, the private/public media diet is calculated by subtracting the total number of public service media used by a respondent from the total number of commercial media used by that same respondent. Again, this results in a single numerical private/public media diet score for each respondent.

It should be noted that the seven media diets: mainstream/non-mainstream, private/public and tabloid/broadsheet, newspaper tabloid/broadsheet, radio low/high news coverage, television news tabloid/broadsheet, television current affairs tabloid/broadsheet, include only media sources, however, the SPIRs include non-news media information sources where relevant. As discussed in Chapter Four, non-news media information sources are identified in this study according to two characteristics:  their production involving less content mediation than media sources (i.e. less content control by a professional information gatekeeper, such as an editor or producer); and/or  being more costly to use than media sources, where ‘costs’ may include cognitive effort, physical effort, financial cost, opportunity costs and time (Atkin, 1973; Pirolli & Card, 1999).

Thus non-news media information sources as defined here include social networking media (e.g. YouTube, MySpace, Facebook); direct communications with political parties, charities, lobby groups or politicians; public speaking events (e.g. book launches, festivals); documentaries and books9; zines; interpersonal communication (e.g. with friends and colleagues); and active engagement with Internet search engines (e.g. creating and conducting a Google search).

A series of multiple linear regressions were conducted to assess the ability of the media scepticism, NFC, media gratifications and political interest measures to predict each of the above media diets and SPIRs. Each regression was controlled for the influence of a range of demographic variables:  age  gender  household income  education level  Internet access  hours spent at work or study per week  partisanship

Details of the measurement of these variables are included in Chapter Five.

9 While it is acknowledged that documentaries and books generally have some form of editorial input, they are included here as non-news media sources because of the increased resources required for their use, particularly in terms of cognitive and opportunity costs. 145

Regression analysis requires all variables to be continuous or dichotomous. Where variables are categorical with more than two categories, they have been recoded into dichotomous dummy variables to enable regression. To enhance interpretability of the results, in some cases categories with greater than two values have been collapsed, as outlined in Table 6.2:

Table 6.2: Recoding of categorical variables in preparation for regression analysis Variable Original values Recoded values Reference value (ie. Coded 0) Gender Male NA Male Female Household annual Nine categories from Dummy variables: Low ($0 to $60,000) income (gross)* ‘no income’ to Low ($0 to $60,000) ‘$140,000+’ Medium ($60,000 to $119,999) High ($120,000+) Highest completed Seven categories from University No university education level ‘primary’ school’ to qualification; qualification ‘research higher No university degree’ qualification Internet access No NA ‘None’ Yes Level of political None Dummy variables: ‘None’ interest Not much Not much Some Some A good deal A good deal Partisanship Nine categories Dummy variables: ALP ALP Liberal and National Parties Minor parties No party

In each regression, preliminary analyses were conducted to ensure no violation of the assumptions of normality, linearity, multicollinearity and homoscedasticity. All models met these requirements.

The results of all regressions conducted in the study are summarised in Table 6.3. Each regression will be discussed in detail in the remainder of the chapter.

Table 6.3: Summary of the relative predictive ability of each of the constructs with regard to the media diets and SPIRs analysed Media diet/SPIR Beta values (percentage variation in media diet/SPIR) ( % variation explained) Media NFC Surveil- Enter- Escape Political Age Gender Education Internet Partisanship scepticism lance tainment Interest level access Mainstream/non- -.110# - - - .200*** - .121# .144** - - Minor -.136** mainstream (17.0%) (1.1) (2.2) (0.9) (1.8) (1.6) Private/public (22.2%) -.083# - - - .193*** - -.286*** .146** -.097# (0.7) - LibNat .126* (0.6) (2.0) (5.2) (1.9) (1.3) Minor -.096# (0.8) Tabloid/broadsheet - - -.127# - - - -.154** - -.136** - - (23.8%) (1.0) (1.5) (1.4) Internet SPIR (14.4%) ------.195*** - - .103# (0.7) - (2.4) Print media SPIR (14.9%) - - - .124# - A good deal - .138** - - - (0.7) .236# (0.7) (1.7) Newspaper (14.4%) - - - - - A great deal .114# - .110# (0.9) - - .263# (0.8) (0.8) Newspaper tab/broad - -.125* - -.126# - - - .117* -.220*** - Minor-.122* (16.3%) (1.1) (0.7) (1.2) (3.8) (1.3) Radio SPIR (6.5%) - - - - .139# A good deal -.122# - - - - (1.1) .268# (0.9) (1.0) Radio low/high news - - - -.144# .173** - -.344*** .158*** -.117* (1.1) - - (24.9%) (0.9) (1.6) (7.6) (2.2) Television SPIR (18.3%) - - .147** - - - .141* - - - - (1.4) (1.3) TV News tab/broad - - -.165** - - - -.254*** - -.100# (0.8) - - (22.5%) (1.7) (4.1) TV CA tab/broad (24.0%) - - - - .105# - -.245*** - -.101# (0.8) - LibNat .089# (0.6) (3.9) (0.6) Non-news media SPIR .090# (0.7) .209*** .107# .148# -.142* - -.118# .120** - - Minor .111* (23.0%) (3.3) (0.7) (1.0) (1.1) (0.9) (1.3) (1.1) Overall SPIR (24.0%) - - .149** .146# A good deal - - -.089# (0.7) - - (1.4) (0.9) .224# (0.6) # p<.05; * p<.01; ** p<.005; *** p<.001 (two-tailed) Note: Hours worked and household income failed to make any significant contribution, and so are omitted from this table 147

Independent variables – unique contributions This section will consider the unique contributions each of the key independent variables – media scepticism, NFC, media gratifications and political interest - make to media consumption patterns.

Media Scepticism A range of independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare the characteristics of people with high scepticism towards the media with people more trusting of the media. The results are summarised in Table 6.4.

Table 6.4: Comparisons of means between media sceptics and other respondents Characteristic Media Others t values Mean Effect size sceptics mean (SD) difference (eta squared) mean (SD) (95% CI) Age 49.53 46.34 t (564) = -3.190 Small (16.23) (16.01) -2.347# (-5.86 to -.52) (.01) NFC 44.71 42.43 t (549) = -2.279 Small (10.00) (10.04) -2.66* (-3.96 to -.60) (.01) Entertainment 11.39 12.66 t (543) = 1.27 Small gratification (4.41) (3.58) -3.74*** (.60 to 1.94) (.02) Surveillance gratification 23.80 24.68 t (548) = .89 (.05 to Small (5.53) (4.51) 2.07# 1.73) (.008) Escape gratification 5.45 6.39 t (553) = .94 (.35 to Small (3.68) (3.36) 3.15** 1.53) (.02) Mainstream/non- 7.93 9.00 t (583) = 1.07 (.26 to Small mainstream media diet (4.88) (5.12) 2.58# 1.88) (.01) Private/public media 2.23 3.81 t (583) = 1.58 (.63 to Small diet (5.85) (5.79) 3.28** 2.53) (.02) Tabloid/broadsheet -5.61 -5.52 t (583) = .23 Not media diet (4.38) (4.58) significant Television SPIR 6.99 7.06 t (583) = .19 Not (4.42) (4.57) significant Radio SPIR 1.67 1.69 t (583) = .24 Not (1.27) (1.24) significant Print media SPIR 2.89 3.01 t (583) = .80 Not (1.78) (1.81) significant Internet SPIR 1.11 1.21 t (583) = .83 Not (1.46) (1.53) significant Non-news media SPIR 1.97 1.66 t (583) = -.307 (-.57 to - Very small (1.63) (1.60) -2.30# .05) (.009) Overall SPIR 15.18 14.99 t (583) = -.32 Not (7.20) (7.54) significant # p<.05; * p<.01; ** p<.005; *** p<.001 (two-tailed)

149

Media sceptics were defined as having a media scepticism score above the median for the sample (median = 24, range is from 0 to 32). There are a number of statistically significant but slight differences between the highly sceptical and less sceptical groups. Sceptics are slightly older on average, have slightly higher NFC scores and score slightly lower on all the gratifications scales (entertainment, surveillance and escape).

In terms of media use, sceptics use marginally more information sources overall, including more non-news media information sources, and rely slightly more on non-mainstream and public service media sources than people who have more trust in the media. It is important to note however, with regard to these media use findings, that the t-tests do not take into account the influence of other variables, such as age or gender. That is, these results do not isolate the effect of media scepticism on media usage. To identify the unique influence of media scepticism on media usage, we must turn to the multiple linear regression results. The regression results are reported in full in Table 6.3. For the reader’s convenience, the media scepticism regression results alone are included in Table 6.5.

Table 6.5: Multiple regression results for the media scepticism variable against each of the media use models (extracted from Table 6.3)

Media diet/ SPIR Beta value Percentage variation in media diet/ SPIR explained uniquely by this variable Mainstream/non- mainstream -.110# 1.1% media diet Private/public media diet -.083# 0.6% Tabloid/broadsheet media diet - - Internet SPIR - - Print media SPIR - - Radio SPIR - - Television SPIR - - Non-news media SPIR .090# 0.7% Overall SPIR - - # p<.05; * p<.01; ** p<.005; *** p<.001 (two-tailed)

The regression results (Table 6.5) reveal that media scepticism makes a unique and statistically significant contribution to only three of the models explored: the mainstream/non-mainstream and private/public media diets; and the non-news media SPIR.

The negative beta value for the mainstream/non-mainstream and private/public media diets indicates that sceptics rely on more non-mainstream and public service media sources to find out about politics than do non-sceptics, supporting the t-test findings. Thus, H1 and H3 are supported.

The positive beta value for the non-news media SPIR indicates that media scepticism is associated with use of a greater number of non-news media information sources. Thus, H2 is supported.

It must be noted however, that in all these cases, the level of impact of media scepticism on the media consumption patterns is small, no more than 1.1 percent in each case. The implications of this will be discussed later in the chapter.

H4 predicted that media scepticism would be associated with greater reliance on broadsheet media. In line with the t-test results, this hypothesis was not supported by the regression findings. There was no significant association between media scepticism and the tabloid/broadsheet media diet.

Three hypotheses in the study relate uniquely to people who scored highly on the media scepticism scale. As outlined earlier, previous research has found that media sceptics who are interested in politics tend to be concerned regarding information quality (Kaye & Johnson, 2006; Kim, 2006). Hypotheses 11, 12 and 13 therefore predicted that media sceptics with a high level of interest in politics will display a preference for non-mainstream (H11), public service (H12) and broadsheet (H13) media sources. To test these hypotheses, it was necessary to isolate the respondents who scored highly on the media scepticism scale, and then run independent samples t-tests to compare the media diet scores for media sceptics with high levels of political interest and those with low levels of political interest. H12 and H13 are supported by the data. Media sceptics who are interested in politics rely more on public service (ABC and SBS) and broadsheet media, however, they prefer mainstream to non-mainstream media sources. Recalling that non-mainstream media are defined in this study by having a

151

stated commitment to information diversity, these findings certainly reflect a concern for journalistic quality, but not necessarily for information diversity. The results are reported in Table 6.6.

Table 6.6: Comparisons of media diet means between media sceptics with high and low levels of political interest Characteristic Highly Others t values Mean Effect size politically mean (SD) difference (eta squared) interested (95% CI) mean (SD) Mainstream/non- 8.26 5.96 t (97) = -2.29 (-3.46 to Small to mainstream media diet (5.04) (3.56) -3.92*** -1.13) moderate (.05) Private/public media 1.74 4.15 t (93) = 2.41 (.98 to Small diet (6.03) (4.43) 3.35** 3.84) (.04)

Tabloid/broadsheet -6.31 -2.27 t (140) = 4.04 (3.21 to Large media diet (4.43) (2.30) 9.59*** 4.88) (.23) # p<.05; * p<.01; ** p<.005; *** p<.001 (two-tailed)

Media scepticism summary In line with previous findings from the US (Tsfati, 2002), media sceptics in the current sample rely more heavily on non-mainstream news sources than non-sceptics. The size of the effect, however, is far smaller than in the US dataset, amounting to only 1.1 percent of the overall variance, as opposed to 3.25 percent in the US sample. It is important to recall that ‘non- mainstream’ has been operationalised with greater specificity in the current study than it was in Tsfati’s research. In short, the US study considered all Internet and political talk radio sources to be non-mainstream, whereas the current study has selected non-mainstream sources on the basis of them having a stated commitment to providing alternative viewpoints (see Chapter Four for further details and justification). This newer approach, however, is conceptually consistent with Tsfati’s original guidelines for non-mainstream materials, and so a similar outcome is unsurprising. However, the far smaller impact of media scepticism on this media diet is worth noting. This difference is suggestive of audience and/or media industry differences between Australia and the USA. With regard to Australian versus US audiences, it is important to recall that media scepticism in the Australian sample was far higher on average than in the US sample. On a scale of 0 to 32, where 0 indicates no scepticism and 32 indicates highest scepticism, the Australian sample mean was 23.2 compared with the US sample mean of 18.0 (Dr Yariv Tsfati, personal communication, October 16th 2008). The samples also skew in

different directions, with the Australian distribution skewed towards greater scepticism and the US skewed towards less scepticism. So in this study, greater media scepticism levels have resulted in a smaller impact on the proportion of non-mainstream to mainstream media sources. Four possible explanations for this come to mind.

Firstly, Australian audiences may use fewer non-mainstream sources, relative to mainstream media sources, than do US audiences, because there are fewer non-mainstream media sources on offer. As discussed in Chapter Two, the Australian media landscape is characterised by a small potential audience size, and one of the highest levels of media ownership concentration in the world. As a result, the media market is less diverse.

Secondly, the importance of trust in information selection may be overstated in light of increasing levels of perceived media literacy amongst the population. That is, people believe they are wise to media distortions, and so can see through them to the truth, even when using low-quality media sources (Bird, 2003). Evidence of such an attitude was found in recent Australian research (Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2008), however, the same report found that respondents were in fact shocked when specific examples of information distortions by the media were revealed to them. Such an attitude may therefore not be well-founded, but may, nevertheless, be influencing media choices. This possibility is further discussed in Chapter Seven.

Thirdly, it is possible that Australians are so sceptical of the media they tend to view the entire media marketplace – mainstream and non-mainstream - as homogenous in terms of quality. In an undifferentiated media market, it makes little difference which media sources one selects. This issue is explored further in Chapter Seven.

A fourth explanation relates to the media scepticism scale itself. It may be that the media scepticism scale is not, in fact, measuring a behaviourally relevant attitude. Rather, the media scepticism scale may be recording ‘media talk’, the discourse by which people speak about the media in order to appear media literate and socially sophisticated (Buckingham, 2000;

153

Dahlgren, 1988). Concerns regarding the media scepticism scale, and an exploration of the ‘media talk’ conception, are addressed fully in Chapters Eight and Seven, respectively.

Media scepticism only reached significance in two other models: the private/public media diet and the non-news media SPIR. Media sceptics tend to use more public service media than do non-sceptics. Given that scepticism relates to a lack of trust in the media, this finding makes sense if we recall the generally held Australian attitude that the public broadcasters are more credible than the commercial networks (Brand et al., 2001; Daniel et al., 2009).

Media sceptics also tend to use more non-news media information sources (e.g. social networking sites, public speaking events, direct communication from politicians or activist groups) than non-sceptics. This finding is conceptually aligned with the previous findings that sceptics use more non-mainstream media than non-sceptics. If individuals do not trust the mainstream media and turn to the non-mainstream media to supplement their mainstream media consumption, it follows that they may also turn to non-media sources for the same reason. This is particularly likely in light of the lack of media diversity in Australia. If the information you are seeking is not represented in the media, you will simply have to look beyond the media to find that information.

The theoretical and practical implications of these findings will be considered more fully in Chapter Seven.

Need for Cognition A range of independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare the characteristics of high NFC individuals and low NFC individuals, and the results are summarised in Table 6.7. High NFC individuals were defined as having an NFC score above the median for the sample (median = 44, range is from 0 to 72). Individuals with high NFC tend to be slightly younger and more sceptical of the mainstream media than individuals with low NFC. High NFC respondents are also slightly more likely to use the media for entertainment and surveillance gratifications, but there was no difference in escape gratifications between the different NFC groups. H8 predicted that high NFC scores would be associated with surveillance and entertainment gratifications, but not with escape gratifications. H8 is therefore supported by the data.

Table 6.7: Comparisons of means between high NFC and low NFC respondents Characteristic HNFC mean LNFC mean t values Mean Effect size (SD) (SD) difference (eta squared) (95% CI) Age 45.51 49.94 t (527) = 4.43 (1.73 to Small (14.89) (16.84) 3.23** 7.12) (.02) Media scepticism 23.90 (5.23) 22.41 t (528) = -1.49 (-2.39 to Small (5.36) -3.24*** -.58) (.02) Entertainment 12.32 (4.13) 11.57 t (525) = -.78 (-1.44 to - Very small gratification (4.01) -2.11# .05) (.008) Surveillance gratification 25.05 (5.04) 23.37 t (526) = -1.68 (-2.55 to Small (5.10) -3.81*** -.82) (.03) Escape gratification 5.59 6.12 (3.60) t (531) = 1.71 Not (3.53) significant Mainstream/non- 8.25 8.67 (5.18) t (549) = .99 Not mainstream media diet (4.86) significant Private/public media 2.16 3.87 (5.50) t (542) = 1.71 (.73 to Small diet (6.14) 3.44*** 2.68) (.02) Tabloid/broadsheet -6.38 (4.38) -4.85 (4.47) t (549) = 1.53 (.79 to Small media diet 4.06*** 2.27) (.03) Television SPIR 6.99 (4.08) 7.00 (4.77) t (536) = .029 Not significant Radio SPIR 1.80 (1.35) 1.58 (1.17) t (549) = -.22 (-.43 to - Very small -2.01# .005) (.007) Print media SPIR 3.11 (1.85) 2.79 (1.71) t (549) = -.32 (-.62 to - Very small -2.13# .02) (.008) Internet SPIR 1.40 (1.65) 1.00 t (527) = -.40 (-.66 to - Small (1.35) -3.14** .15) (.02) Non-news media SPIR 2.23 (1.63) 1.49 (1.54) t (549) = -.75 (-1.01 to - Moderate -5.55*** .48) (.05) Overall SPIR 16.21 (6.83) 14.11 t (549) = -2.10 (-3.32 to Small (7.72) -3.38*** -.88) (.02) # p<.05; * p<.01; ** p<.005; *** p<.001 (two-tailed)

The t-test results also indicate high NFC individuals rely more on public service and broadsheet media sources, and use more information sources overall to find out about politics. They also use more Internet, print and radio sources than people with low NFC. There was no difference in television reliance. It must be stressed that while these differences are statistically significant, they are small differences only. The greatest difference between the two groups is in use of non-news media sources, which were used more heavily by people with high NFC scores.

155

As stated previously, t-tests do not take into account the influence of other variables, such as age or gender. That is, these results do not isolate the effect of NFC on media usage. To identify the unique influence of NFC on media usage, we must turn to the multiple linear regression results. The regression results in full are reported in Table 6.3. For the reader’s convenience, the NFC results alone are included in Table 6.8.

The regression results (Table 6.8) reveal that NFC makes a unique and statistically significant contribution to only one of the original models explored: the non-news media SPIR. The positive beta value indicates that high NFC scores are associated with greater use of non-news media information sources, thus, H6 is supported. NFC has the greatest predictive power on this SPIR, contributing to 3.3 percent of the variation in non-news media information source use.

Table 6.8: Multiple regression results for the NFC variable against each of the media use models (extracted from Table 6.3) Media diet/ SPIR Beta value Percentage variation in media diet/ SPIR explained uniquely by this variable Mainstream/non- mainstream - - media diet Private/public media diet - - Tabloid/broadsheet media diet - - Internet SPIR - - Print media SPIR - - Radio SPIR - - Television SPIR - - Non-news media SPIR .209*** 3.3% Overall SPIR - - # p<.05; * p<.01; ** p<.005; *** p<.001 (two-tailed)

The t-test results for the overall, Internet, print and radio SPIRs and for the private/public and tabloid/broadsheet media diets are not supported by the regression results, indicating other factors were confounding the t-test results relating to these diets and SPIRs. When other factors are controlled for, NFC does not make a unique contribution to these media consumption patterns.

H5 predicted that lower NFC scores would be associated with increased reliance on television for political information. This hypothesis is not supported by the data. NFC is not significantly associated with changes in the television SPIR.

H7 predicted that high NFC scores would be associated with larger overall SPIRs. This hypothesis is not supported by the data. NFC is not significantly associated with changes in the overall SPIR.

Interactions between NFC and media scepticism US news media research has found that while media scepticism generally leads to reduced use of mainstream media sources and increased use of non-mainstream media sources, in individuals with high NFC, this effect is mitigated by the high NFC subject’s thirst for multiple information sources, resulting in an increase in usage of both mainstream and non-mainstream media (Tsfati, 2002; Tsfati & Cappella, 2003, 2005). To examine this effect in the current dataset, separate multiple linear regressions were run for the high and low NFC groups, to investigate any differences in the effect of media scepticism on the mainstream/non- mainstream media diet across these two groups. The results are summarised in Table 6.9.

Table 6.9: Statistically significant mainstream/non-mainstream media diet regression results by NFC level High NFC respondents Low NFC respondents Total variance explained: 18.0%, Total variance explained: 21.9%, F (18, 231) = 2.83*** F (18, 228) = 3.54*** Variables β Variables β Escape gratification .185# Political interest (a good deal) .306# Age .193* No partisanship -.130 [approaches significance: p=.05] Gender .169# Minor party partisanship -.131# Media Scepticism -.070 Media Scepticism -.117 [not significant: p=.281] {not significant: p=.067] # p<.05; * p<.01; ** p<.005; *** p<.001 (two-tailed)

The current dataset fails to provide convincing evidence to support Tsfati’s finding regarding the interaction between NFC and media scepticism. The t-test results indicate no significant difference in the mainstream/non-mainstream media diet scores of high and low NFC

157

respondents. Furthermore, the regression analyses reported in Table 6.9 indicate media scepticism fails to make a significant contribution to the prediction of this media diet for either low or high NFC respondents. Amongst respondents with low levels of NFC, the impact of media scepticism does come far closer to significance (p=.067) than it does amongst respondents with high levels of NFC (p=.281), however, overall there is insufficient evidence of NFC mitigating the impact of media scepticism in the current dataset.

In general then, high NFC people have a strong thirst for information, which appears to preclude any significant discernment in terms of tabloid/broadsheet, private/public or mainstream/non-mainstream media characteristics. They do not rely heavily on any particular media format (Internet, print, radio, television) for political information. High NFC people are instead seeking a wider range of sources generally, and are willing to expend the extra effort required to obtain non-news media information sources.

NFC summary To recap Chapter Three, experimental studies have found that individuals with high NFC are more likely to seek information to help them solve problems, and to use a more diverse range of information sources (Cacioppo et al., 1996; Nair & Ramnarayan, 2000). Tsfati (2002) found that people with high NFC used a greater number of both mainstream and non-mainstream sources. The picture we develop of high NFC individuals based on this data is of people with high curiosity, who are willing to expend greater effort to become informed.

It is unsurprising therefore, that in the present study, high NFC is the strongest predictor of use of non-news media information sources. As discussed in Chapter Four, non-news media information sources such as social networking sites, Internet search engines, politicians, activist groups, public speaking events, conferences, books, zines and documentaries require greater input on the part of the audience. These resources are not routinely broadcast into our homes or placed on display at every newsagent we pass. Rather, they must be actively sought out, be that by constructing an Internet search string, subscribing to a mailing list, booking tickets, or travelling to a public event. From a rational choice perspective, non-news media information sources are therefore more costly. As discussed in Chapter Four, they may require greater inputs of time, energy, money and cognitive effort, than do media sources, as well as attracting

opportunity costs (Pirolli & Card, 1999). High NFC individuals, for whom cognitive engagement is pleasurable, seem to be more willing than low NFC people to expend the additional resources required to utilise non-news media information sources.

Research by Perse has shown that people with high NFC have a preference for issues-based political information, and for complex media which require greater cognitive input on the part of the audience (Perse, 1992, 2001). In the context of the current study, Perse’s findings could be expected to result in a preference for broadsheet over tabloid media, and for public over commercial media. That this is not the case lends some support to Tsfati’s (2002) essential argument that NFC outweighs quality considerations in favour of seeking a greater range of information sources overall.

Media Gratifications Sought As was indicated in Chapter Three, associations between gratifications sought and media use vary widely across different studies. Perhaps the most striking finding in the current study is the difference between surveillance/entertainment gratifications and escape gratifications. Gratifications sought made a significant contribution to all media diets, and all but one SPIR (the Internet SPIR), however, in every case, escape gratifications were distinct from the others.

As can be seen in Table 6.10, escape gratifications alone are associated with the mainstream/non-mainstream and private/public diets, and with the radio SPIR. The non-news media SPIR is influenced by all gratifications, however, escape gratifications operate in a different direction to the others, with escape gratifications predicting use of fewer non-news media information sources, while the other gratifications are associated with greater use of non-news media information sources. Meanwhile, surveillance and entertainment gratifications operate in the same direction on both the overall and the non-news media SPIRs.

159

Table 6.10: Summary of impact of gratifications sought variables in each of the models (extracted from Table 6.3) Media diet/SPIR Beta values (percentage variation in media diet/SPIR) Surveillance Entertainment Escape gratifications gratifications gratifications Mainstream/non- - - .200*** (2.2) mainstream media diet Private/public media - - .193*** (2.0) diet Tabloid/broadsheet -.127# (1.0) - - media diet Internet SPIR - - - Print media SPIR - .124# (0.7) - Newspaper SPIR - - - Radio SPIR - - .139# (1.1) Television SPIR .147** (1.4) - - Non-news media SPIR .107# (0.7) .148# (1.0) -.142* (1.1) Overall SPIR .149** (1.4) .146# (0.9) - # p<.05; * p<.01; ** p<.005; *** p<.001 (two-tailed)

In summary, the following associations can be seen:

Escape gratifications: Surveillance gratifications: Entertainment gratifications: More mainstream media Greater information use Greater information use overall overall More commercial media More broadsheet media More print media More radio More television More non-news media Less non-news media More non-news media

By considering the characteristics of these information source types, a pattern begins to emerge. I will first consider the information types preferred by people seeking escape gratifications.

1. Mainstream media: As discussed in Chapter Four, mainstream media, as defined in this study, lack a stated commitment to information diversity. 2. Commercial media: In Australia, these tend to be considered by audiences and media critics alike, as providing far lower quality journalism than the public networks (see for example Ang et al., 2006; Bean, 2005; Beecher, 2005; Harrington, 2008; Manne, 2005b; Newspoll, 2003; Roy Morgan Research, 2006a, 2007a, 2008; Turner, 2005). Recent

election campaign coverage research may indicate that these views are well founded, with commercial networks devoting far less time to election coverage than the public networks (Young, 2008). 3. Radio: While radio may arguably require more cognitive processing for visually- oriented individuals than does television, at the same time, it is the medium which may be most easily consumed whilst performing other tasks, such as driving or jogging. At a minimum, it requires less opportunity cost than other media formats. 4. Non-news media information sources (used less by escape gratifications seekers): As discussed in Chapter Four, these are defined in this study as being more costly to consume than news media sources, in terms of cognitive or physical effort, financial cost, opportunity cost or temporal cost (Pirolli & Card, 1999).

In summary then, escape gratifications are largely associated with greater use of information sources which require fewer costs - commercial and mainstream media because they tend to provide less complex issue coverage, hence requiring less cognitive effort; and radio because it accumulates fewer opportunity costs. This pattern is further supported by the association between escape gratifications and reduced use of the more costly non-news media information sources.

Turning now to the information sources preferred by people seeking surveillance and entertainment gratifications:

1. Overall SPIRs: Both these gratifications are associated with greater use of news sources overall, indicating greater effort in seeking and consuming larger amounts of information. 2. Non-news media information sources: Both these gratifications are also associated with greater use of non-news media information sources, which require greater resource inputs for use. 3. Entertainment gratifications are associated with use of print media, which require greater cognitive effort to consume (Donohew, Finn, & Christ, 1988).

161

4. Surveillance gratifications are associated with greater use of broadsheet media, which by definition have higher journalistic standards, and therefore one would expect better issue coverage, thus requiring greater cognitive effort to consume. 5. Surveillance gratifications are also associated with greater use of television sources.

All the media use patterns associated with entertainment and surveillance gratifications involve higher use of information sources which require greater costs, with the single exception of television’s association with surveillance gratifications. This association between surveillance gratifications and television probably reflects television’s status as the preferred medium for news in Australia overall (Roy Morgan Research, 2007b).

Furthermore, as reported in the NFC and political interest sections of this chapter, entertainment and surveillance gratifications are associated with high NFC and high levels of political interest, but escape gratifications are not. Both high NFC and interest in politics have been previously found to be associated with increased information seeking activity (Ahlering, 1987; Bizer et al., 2002; Gantz et al., 1991; Karlsen, 2010; Liu & Eveland, 2005; Nair & Ramnarayan, 2000; Reagan, 1996; Tsfati, 2002).

Thus, escape gratifications are associated with the use of ‘easier to consume’ information sources, whilst surveillance and entertainment gratifications are associated with devoting greater effort to political information consumption. This may indicate that the latter two gratifications are more goal-directed than are escape gratifications.

A note on print media use The finding that print media are associated with entertainment gratifications was surprising, as newspaper use is more commonly associated with surveillance, not entertainment, gratifications (see for example Beaudoin & Thorson, 2004; Becker, 1979; Vincent & Basil, 1997). It was suspected that the link between entertainment gratifications and print media was caused by the presence of magazines in that category (as opposed to newspapers alone). I therefore created a newspaper-only SPIR, and ran the regression again (results included in Table 6.21). In this newspaper-only model, entertainment no longer reached significance. However, a further modification of the newspaper model (also included in Table 6.21), to

explore the difference between use of tabloid and broadsheet newspapers, reintroduced entertainment as a factor associated with use of broadsheet newspapers. This surprising finding will be discussed later in the chapter, in the context of the print media SPIR model.

Political interest Political interest was measured by asking respondents to select which of the following four options best described their level of interest in politics: ‘none’, ‘not much’, ‘some’, ‘a good deal’. These responses were then divided into two groups: politically interested respondents (responses of ‘some’ or ‘a good deal’) and others. A range of independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare the characteristics of these two groups. The results are presented in Table 6.11.

The politically interested respondents were characterised by higher NFC scores, providing support for H14. Politically interested individuals were also older, and were more likely to be seeking entertainment and surveillance gratifications than were people less interested in politics. There was a strong association between high political interest and greater reliance on broadsheet sources, as well as with larger overall SPIRs. A moderate association was found between high political interest and use of television and print media, and a slight association with mainstream, public service media, radio, Internet sources, and non-news media information sources.

163

Table 6.11: Comparisons of means between politically interested respondents and others Characteristic Politically Others t values Mean Effect size Interest (SD) difference (eta squared) mean (SD) (95% CI) Age 49.07 43.63 t (560) = - -5.44 Small (15.58) (17.93) 3.044 (.01) Media scepticism 23.17 (5.36) 23.07 t (552) = - Not significant (2.47) .164 NFC 44.88 (9.52) 37.63 t (124) = - -7.25 Moderate (10.67) 6.07*** (-9.61 to - (.06) 4.89) Entertainment 12.39 (3.93) 10.14 t (544) = - -2.25 Small/moderate gratification (4.25) 4.92*** (-3.15 to - (.04) 1.35) Surveillance gratification 24.98 (4.59) 20.70 t (545) = - -4.282 (- Moderate/large (5.69) 7.89*** 5.35 to - (.10) 3.22) Escape gratification 5.86 (3.72) 6.02 (3.72) t (549) = .39 Not significant Mainstream/non- 8.79 6.43 (4.14) t (575) = - -4.282 (- Small mainstream media diet (5.10) 4.31*** 3.44 to - (.03) 1.29) Private/public media 2.65 (6.08) 4.26 (4.61) t (174) = 1.61 (.54 to Small diet 2.97** 2.68) (.02) Tabloid/broadsheet -6.17 (4.53) -2.74 (3.02) t (198) = 3.42 (2.70 Large media diet 9.29*** to 4.15) (.13) Television SPIR 7.51 (4.51) 4.51 (3.46) t (172) = - -3.00 (-3.80 Moderate 7.41*** to -2.20) (.09) Radio SPIR 1.75, 1.34, t (160) = - -.41 (-.65 to Small SD=1.27 SD=1.05 3.37** -.17) (.02) Print media SPIR 3.12 (1.82) 2.08 (1.40) t (172) = - -1.04 (-1.36 Moderate 6.34*** to -.72) (.07) Internet SPIR 1.24 .84 t (165) = - -.39 (-.67 to Small (1.54) (1.24) 2.73* -.11) (.01) Non-news media SPIR 1.94 (1.66) 1.37 (1.33) t (575) = - -.57 (-.92 to Small 3.20*** -.22) (.02) Overall SPIR 16.12, 10.10, t (174) = - -6.02, 95% Large SD=7.30 SD=5.52 9.26*** CI: -7.30 to - (.13) 4.73) # p<.05; * p<.01; ** p<.005; *** p<.001 (two-tailed)

As stated previously, t-tests do not take into account the influence of other variables, such as age or gender. That is, these results do not isolate the effect of political interest on media usage. To identify the unique influence of political interest on media usage, we must turn to the multiple linear regression results. The regression results in full are reported in Table 6.3. For the reader’s convenience, the political interest results alone are included in Table 6.12.

Table 6.12: Multiple regression results for the political interest variablea against each of the media use models (extracted from Table 6.3) Media diet/ SPIR Beta value Percentage variation in media diet/ SPIR explained uniquely by this variable Mainstream/non- mainstream - - media diet Private/public media diet - - Tabloid/broadsheet media diet - - Internet SPIR - - Print media SPIR ‘A good deal’ of interest in 0.7% politics .238# Radio SPIR ‘A good deal’ of interest in 0.9% politics .268# Television SPIR - - Non-news media SPIR - - Overall SPIR ‘A good deal’ of interest in 0.6% politics .224# # p<.05; * p<.01; ** p<.005; *** p<.001 (two-tailed) a As political interest is a categorical (as opposed to continuous) variable, it was dummy coded to enable the regression analyses. The reference value was ‘none’, meaning that all beta values indicate comparisons with the ‘no political interest’ respondents.

The regression analyses indicate that political interest is the most influential (highest beta value) factor in three of the models: the print media, radio and overall SPIRs. The highest level of political interest (‘a good deal’) is associated with greater use of information sources overall, and greater use of print media, and radio sources in particular, in line with the t-test results reported above, and lending some support to H9. These findings are consistent with prior research which has shown that individuals will actively seek out and use a greater number of information sources to find out about topics of interest to them (Gantz et al., 1991; Karlsen, 2010; Reagan, 1996).

The remaining t-test results for political interest are not supported by the regression analyses, indicating other factors were confounding the t-test results relating to the remaining diets and SPIRs. When other factors are controlled for, political interest does not make a unique contribution to the mainstream/non-mainstream diet, private/public or tabloid/broadsheet media diets; nor to the television and Internet SPIRs. Contrary to the t-test results, political interest also fails to make a unique contribution to the non-news media SPIR, thus providing no support for H10.

165

As reported earlier (in the media scepticism section of this chapter), hypotheses 11, 12 and 13 predicted that media sceptics with a high degree of interest in politics will prefer non- mainstream (H11), public service (H12) and broadsheet (H13) media sources. Independent samples t-tests comparing the media diet scores for media sceptics with high levels of political interest with those with low levels of political interest found support for H12 and H13. Media sceptics who are interested in politics rely more on public service (ABC and SBS) and broadsheet media, however they prefer mainstream to non-mainstream media sources. Recalling that non-mainstream media are defined in this study by having a stated commitment to information diversity, these findings may reflect a concern for journalistic quality, but not necessarily for information diversity.

Political interest summary The findings here in many ways support those of previous researchers. Politically interested people tend to have greater NFC (as also found by Bizer et al., 2002; Condra, 1992; Liu & Eveland, 2005), and use the news media for entertainment and surveillance needs (as found by Perse, 1992). As predicted by Reagan (1996), they also use a greater number of information sources to find out about politics, including more radio sources, and more print sources. Despite their high NFC (reflecting an enjoyment of cognitive activity), and their willingness to use a greater number of information sources overall to find out about politics, politically interested respondents were no more likely to expend the additional effort required to access non-news media information sources. This issue will be further discussed in Chapter Seven.

Dependent variables - the models This section will begin by reporting the multiple linear regression findings as they relate to each of the six original SPIRs (Internet, print media, radio, television, non-news media and overall) and the three original media diets (mainstream/non-mainstream, private/public and tabloid/broadsheet). Throughout the analysis, an additonal five models were developed to further explore the data (newspaper SPIR, newspaper tabloid/broadsheet media diet, radio low/high news coverage media diet, television news tabloid/broadsheet media diet and television current affairs tabloid/broadsheet media diet). These are reported as they arose in the analysis. Bold type in the tables below indicates the key variables of interest in the study.

Mainstream/non-mainstream media diet The mainstream/non-mainstream media diet measures an individual’s relative reliance on mainstream versus non-mainstream news media sources. In this study, ‘non-mainstream’ media sources have been identified as having a stated commitment to information diversity (see Chapter Four for further explanation of the mainstream/non-mainstream distinction). Positive beta values indicate a greater reliance on mainstream media.

The total variance explained by the model as a whole was 17.0 percent, F (18, 496) = 5.64, p<.001. Five variables were statistically significant, as indicated in Table 6.13.

Table 6.13: Statistically significant variables and their beta values (Mainstream/non- mainstream diet) Variable β p value % contribution to total r2 Escape Gratification .200 <.001 2.2 Gender .144 <.005 1.8 Minor party partisanship -.136 <.005 1.6 Age at 2008 birthday .121 <.05 0.9 Media Scepticism -.110 <.05 1.1

Use of the media for escape gratifications was the strongest predictor of mainstream media reliance in the model, with the other gratifications not having a significant impact. As stated previously, this may reflect the ease of use associated with the mainstream media. Mainstream media products are deliberately crafted and packaged for easy consumption (Atkin, 1973), and so are attractive to people seeking non-goal directed, diversionary (escape) gratifications.

The finding that media scepticism is associated with greater use of non-mainstream media supports previous research by Tsfati (2002). Tsfati found that when people distrust the mainstream news media, they seek alternative sources of information. As discussed previously, however, the influence of media scepticism on mainstream/non-mainstream media diets was greater in Tsfati’s sample, explaining 3.25 percent of the variance in the US sample, as compared with only 1.1 percent of variance in the Brisbane sample. The far smaller impact of media scepticism on this media diet will be further discussed in Chapter Seven.

167

Considering the control variables, men rely more on non-mainstream media than do women, whilst the reliance on mainstream media increases with age. Partisanship has some impact also, with supporters of minor parties preferring non-mainstream media. However, it must be noted that these effects are small. Overall, the model only explains 17.0 percent of the variance in this media diet, whilst the most influential variable (escape gratifications) only explains 2.2 percent of the variance. Therefore 83 percent of the variance remains unexplained, indicating that there are further factors not accounted for in the model. This issue will be discussed further in Chapter Seven.

Private/public media diet The private/public media diet measures an individual’s relative reliance on commercial versus public service news media sources. In the Australian media context, this is a straightforward distinction, as only two media networks receive public funding: ABC and SBS. As discussed in Chapter Four, traditionally these public service networks have a reputation for high journalistic quality, and they are the only major media networks which have a written commitment (in fact, legislative requirement) to providing information diversity. As described in Chapter Five, there is a degree of overlap between the public service and non-mainstream media categories in this research, which may explain the similarities between the findings for the mainstream/non- mainstream and private/public media diets. Positive beta values indicate a greater reliance on privately owned (commercial) media.

The total variance explained by the model as a whole was 22.2 percent, F (18, 496) = 7.86, p<.001. Seven variables were statistically significant, as indicated in Table 6.14.

Table 6.14: Statistically significant variables and their beta values (Private/public diet) Variable β p value % contribution to total r2 Age at 2008 birthday -.286 <.001 5.2 Escape Gratification .193 <.001 2.0 Gender .146 <.005 1.9 Liberal/National Party .126 <.01 1.3 partisanship Education -.097 <.05 0.7 Minor party partisanship -.096 <.05 0.8 Media Scepticism -.083 <.05 0.6

The greatest predictor of this diet, accounting for roughly 5 percent of the variance, is age, with the preference for public service media increasing with age. That is, younger people tend to prefer commercial media, while older people prefer ABC and SBS network products.

Only two of the key variables, escape gratifications and media scepticism, make statistically significant impacts on this diet. Use of the media for escape gratifications is associated with greater preference for commercial media. As discussed previously, in Australia, the commercial media networks tend to be viewed as presenting lower quality news and current affairs than do the public broadcasters (see for example Ang et al., 2006; Bean, 2005; Beecher, 2005; Harrington, 2008; Manne, 2005b; Newspoll, 2003; Roy Morgan Research, 2006a, 2007a, 2008; Turner, 2005). Commercial broadcast networks also devote less time to political coverage (Young, 2008). If, as postulated previously, escape gratifications are less goal directed and more diversionary than even entertainment gratifications, the appeal of commercial media as a form of escape is understandable – it contains less ‘hard’ news than the public service media, and therefore requires less effort to digest.

Media scepticism is associated with slightly greater reliance on public service media. Once again, given the greater credibility attributed to the public broadcasters in Australia (Brand et al., 2001; Daniel et al., 2009), this finding is unsurprising. However, it must be noted that the effect is small. It appears that while trust is having an impact on this model, other factors are far more influential with regards to media selection.

Of the remaining statistically significant variables, men rely more on public service media than do women. Partisanship again has some impact, with Liberal Party supporters preferring commercial media, and supporters of minor parties preferring public service media, a finding generally in line with previous Australian research into partisanship and media use (see for example Bean, 2005). As discussed in Chapters Two and Four, the ABC is often accused of left- wing political bias, however, repeated independent examinations of ABC news and current affairs programming have revealed no political bias in either direction (Inglis, 2006).

169

Education also makes an impact on this diet, with university qualifications associated with greater reliance on ABC and SBS products, again a finding generally supported by previous research (Bean, 2005; Jones & Pusey, 2008). People with higher education levels have been previously found to be more discerning about information sources, having greater awareness of their limitations and strengths (Marcella & Baxter, 2005). Education is also known to enhance an individual’s capacity to process information, particularly complex information (Eveland & Scheufele, 2000; Kleinnijenhuis, 1991). Further, for highly educated people, using complex information sources is a more efficient way of obtaining political knowledge than using simpler information sources (Kleinnijenhuis, 1991). The public broadcasters’ emphasis on high quality journalism may result in the delivery of more complex political information, with more neutral framing of news items, hence requiring greater information processing skills. It is unsurprising then that education is associated with greater use of the public broadcast networks, as well as greater use of broadsheet media (as discussed later in the chapter).

Once again, however, with the exception of age, all of the abovementioned variables make only a small contribution to the private/public media diet. Overall, the model explains 22.2 percent of the variance in this diet, leaving roughly 78 percent unexplained. This will be discussed further in Chapter Seven.

Tabloid/broadsheet media diet The tabloid/broadsheet media diet measures an individual’s relative reliance on tabloid versus broadsheet news media sources. As explained in Chapter Four, I here use the terms ‘tabloid’ and ‘broadsheet’ as shorthand for a perceived low quality/ high quality distinction which is often used in discussions about the media. Positive beta values indicate a greater reliance on tabloid media.

The total variance explained by the model as a whole was 23.8 percent, F (18, 496) = 8.59, p<.001. Three variables were statistically significant, as indicated in Table 6.15.

Table 6.15: Statistically significant variables and their beta values (Tabloid/broadsheet diet) Variable β p value % contribution to total r2 Age at 2008 birthday -.154 <.005 1.5 Education -.136 <.01 1.4 Surveillance Gratification -.127 <.05 1.0

Unsurprisingly, people who are seeking surveillance (informational) gratifications tend to prefer broadsheet media, which is generally associated with better quality information provision.

University education is also associated with greater reliance on broadsheet media. As described above, people with more education tend to be more discerning about information sources (Marcella & Baxter, 2005), and find complex information easier to process than do less educated people (Eveland & Scheufele, 2000; Kleinnijenhuis, 1991). For highly educated people, use of complex information sources is also a more efficient way of acquiring political knowledge (Kleinnijenhuis, 1991). Broadsheet news sources have a greater focus on quality journalism, which may be characterised by greater issues coverage and more neutral framing of news items. Broadsheet media products therefore have greater information complexity, and so this association with education is unsurprising.

Younger respondents show a preference for tabloid media. Again, the model only accounts for a total of 23.8 percent of variance in this diet, and the contributions of the independent variables are small, ranging from 1.0 to 1.5 percent. This matter will be further discussed in Chapter Seven.

Television socio-political information repertoire The television SPIR measures the number of television programs an individual usually uses to find out about socio-political issues. The total variance explained by the model as a whole was 18.3 percent, F (18, 496) = 6.17, p<.001. Two variables were statistically significant, as indicated in Table 6.16.

171

Table 6.16: Statistically significant variables and their beta values (Television SPIR) Variable β p value % contribution to total r2 Age at 2008 birthday -.147 <.005 1.4 Surveillance gratification .141 <.01 1.3

This model explains 18.3 percent of the overall variance, with individual variable contributions of less than 1.5 percent, so again, these variables make only minor impacts on overall television use for political information.

Surveillance gratifications were the only gratifications to influence this SPIR, with respondents seeking surveillance gratifications using more television sources to find out about socio-political issues. This aligns with opinion poll research which shows that television is the preferred medium for news and current affairs in Australia (Roy Morgan Research, 2007b). Younger people tend to use more television sources than do older people.

As television content is diverse in terms of depth and style of coverage, even when considering only news-oriented programs, I decided to separate this media use category into television news and television current affairs, as well as to introduce the tabloid versus broadsheet distinction, as discussed in Chapter Four. I thought perhaps using these distinctions, the key variables which are concerned with ‘serious’ information seeking and quality dimensions might play a greater role in predicting media use. The results are summarised in Table 6.17.

Table 6.17: Summary of the statistically significant variables with regard to the television SPIR/ media diets analysed Statistically significant independent variables Media diet/ SPIR (total Surveillance Escape Age Ed level Partisanship variation explained) Television SPIR (18.3) .147** -.141* TV news -.165** -.254*** -.100# tabloid/broadsheeta (22.5%) TV current affairs .105# -.245*** -.101# Lib/Nat .089# tabloid/broadsheeta (24.0%) # p<.05; * p<.01; ** p<.005; *** p<.001 (two-tailed) a Negative beta values indicate greater reliance on broadsheet news sources

As expected, both the tabloid/broadsheet television news and current affairs media diet models explained more of the overall variation than did the television SPIR model (23 and 24 percent as compared with 18 percent).

Surveillance gratifications are associated with more television use overall, but there is a specific focus on broadsheet news programs. As surveillance gratifications relate to the need to orient oneself within one’s environment (Wenner, 1985), this preference for high quality news sources is logical. That NFC is also not associated with any of the television media diets may indicate that, regardless of format type, television simply does not provide the depth or diversity of coverage sought by people with high NFC.

That greater use of tabloid current affairs shows is associated with escape gratifications is an interesting finding. It appears that while people who use television for serious political information seeking (surveillance gratifications) turn to broadsheet news shows, people who are simply seeking diversion instead turn to tabloid current affairs programs such as A Current Affair and Today Tonight. Previous Australian research found that entertainment gratifications seekers preferred stories about light entertainment, celebrity news, ordinary people’s achievements, accidents, demonstrations, crime and human misfortune (Henningham, 1982, 1985). This list of news topics is familiar to anyone who has watched advertisements for Australian tabloid current affairs shows. Whilst Henningham’s research linked entertainment gratifications with these tabloid-type topics, the present study instead associates them with escape gratifications10. While it is possible that this difference reflects a change in audience characteristics (i.e. that Australian audiences have become more discerning with regards to their entertainment-oriented media use, now preferring higher quality journalism such as that provided by broadsheet newspapers for entertainment, rather than tabloid television shows), it seems more likely that it reflects the often discussed decline in Australian journalistic quality (Beecher, 2005; Lumby, 1999; Manne, 2005b; Turner, 2005). That is, while human interest and

10 Henningham did not include escape items in his gratifications scale, however, his entertainment scale items were very similar to those used in the present study (eg. Henningham’s items: I watch TV news because it’s exciting/ entertaining/dramatic; current study items: ...because it’s entertaining/exciting/amuses me), and distinctive from my escape scale items (eg. to get away from everyday worries, because it helps me to take my mind off things). 173

celebrity stories were once sufficiently engaging to satisfy entertainment needs, they are now so formulaically composed, they are only able to satisfy escape needs.

Looking now at the control variables, we see that while younger respondents use more television sources overall, the use of broadsheet news programs increases with age. Supporters of the Liberal/National (conservative) parties use more tabloid current affairs programs than ALP partisans. University education is associated with greater reliance on broadsheet news and current affairs shows, no doubt because of their preference for high quality and complex information, as discussed above.

Media scepticism, NFC, entertainment gratifications and interest in politics do not make significant contributions to television consumption for socio-political information. The lack of associations between media scepticism and NFC with most media consumption models in the study have been discussed previously, and will be further explored in Chapter Seven.

Radio socio-political information repertoire The radio SPIR measures the number of radio stations an individual usually uses to find out about socio-political issues. The total variance explained by the model as a whole was 6.5 percent, F (18, 496) = 1.92, p<.05. Three variables were statistically significant, as indicated in Table 6.18.

Table 6.18: Statistically significant variables and their beta values (Radio SPIR) Variable β p value % contribution to total r2 Political interest: a good .268 <.05 0.9 deal Escape gratification .139 <.05 1.1 Age at 2008 birthday -.122 <.05 1.0

The radio SPIR regression model is the weakest of all examined, explaining less than 7 percent of the variance in radio use, with only three variables reaching statistical significance, and with each of those uniquely contributing only around one percent of variation in the model. Nevertheless, the findings show that radio is preferred by people with ‘a good deal’ of political

interest and those seeking escape gratifications. Younger respondents indicated a greater use of radio for political information than older respondents.

As radio stations vary widely in their treatment of news, I decided to separate this media use category out into radio stations which provide no more than half-hourly news bulletins (or less) and those which provide more extensive news and political issue coverage. Appendix 10 provides a list of the stations in each category. As this is not so much a comparison of tabloid versus broadsheet practices (as described in Chapter Four), but more a straight-forward distinction of volume of news, I have termed these categories ‘low’ versus ‘high’ news coverage. As with the television regression detailed above, I thought perhaps using these distinctions would result in the key variables concerned with ‘serious’ information seeking and quality dimensions playing a greater role in predicting media use. The results are summarised in Table 6.19.

Table 6.19: Summary of the statistically significant variables with regard to the radio SPIR/ media diets analysed Statistically significant independent variables Media diet/ SPIR (total Entertain Escape Political Age Gender Ed variation explained) Interest level Radio SPIR (6.5%) .139# A good -.122# deal .268# Radio low/high news -.144# .173** -.344*** .158*** -.117* coveragea (24.9%) # p<.05; * p<.01; ** p<.005; *** p<.001 (two-tailed) a Negative beta values indicate greater reliance on high news coverage radio stations

The first thing to note is the dramatic increase in variation explained in the second model. When considering radio use as a single use measure, only 6.5 percent of variation was explained by the model. However, by distinguishing between radio stations with a low versus high news focus, the model is able to explain almost 25 percent of the variation in radio use. This no doubt reflects the very diverse range of radio stations available, and consequently the wide range of motivations people have for their use.

Escape gratifications are associated with greater use of radio overall, and specifically of low news radio stations. Given the previous discussions regarding escape gratifications and a

175

preference for low-effort media use, this is to be expected. Radio use involves very few opportunity costs, being the only medium which can be consumed easily whilst performing other tasks. Being a free-to-air broadcast medium, radio also accrues no financial costs, after the initial purchase of a receiving mechanism. Use of radio with low news content, such as music stations, would also be expected to require little cognitive effort.

Entertainment gratifications are associated with greater reliance on high news content stations, which aligns with the previous discussion regarding entertainment gratifications being associated with more goal-directed information seeking. Surveillance gratifications, media scepticism and NFC are not significant in this model, perhaps indicating that radio is not considered a key medium for political news and current affairs. A 2007 Australian Roy Morgan poll found radio to be the third most preferred medium (after television and newspapers) for Australian news and current affairs (selected as the preferred news medium by 16 percent of respondents); and the fourth most preferred (after television, newspapers and the Internet) for international news and current affairs (selected as the preferred news medium by nine percent of respondents) (Roy Morgan Research, 2007b). Similar findings emerge from the 2007 Australian Survey of Social Attitudes, in which only 14.6 percent of respondents nominated radio as the source they rely on most for ‘news and information’, and a further 2.4 percent nominated talkback radio specifically (Phillips et al., 2008).

Furthermore, while high levels of political interest are associated with greater use of radio overall, there is no preference indicated with regard to low or high news stations, suggesting even the politically interested are not turning to radio as a key political information source. Talk radio in Australia is considered by some researchers as an essential part of the structure of contemporary Australian politics (Turner, 2007); and a “pivotal” political tool (Faine, 2005, p.177). Faine suggests talk radio is the “daily agenda setter” of the Australian political news cycle (Faine, 2005, p.169), and in this role it may be politically important. However, in a 2007 survey, only 2.4 percent of respondents identified talkback radio as the source they rely on most for news and information (Phillips et al., 2008). The current study does not isolate talk radio, instead considering radio at the level of station, rather than specific radio programs. That political interest is not significantly associated with either high or low news content radio

stations may indicate that, if talk radio is in fact used extensively for political purposes, this use does not generalise to radio use beyond those specific talk radio shows.

As with the television findings reported above, while radio use overall is associated with younger people, use of high news content radio stations increases with age. High news content radio stations are also relied on more by men and people with university qualifications. In the radio low/high news content model, we see no influence from the three key constructs conceptually most linked to quality concerns: media scepticism, NFC and surveillance gratifications. This may indicate that people perceive a lack of variation amongst radio stations with regards to news quality. Alternatively, these findings might indicate something more general about the way radio is used in the context of everyday life practices and information seeking. These possibilities will be further discussed in Chapter Seven.

Print media socio-political information repertoire The print media SPIR measures the number of print media sources an individual usually uses to find out about socio-political issues. The total variance explained by the model as a whole was 14.9 percent, F (18, 496) = 4.81, p<.001. Three variables were statistically significant, as indicated in Table 6.20.

Table 6.20: Statistically significant variables and their beta values (Print SPIR) Variable β p value % contribution to total r2 Political Interest .236 <.05 0.7 Gender .138 <.005 1.7 Entertainment gratification .124 <.05 0.7

The print media SPIR includes both newspapers and magazines. As discussed previously, the inclusion of magazines was initially suspected of causing the positive association between reading print materials and seeking entertainment gratifications, as traditionally, newspapers are instead associated with surveillance gratifications (see for example Beaudoin & Thorson, 2004; Becker, 1979; Vincent & Basil, 1997). In a subsequent regression on newspaper use only (Table 6.21), entertainment gratifications did not quite achieve significance (p=.058), lending support to the assumption that magazines were responsible for the earlier entertainment 177

gratifications finding. However, when a further regression analysis broke down the newspaper category into use of tabloid versus broadsheet dailies, entertainment gratifications again achieved significance. These results are included in Table 6.21. Once again, the association between entertainment gratifications and newspaper reading persists, and indicates that Brisbane readers who are motivated by entertainment gratifications rely more on broadsheet newspapers than on tabloids.

That said, a glance at the usage rates of specific daily newspaper titles in the dataset reveals that Brisbane’s only daily newspaper, the tabloid-format Courier Mail is the most popular newspaper, being used by 63 percent of respondents for socio-political information. The next most popular title, the national broadsheet Australian newspaper trails considerably at 21 percent. Australian research by Henningham (1982, 1985) has previously identified links between entertainment gratifications and ‘soft’ news (eg. human interest, celebrity, sport and crime stories), and between surveillance gratifications and ‘hard’ news (eg. science, medicine and political content). If we consider Henningham’s findings in the context of the present results, the implication is that Brisbane newspaper readers are predominantly using newspapers – tabloid and broadsheet – for ‘soft’ news. However, it is important to bear in mind that newspapers – both tabloid and broadsheet – may contain a range of socio-political content. While some people no doubt are entertained by the ‘hard’ news component of newspapers, newspapers also include ‘soft’ political content, such as political cartoons and editorials, which would be expected to appeal to more entertainment-oriented audiences.

Table 6.21: Summary of the statistically significant variables with regard to the newspaper SPIR/ media diets analysed Statistically significant independent variables Media diet/ SPIR NFC Entertain Political Age Gender Ed Level Partisanship (total variation Interest explained) Print SPIR (14.9%) - .124# A good deal - .138** - .236# Newspaper SPIR - - A good deal .114# - .110# - (14.4%) .263# Newspaper -.125* -.126# .117* -.220*** Minor -.122* tabloid/broadsheeta (12.7%) # p<.05; * p<.01; ** p<.005; *** p<.001 (two-tailed) a Negative beta values indicate greater reliance on broadsheet news sources

Looking at all three models, the findings indicate that women read more magazines for political content than do men, men and women read newspapers in roughly equal amounts, but men have a greater preference for broadsheet newspapers than do women.

Respondents with ‘a good deal’ of political interest and older respondents use more newspapers than do people with less political interest and younger people, although age and political interest do not appear to lead to a preference for either tabloid or broadsheet newspapers. Supporters of minor parties have a preference for broadsheet newspapers.

In the tabloid/broadsheet newspaper model, we finally see the influence of one of the key constructs associated conceptually with quality news: NFC is associated with greater reliance on broadsheet newspapers. This finding supports previous research which has shown that people with high NFC levels prefer deeper news content which is issues-based (Condra, 1992; Perse, 1992, 2001). This model is one of only two in the study in which NFC plays a statistically significant role, the other being the non-news media SPIR model (discussed later in this chapter). Both daily newspapers and non-news media information sources require greater resource inputs than most other information sources. Both types of information sources must be actively sought out (even home delivered newspapers have to be initially ordered) and both typically have a financial cost explicitly associated with each instance of information use. In contrast, once the initial equipment purchases have been made, free-to-air television and internet sources are distributed directly into the home. Furthermore, the costs associated with free-to-air television and with home internet connections (such as purchasing the television/computer equipment and subscribing to an ISP), are temporally distant from the instances of information access. Most significant to the current discussion is the greater cognitive effort required to consume newspapers (Donohew et al., 1988) and non-news media information sources (as discussed in Chapter Four).

Internet socio-political information repertoire The Internet SPIR measures the number of Internet sources an individual usually uses to find out about socio-political issues. The total variance explained by the model as a whole was 14.4

179

percent, F (18, 496) = 4.62, p<.001. Two variables were statistically significant, as indicated in Table 6.22.

Table 6.22: Statistically significant variables and their beta values (Internet SPIR) Variable β p value % contribution to total r2 Age at 2008 birthday -.195 <.001 2.4 Internet access .103a <.05 0.7

None of the key independent variables made a statistically significant contribution to the Internet SPIR model. Younger people were more likely to use the Internet to find out about political issues, which is unsurprising, given that Internet use in general, and specifically for news content, is associated with youth (Daniel et al., 2009; Roy Morgan Research, 2007b; Willis & Tranter, 2006). Also unsurprisingly, people without Internet access were less likely to use the Internet. The apparently minimal influence of Internet access on the model is a consequence of how few respondents did not have access to the Internet (only 75 respondents without Internet, as compared with 505 with Internet access). The beta values reported throughout this thesis are all standardized coefficients. In this case, the unstandardized coefficient provides a truer indication of the impact of Internet access on Internet use, with a value of .458.

That aside from Internet access itself, only one variable reaches significance in this model may indicate the diversity of Internet resources available, and the associated wide range of motivations for use. For example, recent research has shown different use motivations are associated with different Web resources, such as political blogs, political websites, social networking sites, e-lists, chatrooms/instant messaging, bulletin boards, mainstream news websites and alternative websites (Johnson & Kaye, 2009; Kaye, 2005, 2009, 2010; Kaye & Johnson, 2004, 2006; Kim, 2006). Thus, this model may be too blunt an instrument to measure motivations for Internet use effectively.

Non-news media socio-political information repertoire The non-news media SPIR measures the number of non-news media information sources an individual usually uses to find out about socio-political issues. Non-news media information sources in the present study include social networking media, direct communications with political parties, charities, lobby groups or politicians, public speaking events, books,

documentaries, zines, interpersonal communication, and Web search activity (see Chapter Four for further explanation of this construct).

The total variance explained by the model as a whole was 23.0 percent, F (18, 496) = 8.24, p<.001. Eight variables were statistically significant, as indicated in Table 6.23.

Table 6.23: Statistically significant variables and their beta values (Non-news media SPIR) Variable β p value % contribution to total r2 NFC .209 <.001 3.3 Entertainment gratification .148 <.05 1.0 Escape gratification -.142 <.01 1.1 Gender .120 <.005 1.3 Age at 2008 birthday -.118 <.05 0.9 Minor party partisanship .111 <.01 1.1 Surveillance gratification .107 <.05 0.7 Media Scepticism .090 <.05 0.7

Of all the models examined in the study, the non-news media SPIR was influenced by the greatest number of different variables. As discussed in Chapter Four, non-news media information sources require greater time and cognitive effort to consume than do media sources. This additional effort explains why NFC was the greatest unique predictor (representing 3.3 percent of the total variation) of non-news media information source use, given the predilection of high NFC individuals to apply extra effort towards seeking and consuming a wide range of political information sources (Condra, 1992; Nair & Ramnarayan, 2000).

Greater use of more resource-intensive, non-news media information sources was associated with surveillance and entertainment gratifications, while escape gratifications led to use of fewer such sources, lending further support to the idea proposed previously in this chapter that surveillance and entertainment gratifications are more goal-directed than escape gratifications.

As discussed previously, media scepticism was also associated with greater use of non-news media information sources, which is conceptually aligned with the findings of Tsfati (2002), that

181

if people do not trust the mainstream media, they turn to sources from outside the mainstream media.

Reagan (1996) predicted that greater interest in a topic would result in larger information repertoires for that topic. However, in the current sample, this has not translated into a willingness to employ the additional resources required to obtain non-news media information sources: political interest was the only key independent variable not to have a statistically significant impact on this particular media use pattern. Perhaps this instead reflects the finding that when people desire further information about a news topic, they tend to return to the same set of resources they always use, rather than seeking out additional sources (Gantz et al., 1991).

Younger respondents, women and supporters of minor political parties all used more non-news media information sources. That identification with a minor party is associated with increased use of non-news media information sources could be interpreted in a number of ways. Radical viewpoints receive less coverage (if any) in the mainstream media (Atton, 2002; Downing, 2001). While not all minor parties are necessarily ‘radical’, it may still be the case that non- mainstream views receive less coverage than mainstream views. As a result, people with non- mainstream political views may be more active in terms of information seeking because they are less likely to see their non-mainstream views reflected in the mass media. This is the case in Israel, where ethnic and religious minority groups use more non-mainstream media sources than do mainstream Jews (Tsfati & Peri, 2006). While Australian society is undoubtedly less highly politicised than Israeli society, people who do not identify with the two main political parties are still less likely to have their needs met by mainstream Australian media. However, it is also possible that people who engage with a greater number of non-news media information sources are more likely to be exposed to non-mainstream views, resulting in awareness of issues not addressed by the major parties, and ultimately, increased support for the minor parties.

Overall socio-political information repertoire The overall SPIR measures the number of information sources in total (including media and non-news media) an individual usually uses to find out about socio-political issues. The total

variance explained by the model as a whole was 24.0 percent, F (18, 496) = 8.71, p<.001. Four variables were statistically significant, with a further variable approaching significance, as indicated in Table 6.24.

Table 6.24: Statistically significant variables and their beta values (all sources) Variable β p value % contribution to total r2 Political interest: a good .224 <.05 0.6 deal Surveillance .149 <.005 1.4 Entertainment .146 <.05 0.9 Education -.094 <.05 0.8

The SPIR relating to overall use of all information sources explained 24 percent of the variance, however, individual variables still make only minor contributions to the SPIR.

In line with the earlier discussions regarding surveillance and entertainment gratifications and purposive information seeking, these two gratifications were indeed associated with the use of more information sources overall to find out about politics. Based on the findings of Reagan (1996), we expect that people with a high interest in politics will have the largest SPIR scores, and this is the case. People with university qualifications also use more information sources in total to learn about politics.

A note about hours worked and household income Two of the demographic variables require specific discussion: number of hours spent at work/study, and household income. Neither of these variables made a statistically significant contribution to any of the models examined, making them worthy of specific consideration.

The ‘hours worked’ variable was included to explore whether people with more leisure time devoted more of their time to seeking socio-political information. That this variable did not achieve significance in any of the models may lend support to the notion, to be explored in Chapter Seven, that the media is so ubiquitous in our contemporary society that media use cannot be effectively viewed as a separate activity. In a world in which people can receive news

183

via their mobile phones, for example, for many people, the work and leisure distinction is heavily blurred.

The household income variable was included because of the costs associated with certain information resources. Previous studies have shown that Internet access in particular is related to income, with higher incomes associated with greater Internet access in both Australia and internationally (Chadwick, 2006; Willis & Tranter, 2006). Non-broadcast media and non-news media information sources, such as books, festivals and newspapers, also require additional financial resources. That household income did not influence any of the models examined may be due to the level of media saturation experienced in late modern Australian society. This theme will be further explored in Chapter Seven.

Conclusion This study has considered 14 media consumption models, the mainstream/non-mainstream, private/public, tabloid/broadsheet, newspaper tabloid/broadsheet, radio low/high news coverage, television news tabloid/broadsheet and television current affairs tabloid/broadsheet media diets, and the Internet, print media, newspaper, television, radio, non-news media and overall SPIRs. Each model included the same key independent variables, media scepticism, NFC, surveillance, entertainment and escape gratifications sought, and political interest, and a further seven control variables, age, gender, household income, education, Internet access, hours worked and partisanship. The 14 models explained between 6.5 and 24.9 percent of the variation in media consumption patterns: Radio SPIR 6.5 percent Newspaper SPIR 14.4 percent Internet SPIR 14.4 percent Print media SPIR 14.9 percent Newspaper tabloid/broadsheet diet 16.3 percent Mainstream/non-mainstream media diet 17.0 percent Television SPIR 18.3 percent Private/public media diet 22.2 percent Television news tabloid/broadsheet diet 22.5 percent Non-news media SPIR 23.0 percent Tabloid/broadsheet media diet 23.8 percent Overall SPIR 24.0 percent Television current affairs tabloid/broadsheet diet 24.0 percent Radio low/high news coverage diet 24.9 percent

It is difficult to identify any clear pattern in this list. In fact, the findings overall are most striking in terms of how little the 13 variables included appear to influence any of the media diets and SPIRs examined.

Looking at the independent variables, we can see that in most cases, where these variables make any significant contribution to variations in media consumption patterns, the contribution is small, with only three variables (age, education and NFC) contributing more than three percent of the total variation in media consumption: Media scepticism 0.6 – 1.1 percent Need for cognition 1.1 - 3.3 percent Surveillance gratifications 0.7 – 1.7 percent Entertainment gratifications 0.7 – 1.0 percent Escape gratifications 0.6 – 2.2 percent Political interest 0.6 – 0.9 percent Age 0.8 – 7.6 percent Gender 1.2 – 1.9 percent Education level 0.7 – 3.8 percent Internet access 0.7 percent Partisanship 0.6 – 1.6 percent Hours worked 0 percent Household income 0 percent

However, by summarising the impact of the independent variables on the different consumption patterns (Table 6.25), we can begin to see a pattern emerging.

Looking at Table 6.25, we can see that most of the media diets/SPIRs are influenced by three or fewer key variables, and six or fewer variables overall. The single exception is the non-news media SPIR. This SPIR is influenced by five key variables (media scepticism, NFC, surveillance, entertainment and escape gratifications), and by a further three control variables (age, gender and partisanship). Qualitatively, the key difference between this repertoire and the others is that it is restricted to non-news media information sources only, while all the other diets and SPIRs include media sources. Thus, there appears to be a difference between the way non- news media information sources and media sources are selected.

185

Table 6.25: Summary of patterns of influence of independent variables on the different media consumption models Key independent variables Other independent variables Media diet/ SPIR # vars MS NFC Surv Ent Esc PInt Age Gender Ed Net P’ship Mainstream/ 2 (key)      non-mainstream 5 (overall) ------Private/ 2 (key)       Public 6 (overall) - - - - - Tabloid/ 1 (key)    Broadsheet 3 (overall) ------Internet 0 (key)   2 (overall) ------Print media 2 (key)    3 (overall) ------Newspaper 1 (key)    3 (overall) ------Newspaper 2 (key)      tabloid/broadsheet 5 (overall) ------Radio 2 (key)    3 (overall) ------Radio low/high 2 (key)      news content 5 (overall) ------Television 1 (key)   2 (overall) ------TV news 1 (key)    tabloid/broadsheet 3 (overall) ------TV current affairs 1 (key)     tabloid/broadsheet 4 (overall) ------Non-news media 5 (key)         8 (overall) - - - Overall 3 (key)     4 (overall) ------Note: Hours worked and household income failed to make any significant contribution, so are omitted from this table

In examining the statistically significant independent variables influencing the non-news media SPIR, some distinctive patterns come to light. Three of the independent variables in the models – media scepticism, NFC and surveillance gratifications - are overtly concerned with information quality dimensions, and the non-news media SPIR is the only media consumption pattern of those studied to be influenced by all three of these variables. Media scepticism is explicitly concerned with information accuracy, reliability and credibility (Tsfati, 2002). NFC is concerned with an interest in issue and content dimensions of news stories (Perse, 2001), rather than celebrity and scandal dimensions. Surveillance gratifications relate to obtaining reliable information by which to orient oneself in the world (Wenner, 1985). All three of these information quality-concerned variables impact on the non-news media SPIR, while the other, media-oriented models each include no more than one quality-concerned independent variable. It appears then that non-news media information sources are deliberately sought out by people who are keenly concerned about the quality of their political information. When it comes to media sources, however, quality concerns are less of a driver for use.

These findings indicate a fundamental difference in the way media sources and non-news media sources are used. Several possible reasons for this difference will be explored in the next chapter. In light of these reasons, I will then propose a different way of considering media use, the media as practice approach.

187

Chapter Seven: Discussion

Introduction The previous chapter presented in detail the statistical findings of the study. The chapter first considered each of the key independent variables in the study: media scepticism, need for cognition (NFC), surveillance, entertainment and escape gratifications, and political interest, and the degree to which they each made, or failed to make, statistically significant contributions to each of the media consumption models considered. Secondly, the findings were considered from the more holistic perspective of the nine original media consumption models: the mainstream/non-mainstream, private/public and tabloid/broadsheet media diets, and the Internet, print media, television, radio, non-news media and overall socio-political information repertoires (SPIRs). During the analysis, a further five models were created and explored: the newspaper SPIR and the newspaper tabloid/broadsheet, radio low/high news content, television news tabloid/broadsheet and television current affairs tabloid/broadsheet media diets. The chapter concluded by looking for overall patterns across the resulting 14 models in the study. A fundamental difference was identified between the motivations for consumption of media products (e.g. television shows, newspapers, radio stations) and the motivations for consumption of non-news media information sources (e.g. political party newsletters, public speaking events, social networking websites).

This chapter will begin by compiling the evidence, introduced in Chapter Six, which points to this distinction. In short, I will outline my findings that non-news media information sources are used in a more deliberate manner than are media sources. That non-news media information sources are used more purposefully is supported by the findings that the non-news media SPIR is the only model to be significantly influenced by all three of the independent variables which are concerned with information quality dimensions – media scepticism, NFC and surveillance gratifications. I will then explore three possible reasons for the lack of clear motivation patterns for media use: 1. the perceived homogeneity of the Brisbane media landscape; 2. the diminished importance of trust in a media literate society; and 3. the reduced likelihood of information seeking in a media saturated society. 189

Drawing on these explanations, I will conclude the chapter by considering an alternative way of understanding media use behaviours, using the media as practice paradigm, and will demonstrate evidence within my findings for a specific media practice, media talk.

Media use versus non-news media information source use The original goal of the present study was to determine how a range of audience characteristics (in particular media scepticism, NFC, surveillance, entertainment and escape gratifications sought, and political interest) influence the information choices of Australians with regard to socio-political information. As stated in Chapter Six, this study’s findings are most striking in terms of how little the six key and seven control variables included appear to influence any of the media diets and SPIRs examined. The regression analyses conducted in this research project enable us to determine how much variation in media consumption patterns is attributable to each of these variables. In most cases, each unique contribution is very small – less than three percent. For example, reliance on television for political information (the television SPIR model) is predicted only by surveillance gratifications and age, with each contributing less than two percent of the variation in television reliance. Across all the models, only three factors (one key variable, and two control variables) contribute more than three percent of variation in media consumption patterns:

 Need for cognition contributes to the variation in the non-news media SPIR by 3.3 percent;  Age contributes to the variation in the private/public media diet by 5.2 percent, to the radio low/high news content media diet by 7.6 percent, to the television news tabloid/broadsheet media diet by 4.1 percent and to the television current affairs tabloid/broadsheet media diet by 3.9 percent;  Education contributes to the variation in the newspaper tabloid/broadsheet media diet by 3.8 percent.

The amount of variance in media diets/SPIRs explained by the models overall ranges from a meagre 6.5 percent to 24.9 percent, meaning that at best, 75 percent of media choice is unexplained by the range of variables included in the study (age, gender, hours worked, household income, education, internet access, partisanship, political interest, media

scepticism, need for cognition, surveillance, entertainment and escape gratifications). As introduced in the previous chapter, in looking for patterns across the models, one model stands out as distinctive. The non-news media SPIR model is influenced by all but one of the key variables in the study: media scepticism, NFC, and all three gratifications sought dimensions - surveillance, entertainment and escape. This model is also distinct from the remaining models in that it pertains only to non-news media information sources, whereas the remaining diets include media sources. Thus, there appears to be a difference between motivations for use of non-news media and media information sources.

In particular, the specific variables associated with the non-news media SPIR suggest that non- news media are used in a more deliberate way than media sources. The variable with the greatest unique influence on the non-news media SPIR is NFC, contributing to 3.3 percent of the overall variation in non-news media information source use. NFC measures the degree to which an individual enjoys thinking (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982), and tends to be associated with an interest in issue and content dimensions of news stories (Perse, 2001), as opposed to superficial coverage which may be focussed on celebrity or scandal dimensions. Hence, people with high NFC can be viewed as being concerned about the quality of the information sources they use. Media scepticism, contributing to 0.7 percent of the overall variation in non-news media information source use, is explicitly concerned with information quality, including accuracy, reliability and credibility dimensions (Tsfati, 2002). Similarly, surveillance gratifications, which contribute to 0.7 percent of variation in this model, are concerned with seeking information with which to orient oneself in the world (Wenner, 1985). Personal orientation in the world is far from a trivial matter, and so surveillance gratifications would again be expected to reflect a concern for information quality. Thus, the three independent variables in the study which are explicitly concerned with the quality of information sources all play a part in the non-news media SPIR model. No other model in the study incorporates all three of these quality-focused variables.

Furthermore, escape gratifications, which are typically associated with simple diversionary needs (Wenner, 1985), are negatively associated with the non-news media SPIR model. So, people who are seeking quality information tend to use more non-news media information

191

sources, while people who are simply looking for diversion use fewer of these information sources. The non-news media SPIR is the only model in the study which is negatively associated with escape gratifications.

Table 7.1: Summary of patterns of influence of the key independent variables on the different media consumption models (shaded areas indicate information quality-focused variables) Key independent variables Media diet/ SPIR percent # variables MS NFC Surv Ent Esc PInt var Mainstream/ 16.8 2 (key)  - - -  - non-mainstream 5 (total) Private/ 23.5 2 (key)  - - -  - Public 6 (total) Tabloid/ 23.1 1 (key) - -  - - - Broadsheet 3 (total) Internet 13.8 0 (key) ------2 (total) Print media 13.5 2 (key) - - -  -  3 (total) Newspaper 13.2 1 (key) - - - - -  3 (total) Newspaper tabloid/ 12.7 2 (key) -  -  - - broadsheet 5 (total) Radio 6.5 2 (key) - - - -   3 (total) Radio low/high 24.9 2 (key) - - -   - news content 5 (total) Television 19.1 1 (key) - -  - - - 2 (total) TV news tabloid/ 22.7 1 (key) - -  - - - broadsheet 3 (total) TV current affairs 25.1 1 (key) - - - -  - tabloid/ broadsheet 4 (total) Non-news media 23.2 5 (key)      - 8 (total) Overall 24.0 3 (key) - -   -  4 (total)

Table 7.1 illustrates the extent to which the six key variables make statistically significant contributions to the media consumption models in the study. From the table, it is clear that, with the exception of the non-news media SPIR, each model includes no more than one of the quality-focused variables, and some models (private/public media diet, Internet, print media, newspaper, radio, radio low/high news content, television current affairs and overall SPIRs) contain none at all. In identifying this overall pattern, the focus of the thesis moves from

exploring “how do the key variables influence peoples’ information choices?”, to “why do the key variables have so little influence on media consumption patterns, in comparison with non- news media information consumption?”.

Qualitatively, the key difference between the non-news media repertoire and the others is that it is restricted to non-news media information sources only, while all the other diets and SPIRs include media sources. To recap Chapter Four, non-news media information sources are here identified by:  their production involving less content mediation than media sources (i.e. less content control by a professional information gatekeeper, such as an editor or producer); and/or

 being more costly to use than media sources, where ‘costs’ may include cognitive effort, physical effort, financial cost, opportunity costs and time (Atkin, 1973; Pirolli & Card, 1999).

Thus non-news media information sources as defined here include social networking media (e.g. YouTube, MySpace, Facebook), direct communications with political parties, charities, lobby groups or politicians, public speaking events (e.g. book launches, festivals), documentaries and books, zines, interpersonal communication (e.g. with friends and colleagues) and active engagement with Internet search engines (e.g. creating and conducting a Google search).

The present findings reveal that use of such non-news media information sources is significantly associated with the greatest number of variables of all the models examined. Further, the non-news media SPIR is the only model in which the three variables overtly concerned with information quality (media scepticism, NFC and surveillance gratifications) are all significant. While still only accounting for 23 percent of variation in non-news media use overall, eight factors come into play when deciding to pursue non-news media information sources. This finding contrasts strongly with the remaining media models, in which so few variables (no more than five overall, and no more than one of the information quality variables) are influential in any one model.

193

I believe the link between information quality concerns and use of non-news media information sources indicates that purposeful information seeking is associated in a primary way with use of non-news media sources, but not with media sources. The data show that non- news media information sources are chosen by people who are seeking accurate information with which to orient themselves to the world (surveillance gratifications), who enjoy thinking and prefer deep as opposed to shallow content (NFC), and by people who find the mainstream media to be lacking in quality (media scepticism). Further, people who wish to be simply distracted from the real world (escape gratifications) use fewer non-news media sources. Use of non-news media information sources thus appears to be associated with active information seeking, rather than passive diversion. In contrast, the media-focused diets and SPIRs have limited association with the information quality-focused variables, each influenced by no more than one of these variables, and six of the media models involving no quality-focused variables at all (Internet, print media, newspaper and radio SPIRs, and the radio low/high news content and television current affairs tabloid/broadsheet media diets).

The minimal associations between information quality concerns and use of the media do not necessarily indicate that mediated information is not at all used for purposeful information seeking. Rather, the findings imply that such information seeking is not a primary driver for media use, at least not in a non-election context such as that of the present study. Instead, these findings are suggestive that media use has another primary purpose, and that political information acquisition may be a secondary driver, or a by-product of that primary purpose. In fact, the lack of any consistent motivation patterns for media use may well indicate the diversity of practices with which media use is associated. Much as Bird (2003, p.3) proposed that the role of media in culture cannot be isolated because the media are so “firmly anchored into the web of culture”, I am here proposing that the media has now been integrated so fully into the practice of everyday life, that it can no longer be effectively isolated with regard to motivations for use.

It appears then, that non-news media political information sources are used in a distinctly different way to media sources: non-news media information source use involves purposive information seeking, media use less so. With this distinction identified, I now turn to the

question: what exactly are people doing with regard to their media practice when it comes to political information? More than 75 percent of variation in media diets is unrelated to any of the 13 constructs included in the models. Even variables generally associated with serious concerns for information quality (media scepticism, NFC and surveillance gratifications) have little impact on media diets and SPIRs. In seeking explanations for these findings, I have identified three possible interpretations:

 Brisbane media audiences perceive their media environment as homogeneous in terms of quality, reducing the importance of selection;

 The importance of trust in information selection is diminished by the perceived presence of media literacy;

 Political information consumption in a media-saturated society is more about routine ‘practices’ than it is about ‘information seeking’.

Some of these ideas have been touched on in Chapter Six, but they will be more fully explained in the sections which follow.

The perceived homogeneity of the Brisbane media environment The first possibility I will consider here is that the Brisbane media landscape is viewed with such scepticism by the audience, that they fail to differentiate between different media sources, seeing all sources as equally unreliable when it comes to purposeful seeking of political information. In such a media landscape, it would matter little, in terms of information quality, which media sources are selected. Non-news media information sources, in contrast, may be sought out because they are perceived to be untainted by the media’s apparent poor reputation.

To consider this possibility, we must first recall (as discussed in Chapter Three) that media scepticism is based on the existence of a mental schema for ‘the media’ (Tsfati, 2002). That is, the media scepticism scale aims to tap into the cognitive schema people have for ‘the media’ in general, rather than their attitude towards a particular media outlet. Schemas can also be

195

culturally shared and culturally derived (Strauss & Quinn, 1992). The media scepticism results in the present study reveal a high degree of distrust towards the media, with a mean media scepticism score of 23.2 on a scale of 0 to 32, where 0 indicates no scepticism and 32 indicates highest scepticism. This is far higher than the US sample mean of only 18.0 on the same scale (Dr Yariv Tsfati, personal communication, October 16th 2008). Opinion poll data over the past 30 years certainly indicate extensive distrust of the media in Australia, for example with 85 percent of Australians believing newspaper journalists are ‘often biased’(Roy Morgan Research, 2007a), and only 16 percent of Australians believing television reporters to be ‘ethical and honest’ (Roy Morgan Research, 2008). Such a widely held opinion of the media is suggestive of a culturally shared cognitive schema for the media, one in which the media is not viewed favourably.

When activated, mental schemas tend to reduce an individual’s perception of variation amongst the subject of the schema (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). In the case of the media, therefore, if the schema indicates that the media cannot be trusted, the media landscape will be viewed with less variation in terms of trustworthiness. The peaks and troughs of quality, where, for example, Today Tonight may be viewed as very low quality, and The 7.30 Report as very high quality journalism, will be flattened out in the mind of the audience member, so the differences between the two television shows are less apparent. In this scenario, all the media options in the information landscape become tainted with scepticism, and so they begin to appear of universally poor quality. If there is little to no differentiation in quality between different media outlets, then it makes little difference which we choose.

So what evidence is there that Brisbane residents consider their information environment to be homogenous in terms of journalistic quality? Firstly, it is interesting that NFC plays almost no role in the media-oriented consumption models studied, contributing only 1.1 percent of the variation in the newspaper tabloid/broadsheet diet. In contrast, NFC makes a more considerable contribution to the non-news media SPIR model, accounting for 3.3 percent of the variation in that model. People with high NFC enjoy thinking (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982), prefer a wide range of diverse information sources (Nair & Ramnarayan, 2000), and prefer deep issue coverage, rather than superficial news stories (Perse, 1992, 2001). That high NFC scores have almost no association with differences in media use, but rather are associated with greater use

of information from outside the media altogether, implies a perceived lack of variation amongst the different media products available. When people with high NFC seek complex information, diversity of viewpoints and depth of coverage, they look beyond the media, as if they do not expect the media to be able to meet those needs at all.

Looking to the dependent variables for evidence, we see that the media diets most explicitly concerned with information quality are those relating to the tabloid/broadsheet distinction: tabloid/broadsheet, newspaper tabloid/broadsheet, television news tabloid/broadsheet and television current affairs tabloid/broadsheet media diets. Each of these diets measures the relative degree of reliance on high quality (broadsheet) and low quality (tabloid) media sources. The findings from these models did reveal a slight preference for broadsheet media in general and broadsheet television news shows specifically, amongst people seeking surveillance gratifications. As stated previously, a slight preference for broadsheet newspapers was also associated with higher NFC scores. The final quality-focused variable, media scepticism, did not contribute to any of these tabloid/broadsheet models. The television current affairs tabloid/broadsheet diet was unaffected by any of the quality-focused variables. These findings indicate a small degree of quality distinction across different media sources.

A much more pronounced acknowledgement of media quality can be found in attitudes towards the public broadcasters, the ABC and SBS. In a 2000 survey of a large, representative Australian sample, ABC and SBS radio and television news and current affairs programs were identified as the most credible sources in Australia, in contrast to the commercial broadcast networks, which ranked last in the list (Brand et al., 2001). Similarly, a more recent study by ACMA showed that 77 percent of respondents believed commercial television current affairs shows to present inaccurate information (Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2008). However, while an overwhelming number of Australians are willing to proclaim the excellence of ABC and SBS news and current affairs, the proportion who actually use the public broadcasters is less overwhelming. 33.7 percent of Australians state a preference for ABC/SBS television and radio as their preferred source for news and information, virtually the same number (34.3 percent) who prefer commercial free-to-air television and radio (Phillips et al., 2008). Furthermore, in the present study, only one of the quality-focused independent

197

variables, media scepticism, significantly influenced the private/public media diet, which is explicitly concerned with the proportion of commercial to ABC/SBS media sources used, and its influence was slight (contributing only 0.6 percent of diet variation). This indicates that, whilst Australians talk about the public broadcasters providing quality journalism, and the commercial broadcasters lacking credibility, this distinction does not translate strongly into media consumption behaviours.

So if Australian audiences perceive the public broadcasters to be more credible than the commercial broadcasters, why is there so little difference in media consumption patterns, even amongst people who are concerned about information quality? It seems likely that higher quality journalism requires greater cognitive inputs from the audience. For example, quality journalism does not generally incorporate the cues common to tabloid media (e.g. emotive music, sensationalist discourse, evocative lighting), which indicate to the audience how they should interpret or feel about the story they are being told (Postman, 1985). Audiences instead have to put the cognitive effort into deciding for themselves how to interpret or feel about the facts presented. It may be, therefore, that the relative ease with which lower quality commercial news and current affairs can be consumed makes it more appealing to use. This is certainly suggested by the findings of the private/public media diet model in the present study. Only two key variables are associated with this model: media scepticism and escape gratifications, with the latter making the greatest contribution of the two, influencing the private/public media diet by 2 percent. Escape gratifications are associated with greater reliance on commercial, rather than public, media. Escape gratifications relate to diversion needs, rather than orientation needs, and in this study have been repeatedly associated with a preference for easy-to-consume information sources: commercial media, mainstream media, low news radio stations, and tabloid television current affairs shows; as well as being associated with reduced use of more ‘costly’ information: non-news media information sources.

Another indication that commercial media may be preferred because they are easier to consume is the association between information processing and education. Education is known to increase an individual’s capacity to process more complex information (Eveland & Scheufele, 2000; Kleinnijenhuis, 1991). The current findings (in line with those of Bean, 2005; Jones &

Pusey, 2008), show that university education is associated with greater use of ABC and SBS products, as well as greater use of broadsheet newspapers, broadsheet television news and current affairs shows, and high news content radio stations. This association between education and a preference for high quality information sources supports the idea that the commercial stations are more attractive to some people, despite their lack of credibility, because they are easier to consume.

However, this disjunction between what people say about the public broadcasters and their actual use of those networks may in fact reflect some other phenomenon at work. As will be discussed in the next section, the perception amongst audiences regarding their own media literacy may, ironically, reduce the perceived importance of trust and credibility in information selection decisions. A further possibility is that the way people talk about the media may reflect what they believe to be the socially accepted attitudes towards the media, rather than reflecting their authentic personal opinions. This will be discussed later in the chapter.

The diminished importance of trust, or, the irony of media literacy In Chapter Six, I stated that one possible explanation for the minimal associations between the information quality-focused variables (media scepticism, NFC and surveillance gratifications) and media use is that the importance of trust in information selection is diminished by the presence of media literacy amongst the audience. I will explicate my argument below.

Media literacy is defined as “the ability to access, understand, evaluate and create media content” (European Commission, 2007). It is traditionally viewed as a type of critical literacy (Buckingham, 2003), which enables citizens to understand the implicit ideologies, agendas and contexts of the media discourses they encounter (Andersen, 2006; Warnick, 2002). Media literacy education has been a compulsory part of Australian K-12 school curricula since the mid- 1990s (Kubey, 2003), and Australia, along with New Zealand and Canada, are viewed as the most advanced nations in the world in terms of media literacy education (Domaille & Buckingham, 2001; European Commission, n.d.).

199

In addition to school-based media literacy education, informal media literacy training for adults may also occur through the broadcast media. Hybrid information/entertainment television programs such as the US-based satirical news show The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, or Australian shows Media Watch, Frontline, The Chaser’s War on Everything and The Panel, effectively perform the critical aspects of media literacy openly before the audience. Baym notes that The Daily Show deconstructs journalistic practices, and conducts an “explicit criticism of the media”, using “humor *sic+ as the license to confront political dissembling and misinformation, and to demand a measure of accountability” (Baym, 2004, p13-14). Media Watch directly and openly provides “media analysis and comment” (Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), 2009). The satirical mocumentary-style Frontline (which last broadcast in 1997) highlighted the behind-the-scenes machinations of tabloid current affairs shows (Giles, 1999; Stockwell, 2004), whilst the informal and humorous approach of The Panel (which stopped broadcasting in 2005) mobilised and empowered its audience by providing “a critical perspective of news” (Harrington, 2005, p83). The What Have We Learned from Current Affairs This Week segment on The Chaser’s War on Everything (which stopped broadcasting in 2009), meanwhile, expressly critiqued the presentation of news and current affairs in the popular Australian tabloid television shows A Current Affair and Today Tonight, potentially raising awareness of tabloid production techniques and “encouraging viewers to ‘read’ news shows like them in a critical fashion” (Flew & Harrington, 2010). Through explicitly performing media critique and deconstruction before the audience, these shows may be providing tacit instruction in the critical mechanisms of media literacy. In fact, Frontline has also been included in the curriculum of formal media literacy courses, including the New South Wales Year 12 syllabus (Elith, 2003; Knight, 2004).

The goal of media literacy may be stated as promoting a ‘healthy scepticism’ towards the media (Kealy, 2004; Thoman & Jolls, 2004), so that media literate citizens question the images and messages presented to them, rather than simply accepting those messages at face value (Gillmor, 2008). Scepticism is so integral to media literacy that media literacy education has been used specifically to increase media scepticism amongst specific audiences, such as those viewed as vulnerable to the negative effects of body image and alcohol advertising (Austin, Chen, & Grube, 2006; Irving & Berel, 2001). If scepticism towards the media is an indication of media literacy, then the Brisbane adult population certainly appears to be media literate. The

Brisbane population’s average media scepticism score was 23.2 out of the maximum 32, compared with the US sample mean of 18.0 (Dr Yariv Tsfati, personal communication, October 16th 2008). The presence of media literacy within the adult Brisbane population is therefore implied by both the high degree of media scepticism within the sample, as well as by the presence of long-term formal media literacy instruction through the Australian school system, and by informal media literacy practices conducted through the broadcast media.

Somewhat ironically, high levels of media literacy may make information credibility less important in the selection of media sources. Bird (2003, p.175), reflecting on the changing attitudes of her students, comments that, while as recently as the mid-nineties, students found digital manipulation of images in the media to be “troubling”, recent younger cohorts have no issue with this practice. Bird summarises this newly emerging view thus: “It’s no big deal. We know all images are altered and manipulated, so it’s up to viewers to reach their own conclusions about whether something is ‘real’”. Lumby believes that increased media literacy has actually “fuelled the desire for more casual, entertaining formats”, even while it has led to attacks on many of the low-brow journalistic techniques (invasion of privacy, foot-in-the-door journalism) which this type of tabloid reporting typically employs (Lumby, 1999, p.51).

So if this is the case, does trust continue to play any role in media selection? In the current study, media scepticism is the variable most explicitly concerned with trust, measuring the degree to which people trust the mainstream media. The findings show that media scepticism only significantly influences two media-oriented models, the mainstream/non-mainstream and the private/public media diet models. If trust plays a role in media selection, we would expect that media sceptics, who distrust the mainstream media, would use more non-mainstream media, and this is indeed the case. Media sceptics use relatively more non-mainstream than mainstream media, however, the effect is quite small, reflecting only 1.1 percent of variation in that media consumption pattern overall. The beta value (β =-.1) for media scepticism in this model indicates that for every ten point increase in media scepticism scores, an additional non- mainstream media source is used (relative to the number of mainstream media sources used). So, a person with the average media scepticism score of 23 (out of a possible 32) would use either one more non-mainstream source, or one less mainstream media source, than a person

201

with the considerably lower media scepticism score of 13. If the impact of media scepticism on the mainstream/non-mainstream diet is slight, its impact is even smaller on the private/public media diet (β =-.08), with media sceptics exhibiting an even smaller preference for public service media than they do for non-mainstream media. As discussed previously, the public broadcasters are viewed as the most credible, and commercial networks as the least credible, sources of news and current affairs in Australia (Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2008; Brand et al., 2001). If trust is central to media selection decisions, one would expect then, that Australian media sceptics would rely more heavily on the public media, but the actual effect is very small.

In considering the importance of trust in media selection, then, we have looked to the variable in the study which is explicitly associated with trust – media scepticism – and looked at the role it plays in media diets. Only two media models are influenced by media scepticism – the mainstream/non-mainstream and private/public media diets – and its effect is very small. I have also noted that media scepticism also makes a significant contribution to the one model which is not concerned with media products: the non-news media SPIR model. I believe these findings point towards two conclusions.

Firstly, trust is playing a role in information source selection, however, the strength of its influence is minor. People who distrust the mainstream media do turn to non-mainstream and public service media sources slightly more than do people who trust the mainstream media. Meanwhile, sceptics do seek more political information from outside the media altogether. It may be that, while trust is important in information selection, the perceived homogeneity of the Brisbane media environment (as discussed previously) means that people who distrust the mainstream media do not simply look to ‘alternative’ media sources, but also look for information sources beyond the media entirely, such as from unmediated political party newsletters, or independent blogs. This makes intuitive sense in light of the exceptional level of media scepticism exhibited by the Brisbane sample. Very high levels of distrust towards the media may result in a willingness to expend the extra effort required to find non-news media information sources.

Secondly, the limited influence of media scepticism on media consumption patterns may also be an indication of the phenomenon Bird (2003) notes - that audiences are confident in their media literacy abilities to the extent that they feel able to use any media source, tabloid or broadsheet. Such audiences might believe their media literacy skills will enable them to see through the tabloid-style sensationalism and bias, and derive facts and meaning from the information source, regardless of the quality of reporting. Certainly, recent Australian qualitative research provides support for this proposal. Research into attitudes towards commercial television current affairs programs in Australia revealed that viewers “believed they could spot the necessary truths and leave the bias behind… Thus, the existence of bias could be accepted to a large extent.” (Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2008, p.17). However, the same research revealed that “very few people considered that the *commercial current affairs+ programs consciously omitted facts”, and were shocked when specific examples of such omissions were pointed out to them (Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2008, p.19).

It would be inappropriate, however, to rule trust out of the equation altogether in the Australian context. The ACMA findings also reveal that the more people believe the commercial current affairs television programs to be accurate, the more frequently they use them – 17 percent of occasional viewers believe these shows to be accurate, as compared with 28 percent of semi-regular and 33 percent of regular viewers (Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2008). However, clearly the majority of viewers (between 67 and 83 percent) still believe these shows to be inaccurate when reporting facts. In fact, of people who exclusively watch commercial television current affairs shows, 64 percent believe they are inaccurate, and yet they choose these current affairs sources exclusively. However, 93 percent of people who exclusively watch ABC/SBS current affairs shows, believe the commercial media distort the facts (Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2008), and this is presumably why they instead turn to the public broadcasters. These findings indicate that, while trust still plays a role in news/current affairs media use to a degree, large numbers of people are still willing to use sources they believe to be inaccurate. This may well reflect their faith in their own media literacy skills, but to what extent is this faith well founded?

203

The recent ACMA study mentioned above (Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2008) went some way towards identifying participants’ actual media literacy, at least in terms of their awareness of tabloid journalism techniques. While participants acknowledged that commercial current affairs television programs were deliberately manipulative in their use of emotive language, confrontational interviewing approaches, misleading editing and uneven representation of the different sides to a story, they fundamentally believed that the ‘facts’ presented on these shows were accurate (Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2008, pp.17,18). As mentioned previously, when the study participants were shown actual examples of deliberate factual distortions and misreporting on the commercial current affairs shows, they were shocked and appalled, as indicated in the following participant quotes (Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2008, p.19):

That’s unforgivable – it’s so dishonest.

I find it all really shocking because I don’t know what to believe anymore… if you can’t trust the facts they present you with…

I don’t think I’m going to be able to watch these programs again now.

This last comment points directly to the continuing existence of a link between trust and media consumption, however weak this link appears to be within the present study’s findings. In a truly homogenous media environment, it would not matter which sources an individual turned to. However, the figures presented in this and the previous section indicate that people talk about the inaccuracies in commercial television reporting, and the higher quality journalism available through the public broadcasters, yet continue to primarily use the commercial broadcasters for news and current affairs. The ACMA findings indicate that, as Bird (2003) and Lumby (1999) suggest, perceived media literacy does lead people to believe they can use any media source, regardless of quality. However, despite the confidence the ACMA respondents exhibited with regard to their own media literacy abilities, they were still shocked when specific misrepresentations in current affairs reports were pointed out to them (Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2008). This raises the issue of whether Australians truly are media literate, or whether speaking cynically about the media is merely a performance. This matter will be discussed later in this chapter.

No election, no information-seeking: Everyday media practices in a media saturated society Another possible explanation for the limited associations between the independent variables and media consumption patterns in the present study relates to the way the media is used in people’s every day lives. Data collection in the current study was conducted in a non-election context. A non-election context differs from an election context in a few obvious ways:

 When an election is looming, people may be required to make a decision about which candidates to support, so the desire to be informed about political issues may be greater (O'Cass & Nataraajan, 2003). This may be particularly the case where voting is compulsory, as in Australia.

 During an election campaign, political discussions are more commonplace, and therefore people may desire a greater awareness of the issues to enhance their social utility (Ohr & Schrott, 2001).

 Election campaigns are viewed by some people with excitement, making the task of informing oneself about politics a more entertaining experience than in non-election times (Ohr & Schrott, 2001).

In short, in everyday life, as opposed to during an election campaign, remaining politically informed may seem less important or desirable. In such a situation, it may be that citizens are less likely to actively seek out political information, preferring to rely on casual encounters with political information in the course of their everyday social practices. This lends support to Couldry’s (2004) premise that everyday life media use represents an open set of practices in the context of broader social practices, rather than a distinct and isolated set of information behaviours occurring separately from the rest of one’s life. In other words, in our media- saturated society, people may largely obtain socio-political information via the media as a consequence of their everyday life practice, rather than as a separate and deliberate activity.

Whereas deliberate information seeking can be predicted by information quality-focused motivations such as media scepticism, NFC and surveillance gratifications, incidental

205

information gathering would be instead expected to rely greatly on the proximity of that information to an individual’s existing everyday practices. Thus, the issue of convenience comes to the fore. Political information must be convenient in the context of an individual’s everyday life in order to be encountered at all. Convenience has been theoretically linked to information behaviour through two principles: the Principle of Least Effort and Satisficing.

The role of convenience in media use In considering the function of convenience in information behaviour, two principles from beyond the media and communication field come to mind: the Principle of Least Effort, and Satisficing. The Principle of Least Effort (PLE) was originally developed as a general explanation for human activity. The PLE proposes that when performing a task, individuals will select a course of action which requires the least amount of effort (Case, 2005). The PLE thus assumes that individuals prefer pragmatism over optimalisation, and so under this model, information seeking will be focused on the most convenient information sources, rather than the highest quality (Case, 2005). For example, Sally may wish to find out about the passing of an important Bill in Parliament. Sally believes that ABC news is the best quality news, however, she will not be home at 7pm when ABC news is screened, so she watches the 6pm Channel 9 news instead. Sally would rather accept lower quality journalism at a time that suits her, than she would expend the extra effort to record the ABC News and watch it later, or to seek out the story at ABC Online.

Satisficing is a concept drawn from decision-making theory. It is based on the pragmatic recognition that “limits on attention simply don’t permit everything to be attended to at once” (Simon, 1945, p.119). Acknowledging this, satisficers are willing to base decisions on information which is ‘good enough’ and easy to access, rather than waiting for all possible, highest quality information to become available. Both of these principles acknowledge the importance of convenience in human behaviour, to the extent that a convenient solution will often be preferred to a ‘quality’ solution. Drawing on literature from the marketing field, convenience is described as a multidimensional construct, clearly situational in character, and which may incorporate one or more of the following dimensions (Brown, 1990):

1. Time – this refers to the times at which a service or product is available. With information products, this dimension is particularly important. For example, if you are planning to drive on the freeway, information regarding a major traffic jam on that road is very valuable before you turn onto the freeway, but that same information is worthless if it only reaches you once you are caught in the traffic jam. 2. Place – this refers to the location at which the service or product is available. 3. Acquisition – this refers to the ease with which the transaction (e.g. payment, Internet connectivity) associated with a service or product can be performed. 4. Use – this refers to the ease of use of the service or product. In the case of information products this would include the degree of cognitive effort required. 5. Execution – this refers to the degree to which the activity or service can be performed by someone else.

In adapting these dimensions for relevance to information products and services, I would suggest that the ‘time’ dimension be expanded to include currency of information (or how up- to-date the information is), which is an important characteristic with regards to the value and utility of information (Middleton, 2002).

Looking at these dimensions, we can see that convenience is in many cases a highly subjective phenomenon, based on the individual needs and circumstances of the patron/consumer/user. For example, for a PhD researcher who works all day at a computer with a high speed Internet connection, online news sources are likely to be very convenient, achieving convenience in terms of:

 time/currency (frequently updated, available whenever she chooses to take a break);  place (she does not have to move from her ordinary work location to use them);  acquisition (they are largely free of charge, beyond the initial equipment and Internet connection costs);  use (she is very familiar with use of Internet resources, and is highly educated, so cognitively they are easy for her to use);  execution (she may use personalised news aggregator sites, or RSS feeds). 207

However, for an elderly person with no Internet experience11 and no home Internet connection, online news sources are likely to have no convenience value whatsoever.

The subjective and contextual nature of convenience makes it a complicated construct to measure. As convenience was not initially identified as a key construct in the present study, the data collection instrument did not include any explicit measures of convenience. In the next section, I will consider whether any of the existing variables may instead be used to provide hints as to the role of convenience in the study population. I will also present the findings of other recent studies which have included convenience dimensions.

Evidence for the role of convenience in information selection The questionnaire used in the present study did not include any items directly related to convenience, as it was not initially considered a key variable. However, there are two independent variables included in the survey which may be indirectly indicative of convenience dimensions: hours worked and household income.

For ease of participant response and data entry, hours worked was measured as a simple estimate of the number of hours spent on work and/or study per week. It was initially included as an attempt to identify whether the amount of non-work time available impacts on the amount of political information seeking conducted. Considering hours worked from the perspective of convenience, it can be seen to relate primarily to the ‘time’ and ‘place’ dimensions. Hours worked made no significant impact on any of the models in the study. I believe this is suggestive, firstly, of the ubiquity of media and information in Australian society, and secondly, that as a consequence of its ubiquity, media use occurs in the context of other everyday life behaviours, such as work and study, not as a separate activity. If political information can be obtained at virtually any location, and at any point in time, then hours worked is irrelevant to political information behaviour. If we ignore information quality concerns for a moment, what we see here is a society in which media use has reached such an

11 The current findings are interesting in that age is the only variable, aside from actually having access to an Internet connection, which impacts on Internet use. It seems that apart from the generational impact (which, as described here most likely relates to cognitive ease of use of the resource), the Internet is a highly convenient information source for most people.

extreme level of convenience, that deliberate everyday information seeking for news becomes irrelevant.

Household income was included in the models because income can be associated with certain types of information activities, particularly Internet access (Chadwick, 2006; Willis & Tranter, 2006). With regard to the dimensions of convenience, income would relate primarily to the ‘acquisition’ dimension, as greater income will enable greater access to more costly information sources, such as high speed broadband Internet connections, magazine subscriptions and public speaking events. Household income made no significant difference to any of the models examined. Information communication technologies, from the printing press to the Internet, typically make the distribution and acquisition of information easier and cheaper as time goes by. While there is no doubt that some information sources remain more financially costly than others, that household income makes no difference to the media consumption models in the present study may again point to the ubiquity of information sources in Australian society. Enough information sources exist at negligible cost, that income does not significantly impact on overall information consumption patterns. Furthermore, it is worth noting, the initial motivations for purchasing the receiving equipment for broadcast and Internet media are not necessarily primarily associated with news and current affairs consumption. Many people listen to the radio in the car, or through their home stereo, yet neither of these receiving mechanisms (the car or the home stereo) was necessarily purchased with a view to receiving political information. More likely, the car was purchased as a means of transportation, and the stereo was purchased to listen to music. Similarly, televisions and Internet modems are not necessarily purchased primarily to allow access to news. The functionality of accessing news and political information may come as a cost-free consequence of these items’ purchase, rather than as a primary motivator for their purchase.

The hours worked and household income data in the current study therefore offer indirect support for the ubiquity and convenience of the media in everyday life. The importance of convenience in the selection of news sources has emerged in other recent Australian research. A study of Australian Internet users revealed that speed/currency, convenience, hyperlinks, the ability to search multiple sources simultaneously for different viewpoints, and multimedia

209

capabilities were the key reasons stated for the preference of online news sources (Daniel et al., 2009). While this list includes ‘convenience’ as a uni-dimensional item, in fact all of these characteristics relate to convenience dimensions. Speed/currency relates directly to the expanded ‘time’ dimension, as described previously. Searching ability relates to the ‘use’ and ‘place’ dimensions, making information seeking easier, and enabling the user to perform information searches across multiple web domains without a physical relocation. Hyperlinks also relate to the ‘use’ and ‘place’ dimensions, as they are an even easier way to locate additional related information than web searching, but they also relate to the execution dimension, as, effectively, someone else (the website creator) has located the additional information sources and linked them for the user to access. Finally, the presence of multimedia facilities can make audio-visual information available, which is easier to cognitively process than textual information (Donohew et al., 1988), hence relating to the ‘use’ dimension.

US-based research into use of the Internet for political information has also revealed convenience (again measured as a uni-dimensional construct) to be a major factor in the selection of Web-based information sources (Howard, 2005; Kaye & Johnson, 2006; Kim, 2006). The importance of convenience in Internet information selection has also increased in recent years, with it ranking as the third strongest predictor of Internet use amongst politically interested respondents (after entertainment/social utility and surveillance gratifications) in 2000 (Kaye & Johnson, 2004), but becoming the primary motivation in 2004 (Kaye & Johnson, 2006). In 2009, research by the Pew Institute revealed US citizens rely more heavily “on platforms which can deliver news when audiences want it rather than at appointed times, a sign of a growing ‘on demand’ news culture” (Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, 2009) – once again, an indication of the importance of the time-convenience dimension in information seeking.

Looking more broadly at traditional news media, another large, representative Australian study, conducted in 2000 revealed that ‘timing’ was the primary reason (selected by 32 percent of respondents) for not selecting an otherwise preferred source of news (Brand et al., 2001). The second most common reason for not using an otherwise preferred source was content/coverage, selected by only seven percent of respondents. So timing, a key component of convenience, was by far the primary reason for selecting a poor information source over a

better one. Similarly, after content/coverage (selected by 15 percent of respondents), timing was the second most common reason (chosen by 10 percent of respondents) for using a preferred news source (Brand et al., 2001). Comments offered by participants in the Brand et al (2002, p.340) study further illustrate the convenience aspects of news consumption:

I think newspapers are old news. I don’t have a computer, so other than the crosswords the newspaper is generally a repeat of what you saw on the previous night’s television.

I feel with radio stations, sport for example is current, you find out overnight game results early. An instant result. Even with the television, half the time you have to wait until later that night.

It would be easier to turn the television on than… to go to the Internet to find out the news… It would be cheaper.

An even more recent survey of Australian Internet users revealed similar sentiments regarding news use, including convenience dimensions such as currency, physical ease of use and ability to customize news exposure for time and cognitive efficiency (Daniel et al., 2009, p.4,7):

If I pick up a print newspaper, I have already read the articles online. The ability to have news as it happens and keep updated throughout the day means that if I miss the news on TV at night, I am not in the dark about what is happening in the world.

You don’t have to go to the newsagency and buy a paper to find out the news, you just sit in your office and click away. Easy.

The best thing about online news is that I can ignore some but read others in greater detail.

In the present study, the media scepticism scale consisted of eight questions. As reported in Chapter Four, two of these questions: ‘Would you say the news media usually help society to solve its problems or get in the way of society solving its problems?’ and ‘Which do you think the news media care more about, in general? Being first to report a story or being accurate in reporting a story?’, caused a decrease in the Cronbach’s alpha result for the scale. Cronbach’s alpha measures the internal consistency of a scale, or the degree to which the scale items are 211

all measuring the same underlying characteristic (Aron et al., 2009). The Cronbach’s alpha score for the media scepticism scale is good (.82), but it would increase slightly if questions seven and eight were omitted from the scale. This means that responses to those two questions did not contribute as strongly in a conceptually consistent way to the media scepticism construct, as did the other questions. The scale was developed so that high scores indicated high levels of media scepticism, and these two questions were coded so that the responses ‘get in the way’ and ‘being first to report the story’ related to a high media scepticism score. The second question is of interest in this part of the thesis. The reduction in the Cronbach’s alpha score caused by responses to this question indicates a trend in the data where scepticism towards the media was not uniquely associated with the ‘being first to report the story’ response. A number of respondents ticked both boxes, or indicated that they were unable to choose between them (e.g. by placing a tick in between the two boxes). It seems the dichotomy implied by the scale, between rapid reporting and accurate reporting is not necessarily shared by the audience. Being first to report the story is a characteristic admired by some audience members, although the tension between speed and accuracy is clear in the following respondent statements regarding online news sources from the Daniel et al. study (2009, p.6, 11, 12, emphasis mine):

[Online news sources are] consistently useful: the most updated, especially with RSS feeds. However, [they are] sometimes inaccurate and must be followed due to continual updates. A story is very rarely complete in comparison to newspapers.

They’re extremely useful because of their immediacy, but that aspect also makes them less accurate. The more immediate, the less easily verified.

[Online news sites} tend to want to publish very quickly and their facts can be wrong because of the rush to be first.

This tension between the speed of reporting and accuracy of information highlights the importance of media literacy. If audiences value rapid news reporting, it is important that they have the capacity to evaluate effectively which parts of a breaking news story may be most likely prone to error, and also perhaps the awareness and willingness to return to the item at a later time to check on the veracity of earlier reports.

In the 1940s, news arrived daily in the form of the newspaper, or hourly via the wireless. However, in the 2000s, a vast array of information is available 24 hours, seven days per week, wherever an Internet connection exists. On a typical day in 2010, almost half the US population source news from between four and six different media platforms (Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, 2010b). As citizens become increasingly used to having a wide range of information instantly accessible at all times, via the Internet, it may well be that convenience continues to increase in importance, not just with regard to Internet use, but with regard to the sourcing of information generally. When information, via the media, is ubiquitous, then purposive information seeking as an everyday activity becomes largely redundant.

Summary so far So far this chapter has explored three possible explanations for the general lack of association between the independent variables and the media consumption patterns in the study:

1. The possibility that perceived homogeneity in the Australian media environment contributes to these findings has been thrown into doubt by the high esteem in which the public broadcasters are held. And yet, this high esteem does not greatly influence media selection. It appears, in short, that what people say about the media does not necessarily match what they do with the media. This issue will be further explored later in the chapter.

2. The possibility that perceived media literacy amongst the audience reduces the importance of credibility in media selection was found to have some merit, with audiences confident that they can see beyond the distortions of the tabloid media and fish out the ‘facts’. However, trust does seem to retain some degree of influence over media choice, although this influence is very minimal.

3. Finally, the possibility that media use is no longer primarily an information seeking activity, but rather simply a part of citizens’ everyday practices was raised. The sharp distinction between the use of non-news media information sources and the use of media sources, identified at the start of the chapter, supports this hypothesis. It appears non-media information sources are used much more purposefully than media

213

sources. The issue of convenience of media sources was also integral to this explanation, with convenience identified as one of the most important factors in information selection.

These findings lead me to propose that the media has now been integrated so fully into the practice of everyday life, it can no longer be effectively isolated with regard to motivations for use. This concept will be more fully explored in the remainder of the chapter, with reference to Couldry’s media as practice paradigm.

Why media practices? Couldry (2004) suggests that everyday life media use represents an open set of practices in the context of broader social practices. The current findings are certainly suggestive of such a scenario. The purposeful ways in which non-news media information sources are used by respondents in the present study – for quality information (media scepticism), for socio- political orientation (surveillance gratifications) and as content-rich material to fuel cognition for pleasure (NFC) - contrast strongly with the far less distinctive motivations for media use. The findings thus draw a distinction between information seeking behaviour, which is purposive, deliberate and driven towards identifiable goals; and everyday media use, which appears to be less deliberate, with less overt goals and motivations.

Jones (2006, p.373) illustrates the many and varied ways in which media practices may be embedded within other everyday activities:

In a single given day, a citizen might engage in all of the following activities that offer a mediated relationship to the conventional political arena through differing texts about politics: read a newspaper in the morning over breakfast, watch a morning news show while getting dressed, listen to talk radio in the car while driving to work, read politically charged emails, scan a news magazine in the office lobby, hear a political protest song in the car, see a political advertisement on a billboard on the way home, watch a political drama on DVD during the evening hours, then turn to a satirical faux television news show while getting ready for bed, only to retire for the evening by reading a political biography.

This is “the everyday chaos of media traffic” in a media saturated society (Lumby, 1999, p.xiv). A great deal of information can be obtained simply as a consequence of our everyday social behaviours, without acquiring the costs (temporal, financial, cognitive or opportunity)

associated with actively seeking it out (Fiorina, 1990). For younger people especially, the media are now integrated seamlessly into daily routines and practices (Ang et al., 2006). The media as practice research paradigm has been proposed to consider precisely such practices.

The media as practice paradigm The remainder of this chapter will proceed as follows. It will first contextualise the media as practise paradigm within the broader context of media research. The chapter will then consider the relevance of the media as practice approach to the contemporary Australian media context. Next, the chapter will provide two basic theoretical principles through which we can begin to unpack media practices: Thevenot’s (2001) pragmatic regimes and Swidler’s (2001) anchoring practices. Finally, I will introduce evidence from the current study as well as four studies from the literature, which are suggestive of a specific media practice, media talk, and analyse this phenomenon as a form of media practice.

Media research has historically been divided into two main research traditions – the structural approach traditionally associated with European scholars, and the content analysis and quantitative approaches typically associated with the US branches of the discipline (Sinclair, 2002). Thus, media research tends to begin from one of two locations – either the media text, or the media institution (Couldry, 2004). These approaches have taken us a good way towards understanding the use of traditional media, production of traditional media and to a limited extent, media effects. In 2004, Couldry suggested the need for a new media research paradigm, one which begins from the “open set of practices related to, or oriented around, the media” (2004, p.117). Such a media as practice approach was proposed to enable researchers to move beyond the endless debates regarding media effects, and to think more broadly than the connection between the audience and the text (Couldry, 2004). To this end, the media as practice approach begins with the simple question of “what… are people doing in relation to media across a whole range of situations and contexts?” (Couldry, 2004, p.119). Such a question should enable us to better deal with the fluidity of media use in late modern societies.

Media habits in the past have been fairly predictable, due in large part to the regularity of the traditional news media cycle. As a consequence of the routine delivery of the daily newspaper,

215

for example, people previously read “the same paper at the same time each day” (Sinclair, 2010, p.82). In fact, British research from the 1960s found that “only the distribution of characteristics such as age and sex showed greater stability than readership of the morning dailies”, with most people reading the same morning newspaper every day for many years (Butler & Stokes, 1969, p.230). While newspaper readership is in decline (Sinclair, 2010), other media habits remain. Lumby notes “*w+e watch television by the clock as much as the program… The evening news is… a gateway into some rare downtime in our increasingly stressful lives” (Lumby, 1999, p.57). However, even these habits are weakening. Young (2009) compares Australian audience data from 2001 with that of 2007, and finds that 17 out of 25 news and current affairs shows experienced considerable reductions in audience size in this interval (ranging from 12 to 67 percent audience reduction). Young notes this is particularly concerning, as the Australian population grew by 6.7 percent during this time.

So what are Australians doing with regard to the news media? The 2007 Australian Survey of Social Attitudes revealed some interesting attitudes regarding news consumption. While 51 percent of respondents felt it was their “duty to keep up with what’s going on in the world”, a greater proportion, 81 percent, claimed “it’s a regular part of my day to catch up with the news” (Phillips et al., 2008). However, comparisons with 2003 data reveal that regular (daily and weekly) use of newspapers and television news shows declined in Australia between 2003 and 2007, while regular use of the Internet for news increased from 27 to 37 percent of respondents in that time (Young, 2009). In a media saturated society, information overload takes its toll also, with 49 percent of Australians agreeing that they “often feel that there’s too much media, so *they+ need to switch *it+ off” (Phillips et al., 2008). So Australians, by and large, wish to stay informed about the news, and yet at the same time, feel overwhelmed by the constant media onslaught, resulting in a reduction in traditional news media consumption. It is no wonder, then, that the customizability and flexibility of Internet resources increasingly appeals. Internet news sources enable users to select what they wish to be informed about (sport, international news, local news, specific topics), how they wish to be informed (by RSS feed, SMS updates, email alerts), and how often (hourly, daily, weekly).

As Internet technologies continue to free us from fixed scheduling, by offering consistently updated news throughout the entire day, we can expect media habits to become less uniform.

If the news production cycle no longer drives our media habits, other priorities will come to the fore. News consumption becomes increasingly integrated into other activities, as expressed by participants in the recent Australian study by Daniel et al. (2009, p.17):

To be able to look at breaking news while checking emails and being on the computer is great.

[Online news] pops up when I am on Instant Messenger so I can easily get to it while doing something I enjoy like talking to my friends.

I don’t usually go searching for news. However, I am an avid user of Hotmail and yeah, the [online news] thingy just shows up whenever I sign on and it somehow gets me interested in it.

During focus groups commissioned by SBS, most respondents spoke of the seamless integration of the media into everyday life practices (Ang et al., 2006). One participant (aged 36-40) commented on the contrast between today’s media environment and that of the past, when

they really only had the radio and the paper, so that’s sort of more limited, whereas now we have the radio, the paper, the Internet, you can get it on your mobile phone. It’s everywhere now, so it’s really in our face now, whereas back then they had to really make time for it and search for it (Ang et al., 2006, p.49).

The increasingly varied and complex media use patterns which result from the ever-expanding flexibility afforded by technological changes are reflected in the findings of the present thesis. News consumption may be a routine part of the day for most Australians, but not for uniform reasons, and not in uniform ways. The current study reveals a range of drivers for traditional news media use: escape needs (television current affairs, radio), entertainment needs (print media, high news content radio stations) and surveillance needs (television). Consistent motivation patterns for the consumption of specific media or media diets were difficult to identify, whilst use of non-news media information sources were, in contrast, associated meaningfully with specific information seeking motivations (such as surveillance gratifications, media scepticism and NFC). This finding implies that, as the comments above indicate, media sources are now used as a consequence of other everyday life practices, rather than as part of deliberate information seeking behaviours. The media as practice paradigm acknowledges the 217

broader social context for media behaviours, enabling researchers to better understand this complex web of interactions.

Media-oriented practices in the current study As has been discussed previously, little association was found in the present data between media scepticism and media consumption patterns. In Chapter Six, I briefly alluded to the possibility that scepticism towards the media may not appear to influence media consumption because the media scepticism scale, rather than measuring personal attitudes towards the media, may instead be capturing a phenomenon called media talk. Media ‘talk’ is a phenomenon noted by various researchers, in which individuals in certain situations respond to questions about the media using a particular type of ‘official discourse’ which differs from more personal discourse (Buckingham, 2000; Couldry, Livingstone, & Markham, 2007; Dahlgren, 1988). Such official discourse appears to draw on a specific vocabulary and a restricted range of opinions regarding the media (Couldry et al., 2007; Dahlgren, 1988). Rather than providing an accurate expression of genuine personal attitudes towards the media, such ‘talk’ “is a form of social action, a way of defining ourselves and of negotiating our relationships with others" (Buckingham, 2000, p.63).

In the sections which follow, I will introduce two theoretical principles through which media practices may be analysed: pragmatic regimes and anchoring practices. I will then use these principles to analyse the evidence for media talk, in order to determine whether it may be considered a media practice in the sense proposed by Couldry (2004).

Everyday practices: some basic principles. Practices are defined here as “routine activities (rather than consciously chosen actions) notable for their unconscious, automatic, un-thought character” (Swidler, 2001, p.74). The focus on ‘practice’ foregrounds activities which are easily overlooked, including those which are “situated, corporeal, and shaped by habits without reflection” (Thevenot, 2001, p.56), such as habitual media-oriented activities like watching the television news whilst making dinner, as opposed to purposeful information seeking behaviours, such as visiting a campaign website to learn about a political party’s policies. This makes practice theory an ideal lens through which

to examine such automatic activities as dodging the newspaper vendor or, as I will suggest in detail later, criticising the media in public settings.

Practices may also include “the skills, or tacit knowledges and presuppositions, that underpin activities” (Schatzki, 2001, p.2), and I will later suggest that media literacy may be one such skill set. Practice theory acknowledges that such human practices are impacted on by material circumstances and non-human entities (Schatzki, 2001), hence as media structures and technologies change, we would expect media-oriented practices to change. At its root, practice theory encourages researchers to consider the field of practices, the shared understandings which operate therein, and the ways in which practices intersect (Schatzki, 2001).

Practices may be analysed at a range of different levels. At the macro level, the field of practices may be analysed for insights into communities, cultures or organisations (Coulter, 2001; Schatzki, 2001). At the level of individual practices, as will be addressed here, we may consider a practice’s internal procedures, meanings and ordering (Schatzki, 2001). These individual practices may also intersect and interact with each other, providing a third sphere for research (Schatzki, 2001; Swidler, 2001).

Individual practices According to practice researcher Thevenot, each practice occurs within a ‘pragmatic regime’, which may be understood in terms of the interaction between two dimensions: the ‘reality’ in which it occurs, and the ‘conception of the good’ which is applied (Thevenot, 2001). ‘Reality’ refers to the arena in which the agent acts, to the way in which the social and physical environment responds to the activity, and the way in which this feedback is taken into account by the agent. The ‘conception of the good’ is a moral or governance dimension, and importantly, this may change depending on the reality in which the practice takes place. The conception of the good drives both the agent’s behaviour, and the response of others who view that behaviour, highlighting the interconnectedness of these two dimensions (Thevenot, 2001). I will apply these dimensions to media use later in this chapter, but I offer here by way of illustration, Thevenot’s own example of the practice of using a chair.

219

A teenager has an armchair in his bedroom, onto which clothes are routinely piled. Thus, the chair is now used in the way a drawer or shelf would normally be used. When the teenager plans to go on holiday, an unfamiliar visitor is invited to stay in the teenager’s room in his absence. To accommodate a stranger in this way, the teenager must reorder his room and belongings to reflect the normative uses to which objects are assigned. In other words, he must clear the clothes off the armchair, to return the chair to its usual function: as a place to sit. In the first situation, the ‘reality’ or arena is an intimate setting, not a public space, and filled with highly personal and idiosyncratic phenomena, such as the armchair as a clothes storage vessel. The meanings and roles of furniture in the room are not open to public scrutiny, and thus only the teenager’s understandings need to be accommodated in the practices conducted therein. The ‘conception of the good’ is therefore highly personal, and this idiosyncratic use of the armchair as a place to store clothes is governed by “personal and local convenience” (Thevenot, 2001, p.61). In the second situation, the ‘reality’ has become a more public space. Not entirely public, as it is still located within a private residence, but certainly subject to scrutiny by someone other than the teenager. Furthermore, the ‘someone other’ is a stranger, not a friend, and thus cannot be expected to accept or understand atypical uses of furniture. The ‘good’ is thus that of “conventional utility” – the normative use of an armchair as a seat, and it is to this purpose that the chair has been returned (Thevenot, 2001, p.62).

Unpacking routine behaviours in this way enables us to see the meanings underpinning these activities, meanings which are often invisible due the habitual, unreflective way in which these practices are typically performed.

Intersecting and interconnecting practices Another practice researcher, Swidler, notes that within a field of practices, individual practices may “anchor, control or organize” others (Swidler, 2001). Swidler offers the example of an architect’s plan for a house. The practice of creating a house plan depends upon a series of other practices, for example (Swidler, 2001):

 the practices associated with the availability of a specific range of building materials (as opposed to those not yet invented, or unavailable in this situation)

 the creation of those building materials to certain standards, which ensure predictable performance characteristics

 the knowledge, practices and skills implicit in the role of ‘builder’, from the capacity to read the house plan to the skill of hammering a nail

Each of these practices in some way underpin and constrain the architect’s drawing, contributing meaning, functionality and order to the practice.

Practices vary in depth and influence. For example, another practice underpinning the architect’s house plan at a deep and fundamental level is the practice of capitalism, which incorporates the practice of owning a home, the practice by which labourers and designers are paid to design and build the home, and so on (Swidler, 2001). The creation of a house plan relies on all of the above practices, however some, such as the system of capitalism, are more enduring and fundamental than others, such as the range of available roof coverings. Swidler flags such entrenched practices as potential ‘anchors’, as they provide a deep foundation for other practices (Swidler, 2001).

Couldry (2004, p.127) suggests ritual practices may be particularly suited to ‘anchoring’ other practices, conveying as they do wider patterns of meaning, thus:

1. The actions comprising rituals are structured around certain categories. 2. Those categories suggest, or stand in for, an underlying value. 3. This value captures our sense that ‘the social’ is ‘at stake’ in the ritual.

Thus we may discover hierarchies of practice, interactions between practices, and the anchoring of some practices by others. I will now consider evidence of media talk emerging from the current findings, as well as from several other research projects. In order to explore media talk as a practice, I will analyse each instance with reference of Thevenot’s (2001) ‘reality’ and ‘conception of good’ dimensions. Finally, I will briefly introduce the possibility of anchoring practices associated with media talk.

221

Media ‘talk’ as a media practice In Chapter Six, I postulated that the lack of connection in the current findings between media scepticism scores and media consumption patterns is suggestive that the media scepticism scale is recording the ‘official discourse’ type of media talk described above, rather than actual attitudes towards the media. Such official discourse is believed to be performed as a social action (such as positioning ourselves in relation to others), rather than as a genuine expression of personal opinion (Buckingham, 2000).

The media scepticism scale consists of six items with a five-point Likert response scale, and a further two dichotomous response items:

1. The media can be trusted

2. The media tell the whole story

3. The media are accurate

4. The media are fair

5. Media organizations can be trusted to report the news fairly

6. I have a lot of confidence in the people running media institutions in Australia

7. The news media usually help society to solve its problems / The news media usually get in the way of society solving its problems

8. The news media care more about being first to report a story / The news media care more about being accurate in reporting a story

The present sample recorded a high average media scepticism score (23.2 out of the maximum 32, compared to 18.0 in Tsfati’s US sample (Dr Yariv Tsfati, personal communication, October 16th 2008)), but individuals’ level of scepticism towards the media hardly influenced media consumption patterns at all (resulting only in a very slight increase in reliance on non- mainstream and public service media). It seems that Brisbane residents talk about the media being untrustworthy, but use it for socio-political information regardless. As trust is believed to be integral to information choices, we would not expect this to be the case (Chen & Hernon, 1982; Hertzum et al., 2002). I believe this disjunction between what is said in the survey responses and what is done in one’s everyday life is an indication that the survey responses

reflect media talk, rather than personal opinion. Dahlgren believes official discourse to be triggered “by situations which people define somehow as ‘public’ in the sense that it mobilizes their role as citizen” (Dahlgren, 1988, p.293). This suggests that official discourse is a form of social desirability bias, a phenomenon familiar to social science researchers, in which research participants may tailor their answers to what they perceive as desirable by the researcher (Buckingham, 2000, p.212; Dillman, 2007). In this way, the participant is performing a role according to the perceived expectations of an external authority, rather than according to their internal beliefs or attitudes.

The phenomenon of media talk appears to operate in a similar way to the ‘spiral of silence’ (Noelle-Neumann, 1993). Spiral of silence theory consists of three components (Salmon & Glynn, 2009): 1. The mass media is ubiquitous and consonant, providing widespread distribution of a reasonably homogenous ‘public opinion’ 2. Humans fear social isolation 3. If an individual perceives that their personal opinion differs from the majority ‘public opinion’, they are less likely to express that opinion publicly, for fear of social isolation

It is theorised this mechanism leads to a ‘spiral of silence’, because when fewer people give voice to minority opinions, the majority ‘public opinion’ may be perceived as even more overwhelmingly accepted (because of the lack of expression of dissenting viewpoints), which further diminishes the likelihood of minority opinions being expressed.

As described earlier, Thevenot’s ‘pragmatic regime’ in which a practice occurs, consists of two interacting dimensions. The ‘reality’ is the arena in which the practice takes place, including any feedback between the agent and other people or things in the environment, while the ‘conception of the good’ is a moral or governance dimension which is influenced by the ‘reality’ (Thevenot, 2001). Analysing the present study’s data collection context with reference to these dimensions, we can see that the survey conducted for this thesis represents a ‘reality’ of formal research: after completion, the survey will be returned to an unfamiliar person who has a degree of perceived authority from their role as ‘university researcher’. To an extent then, the

223

survey represents a public performance, as it is completed for an external and non-intimate audience. Further, the survey in the current project expressly states its focus on political information, possibly underscoring to participants that they are expected to perform the role of ‘democratic citizen’ when responding (rather than, for example, the role of ‘carefree partygoer’, which they may perform in another context). We would thus expect the ‘conception of good’ to be externally focused, in that the practice aims to meet the expectations of an external audience. In the ‘public’ context of the formal written survey, respondents thus express official discourse – the ‘correct’ attitude of scepticism towards the media which is believed to be held by the media savvy democratic citizen. In contrast, outside of the research context, back in their everyday lives, the selection of media products is a separate, and largely private, behaviour, hence the disjunction between the externally-focused talk and the internally-focused behaviour.

The phenomenon of ‘media talk’ has been identified previously by other researchers. In a series of interviews with citizens regarding television news, Dahlgren (1988) observed distinct changes in discourse according to either the context in which the discourse took place, or the role the interviewee appeared to be emphasizing in the exchange. In a recognized research setting, such as an official interview, official discourse emerged, whilst conversations about the news media conducted in casual settings (for example, at parties or on public transport) elicited a very different type of discourse. Official discourse was characterized as being more intense and earnest than personal discourse, and as talking “about the newscasts with its own vocabulary: essentially the dominant political discourse or some version of it… the discourse is not self-referential or reflexive” (Dahlgren, 1988, p.294). Personal discourse, in contrast, was characterized by an emphasis on the democratic duty to keep informed, the personal utility associated with watching TV news, and even with enjoyment of the news. Importantly, it was not merely the situational context (research office versus public bus) which influenced the type of discourse, as evidence of both types of discourse occurred in both situations. Rather, the perceived expectations of the other conversational participant were the trigger. In Thevenot’s terms, these perceived expectations form a part of the reality of the situation, as they are an example of the way in which the social environment responds to the activity, and the way in which this feedback is taken into account by the agent. The participant’s discourse in this case is externally focused, as opposed to being focused on their internal beliefs or attitudes.

Considering Dahlgren’s findings with reference to Thevenot’s two dimensions of practices, we can see two distinct ‘realities’ (arenas of practice). The first ‘reality’ is again one in which the agent perceives they should play the role of ‘dutiful democratic citizen’. This reality is guided by an externally-focused ‘conception of good’ (moral/governance dimension), this being concern for how they are perceived by the ‘audience’. This combination results in official discourse. The second ‘reality’ is one in which the agent perceives they are expected to be ‘themselves’. This reality is guided by an internally-focused ‘conception of good’, which is concerned with internal values or opinions. The result is a more self-referential, personal discourse.

This internal/external distinction can also be seen in the findings of the UK-based Public Connection Project (Couldry et al., 2007). Over several months, The Public Connection Project (Couldry et al., 2007) team conducted a series of interviews with UK citizen participants, as well as having them complete reflective diaries about their media use. In the initial interviews, when asked direct questions regarding trust and the media, the responses were negative. However, later spontaneous comments frequently contradicted these early, skeptical positions (Couldry et al., 2007). In this situation we are seeing a similar private versus public reality and internal versus external conception of good as in the Dahlgren findings. Initial interviews in the project can easily be read as essentially the same reality (formal research setting) and conception of good (externally-focused, concern for how they are perceived by the researcher) as Dahlgren’s formal interviews. That the associated discourse is critical of the media aligns with Dahlgren’s official discourse. Of interest here is the expressly negative nature of this critical discourse. Not only are participants keen to be seen as able to critique the media, they are also eager to express their distrust of it. While Dahlgren referred to a constrained set of attitudes expressed via a dominant political vocabulary and discourse, it was not expressly negative, which in the case of Couldry et al, it is. That, in the Public Connection Project, attitudes expressed later in the project contradicted the earlier, negative opinions of the media, I think can be related to Dahlgren’s personal discourse. I believe the longer-term nature of the Public Connection Project, running for 12 weeks, with multiple contact points between the participants and the research team (Couldry et al., 2007), built sufficient rapport between the researchers and the participants, that participants in the later stages of the project felt free to be ‘themselves’. As a

225

result, while the reality is still something of a formal research setting, it is with a familiar person, someone with whom participants have built a relationship. The conception of the good thus reverts back to a more internal focus, as participants cease to be as self-conscious about their opinions. Participants are less self-conscious, and more likely to provide authentic personal attitudes, rather than ones crafted for the public performance of the ‘dutiful democratic citizen’.

The final two examples from the literature provide additional clues as to how media talk may function as a social practice. Buckingham (2000) conducted a series of discussion groups about television news and politics, amongst high school children in the UK and the USA. Similarly, Ang et al (2006) conducted focus groups with culturally and linguistically diverse younger Australians (aged 16 to 40) about the Australian media. The ‘reality’ in both these cases is socially charged: groups of teenagers and/or younger adults discussing politics and the media with adult researchers in a formal research setting. One would expect multiple conceptions of good operating here: social standing amongst peers; desire to prove oneself to the researcher/adult; and Buckingham specifically notes some students’ stated beliefs that it is their duty to be informed, in other words, to perform the role of ‘dutiful democratic citizen’. All these conceptions of good are explicitly externally focused. Based on the Dahlgren (1988) and Couldry et al (2007) examples, one would expect these external foci to result in official discourse, and this is indeed the case. Ang et al note:

*w+hile the *participant+ comments… do represent valid criticisms of the news media, when juxtaposed against other findings… they seem to emerge as… a socially acceptable ‘script’ used by the speakers to mark themselves out as media literate in comparison to other group members and the ‘general public’ (Ang et al., 2006, p.59-60).

Similarly, while Buckingham reports a range of reactions to the media, including enthusiasm for some specific news shows, the overwhelming and repeated attitude expressed is of scepticism or even cynicism towards the news and politics in general. Buckingham identifies this media talk as a form of social action, “used to achieve particular social purposes, for example in negotiating relations with others, or in claiming socially-valued subject positions” (Buckingham, 2000, p.203). While in some instances, this critical official discourse about the media was supported by specific critiques of the shows watched, indicating media literacy skills in action,

at other times, Buckingham believed the critical discourse merely reflected social positioning. In such instances, media talk was used to convince the audience (the researcher, their peers, students from other schools) of the greater sophistication of the speaker, or as a way to assert the speaker’s power or control against the perceived authority of the media. In Buckingham’s earlier research into children’s television use, such critical discourses “provided a powerful means of demonstrating their own critical expertise, and thereby of distinguishing themselves from those invisible others - the mass audience - who were by implication more at risk of suffering the harmful effects of television” (Buckingham, 1993, p.145). Such a viewpoint echoes the ‘third person effect’, in which others are viewed as vulnerable to the persuasive effects of the mass media, but oneself is considered immune (Davison, 1983). In this way, media talk may be used to build cultural capital.

A pattern emerges in these examples. In discussions about the media, externally-focused conceptions of the good, when individuals’ primary concern in a given situation is for how they are perceived by others, lead to official discourse, with its constrained vocabulary and range of (largely negative) opinions. When this external pressure is less evident, individuals return to personal discourse, with its greater emphasis on the personal utility of the media. As a form of social desirability bias, media talk is thus context-specific, and should “not necessarily be taken as evidence of what takes place outside this context” (Buckingham, 2000, p.212), as is reflected in the findings of the current project. Whilst respondents answered questions regarding the quality and integrity of the media in a highly skeptical manner, their media consumption patterns did not reflect this lack of trust in the media. Media talk, as conducted during the data collection phase of the present study, takes place in a public context, whereas media consumption is commonly a private activity.

Two things are interesting to note at this point. First, it is worth noting that social science researchers are well aware of the phenomenon of ‘social desirability bias’, in which research participants may tailor their answers to what they perceive as desirable by the researcher (Buckingham, 2000, p.212; Dillman, 2007). One of the perceived strengths of anonymous self- administered surveys is that, as the researcher is not nearby, and the form is anonymous, the likelihood of social desirability bias will be diminished (Bourque & Fielder, 2003; Groves et al.,

227

2004). The present findings suggest that in this instance at least, this is not the case. This may be a function of some specific features of this particular survey, such as its explicit emphasis on politics, which may have strengthened the ‘democratic citizen’ conception of good, making it powerful enough to cancel out the anonymity aspect of self administered surveys. Alternatively, it may be a reminder that self-administered, anonymous surveys can still trigger social desirability, and so may not be capturing authentic responses. Either way, it is something to be borne in mind when designing future attitudinal research about the media.

Secondly, while the Dahlgren paper does not provide specific attitudinal data, the current findings, as well as those of the Public Connection Project and the Buckingham study, all convey a strongly negative valence in the official discourse of media talk. Media talk in these instances appears to not be merely a particular vocabulary and discourse, but also a specific attitude – one of distrust – towards the media. Respondents seem to feel they are meant to be sceptical of the media, that distrust is the appropriate way the democratic citizen should feel. This may be an expression of widespread media literacy amongst the study populations (media literacy being characterized by a ‘healthy scepticism’ towards the media), or it may be a reflection of a culturally-derived and shared schema for the media which is absorbed as a fully-formed attitude without any specific underlying evidence. In this latter scenario, media talk would be superficial – merely repeating the words and attitudes we have learnt to say in order to appear media savvy (less gullible, to have some social power in the face of the perceived authority of the media), and thus build cultural capital – but lacking the media literacy skills required to make those views authentic.

We can see, then, possible links between media talk and media literacy. It may be that, in Swidler’s terms, media literacy is a practice which ‘anchors’ media talk, such as when the students in Buckingham’s study backed up their scepticism towards the media with considered critiques of specific shows (Buckingham, 2000). However, this may not be the case in instances where media talk appears instead to be a form of social posturing, without any evidence of underlying media literacy practice. Further research is required to understand the possible interactions between media talk and media literacy.

With reference to Couldry’s characteristics of ritual practices (2004, p.127), we can also see media talk as a ritual practice involved in the creation of cultural capital:

1. The actions comprising rituals are structured around certain categories (the media savvy individual versus the media naïve) 2. Those categories suggest an underlying value (media savvy individuals are more sophisticated, less gullible, have greater cultural capital than the media naïve) 3. This value captures our sense that the social is at stake in the ritual (social standing is at risk if the individual is viewed as naïve or gullible)

Thus media talk may be seen as a media practice which operates in the much broader field of cultural capital and status. Again, further research is needed to understand how media talk may function in this way.

Conclusion This chapter began by exploring the striking finding, introduced in Chapter Six, that non-news media information sources (e.g. political party newsletters, book launches, social networking websites) appear to be used in a more deliberate manner than are media sources (e.g. television shows, newspapers, radio stations). Evidence was presented for this distinction, specifically that the non-news media SPIR is the only model to be significantly influenced by all three of the independent variables which are expressly concerned with information quality – media scepticism, NFC and surveillance gratifications. The chapter then outlined three possible reasons for the lack of clear motivational patterns for media use: the perceived homogeneity of the Brisbane media landscape; the diminished importance of trust in a media literate society; and the reduced likelihood of deliberate information seeking in a media saturated society.

The first possibility, that the Brisbane media environment is perceived to be homogeneous in terms of information quality, was thrown into doubt by the high esteem in which the public broadcasters are held by most Australians. However, the fact that this high esteem does not greatly influence media selection was suggestive that what people say about the media does not necessarily match what they do with the media. The second possibility, that perceived

229

media literacy amongst the audience reduces the importance of credibility in media selection was found to have some merit, with audiences confident that they can see beyond the distortions of the tabloid media and fish out the ‘facts’. However, trust did appear to retain some degree of influence over media choice. The final possibility, that the ubiquity of the media in Australian society means that media are no longer used for deliberate information seeking, but rather as a consequence of everyday life practices, led to the introduction of the media as practice research paradigm.

Using the media as practice approach, a specific practice emerging from the findings, media talk, was identified and analysed. The findings were suggestive of a possible link between media talk and media literacy, as well as the possibility that media talk may play a role in the creation of cultural capital. These findings have implications for future media research. If, in asking people directly about their opinions of the media, we are measuring media talk, rather than personal attitudes, media researchers clearly need to adopt different data collection approaches to capture true personal opinions. Possible links between media literacy, media talk and cultural capital are also interesting from a community development perspective. If media literacy drives media talk, and media talk contributes to the development of cultural capital, more attention may need to be paid to media literacy training (particularly beyond the K-12 curriculum).

The final chapter of the thesis will summarise the research project and its key findings. It will then provide a critique of one of the key measurement scales used in the project, the media scepticism scale. Finally, the chapter will make suggestions for future research.

Chapter Eight: Conclusion and recommendations

Introduction The previous chapter discussed and analysed the key research findings of the project. It focused particularly on the apparent difference between the way media and non-news media information sources are used. The chapter argued that non-news media information sources are used for deliberate information seeking, whilst media sources are not used in such a purposeful way. Three possible reasons for the less-purposeful use of media sources were proposed: that the Brisbane media landscape is perceived as homogenous with regard to information quality, reducing the importance of information selection; that the credibility of information sources is perceived to be less important in a media literate society; and that the ubiquity of the media in contemporary Australian society makes deliberate information seeking about socio-political issues less likely. This third explanation led to a discussion of media use as a consequence of other everyday life practices, rather than as a separate and deliberate information seeking activity. To further explore this finding, the media as practice paradigm was introduced. The media as practice paradigm considers media behaviours as an “open set practices related to, or oriented around, the media” (2004, p.117). It thus shifts the focus of media research away from the relationships between the media institution, the text and the audience, and instead onto the practices, embedded within broader social practices, in which people engage with the media. The media as practice approach was then used to analyse evidence emerging from the data for a specific media practice – media talk.

The present chapter will begin by summarising the research project and its findings. The project will then be reviewed with regard to its significance and its limitations, including a critique of one of the key measurement scales used in the project, the media scepticism scale. Finally, the chapter will build on the study findings and the arguments of the previous chapter, to make recommendations for future research.

231

Summary of project This doctoral project is built around the overarching research problem:

How do audience characteristics (media scepticism, need for cognition, media gratifications and political interest)) influence the information choices of Australians, with regard to socio-political information?

While most previous information choice studies have tended to focus on how individuals select from a narrow range of media types, the present project instead aimed to consider a much wider sweep of the information landscape. This approach was taken to obtain an understanding of information choices in a more authentic context - in everyday life, people are not simply restricted to one or two news sources. Rather, they may obtain political information from a vast range of information sources, including media sources (e.g. radio, television, newspapers) and sources from beyond the media (e.g. interpersonal sources, public speaking events, social networking websites). Thus, the study included both media and non-news media information sources.

Data collection for the project consisted of a written, postal survey, designed with reference to the Tailored Design Method (Dillman, 2007). The sample frame was the adult population of Brisbane, which is the third largest city in Australia. A probability sample of 1,500 individuals living in Brisbane was derived from the Australian Electoral Roll during February and March 2008. To maximise the response rate, each individual in the sample was contacted three times (unless they had already responded, in which case they were removed from the address list). All contacts were made during March and April 2008, approximately four months after the 2007 Australian Federal Election. Hence, the study was conducted in a non-election context. 585 usable surveys were returned, reflecting a response rate of 39 percent.

Respondents were surveyed as to which information sources (e.g. television shows, radio stations, websites and friends) they usually use to find out about socio-political issues. In addition to information usage data, a range of audience characteristics were also included in the study: media scepticism; need for cognition (NFC); surveillance, entertainment and escape gratifications; and political interest. Media scepticism relates to the subjective opinion the

audience member holds with regard to the trustworthiness and information quality of the mainstream media (Tsfati, 2003b; Tsfati & Cappella, 2003). Need for cognition is defined as “a tendency to engage in and enjoy thinking” (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982, p116). Surveillance gratifications are concerned with use of the media for orientation to the world. These first three constructs differ from the remaining variables, by being explicitly concerned with information quality. In contrast, entertainment and escape gratifications typically relate to use of the media for less information-focused purposes. Interest in a topic (in this case, political interest) tends to quantitatively increase information seeking about that topic (Reagan, 1996), but is not explicitly concerned with information quality dimensions. In addition to these key independent variables, seven control variables were included (age, gender, education, Internet access, political partisanship, hours worked and household income).

To determine the unique influence of each of these 13 independent variables on information choice, multiple linear regression analysis was conducted. A range of statistical models were developed, based on different conceptualisations of information source use. Two basic approaches to understanding information consumption patterns were taken: socio-political information repertoires and media diets. A socio-political information repertoire (SPIR) refers to the number of information sources individuals use to find out about socio-political issues. For the purposes of the present study, different SPIR models were developed for each information format. For example, a television repertoire was calculated for each respondent, which counts the number of television shows used by that individual to find out about political issues. SPIRs were developed for a range of different information format types: television, radio, print media, newspapers and Internet sources. An overall SPIR was calculated for each respondent, including all sources. A non-news media SPIR was also calculated to measure each respondent’s use of information sources from beyond the mass media. Non-news media information sources are here defined according to two criteria:

 their production involves less content mediation than media sources (i.e. less content control by a professional information gatekeeper, such as an editor or producer); and/or

233

 they are generally more costly to use than media sources, where ‘costs’ may include cognitive effort, physical effort, financial cost, opportunity costs and time (Atkin, 1973; Pirolli & Card, 1999).

Thus non-news media information sources as defined here include social networking media (e.g. YouTube, MySpace, Facebook); direct communications with political parties, charities, lobby groups or politicians; public speaking events (e.g. book launches and festivals); documentaries and books; zines; interpersonal communication (e.g. with friends and colleagues); and active engagement with Internet search engines (e.g. creating and conducting a Google search).

While SPIRs simply measure the number of a particular type of information sources an individual uses for socio-political information, media diets incorporate some sort of content description. In the current study, media diets relate solely to media sources (i.e. no non-news media information sources are included). Seven different media diets were examined. The mainstream/non-mainstream media diet measured the relative reliance on mainstream and non-mainstream media sources, where non-mainstream media were identified by having a stated commitment to the provision of diverse or alternative information and views. The private/public media diet measured the relative reliance on commercial and public service media. The radio low/high news media diet considered the relative reliance of news stations with high news content and low news content (where ‘low news content’ was defined as having no more news coverage than half hourly news headlines). The remaining four media diets were all concerned with the tabloid/broadsheet distinction, which is a distinction based on journalistic quality. The tabloid/broadsheet media diet considered the relative reliance on high and low quality media sources across all formats. Tabloid/broadsheet media diets were also developed for newspapers, television news programs, and television current affairs programs.

The study tested 14 hypotheses, which were based on the literature. As trust has traditionally been viewed as central to information choice decisions (Chen & Hernon, 1982; Hertzum et al., 2002; Hovland & Janis, 1959; Rotter, 1967), many of the hypotheses tested in the study anticipated links between quality-concerned constructs (media scepticism, NFC and

surveillance gratifications) and the information source categories which incorporated information quality aspects (mainstream/non-mainstream, private/public and tabloid/broadsheet media diets). While some such associations were found, in each case, the level of influence of the quality-concerned independent variables on the resulting media diets was small:

 Media scepticism contributed to 1.1 percent of variation in the mainstream/non- mainstream media diet, and to 0.6 percent of variation in the private/public media diet.  NFC contributed to 1.1 percent of variation in the newspaper tabloid/broadsheet media diet.  Surveillance gratifications contributed to 1.0 percent of variation in the tabloid/broadsheet media diet and 1.7 percent of variation in the television news tabloid/broadsheet media diet.

A more compelling finding was that only one of all the information consumption models studied was influenced by every one of these quality-focused independent variables: the non- news media SPIR. Greater use of non-news media information sources was associated with high levels of media scepticism and NFC, and with surveillance gratifications. Furthermore, escape gratifications, which are the least concerned with information quality (focusing instead on simple diversionary needs) were associated with use of fewer non-news media information sources. The non-news media SPIR consisted solely of information sources outside of the media. These findings are therefore suggestive of a fundamental difference in the way people use media as opposed to non-news media information sources.

That the three variables most explicitly concerned with information quality are all associated with the use of non-news media information sources indicates that purposeful information seeking is associated in a primary way with use of non-news media sources, but not with media sources. In contrast, the media-focused diets and SPIRs have limited association with the information quality-focused variables, none being influenced by more than one of these variables, and six of the media models involving no quality-focused variables at all (Internet, 235

print media, newspaper and radio SPIRs, and the radio low/high news content and television current affairs tabloid/broadsheet media diets). If media use in a non-election context, such as that of the present study, is not primarily concerned with deliberate information seeking, media use must instead have other primary purposes, with political information acquisition as either a secondary driver, or a by-product of that primary purpose. In fact, the lack of any consistent motivation patterns for media use may well indicate the diversity of practices with which media use is associated. It appears, then, that the media has now been integrated so fully into the practice of everyday life it can no longer be effectively isolated with regard to motivations for use. Rather than pondering how audience characteristics influence information selection, the research question then became: what exactly are people doing with regard to their media practice when it comes to political information?

More than 75 percent of the variation in all of the media models examined was unrelated to any of the 13 independent variables included in the models. The most likely explanation for this to emerge from the findings was that political information consumption in a media-saturated society is more about routine ‘practices’ than it is about ‘information seeking’. If media is used primarily as a consequence of other everyday life practices, convenience, rather than constructs such as media scepticism and NFC, would be expected to play a leading role. The present findings were examined for suggestions of the role of convenience in media use. Whilst the study did not explicitly set out to collect data on ‘convenience’ as a construct, two of the control variables – hours worked and household income – can both be seen to relate to the ease with which media sources may be consumed, a key component of convenience. Neither of these variables was found to be statistically significant in any of the models examined. The amount of ‘leisure time’ and income available to an individual does not affect their media consumption, pointing to the ubiquity of the media in contemporary Australian society. I believe that a consequence of this ubiquity is that media use occurs in the context of other everyday life behaviours, such as work and study, not as a separate activity. If political information can be obtained at virtually any location, at any point in time and at negligible financial cost, then hours worked and income are largely irrelevant to political information behaviour. If we ignore information quality concerns, what we find is a society in which media use has reached such an extreme level of convenience, that deliberate everyday information seeking becomes irrelevant.

The suggestion that media use is no longer primarily concerned with information seeking, but rather, is simply a behaviour which occurs within the broader set of everyday practices reflects Couldry’s (2004) media as practice paradigm. Finally then, the findings were analysed for evidence of specific media practices. Media talk was proposed as a media-oriented practice. Media talk is a phenomenon in which individuals in certain situations respond to questions about the media using a particular type of ‘official discourse’ which differs from more personal discourse (Buckingham, 2000; Couldry et al., 2007; Dahlgren, 1988). Such media talk, rather than providing an accurate expression of genuine personal attitudes towards the media, instead “is a form of social action, a way of defining ourselves and of negotiating our relationships with others" (Buckingham, 2000, p.63). The disjunction between the way respondents to the present study spoke about the media (via the media scepticism scale), and the way they actually used the media (i.e. they expressed distrust of the media, and yet used it as a usual source of political information regardless), was found to be indicative of media talk as a media practice.

Significance of the project The present thesis is significant in a number of ways. Firstly, this thesis represents the first time the media scepticism construct has been applied in an Australian context. Media scepticism is concerned with the distrust people have towards the mainstream media. Given the high degree of distrust towards the media which is exhibited amongst the Australian population, as evidenced in repeated opinion polls and research projects over the past three decades (see for example Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2008; Phillips et al., 2008; Roy Morgan International, 2006; Roy Morgan Research, 2007a, 2007b, 2008), it is important that the impact of this distrust is examined. The current project specifically examined the impact of distrust on information consumption with regard to politics.

Secondly, the project examines information selection in a real world context. Rather than studying information behaviour in isolation, such as in laboratory studies (for example Brader et al., 2004; Crigler et al., 2002; Huang & Price, 2001), or in an overtly simplified context, such as studies which explore preferences for one information source over another (for example

237

Henningham, 1985; Kim, 2006; Vincent & Basil, 1997), the present study considers information behaviours as they occur within the overall Brisbane media and information environment. As such, the study includes both media sources (e.g. television shows, radio stations and newspapers) and non-news media information sources (such as social networking websites, public speaking events and interpersonal sources). This approach makes the findings locally relevant, as they record information behaviour in an authentic contemporary Australian media context. However, as the study is quantitative, the findings also add empirical weight to similar arguments regarding media use in the context of everyday life, which emerge from other research traditions.

Finally, by reconceptualising Tsfati’s media diet construct (2002) to incorporate media ownership and journalistic quality dimensions, the study customises the media diet construct for the Australian media context.

Limitations of the project Three limitations to the study were apparent at the start of this project. These were identified in the introduction, and will be revisited here. A further set of concerns relating specifically to the media scepticism scale became apparent during the project, and these will also be detailed below.

All research is inevitably limited in some way. The current research project is limited in terms of scope and methodology. The primary scoping limitation relates to the geographic parameters of the research. The sample frame for the project was the adult population of the Brisbane City Council region. As media availability throughout Australia differs according to region, this geographic restriction was applied to enable the development of a reasonably comprehensive listing of media outlets, for the information use measurement section of the survey. Such a fine level of detail was required to enable the mainstream/non‐mainstream and tabloid/broadsheet distinctions applied in the media consumption models. While this geographic restriction in data collection was required, it nevertheless has implications for how representative the results of the study are with regard to other Australian regions. The characteristics of the present Brisbane sample may differ from other areas in Australia in terms of the media landscape and cultural/attitudinal characteristics.

In terms of the media landscape, the most striking regional differences in Australia relate to the newspaper industry. For example, Sydney and Melbourne residents are able to select from two local daily newspapers, owned by different proprietors, whilst in Brisbane, the daily print media consists entirely of News Corp publications (the Courier Mail and The Australian). It is also possible that cultural differences may exist between different Australian regions. For example, residents of Australian regional centres have been found to place a greater emphasis on the importance of group affiliations on their conceptions of self than do residents of large Australian capital cities (Kashima et al., 2004). Thus, it is possible that differences in the media landscape and culture may have resulted in different findings had this research been conducted in a different Australian geographic context.

The first methodological limitation relates to the use of the self-administered survey. Self- report methods are necessarily limited by what respondents actually know about their attitudes and personal characteristics, and are willing and able to articulate (Jobe, 2000). They may also be vulnerable to bias, such as social desirability bias (Dillman, 2007). This issue was raised in Chapter Seven with specific regard to the media scepticism scale. While careful survey design using established methods (the Tailored Design Method, Dillman, 2007) was employed to maximise ease of completion, these concerns must still be noted. Despite these limitations, the use of a self-administered written survey was the most appropriate data collection method, given the volume of responses required for the advanced statistical techniques employed in the study, and the resource limitations of the project.

The last of the known limitations to the study was its sensitivity with regard to the specific categorisations used in the media models. For example, the mainstream/non-mainstream distinction employed in the study is based on a particular definition of ‘non-mainstream media’, which may differ from that used by other researchers. For this reason, the information and media type definitions and distinctions applied in this project were explicitly described and explained in Chapter Four.

239

In addition to these known limitations, a series of concerns regarding the media scepticism scale emerged during the analysis phase of the study. These are detailed in the next section.

Measurement concerns associated with the media scepticism scale As stated previously, the association between media scepticism and media usage in the findings was limited. Of the 14 models explored, media scepticism made a statistically significant contribution to only three: the mainstream/non-mainstream and private/public media diets and the non-news media SPIR. In these three models, the influence of media scepticism was very small, ranging from 0.6 to 1.1 percent of variation in information source use. Media scepticism failed to achieve significance in any of the remaining models. In contemplating why the media scepticism construct has such little association with the media use patterns explored here, a range of conceptual and measurement concerns emerged regarding the media scepticism scale. In brief, these concerns relate to:

 The reduced behavioural impact of culturally- as opposed to experientially- derived attitudes  The potential disjunction between the abstraction level of the media scepticism construct and that of the media usage measurements  The likelihood of attitudes towards an object (as opposed to attitudes towards an activity) to predict behaviour

I believe these concerns have implications for the application of the media scepticism scale in media choice research. I will now discuss each of the issues in turn.

Culturally-derived schemas and behaviour Research has shown that attitudes derived from indirect experience are less likely to influence behaviour than are attitudes derived from direct experience (Doll & Ajzen, 1992; Fazio & Zanna, 1981). For example, my experience of bad service in a particular store will impact on the likelihood of me returning to that store to a greater extent than it will impact on the behaviour of a friend to whom I have told the story of the bad service. With this in mind, it may be useful to consider whether the media scepticism scale is measuring attitudes based on direct or indirect experience.

If we recall from Chapter Three, the media scepticism construct relies on the assertion that people in general have a cognitive schema for what ‘the media’ is. A schema is a mental structure about a concept or situation, which provides a framework through which we can understand and interpret our world (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). Critical to the present discussion, is the belief that schemas may be formed from either first-hand experience, or from indirect experience (Fiske & Taylor, 1991), and the belief that they may be culturally derived and shared (Strauss & Quinn, 1992). Recalling the opinion poll data reported in Chapter Three, news journalists have for the past 30 years languished towards the bottom of the rankings for professional ethics and honesty, alongside car salesmen and well below the level of politicians (Roy Morgan Research, 2008). Furthermore, the Australian public sphere is awash with criticisms of the media, stemming from media sources (e.g. Media Watch, The Chaser’s War on Everything) as well as from academics and public intellectuals (see for example: Beecher, 2005; Hamilton & Maddison, 2007a; Manne, 2005b; Rundle, 2005; Tiffen, 2006; Ward, 2006). Such public criticisms are known to decrease public trust in the media (Watts et al., 1999).

It is my assertion then, that these factors lend support to the notion of a culturally derived and shared schema for ‘the media’. I consider it unlikely that the majority of Australians will find themselves pursued down the street by A Current Affair reporters, or misquoted in The Courier Mail. These direct encounters with the media personally happen to a very small number of people. It seems more likely that Australians arrive at the view that the media are untrustworthy because that is the message repeatedly transmitted throughout the public sphere. I believe therefore, that ‘the media’ schema which is being tapped by the media scepticism scale is, in most cases, indirectly and culturally derived, and is therefore less likely to influence media use behaviour than be an attitude which is derived from direct experience. In asking respondents to what extent they believe “the media can be trusted”, or “the media tell the whole story”, we may well be ascertaining their true opinion of the media, but so far as it is an opinion derived from other peoples’ experiences of the media rather than their own, it would not be expected to strongly influence behaviour.

241

Schema abstraction and behaviour It is believed that schemas exist at different levels of abstraction, and that the mind selects the most relevant schema according to the characteristics of the situation with which it is presented (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). It may be that there is a disjunction between the abstraction level of the media scepticism construct and that of media usage.

As discussed in Chapter Three, the existence of a mental schema at the level of ‘the media’ in general is supported by evidence such as the low rate of “don’t know” responses in surveys regarding ‘the media’ (Tsfati, 2002), the temporal stability of attitudes towards the media (Ladd, 2006; Tsfati, 2002), and the resilience of those attitudes across different survey wordings (Ladd, 2009). A schema for ‘the media’ therefore seems to exist. However, the precise concept of ‘the media’ as reflected in such a schema is difficult to define. Does ‘the media’ refer to a set of influential corporate entities, an economic power, or the Fourth Estate? We cannot point to ‘the media’ in the way we can point to a newspaper. A precise definition is elusive, yet from the evidence listed above, it is clear that people do have some understanding (schema) of what ‘the media’ is, and are able to articulate their opinions of it. It would appear then, that ‘the media’ schema on which the media scepticism scale draws, operates at a reasonably abstract level. It is possible that less abstract cognitive schemas exist for more specific media instances. For example, different media formats may have associated schemas, such as a television schema or a newspaper schema. Similarly, there may be a schema for tabloid media, or public service media. Certainly the low regard in which Australians typically hold ‘the media’ in general (Roy Morgan International, 2006; Roy Morgan Research, 2007a, 2008) is in stark contrast to the high praise they tend to exhibit for the ABC and SBS (Ang et al., 2006; Bean, 2005; Brand et al., 2001; Harrington, 2008), which may indicate different schemas at work.

By asking questions about ‘the media’ in general, the media scepticism scale is explicitly targeting the abstract schema level of ‘the media’. However, the media usage questions applied in the current project, as with the previous studies which have employed the media scepticism scale, ask about the usage of very specific media products, such as specific newspaper titles and television shows (see for example Tsfati, 2002; Tsfati & Cappella, 2005; Tsfati & Peri, 2006). There is therefore a disjunction between the abstraction level of what the media scepticism scale is measuring and what the media usage questions are measuring. In

each case, my own included, the researcher asks for opinions of the media in the abstract, and then asks about the use of very specific media products. This disjunction may go some way towards understanding why the influence of media scepticism (as measured here) on media choice is so limited in both this study and in the previous US application of the scale (Tsfati, 2002). This may have implications for the relevance of the media scepticism scale in this type of media choice research.

Attitudes towards objects versus behaviour Finally, the media scepticism scale asks respondents about their attitudes towards an object, ‘the media’. However, research in the field of social psychology has revealed that predicting behaviour based on attitude towards an object is generally less successful than predicting behaviour based on attitudes towards the behaviour (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005). That is, measuring attitudes towards the media is less likely to help us predict media choice than is measuring attitudes towards using the media. An individual may, for example, view newspapers with distrust, but yet view newspaper reading as an important part of the daily duty of a democratic citizen. In order to predict media choice then, it may be more effective to ask respondents their attitudes towards media use, rather than ‘the media’ as an entity.

While the issues raised here in no way detract from the media scepticism scale as a tool with which to understand citizens’ attitudes towards the media as an entity, they do suggest some limitations to the application of the media scepticism scale in media choice research. The schema-related concerns: firstly that the scale is measuring culturally shared and obtained attitudes, rather than ones derived from direct personal experience; and secondly that the schema being tapped is too abstract to relate meaningfully to the use of specific media products, are difficult to resolve. Creating a unique scepticism scale for each type of media, for example, may address the latter concern, but not necessarily the former. Furthermore, such an approach would become rapidly unwieldy in the case of repertoire-based research such as the present project, in which many different media formats and products are incorporated. The third issue raised, that of the measurement of attitudes towards behaviour rather than towards the object, is easier to address through a simple rewording of the scale items. However if the schema issues cannot be resolved, this is something of a moot point.

243

As it stands, the media scepticism scale appears to provide useful insights into individual, and at the aggregate level, societal attitudes towards ‘the media’ as an entity. However, it is a fairly blunt instrument when it comes to predicting specific media selection behaviours.

Recommendations for future research The current project has raised a number of issues and suggestions for future research.

At an instrumental level, the conceptual concerns regarding the media scepticism scale, outlined in this chapter, need to be considered prior to the next use of the instrument. Specifically, it is recommended that the scale be reconsidered in terms of its relevance with regard to predicting and explaining media use behaviour. Alternatively, the media scepticism scale could be modified, with reference to the limitations of the instrument which were identified in this chapter. For example, scale items should be modified to refer to attitudes towards media behaviours rather than towards ‘the media’ as an entity. Unique scepticism scales could also be developed for each type of media, to align the attitudinal and behavioural measurements.

From a human information behavioural perspective, the thesis findings call into question the previously assumed centrality of trust to information selection decisions. People regularly use media they do not trust to find out about politics. In a scenario where convenience is more important than credibility in information selection, the importance of media literacy is heightened. If people are willing to use information sources they do not trust for democratically important topics such as politics, it is important that people possess the skills to effectively understand and evaluate the information they are presented with. Media literacy must become a socially situated practice (Penman & Turnbull, 2007), which is applied routinely in everyday information encounters, not only during deliberate information seeking. Without the application of media literacy skills, a steady diet of ‘junk’ news media, which “looks like news, is sold like news, but it is an unhealthy component of the news diet” (Turner, 1996a, p.41), may result in uninformed or misinformed voting decisions, which have implications for the effectiveness of our democracy. This thesis therefore highlights a need for a better understanding of the degree of media literacy throughout the community. Media literacy is an

essential skill for civic participation, and an instrument with which to build and sustain democracy (European Commission, 2007; Penman & Turnbull, 2007). The present findings are also suggestive of a connection between media literacy, media talk and cultural capital. If media literacy drives media talk, and media talk contributes to the development of cultural capital, more attention may need to be paid to media literacy training (particularly beyond the K-12 curriculum). It is therefore recommended that future research investigate the level of media literacy throughout the Australian community, and explore the ways in which media literacy, media talk and cultural capital interact.

Finally, the aim of this research was to identify how people select the information sources they use for socio‐political information. By examining a range of audience characteristics and information consumption patterns, the research revealed that characteristics such as media scepticism, NFC, media gratifications and political interest actually have little bearing on information selection, particularly with regard to media products. The ubiquity of the media in contemporary Australian society largely makes deliberate information seeking about politics redundant. Instead, political information is encountered as a consequence of individuals’ everyday life practices. This finding highlights the need for more authentic and holistic contexts for media research. To more deeply understand everyday information behaviour, it is insufficient to consider information choices in isolation, or even from a wider range of information sources, such as that incorporated in the present study. Future media research must take greater account of the broader social contexts and practices in which media‐oriented behaviours occur.

To this end, a mixed methods approach to investigating information use choices is recommended. Large‐scale, quantitative studies such as the present thesis provide important insights into the aggregate behaviours and trends amongst large populations. However, combining quantitative methods with qualitative approaches, such as interviewing and participant observation, will provide the richer data with which we can better understand information choices in the context of everyday life practices. A natural extension of this project would be a cross-cultural analysis of political information behaviour from an international dataset, incorporating both survey and interview data collection approaches. The addition of

245

media literacy measures would facilitate an exploration of the role of media literacy in political information choices, whilst also enabling a further consideration of the relationship, postulated in this thesis, between media talk and media literacy.

Hartley (1999) notes that while media researchers make rigid distinctions between media types (e.g. tabloid versus broadsheet, public service versus commercial), for media consumers, the information landscape is far more fluid. The addition of qualitative approaches, including grounded theory methods (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), may enable media researchers to understand the information landscape as the audience experiences it, throughout their everyday practices. As Harrington states, such research methods “seem necessary to better understand the way the multitude of fragmented media experiences and encounters in an average citizen’s day fit together” (Harrington, 2009, p.306). In the case of news media, understanding information use in the context of everyday practices may provide greater insights into how the complex media environment influences the “average citizen understandings of and relationship to politics” (Jones, 2006, p.373). A mixed‐method research approach incorporating both quantitative and qualitative instruments is therefore recommended for future research into everyday information behaviour. Further, it is recommended that the scope of such research be widened, to consider media practices not solely in terms of information behaviour, but rather within the broader context of everyday social practices.

References 4ZzZ Brisbane. (n.d.). 4ZzZ Profile. Retrieved 6th November 2008, from http://www.4zzzfm.org.au/about/index.cfm

Adams, D. (2005). The leadership contest: Boy wonder vs. 'Honest John'. In M. Simms & J. Warhurst (Eds.), Mortgage Nation: The 2004 Australian Election Perth: API Network.

Ahlering, R. F. (1987). Need for cognition, attitudes and the 1984 Presidential Election. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 100-102.

Aitkin, D. (1972). Perceptions of partisan bias in the Australian mass media. Politics, 7(2), 160- 169.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D. Albarracin, B. T. Johnson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The Handbook of Attitudes (pp. 173-222). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Althaus, S. L., & Tewksbury, D. (2000). Patterns of Internet and traditional news media use in a networked community. Political Communication, 17(1), 21-45.

Ames, K. (2007). Local voices, 'talkback' and commercial regional FM radio. Media International Australia(122), 164-173.

Ancu, M., & Cozma, R. (2009). MySpace politics: Uses and gratifications of befriending candidates. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53(4), 567-583.

Andersen, J. (2006). The public sphere and discursive activities: information literacy as sociopolitical skills. Journal of Documentation, 62(2), 213-228.

Anderson, D. R., & Hanson, K. G. (2009). Children, media and methodology. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(8), 1204-1219.

Ang, I. (1996). Living Room Wars: Rethinking Media Audiences for a Postmodern World. London: Routledge.

Ang, I., Brand, J., Noble, G., & Sternberg, J. (2006). Connecting diversity: Paradoxes of multicultural Australia. Artarmon, NSW: Special Broadcasting Service (SBS)o. Document Number)

247

Appleton, G. (1999). The lure of Laws: An analysis of the audience appeal of the John Laws Program. Media International Australia(91), 83-95.

Armstrong, J. S., & Luske, E. J. (1987). Return postage in mail surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 54, 233-248.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Coups, E. J. (2009). Statistics for Psychology (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Arpan, L. M., & Peterson, E. M. (2008). Influence of source liking and personality traits on perceptions of bias and future news source selection. Media Psychology, 11(2), 310- 329.

Atkin, C. (1973). Instrumental utilities and information seeking. In P. Clarke (Ed.), New Models for Communication Research (pp. 205-239). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Atton, C. (2002). Alternative media. London: Sage.

Austin, E. W., Chen, M.-J., & Grube, J. W. (2006). How does alcohol advertising influence underage drinking? The role of desirability, identification and skepticism. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38, 376-384.

Australia. Parliament. House of Representatives. Select Committee on the Print Media. (1992). News and Fair Facts: The Australian Print Media Industry. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). (2006). ABC Enterprises Product Charter. from http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/entchart.htm

Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). (2008). About the ABC. Retrieved 11th June 2010, from http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/charter.htm

Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). (2009). About Media Watch. Retrieved 27th April 2009, from http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/more.htm

Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). (2010). ABC News Programs. Retrieved 11th June 2010, from http://www.abc.net.au/news/programs/

Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). (n.d.). History of the ABC 1930s. Retrieved 11th June 2010, from http://www.abc.net.au/corp/history/75years/timeline/1930s.pdf

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006a). 2006 Census QuickStats: Australia. Retrieved 12th June 2010, from http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ABSNavigation/prenav/ProductSelect?newproduct type=QuickStats&btnSelectProduct=View+QuickStats+%3E&collection=Census&period =2006&areacode=0&geography=&method=&productlabel=&producttype=&topic=&na vmapdisplayed=true&javascript=true&breadcrumb=LP&topholder=0&leftholder=0&cu rrentaction=201&action=401&textversion=false

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006b). 2006 Census QuickStats: Brisbane (C) (Local Government Area) - Qld. Retrieved 25 July 2009, from http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ABSNavigation/prenav/ProductSelect?newproduct type=QuickStats&btnSelectProduct=View+QuickStats+%3E&collection=Census&period =2006&areacode=LGA31000&geography=&method=&productlabel=&producttype=&t opic=&navmapdisplayed=true&javascript=true&breadcrumb=LP&topholder=0&lefthol der=0¤taction=201&action=401&textversion=false

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2009a). 8146.0 - Household Use of Information Technology, Australia, 2006-07 Retrieved 8 September 2010, from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/allprimarymainfeatures/D65ED90A15BC6 A1BCA2575220013B1EF?opendocument

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2009b). 8146.0 - Household Use of Information Technology, Australia, 2008-09 Retrieved 8 September 2010, from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/8146.0Main+Features12008- 09?OpenDocument

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2010). 4613.0 - Australia's Environment: Issues and Trends, Jan 2010. Retrieved 20th April 2010, from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4613.0Chapter20Jan+2010

Australian Communications and Media Authority. (2008). Community Attitudes to the Presentation of Factual Material and Viewpoints in Commercial Current Affairs Programs: Executive Report. from

249

http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib100068/current_affairs_program_re search_part-01_executive_report.pdf

Australian Communications and Media Authority. (2009). The ACMA's Role in the Switchover to Digital Television, its Multlayered Approach and Ongoing Regulatory Role. Retrieved 15th June 2010, from http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_311719#ROLE

Australian Communications and Media Authority. (2010a). Australian Content. Retrieved 10th June 2010, from http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_91809

Australian Communications and Media Authority. (2010b). Broadcasting. Retrieved 8th June 2010, from http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/LANDING/pc=BROADCASTING_MAIN

Australian Communications and Media Authority. (2010c). Media Reform - Local Content and Local Presence Requirements for Commercial Radio Fact Sheet. Retrieved 10th June 2010, from http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/1001/pc=PC_310118

Australian Electoral Commission. (2008). Electoral roll: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved 5th November 2008, from http://www.aec.gov.au/FAQs/Electoral_Roll.htm#percent

Australian Government. (2007). Community Television. Retrieved 18th June 2010, from http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/communitytelevision/

Australian Government. (2010). About Australia. Retrieved 20th April 2010, from http://australia.gov.au/about-australia

Australian Press Council. (2005). Adjudication No. 1270. Retrieved 18th June 2010, from http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/adj/1270.html

Bagdikian, B. H. (1997). The media monopoly. Boston: Beacon.

Barry, P. (2007). The Rise and Rise of Kerry Packer Uncut. Sydney: Bantam.

Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series B), 16(2), 296-298.

Baym, G. (2004). The Daily Show and the reinvention of political journalism. Paper presented at the Faith, Fun and Futuramas: 3rd Annual Pre-APSA Conference on Political Communication, Chicago.

Bean, C. (2005). How the political audiences of Australian public and commercial television channels differ. Australian Journal of Communication, 32(2), 41-55.

Bean, C., Gow, D., & McAllister, I. (2003). Australian Election Study, 2001. Canberra: Australian National University. (A. N. University o. Document Number)

Bean, C., McAllister, I., Gibson, R., & Gow, D. (2005). Australian Election Study, 2004. Canberra: Australian National University. (A. N. University o. Document Number)

Bean, C., McAllister, I., & Gow, D. (2008). Australian Election Study, 2007. Canberra: Australian National University. (A. N. University o. Document Number)

Beaudoin, C. E., & Thorson, E. (2004). Testing the cognitive mediation model: The roles of news reliance and three gratifications sought. Communication Research, 31(4), 446.

Becker, L. B. (1979). Measurement of gratifications. Communication Research, 6(1), 54-73.

Beder, S. (2004). Moulding and manipulating the news. In R. White (Ed.), Controversies in Environmental Sociology (pp. 204-220). Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Beecher, E. (2005). Decline of the quality Press. In R. Manne (Ed.), Do Not Disturb: Is the Media Failing Australia? (pp. 7-27). Melbourne: Black Inc.

Beecher, E. (2007). Crumbling pillars? Media International Australia(122), 9-11.

Bennett, S. E. (1998). Political talk radio shows' impact on democratic citizenship. In T. J. Johnson, C. E. Hays & S. P. Hays (Eds.), Engaging the Public: How Government and the Media Can Reinvigorate American Democracy (pp. 111-121). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.

Bennett, S. E. (1999). "Video malaise" revisited: Public trust in the media and government. Press/Politics, 7(7), 8-23.

Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bimber, B., & Davis, R. (2003). Campaigning Online: The Internet in U.S. Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bird, S. E. (2003). The Audience in Everyday Life: Living in a Media World. New York: Routledge.

251

Bizer, G., Krosnick, J. A., Holbrook, A. L., Petty, R. E., Rucker, D., & Wheeler, S. (2002). The impact of personality on political beliefs, attitudes and behavior: Need for Cognition and Need to Evaluate. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association.

Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (2001). The new media and our political communication discontents: Democratizing cyberspace. Information, Communication & Society, 4(1), 1- 13.

Bourque, L. B., & Fielder, E. P. (2003). How to Conduct Self-Administered and Mail Surveys (2nd ed. Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brace, I. (2004). Questionnaire Design: How to Plan, Structure and Write Survey Material for Effective Market Research. London: Kogan Page.

Brader, T., Valentino, N. A., & Suhay, E. (2004, 4 September). Seeing threats versus feeling threats: Group cues, emotions, and activating opposition to immigration. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago.

Brand, J., Archbold, D., & Rane, H. (2001). Sources of News and Current Affairs, Stage Two: The Audience. Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Authority.

Briz31. (n.d.). 31 Digital: About Us. Retrieved 14th September 2010, from http://www.31.com.au/aboutus.html

Brookes, R., Lewis, J., & Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2004). The media representation of public opinion: British television news coverage of the 2001 General Election. Media Culture and Society, 26(1), 63-80.

Brown, J. D., L'Engle, K. L., Pardun, C. J., Guo, G., Kenneavy, K., & Jackson, C. (2006). Sexy media matter: Exposure to sexual content in music, movies, television and magazines predicts black and white adolescents' sexual behavior. Pediatrics, 117(4), 1018-1027.

Brown, L. G. (1990). Convenience in services marketing. Journal of Services Marketing, 4(1), 53- 59.

Buckingham, D. (1993). Going critical: The limits of media literacy. Australian Journal of Education, 37(2), 142-152.

Buckingham, D. (2000). The Making of Citizens: Young People, News and Politics. London: Routledge.

Buckingham, D. (2003). Media education: Literacy, learning and contemporary culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bucy, E. P., & Grabe, M. E. (2007). Taking television seriously: A sound and image bite analysis of Presidential campaign coverage, 1992-2004. Journal of Communication, 57(4), 652- 675.

Butler, D., & Stokes, D. (1969). Political Change in Britain: Forces Shaping Electoral Choice. London: Macmillan.

Cacioppo, J., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116-131.

Cacioppo, J., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 197-253.

Cacioppo, J., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of Need for Cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306-307.

Cacioppo, J., Petty, R. E., Kao, C. F., & Rodriquez. (1986). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1032-1043.

Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of Cynicism: The Press and the Public Good. New York: Oxford University Press.

Case, D. O. (2002). Looking for Information: A Survey of Research on Information Seeking, Needs and Behavior. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Case, D. O. (2005). Principle of least effort. In K. E. Fisher, S. Erdelez & L. McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of Information Behavior (pp. 289-292). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Catell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245-276.

253

Chadwick, A. (2006). Internet Politics: States, Citizens, and New Communication Technologies. New York: Oxford University Press.

Chadwick, P. (1998). Do media help or harm public health? Australian and New Zealand of Public Health, 22(1), 155-158.

Chaffee, S. H., & Schleuder, J. (1986). Measurement and effects of attention to news media. Human Communication Research, 13, 76-107.

Chen, C.-C., & Hernon, P. (1982). Information Seeking. New York: Neal-Schuman.

Chen, P. J. (2008). Candidates' new media use in the 2007 Australian national election. Paper presented at the Communications Policy & Research Forum 2008, University of Technology, Sydney, 29th-30th September 2008.

Cohen, A. R., Stotland, E., & Wolfe, D. M. (1955). An experimental investigation of need for cognition. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 291-294.

Commonwealth of Australia. House of Representatives. (1951). . Debates, (28 November 1951) 2926.

Condra, M. B. (1992). The link between need for cognition and political interest, involvement and media usage. Psychology, A Journal of Human Behavior, 29(3/4), 13-17.

Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in Web- or Internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 821-836.

Couldry, N. (2002). Mediation and alternative media, or relocating the centre of media and communication studies. Media International Australia(103), 24-31.

Couldry, N. (2004). Theorising media as practice. Social Semiotics, 14(2), 115-132.

Couldry, N. (2006). Transvaluing media studies: Or, beyond the myth of the mediated centre. In J. Curran & D. Morley (Eds.), Media and Cultural Theory (pp. 177-194). London: Routledge.

Couldry, N., Livingstone, S., & Markham, T. (2006). 'Public connection' and the uncertain norms of media consumption. Paper presented at the Citizenship and Consumption: Agency, Norms, Mediations and Spaces.

Couldry, N., Livingstone, S., & Markham, T. (2007). Media Consumption and Public Engagement: Beyond the Presumption of Attention. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Couldry, N., & Markham, T. (2006). Public connection through media consumption: Between oversocialization and de-socialization? The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 608, 251-269.

Coulter, J. (2001). Human practices and the observability of the 'macro-social'. In T. R. Schatzki, K. K. Cetina & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory (pp. 29- 41). London: Routledge.

Crigler, A., Just, M., & Belt, T. (2002, September 2002). The three faces of negative campaigning: The democratic implications of attack ads, cynical news and fear arousing messages. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Boston.

Crook, E. (n.d.). The 2007 Australian Federal Election on the Internet, Staff Paper. Canberra: National Library of Australia.

Croteau, D., & Hoynes, W. (2006). The business of media: Corporate media and the public interest (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Cunningham, S. (2010). Policy. In S. Cunningham & G. Turner (Eds.), The Media and Communications in Australia (pp. 31-48). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Dahlgren, P. (1988). What's the meaning of this? Viewers' plural sense-making of TV news. Media, Culture & Society, 10(3), 285-301.

Dahlgren, P., & Olsson, T. (2005). The micro-meshes of civic cultures: Political engagement and media use. Paper presented at the Making Use of Culture. from http://www.sam.kau.se/stv/ksspa/papers/dahlgren.pdf

Daniel, A., Flew, T., & Spurgeon, C. (2009). User behaviours and intentions with digital news media in Australia. Paper presented at the Transforming Audiences 2: Creativity, Knowledge, Participation. 2009 CAMRI Conference, 3-4 September 2009, University of Westminster, London.

255

Darley, W. K. (1992). The role of Need for Cognition in media evaluation and usage. Journal of Promotion Management, 1(3), 21-38.

Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 1-15.

Dempster, Q. (2005). The slow destruction of the ABC. In R. Manne (Ed.), Do Not Disturb: Is the Media Failing Australia? (pp. 101-120). Melbourne: Black Inc.

Denemark, D. (2005). Mass media and media power in Australia. In S. Wilson, G. Meagher, R. Gibson, D. Denemark & M. Western (Eds.), Australian Social Attitudes: The First Report (pp. 220-239). Sydney: University of NSW Press.

Denemark, D., Ward, I., & Bean, C. (2007). Election campaigns and television news coverage: The case of the 2001 Australian election. Australian Journal of Political Science, 42(1), 89-109.

Department of Broadband Communications and the Digital Economy. (2010). Digital Television Switchover. Retrieved 15th June 2010, from http://www.dbcde.gov.au/television/digital_televison_switchover

Deuze, M. (2005). Popular journalism and professional ideology: Tabloid reporters and editors speak out. Media Culture and Society, 27(6), 861-882.

DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and Applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Diddi, A., & LaRose, R. (2006). Getting hooked on news: Uses and gratifications and the formation of news habits among college students in an Internet environment. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(2), 193-210.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (2007 Update ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Doll, J., & Ajzen, I. (1992). Accessibility and stability of predictors in the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(5), 754-765.

Domaille, K., & Buckingham, D. (2001). Youth media education survey 2001: Final report. London: UNESCOo. Document Number)

Donohew, L., Finn, S., & Christ, W. G. (1988). "The nature of news" revisited: The roles of affect, schemas and cognition. In L. Donohew, H. E. Sypher & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Communication, Social Cognition and Affect (pp. 195-218). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Downing, J. D. H. (2001). Radical Media: Rebellious Communication and Social Movements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Downing, J. D. H. (2003). Audiences and readers of alternative media: The absent lure of the virtually unknown. Media Culture and Society, 25, 625-645.

Dwyer, T. (2008). Ownership Changes. In The State of the News: Print Media in Australia. Sydney: Australian Press Council.

Elith, K. (2003). HSC English Study Guide: Frontline. Glebe, NSW: Pascal Press.

Elliott, W. R., & Quattlebaum, C. p. (1979). Similarities in patterns of media use: A cluster analysis of media gratifications. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 43(Winter), 61-72.

English, C. (2007). Quality and integrity of world's media questioned. Retrieved 30 March 2009, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/103300/Quality-Integrity-Worlds-Media- Questioned.aspx

Ester, H. (2007). The media. In C. Hamilton & S. Maddison (Eds.), Silencing Dissent: How the Australian Government is Controlling Public Opinion and Stifling Debate (pp. 101-123). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

European Commission. (2007). Media literacy: Do people really understand how to make the most of blogs, search engines or interactive TV? Retrieved 31st October 2008, from http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/1970&format=HTML &aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

European Commission. (n.d.). Media literacy: Global perspective. from http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/media_literacy/global/index_en.htm

257

Eveland, W. P., & Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Connecting news media use with gaps in knowledge and participation. Political Communication, 17(3), 215-237.

Faine, J. (2005). Talk radio and democracy. In R. Manne (Ed.), Do Not Disturb: Is the Media Failing Australia? (pp. 169-188). Melbourne: Black Inc.

Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1981). Direct experience and attitude-behaviour consistency. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 161-202.

Fiorina, M. P. (1990). Information and rationality in elections. In J. A. Ferejohn & J. H. Kuklinski (Eds.), Information and Democratic Processes (pp. 329-344). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2001). Internet use in the contemporary media environment. Human Communication Research, 27(1), 153-181.

Fleischhauer, M., Enge, S., Brocke, B., Ullrich, J., & Strobel, A. (2010). Same or different? Clarifying the relationship of Need for Cognition to personality and intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(1), 82-96.

Flew, T. (2008). Not yet the Internet election: Online media, political commentary and the 2007 Australian Federal Election. Media International Australia(126).

Flew, T., & Harrington, S. (2010). Television. In S. Cunningham & G. Turner (Eds.), The Media and Communications in Australia (pp. 155-172). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Forde, H., Meadows, M., & Foxwell, K. (2002). Culture, Commitment, Community: The Australian Community Radio Sector. Brisbane: Griffith University.

Forsterlee, R., & Ho, R. (1999). An examination of the short form of the Need for Cognition scale applied in an Australian sample. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 471-480.

Foxwell, K. (2001). Quantifying community radio... some qualifications. Australian Community Broadcasting Series, 1(5), 1-14.

Gamson, W. A. (1988). The 1987 Distinguished Lecture: A constructionist approach to mass media and public opinion. Symbolic Interaction, 11(2), 161-174.

Gandy, O. H. J., Matabane, P. W., & Omachonu, J. O. (1987). Media use, reliance and active participation. Communication Research, 14(6), 644-663.

Gantz, W., Fitzmaurice, M., & Fink, E. (1991). Assessing the active component of information- seeking. Journalism Quarterly, 68(4), 630-637.

Gardiner-Garden, J., & Chowns, J. (2006, 30 May 2006). Media Ownership Regulation in Australia (E-Brief). from http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/SP/Media_Regulation.htm

Garramone, G. M. (1985). Motivation and selective attention to political information formats. Journalism Quarterly, 62, 37-44.

Garramone, G. M., Harris, A. C., & Anderson, R. (1986). Uses of political computer bulletin boards. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 30(3), 325-339.

Giles, D. (1999). Welcome to Frontline. Australian Screen Education(30), 120-124.

Gillman, S. (2007). 'Stay on the line...': An analysis of callers to talkback radio in Australia. Media International Australia(122), 186-196.

Gillmor, D. (2008). Principles for a new media literacy: Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard Universityo. Document Number)

Given, J. (2002). Foreign ownership of media and telecommunications: An Australian story. Media & Arts Law Review, 7, 253.

Given, L. M. (2008). The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. L.A.: Sage Publications.

Goggin, G. (2010). The Internet, online and mobile communications and culture. In S. Cunningham & G. Turner (Eds.), The Media and Communications in Australia (pp. 237- 258). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Goot, M. (2008). Is the news on the Internet different? Leaders, frontbenchers and other candidates in the 2007 Australian election. Australian Journal of Political Science, 43(1), 99-110.

259

Gould, L. (2007). Cash and controversy: A short history of commercial talkback radio. Media International Australia(122), 81-95.

Griffen-Foley, B. (2010). Radio. In S. Cunningham & G. Turner (Eds.), The Media and Communications in Australia (pp. 113-131). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2004). Survey Methodology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Hager, M. A., Wilson, S., Pollak, T. H., & Rooney, P. M. (2003). Response rates for mail surveys of nonprofit organizations: A review and empirical test. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(2), 252-267.

Hallin, D. C. (1992). Sound bite news: Television coverage of elections, 1968-1988. Journal of Communication, 42(2), 5-24.

Hamdy, N., & Mobarak, R. (2004). Iraq War ushers in Web-based era. In R. D. Berenger (Ed.), Global Media Go to War: Role of News and Entertainment Media During the 2003 Iraq War (pp. 245-254). Spokane, WA: Marquette Books.

Hamilton, C., & Maddison, S. (2007a). Dissent in Australia. In C. Hamilton & S. Maddison (Eds.), Silencing Dissent: How the Australian Government is Controlling Public Opinion and Stifling Debate (pp. 1-23). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Hamilton, C., & Maddison, S. (2007b). Silencing Dissent: How the Australian Government is Controlling Public Opinion and Stifling Debate. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Hamilton, J. (2000). Alternative media: Conceptual difficulties, critical possibilities. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 24(4), 357-378.

Hanson, G., & Haridakis, P. M. (2008). YouTube users watching and sharing the news: A uses and gratifications approach. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 11(3).

Harrington, S. (2005). The democracy of conversation: The Panel and the public sphere. Media International Australia(116), 75-87.

Harrington, S. (2008). Popular news in the twenty-first century: Time for a new critical approach? Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism, 9(3), 266-284.

Hartley, J., & Green, J. (2006). The public sphere on the beach. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 9(3), 341-362.

Hasebrink, U., & Popp, J. (2006). Media repertoires as a result of selective media use. A conceptual approach to the analysis of patterns of exposure. Communications, 31, 369- 387.

Henningham, J. P. (1979). Some attitudes and preferences of Brisbane news media users. Media Information Australia, 14, 16-25.

Henningham, J. P. (1982). How TV news meets people's needs. Journal of Sociology, 18(3), 417- 427.

Henningham, J. P. (1985). Relations between television news gratifications and content preferences. International Communication Gazette, 35, 197-208.

Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1994). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. London: Vintage.

Hertzum, M., Andersen, H. H. K., Andersen, V., & Hensen, C. B. (2002). Trust in information sources: Seeking information from people, documents and virtual agents. Interacting with Computers, 14(5), 575-599.

Horn, J. L. (1965). Doing psychological research: Gathering and analysing data. Psychometrika, 30, 179-185.

Hovland, C. I., & Janis, I. L. (1959). Personality and persuasability. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Howard, P. N. (2005). Deep democracy, thin citizenship: The impact of digital media in political campaign strategy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science(597), 153-170.

Hoynes, W. (1994). Public Television for Sale: Media the market and the Public Sphere. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Huang, L.-N., & Price, V. (2001). Motivations, goals, information search, and memory about political candidates. Political Psychology, 22(4), 665-692.

Hunt, J. M., Stevens, K. M., Chatterjee, A., & Kernan, J. B. (1994). Socially desirable responses in the measurement of Need for Cognition. Advances in Consumer Research, 21, 543-546.

261

Inglis, K. S. (2006). Whose ABC? The Australian Broadcasting Corporation 1983-2006. Melbourne: Black Inc.

IPDI. (2006). The Audience for Political Blogs: New Research on Blog Readership. Retrieved 2nd January 2010, from http://www.ipdi.org/uploadedfiles/audience%20for%20political%20blogs.pdf

Irving, L. M., & Berel, S. R. (2001). Comparison of media-literacy programs to strengthen college women's resistance to media images. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25, 103-111.

Jackson, N. A., & Lilleker, D. G. (2007). Seeking unmediated political information in a mediated environment. Information, Communication & Society, 10(2), 242-264.

Javes, S. (2003, 13 October). The light's on but nobody's home. Sydney Morning Herald, pp. 4-5,

Jobe, J. B. (2000). Cognitive processes in self-report. In A. A. Stone, J. S. Turkkan, C. A. Bachrach, J. B. Jobe, H. S. Kurtzman & V. S. Cain (Eds.), The Science of Self-Report: Implications for Research and Practice (pp. 25-28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2004). Wag the blog: How reliance on traditional media and the Internet influence credibility perceptions of weblogs among blog users. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(3), 622-642.

Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2009). The Dark Side of the Boon?: Credibility, selective exposure and the proliferation of online sources of political information. Paper presented at the Midwest Association for Public Opinion Research, Chicago, November 2009.

Johnson, T. J., Kaye, B. K., Bichard, S., & Wong, W. (2007). Every Blog has its Day: Politically Interested Internet Users’ Perceptions of Blog Credibility. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association. from http://research.allacademic.com/one/www/research/index.php?click_key=1&PHPSESS ID=f62d1a9ca57ec1b2f8468c28df224e4a

Jolly, R. (2007). Media ownership deregulation in the United States and Australia: In the public interest? (Research paper). Retrieved 10th June 2010, from http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2007-08/08rp01.pdf

Jones, D. A. (2004). Why Americans don't trust the media: A preliminary analysis. Press/Politics, 9(2), 60-75.

Jones, D. A. (2005). Shooting the messenger: Explaining public discontent with the news media. Politics & Policy, 33(2), 242-262.

Jones, J. P. (2006). A cultural approach to the study of mediated citizenship. Social Semiotics, 16(2), 365-383.

Jones, P., & Pusey, M. (2008). Mediated political communication in Australia: Leading issues, new evidence. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 43(4), 583-599.

Kaiser, H. (1970). A second generation Little Jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401-415.

Kaiser, H. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.

Karlsen, R. (2010). Online and undecided: Voters and the Internet in the contemporary Norwegian election campaign. Scandinavian Political Studies, 33(1), 28-50.

Kashima, Y., Kokubo, T., Kashima, E., Boxall, D., Yamaguchi, S., & Macrae, K. (2004). Culture and self: Are there within-culture differences in self between metropolitan areas and regional cities? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(7), 816-823.

Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509-523.

Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilization of mass communication by the individual. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research (pp. 19-32). Beverly Hills, California: Sage.

Katz, E., Gurevitch, M., & Haas, H. (1973). On the use of the mass media for important things. American Sociological Review, 38(2), 164-181.

Kaufman, D. Q., Stasson, M. F., & Hart, J. W. (1999). Are the tabloids always wrong or is that just what we think? Need for Cognition and perceptions of articles in print media. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(9), 1984-2000.

Kaye, B. K. (2005). It's a blog, blog, blog, blog world. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 13(2), 73-95.

263

Kaye, B. K. (2009). Facebook. MySpace. Two-faced?: Credibility of social network sites for political information. Paper presented at the Association of Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) Convention, Boston, August 5-8.

Kaye, B. K. (2010). Between Barack and a Net place: Users and uses of social network sites and blogs for political information. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), The Networked Self: Identity, Community and Culture on Social Network Sites. New York: Routledge.

Kaye, B. K., & Johnson, T. J. (2002). Online and in the know: Uses and gratifications of the Web for political information. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46(1), 54.

Kaye, B. K., & Johnson, T. J. (2004). A Web for all reasons: Uses and gratifications of internet components for political communication. Telematics and Informatics, 21(3), 197-223.

Kaye, B. K., & Johnson, T. J. (2006). The age of reasons: Motives for using different components of the Internet for political information. In A. P. Williams & J. C. Tedesco (Eds.), The Internet Election: Perspectives on the Role of the Web in Campaign 2004 (pp. 147-167). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Kealy, W. A. (2004). Media literacy. In J. L. Kincheloe & D. Weil (Eds.), Critical thinking and learning: An encyclopedia for parents and teachers (pp. 287-290). Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

Kellner, D. (2005). The media and election 2004. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 22(2), 178-186.

Kim, D. (2006). Abandoning Traditional News?: Examining Factors Influencing the Displacement Effects of Online News on Traditional News Media. PhD dissertation, Southern Illinois University Carbondale.

Kippax, S., & Murray, J. P. (1977). Using television: Programme content and need gratification. Politics, 12(1), 56-69.

Kippax, S., & Murray, J. P. (1980). Using the mass media: Need gratification and perceived utility. Communication Research, 7(3), 335-360.

Klein, K., & Holt, D. (1991). The relationship of Need for Cognition and media credibility to attitudes toward the Persian Gulf War. Contemporary Social Psychology, 15(4), 166- 171.

Kleinnijenhuis, J. (1991). Newspaper complexity and the knowledge gap. European Journal of Communication, 6(4), 499-522.

Knight, S. (2004). Rob Sitch on the 10th Anniversary of Frontline [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 12th June 2010, from http://www.abc.net.au/wa/stories/s1104477.htm

Krcmar, M., & Strizhakova, Y. (2009). Uses and gratifications as media choice. In T. Hartmann (Ed.), Media Choice : A Theoretical and Empirical Overview. (pp. 53-69). Hoboken: Taylor & Francis.

Kroonenberg, P. M. (2008). Applied Multiway Data Analysis (eBook ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley- Interscience.

Kubey, R. (2003). Why U.S. media education lags behind the rest of the English-speaking world. Television & New Media, 4, 351-370.

Ladd, J. (2006). Attitudes toward the news media and political competition in America. Unpublished PhD, Princeton University.

Ladd, J. (2009). The neglected power of elite opinion leadership to produce antipathy toward the news media: Evidence from a survey experiment. Political Behavior(Submitted, pending publication).

Lambert, R. D., Curtis, J. E., Kay, B. J., & Brown, J. R. (1988). The social sources of political knowledge. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 21(2), 359-374.

Lee, C. (2007). Mornings with Radio 774: Can John Howard's medium of choice enhance public sphere activity? Media International Australia(122), 122-131.

Levy, M. R. (1978). The audience experience with television news. Journalism Monographs, 55.

Lewis, K. (2001). Pluralism in the Australian print media. Asia Pacific Media Educator(11), 100- 112.

Lichter, S. R. (2001). A plague on both parties: Substance and fairness in TV election news. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 6(3), 8-30.

265

Lin, C. A. (1996). Looking back: The contribution of Blumler and Katz's Uses of Mass Communication to communication research. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40(4), 574.

Lin, C. A., Salwen, M., & Abdulla, R. (2003). Uses and gratifications of offline newspaper and online news: New wine in an old bottle? Paper presented at the International Communication Association. Retrieved 2nd January 2010, from http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/1/1/3/8/pages11 1388/p111388-1.php

Lippman, W. N. (1913). A Preface to Politics. New York: Mitchell Kennerley.

Liu, Y.-I., & Eveland, W. P. (2005). Education, need for cognition and campaign interest as moderators of news effects on political knowledge: An analysis of the knowledge gap. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(4), 910-929.

Lohr, S. L. (1999). Sampling: Design and analysis. Pacific Grove, USA: Duxbury Press.

Lumby, C. (1999). Gotcha: Life in a Tabloid World. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Manne, R. (2005a). Do Not Disturb: Is the Media Failing Australia? Melbourne: Black Inc.

Manne, R. (2005b). Introduction. In R. Manne (Ed.), Do Not Disturb: Is the Media Failing Australia? (pp. 1-4). Melbourne: Black Inc.

Manne, R. (2005c). Murdoch and the War on Iraq. In R. Manne (Ed.), Do Not Disturb: Is the Media Failing Australia? (pp. 75-98). Melbourne: Black Inc.

Marcella, R., & Baxter, G. (2005). Information interchange. In K. E. Fisher, S. Erdelez & L. McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of Information Behavior (pp. 204-209). Medford, NJ: ASIST.

Martinelli, K. A., & Chaffee, S. H. (1995). Measuring new-voter learning via three channels of political information. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(1), 18-32.

Masters, C. (2007). Jonestown: The Power and Myth of Alan Jones (e-Book ed.). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Maurushat, A., & Watt, R. (2009). Australia's Internet filtering proposal in the international context. Internet Law Bulletin, 12(2), 18-24.

Mayer, H. (1964). The Press in Australia. Melbourne: Lansdowne Press.

McGuire, W. J. (1974). Psychological motives and communication gratification. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research (pp. 167-196). Beverly Hills: Sage.

McKnight, D. (2005). Murdoch and the culture war. In R. Manne (Ed.), Do Not Disturb: Is the Media Failing Australia? (pp. 53-74). Melbourne: Black Inc.

McNair, B. (2009). News and Journalism in the UK. London: Routledge.

McQuail, D., Blumler, J. G., & Brown, J. R. (1972). The television audience: A revised perspective. In D. McQuail (Ed.), Sociology of Mass Communication. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Meadows, M., Forde, S., Ewart, J., & Foxwell, K. (2007). Community Media Matters: An Audience Study of the Australian Community Broadcasting Sector: Griffith Universityo. Document Number)

Middleton, M. (2002). Information Management: A Consolidation of Operations, Analysis and Strategy. Wagga Wagga, NSW: Centre for Information Studies, Charles Sturt University.

Mint, M. (2005, 20 May 2005). Loosened cross-media ownership means more media bias - a tale from the 2004 election. Retrieved 20 Feb 2006, from www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/?q=node/1041

Murn, C. (2009). Internet filter will slow Internet for no social gain. Institute of Public Affairs Review, 61(1), 6.

Nair, K. U., & Ramnarayan, S. (2000). Individual differences in need for cognition and complex problem solving. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 305-328.

Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (Sixth ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Newspoll. (2003). ABC Appreciation Survey o. Document Number)

267

Nielsen Online. (2008). Aussie Internet Usage Overtakes TV Viewing for the First Time. Retrieved 13th September 2010, from http://www.nielsen- online.com/pr/pr_080318_AU.pdf

Nielsen Online. (2009). Social Networks & Blogs Now 4th Most Popular Online Activity, Ahead of Personal Email. Retrieved 13th September 2010, from http://en- us.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsen/en_us/documents/pdf/Press%20Releases/2009/ March/Nielsen_Social_Networking_Final.pdf

Noelle-Neumann, E. (1993). The Spiral of Silence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Norris, P. (2003). Preaching to the converted? Pluralism, participation and party websites. Party Politics, 9(1), 21-45.

Nunnally, J. O. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

O'Cass, A., & Nataraajan, R. (2003). At the polls: Continuing to explore voter psychology. Journal of Political Marketing, 2(2), 67-81.

Office for National Statistics. (2009). Statistical Bulletin: Population Estimates August 2009. from http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/pop0809.pdf

Ohr, D., & Schrott, P. R. (2001). Campaigns and information seeking: Evidence from a German State Election. European Journal of Communication, 16(4), 419-449.

Oxford English Dictionary Online. (2007). Political. Retrieved 25 April 2007

Pallant, J. F. (2007). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS (E- book ed.). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Palmgreen, P., Wenner, L. A., & Rayburn, J. D. I. (1980). Relations between gratifications sought and obtained: A study of television news. Communication Research, 7(2), 161-192.

Parker, B. J., & Plank, R. E. (2000). A uses and gratifications perspective on the Internet as a new information source. American Business Review, 18(2), 43-49.

Paul Budde Communication. (2008). Australia - Pay TV - Statistics - Subscribers overview and analysis. Retrieved 1st December 2008, from http://www.budde.com.au/Research/Australia-Pay-TV-Statistics-Subscribers-Overview- and-Analysis.html

Penman, R., & Turnbull, S. (2007). Media literacy - Concepts, research and regulatory issues: Australian Communications and Media Authorityo. Document Number)

Perri, M., & Wolfgang, A. P. (1988). A modified measure of Need for Cognition. Psychological Reports, 62, 955-957.

Perse, E. M. (1992). Predicting attention to local television news: Need for cognition and motives for viewing. Communication Reports, 5(1), 40-49.

Perse, E. M. (2001). Media Effects and Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2009). A Year in the News: Overview. The State of the News Media: An Annual Report on American Journalism, from http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2009/narrative_overview_keyindicators.php?cat=2& media=1

Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2010a). A Year in the News: New Media. The State of the News Media: An Annual Report on American Journalism, from http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/year_new_media.php

Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2010b). A Year in the News: Online. The State of the News Media: An Annual Report on American Journalism, from http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/online_summary_essay.php

Phillips, T., Tranter, B., Mitchell, D., Clark, J., & Reed, K. (2008). The Australian Survey of Social Attitudes, 2007 [computer file]: Australian Social Science Data Archive, ACSPRI Centre for Social Research, The Australian University, Canberra.

Pieper, C. (2000). Use your illusion: Televised discourse on journalistic ethics in the United States, 1992-1998. Social Semiotics, 10(1), 61-79.

Pinkleton, B., & Austin, E. W. (1998). Media and participation: Breaking the spiral of disaffection. In T. J. Johnson, C. E. Hays & S. P. Hays (Eds.), Engaging the Public: How Government and the Media Can Reinvigorate American Democracy (pp. 75-86). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.

269

Pinkleton, B., & Austin, E. W. (2002). Exploring relationships among media use frequency, perceived media importance, and media satisfaction in political disaffection and efficacy. Mass Communication & Society, 5(2), 141-163.

Pirolli, P., & Card, S. (1999). Information foraging. Psychological Review, 106(4), 643-675.

Postman, N. (1985). Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: Penguin.

Poynting, S., & Noble, G. (2003). 'Dog-whistle' journalism and Muslim Australians since 2001. Media International Australia(109).

Price-Davies, E., & Tacchi, J. (2001). Community Radio in a Global Context: A Comparative Analysis in Six Countries. Retrieved 14th July 2010, from http://www.amarc.org/documents/articles/Community_Radio_Global.pdf

Price, C. J. (2003). Interfering owners or meddling advertisers: How network television news correspondents feel about ownership and advertiser inlfuence on news stories. Journal of Media Economics, 16(3), 175-188.

Putnis, P. (1986). Communication studies in Australia: Paradigms and contexts. Media Culture and Society, 8(2), 5-19.

QUT Research Ethics Office. (2007). What level of application should I submit? , from http://www.research.qut.edu.au/ethics/humans/applications.jsp

Rahkonen, J. (2007). Mapping media and communication research: Australia: Communication Research Centre, University of Helsinkio. Document Number)

Reagan, J. (1996). The "repertoire" of information sources. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40(1), 112-121.

Roberts, D., & Bachen, C. (1981). Mass communication effects. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 307-356.

Rothenberg, K. P. (2004). The Communication Information-Seeking Model: Examining Information-Seeking Motivations and Associated Channel Use. Unpublished PhD, Kent State University.

Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35, 651-665.

Roy Morgan International. (2006). Australian media viewed with scepticism - TV remains our first stop when chasing the news. Retrieved 4th February 2009, from www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2006/4117/

Roy Morgan Research. (2006a). Australian media viewed with scepticism - TV remains our first stop when chasing news. Finding No. 4117. Retrieved 3 February 2009, from http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2006/4117/

Roy Morgan Research. (2006b). Journalists Strongly Oppose Government's Media Laws. Retrieved 8th Jun 2010, from http://www.roymorgan.com/news/press- releases/2006/541/

Roy Morgan Research. (2007a). Large Majority Of Australians Think The Media Is "Often Biased" [Electronic Version]. Retrieved December 4th, 2009, from http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2007/4195/

Roy Morgan Research. (2007b). Television Remains Main Source of News & Current Affairs: NineMSN Leads the Way in Internet News [Electronic Version]. Retrieved December 4th, 2009, from http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2007/4182/

Roy Morgan Research. (2008). Image of Professions Survey: Nurses Most Ethical (Again) - Politicians & Journalists Looked Upon More Favourably [Electronic Version]. Retrieved December 4th, 2009, from http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2008/4283/

Rubin, A. M. (1981). An examination of television viewing motivations. Communication Research, 8(2), 141-165.

Rubin, A. M. (1983). Television uses and gratifications: The interactions of viewing patterns and motivations. Journal of Broadcasting, 27(1), 37-51.

Rubin, A. M. (1984). Ritualized and instrumental television viewing. Journal of Communication, 34(3), 67-77.

Rubin, A. M. (2002). The uses-and-gratifications perspective of media effects. In J. Bryant (Ed.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 525-548). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

271

Rubin, A. M., & Perse, E. M. (1987). Audience activity and television news gratifications. Communication Research, 14, 58-84.

Rubin, A. M., & Step, M. M. (2000). Impact of motivation, attraction and parasocial interaction on talk radio listening. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(4), 635-654.

Rundle, G. (2005). The rise of the Right. In R. Manne (Ed.), Do Not Disturb: Is the Media Failing Australia? (pp. 28-49). Melbourne: Black Inc.

Sadowski, C. J. (1993). An examination of the short Need for Cognition scale. Journal of Psychology, 127(4), 451-454.

Salmon, C. T., & Glynn, C. J. (2009). Spiral of silence: Communication and public opinion as social control. In D. W. Stacks & M. Salwen (Eds.), An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research (pp. 153-168). New York: Routledge.

Salter, D. (2006). Who's for breakfast, Mr Jones? The Monthly(May), 38-47.

Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Introduction. In T. R. Schatzki, K. K. Cetina & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory (pp. 1-14). London: Routledge.

Schultz, J. (1989). Failing the public: The media marketplace. In H. Wilson (Ed.), Australian Communications and the Public Sphere (pp. 68-84). South Melbourne: Macmillan.

Schultz, J. (2002). The press. In S. Cunningham & G. Turner (Eds.), The Media and Communications in Australia (pp. 101-116). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Schweiger, W. (2000). Media credibility - Experience or image?: A survey on the credibility of the World Wide Web in Germany in comparison to other media. European Journal of Communication, 15(1), 37-59.

Screen Australia. (2009). Get the Picture: Fast Facts - Subscription TV. Retrieved 20th April 2010, from http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/gtp/fastsubstv.html

Sheehan, K., & McMillan, S. (1999). Response variation in e-mail surveys: An exploration. Journal of Advertising Research, 39, 45-54.

Shoemaker, P. J., & McCombs, M. E. (1989). Survey Research. In G. Stempel, H. & B. H. Westley (Eds.), Research Methods in Mass Communication (2nd ed., pp. 150-172). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1996). Mediating the Message: Theories of Influences on Mass Media Content. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Simms, M. (2009). The campaigns. Australian Cultural History, 27(2), 87-96.

Simon, H. A. (1945). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations. New York: The Free Press.

Simons, M. (2005). Inside the ABC. In R. Manne (Ed.), Do Not Disturb: Is the Media Failing Australia? (pp. 121-149). Melbourne: Black Inc.

Sinclair, J. (2002). The media and communications: Theoretical traditions. In S. Cunningham & G. Turner (Eds.), The Media and Communications in Australia. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.

Sinclair, J. (2010). The media and communications: Theoretical traditions. In S. Cunningham & G. Turner (Eds.), The Media & Communications in Australia (pp. 15-30). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Special Broadcasting Service. (2010a). Corporate: SBS Charter. Retrieved 11th June 2010, from http://www.sbs.com.au/shows/aboutus/tab-listings/page/i/2/h/Corporate/

Special Broadcasting Service. (2010b). Our Story: About Radio. Retrieved 11th June 2010, from http://www.sbs.com.au/shows/aboutus/about/page/i/3/h/Radio/

Special Broadcasting Service. (2010c). Our Story: About Television. Retrieved 11th June 2010, from http://www.sbs.com.au/shows/aboutus/about/page/i/2/h/Television/

Special Broadcasting Service. (2010d). Our Story: FAQs. Retrieved 11th June 2010, from http://www.sbs.com.au/shows/aboutus/tab-listings/page/i/9/h/FAQ-s/

Special Broadcasting Service (SBS). (2002). SBS Charter. from http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/index.php?id=378

Stockwell, S. (2004). Reconsidering the Fourth Estate: The functions of infotainment. Paper presented at the Australian Political Studies Association, 29th September - 1st October, University of Adelaide. from https://www.adelaide.edu.au/apsa/docs_papers/Others/Stockwell.pdf

273

Strauss, C., & Quinn, N. (1992). Prehunaries to a Theory of Culture Acquisition. In P. W. van den Broek & D. C. Knill (Eds.), Cognition: Conceptual and methodological issues (pp. 267- 294). Washington: American Psychological Association.

Strizhakova, Y., & Krcmar, M. (2003). Do we have access to our viewing motive? Assumptions in and extentions of Uses and Gratifications. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the International Communication Association. from http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/1/2/2/4/pages11 2244/p112244-1.php

Swidler, A. (2001). What anchors cultural practices. In T. R. Schatzki, K. K. Cetina & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory (pp. 74-92). London: Routledge.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson International.

Technorati. (2009). State of the Blogosphere. Retrieved 13th Sept 2010, from http://technorati.com/state-of-the-blogosphere/

Thevenot, L. (2001). Pragmatic regimes governing the engagement with the world. In T. R. Schatzki, K. K. Cetina & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory (pp. 56-73). London: Routledge.

Thoman, E., & Jolls, T. (2004). Media literacy - A national priority for a changing world. American Behavioral Scientist, 48, 18-29.

Tiffen, R. (2002). Political economy and the news. In S. Cunningham & G. Turner (Eds.), The media and Communications in Australia (pp. 35-47). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Tiffen, R. (2006). Political economy and news. In S. Cunningham & G. Turner (Eds.), The Media and Communications in Australia (pp. 28-42). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Tiffen, R. (2009). Australian journalism. Journalism, 10(3), 384-386.

Tiffen, R. (2010). The Press. In S. Cunningham & G. Turner (Eds.), The Media and Communications in Australia (pp. 81-96). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Tiffen, R. (Ed.). (1994). Mayer on the Media: Issues and arguments. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Tsfati, Y. (2002). The Consequences of Mistrust in the News Media: Media Skepticism as a Moderator in Media Effects and as a Factor Influencing News Media Exposure. Unpublished PhD, University of Pennsylvania.

Tsfati, Y. (2003a). Does audience skepticism of the media matter in agenda setting? Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47(2), 157-.

Tsfati, Y. (2003b). Media skepticism and climate of opinion perception. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15(1), 65-82.

Tsfati, Y., & Cappella, J. N. (2003). Do people watch what they do not trust? Exploring the association between news media skepticism and exposure. Communication Research, 30(5), 504-.

Tsfati, Y., & Cappella, J. N. (2005). Why do people watch news they do not trust? The need for cognition as a moderator in the association between news media skepticism and exposure. Media Psychology, 7(3), 251-271.

Tsfati, Y., & Peri, Y. (2006). Mainstream media skepticism and exposure to sectorial and extranational news media: The case of Israel. Mass Communication & Society, 9(2), 165-187.

Tumber, H. (2001). Democracy in the information age: The role of the fourth estate in cyberspace. Information, Communication & Society, 4(1), 95-112.

Turner, G. (1996a). Infotainment tonight: The TV current affair game. Arena(Oct/Nov), 40-42.

Turner, G. (1996b). Literature, Journalism and the Media. Townsville: Foundation for Australian Literary Studies.

Turner, G. (1996c). Maintaining the News: A Comparative Analysis of News and Current Affairs Services Provided by the ABC and the Commercial Sector. Australian Key Centre for Cultural and Media Policy; Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Turner, G. (2005). Ending the Affair: The Decline of Television Current Affairs in Australia. Sydney: University of NSW Press.

Turner, G. (2007). Some things we should know about talkback radio. Media International Australia(122), 73-80. 275

U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). T1 Population Estimates. Retrieved 20th April 2010, from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&- ds_name=PEP_2009_EST&-mt_name=PEP_2009_EST_G2009_T001

Vercellotti, T., & Brewer, P. R. (2006). "To plead our own cause": Public opinion toward Black and mainstream news media among African Americans. Journal of Black Studies, 37, 231-250.

Vincent, R. C., & Basil, M. D. (1997). College students' news gratifications, media use, and current events knowledge. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 41(3), 380.

Ward, I. (2006). The media, power and politics. In A. Parkin, J. Summers & D. Woodward (Eds.), Government, Politics, Power and Policy in Australia (8th ed., pp. 363-379). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.

Warnick, B. (2002). Critical literacy in a digital era: Technology, rhetoric and the public interest. Hillsale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Warren, C. (2007). The price of freedom: New media ownership laws and a free Australian press. UNSW Law Journal, 30(1), 269-279.

Watts, M. D., Domke, D., Shah, D. V., & Fan, D. P. (1999). Elite cues and media bias in presidential campaigns. Communication Research, 26(2), 144-175.

Wenner, L. A. (1982). Gratifications sought and obtained in program dependency: A study of network evening news and 60 Minutes. Communication Research, 9(4), 539-560.

Wenner, L. A. (1983). Political news on television: A reconsideraton of audience orientations. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 47, 380-395.

Wenner, L. A. (1985). The nature of news gratifications. In K. E. Rosengren, L. A. Wenner & P. Palmgreen (Eds.), Media Gratifications Research: Current Perspectives (pp. 171-193). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Western, J. S., & Hughes, C. A. (1983). The Mass Media in Australia. St Lucia, Qld: University of Queensland Press.

Westley, B. H., & Severin, W. J. (1964). Some correlates of media credibility. Journalism Quarterly, 41, 325-335.

Willis, S., & Tranter, B. (2006). Beyond the 'digital divide'. Journal of Sociology, 42(1), 43-59.

Wilson, T. D. (2000). Human information behaviour. Informing Science, 3(2), 49-56.

Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2006). Mass media research: An introduction (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Young, S. (2008). Political discourse in the age of the soundbite: The election campaign soundbite on Australian television news Paper presented at the Australian Political Studies Association Conference, 6-9 July 2008. from http://www.polsis.uq.edu.au/apsa2008/Refereed-papers/Young.pdf

Young, S. (2009). The decline of traditional news and current affairs audiences in Australia. Media International Australia(131), 147-159.

277

Appendix 1: Survey Instrument

Information Seeking About Socio-Political Issues: An Australian Perspective

SURVEY

Please note: 1. Please answer every question. 2. Please give your own personal judgements or opinions. 3. Please return the completed survey booklet using the stamped, addressed envelope provided. 4. The questionnaire identification number below will be used to cross your name off the mailing list when this questionnaire is returned. This page will then be destroyed so that individual names can never be connected to the results in any way.

Section 1: This section asks about your opinion of the media in general.

Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements

Thinking about the traditional media (newspapers, television and radio) in general, please tick whether you believe:

Strongly Disagree Neither agree Agree Strongly disagree or disagree agree 1. The media can be trusted ……………….………..     

2. The media tell the whole story…………………….     

3. The media are accurate……………………………     

4. The media are fair ………………………………….     

5. Media organizations can be trusted to report the news fairly…………………………………………….     

6. I have a lot of confidence in the people running media institutions in Australia……………………...     

And of the following options, which do you agree with?

7. Thinking about the news media, would you say the news media usually help society to solve its problems, OR the news media usually get in the way of society solving its problems? Get in the way Help society

8. Which do you think the news media care more about, in general? Being the first to report a story Being accurate in reporting a story

Section 2: Some people like to keep up to CHANNEL 9 SHOWS date about socio-political issues. We are Today (5am) interested in what information sources you Mornings with Kerri-Anne (8.30am) use (if any) to find out about such issues. National Nine Morning News (11am) Examples of socio-political issues include interest rates, workplace relations, health Extra (formerly Brisbane Extra, 5.30pm) care, climate change, reconciliation, National Nine News (6pm) religious tolerance, immigration, terrorism, and many other topics. A Current Affair (6.30pm) Nightline (11.30pm) TELEVISION: In the table below, please place a tick next to each show that you 60 minutes (Saturdays) usually watch to find out about important socio-political issues. It doesn’t matter Sunday (Sundays) whether you watch the show on TV, re-run, CHANNEL 10 SHOWS podcast or via the Internet. Ch 10 Early News (6am) ABC1/ABC2 SHOWS 9am with David & Kim (9am) Midday Report (12pm) Ten Morning News (11am) Parliament Question Time (2pm) TTN (11.30am) ABC News (7pm) The Oprah Winfrey Show (1pm) 7.30 Report (7.30pm) Ten News (5pm) Lateline /Lateline Business (10.30pm) 5.30pm 10HD News (5.30pm, ch 10HD) Australian Story (Mondays) Ten Late Night News (10.30pm) Four Corners (Mondays) The Late Show with David Letterman Media Watch (Mondays) (11.15pm) Enough Rope with Andrew Denton (Mondays) Good News Week (Mondays) Message Stick (Mondays) SBS SHOWS Foreign Correspondent (Tuesdays) Any SBS non-English language news The Chaser (Wednesdays) program (eg. Chinese News, Russian News) National Press Club Address (Wednesdays) Business Report (12.30pm) Difference of Opinion (Thursdays) The Journal (4.30pm) Stateline (Fridays) Newshour with Jim Lehrer (5pm) Insiders (Saturdays) SBS World News Australia (6.30pm) SBS World News Australia (9.30pm) Sunday Spectrum (Sundays) Dateline (Wednesdays) Compass (Sundays) Hot Docs (Tuesdays) CHANNEL 7 SHOWS Sunrise (including Weekend Sunrise) (6am) Inside Australia (Wednesdays) The Morning Show (9am) Insight (Tuesdays) Seven Morning News (11.30am) Living Black (Wednesdays) Ch 7 News (6pm) Newstopia with Shaun Micallef Today Tonight (6.30pm) (Wednesdays)

TELEVISION continued:

Please list any other TV shows that you watch to find out about socio-political issues. (eg. BBC News, CNN Today, Fox News, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, The Colbert Report, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, The West Wing):

OTHER INFORMATION The Economist SOURCES: In the table below, please Foreign Affairs place a tick next to each item that you madison usually use to find out about important socio-political issues. It doesn’t matter Marie Claire whether you use the item in paper form, The Monthly via the Internet, radio, podcast or via National Geographic your phone. New Internationalist NEWSPAPERS (PAPER FORMAT AND ONLINE) New Woman Courier Mail (print or online version) New Statesman (print or online version) Sunday Mail (print or online version) Newsweek International (print or online The Australian (print or online version) version) Weekend Australian (print or online version) Now Australia Sydney Morning Herald (print or online Quadrant version) The Spectator (print or online version) The Age (print or online version) Time (print or online version) Australian Financial Review (print or online Other magazines (please list) version) Brisbane Times (brisbanetimes.com.au) Your local free newspaper (eg. Northern News, South-West News, West-Side News)

MX WEBSITES Green Left Weekly (print or online version) ABC website (eg. www.abc.net.au/news/) Socialist Worker (print or online version) SBS website (eg. Other newspapers (please list): www.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/) Channel 9 online (eg. news.ninemsn.com.au/) Channel 7 online (eg. au.news.yahoo.com/) Channel 10 online (eg. MAGAZINES (PAPER FORMAT AND ten.com.au/ten/tv_news.html) ONLINE) BBC online (eg. news.bbc.co.uk/) Arena CNN online (www.cnn.com/) Australian Women’s Weekly FoxNews online (www.foxnews.com/) The Big Issue Crikey.com Business Review Weekly (BRW) (print or Indymedia.org online version) Newmatilda.com Cleo YouTube Cosmopolitan MySpace

FaceBook Live events (eg. conferences, festivals, Other websites (please list): public speaking events, political meetings, book launches) Books Zines or e-zines Friends, family or work colleagues Can you think of any other information sources that you use to find out about RADIO socio-political issues? (please list): SBS Radio in any language (via radio, online or podcast) ABC Radio National (via radio, online or podcast) ABC Local Radio (via radio, online or podcast)

Triple J (via radio, online or podcast)

4AAA (Murri Radio, 98.9FM)

Switch 1197

4ZZZ

4BC

4KQ

Triple M

B105

Nova 1069

97.3 FM

96.5 FM

Other radio stations (please list):

OTHER SOURCES

Documentary films (at the cinema, TV or on

DVD/video)

Political party websites or email lists

Charity websites or email lists

(eg. Amnesty International, WorldVision)

Section 3: In this section, we want to find out why (if at all) you may be interested in socio-political issues. Please rate (tick) how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements: Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly I pay attention to socio-political information in the disagree agree or agree disagree media and on the Internet… 1. to help me get away from everyday worries………………..     

2. to find out things I need to know about daily life……………     

3. because it shows me what society is like nowadays………     

4. because it helps me when I want to be cheered up………..     

5. because it is entertaining……………………………………..     

6. to help me judge what political leaders are really like……..     

7. so I can learn about what might happen to me…………….     

8. because it helps me to take my mind off things……………     

9. because it’s enjoyable…………………………………………     

10. so I can keep up with what the government is doing……..     

11. because it’s exciting………………………………………….     

12. so I can talk with other people about what’s covered…….     

13. because it helps me satisfy my curiosity…………………..     

14. to help me relax………………………………………………     

15. because it amuses me………………………………………     

16. so I can learn what is going on in the country and the world……………………………………………………………..     

17. because it helps me learn things about myself and others     

18. so I can understand the world………………………………     

19. because it makes me want to learn more about things…..     

20. because it sometimes gives me a good laugh or cry…….     

21. because it is thrilling………………………………………….     

22. because it helps me to forget about work/school…………     

Section 4: In this section, we want to find out a little about your personality. Please rate (tick) how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly disagree agree or agree disagree 1. I prefer to deal with complex things rather than simple things…………………………………………………………….     

2. I like to have the responsibility of handling a situation that requires a lot of thinking……………………………………….     

3. Thinking is not my idea of fun………………………………...      4. I would rather do something that requires little thought than something that is sure to challenge my thinking abilities…………………………………………………………..      5. I try to anticipate and avoid situations where there is a likely chance I will have to think in depth about something.     

6. I find satisfaction deliberating long and hard for hours…….     

7. I only think as hard as I have to………………………………     

8. I prefer to think about small, daily projects to long-term ones……………………………………………………………..     

9. I like tasks that require little thought once I’ve learned them……………………………………………………………..     

10. The idea of relying on thought to make my way to the top appeals to me…………………………………………………..     

11. I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems………………………………………….     

12. Learning new ways to think doesn’t excite me very much.     

13. I prefer my life to be filled with puzzles that I must solve...     

14. The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me……..     

15. When doing an important task, I prefer it to be intellectual and challenging rather than requiring little thought………...     

16. I feel relief rather than satisfaction after completing a task that required a lot of mental effort………………………     

17. Its enough for me that something gets the job done; I don’t care how or why it works………………………………..     

18. I usually end up deliberating about issues even when they do not affect me personally……………………………..     

Section 5: This section of the survey asks for some information about you. All responses are confidential.

1. Are you:  Female  Male

2. What year were you born? ______

3. Where were you born (which country)?   New Zealand  Other country (please specify) Australia ______ South Africa  China  United Kingdom  Italy  Vietnam 4. Do you identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander?  Yes  No

5. What is the approximate annual income of your household before tax?  No  $20,001-  $80,001-100,000 income 40,000  $100,001-120,000  $1-  $40,001-60,000  $120,001-140,000 20,000  $60,001-80,000  $140,000+

6. What is your highest completed level of education?  Primary School  University postgraduate coursework degree (eg. Masters by coursework, Graduate Diploma, Graduate Certificate)  High School  Research higher degree (eg. PhD, Masters by research)  TAFE/Technical College  Other (Please specify) ______ University Bachelor Degree/ Honours

7. Do you have a computer with Internet access (tick all that apply):  No  Yes, at home  Yes, at work/ uni  Yes, somewhere else

8. In total, how many hours do you usually spend per week on both work and study? ______hours

9. Generally speaking, how much interest do you usually have in what’s going on in politics? (Please circle) None Not much Some A good deal

10. Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as Labor, Liberal, or what? (Please tick one only)  Labor (ALP)  Family First  Liberal  Socialist Alliance  National  Other  Greens  No party  Democrats

Appendix 2: Survey Cover Letter

10th March 2008

I am writing to ask your help in an important research project being conducted at Queensland University of Technology. The study is about the ways in which Brisbane residents find out about social and political issues such as interest rates, workplace relations, health care, climate change, reconciliation and immigration.

Your name was drawn randomly from the publicly available electoral roll. We are contacting a random sample of people living in Brisbane to find out what information sources they use, and how different kinds of people feel about the media in general.

Results from the survey can be used to help community organisations to provide trustworthy and balanced information to the people of Brisbane about important social and political issues. This will make it easier for you to find high quality information when you need to make important decisions that affect our State‟s future.

The survey has been reviewed via QUT‟s research ethics processes (for more information, please see enclosed Information Sheet). Your answers are completely confidential and will be released only as summaries in which no individual‟s answers can be identified. When you return your completed questionnaire, your name will be deleted from the mailing list and never connected to your answers in any way. This survey is voluntary. However, you can help us very much by taking a few minutes to tell us about the information sources you use to find out about social and political issues.

If for some reason you prefer not to respond, please let us know by returning the blank questionnaire in the enclosed reply paid envelope, or by calling us. This will enable us to remove your name from the mailing list.

A comment on our survey procedures. A questionnaire identification number is printed on the front cover of the questionnaire so that we can cross your name off the mailing list when it is returned. Protecting the confidentiality of people‟s answers is very important to QUT.

If you have any questions or comments about this study, we would be happy to talk with you. Please contact myself via telephone on 0438 765 733; via email at [email protected]; or by mail at the address on the letterhead.

Thank you very much for helping with this important study. It‟s only with the generous help of people like you that our research can be successful.

Sincerely,

Kim Moody PhD Student Faculty of Information Technology

P.S.:You do not have to be interested in politics to take part in the survey – we need responses from all types of people, both those interested in politics, and those who are not.

Appendix 3: First Reminder Letter

20th March 2008

Last week a questionnaire about your use of media and information sources was mailed to you. Your name was drawn randomly from the electoral roll.

If you have already completed and returned the questionnaire to us, please accept our sincere thanks. If not, could you please do so as soon as possible, or let us know you are not interested in completing it by phoning us or by returning the blank survey to us. This will enable us to remove your name from the mailing list.

We are especially grateful for your help because it is only by asking people like you to provide this information that we can understand the way different types of people prefer to find out about social and political issues.

If you did not receive the questionnaire, or if it was misplaced, please contact me via telephone on 0438 765 733; via email at [email protected]; or by mail at the address on the letterhead, and we will send another one out to you today.

Many thanks,

Kim Moody PhD Student Faculty of Information Technology

Appendix 4: Second Reminder Letter

1st April 2008

About three weeks ago we sent a questionnaire to you that asked about your opinions of the media, and about how you find out about important social and political issues. To the best of our knowledge, it has not yet been returned.

The questionnaires of people who have already responded include a wide variety of methods of keeping up to date about socio-political issues. We think the results are going to be very useful to a variety of community organisations.

We are writing again because of the importance that your questionnaire has for helping to get accurate results. It‟s only by hearing from nearly everyone in the sample that we can be sure that the results are truly representative of Brisbane residents.

A comment on our survey procedures. A questionnaire identification number is printed on the front cover of the questionnaire so that we can cross your name off the mailing list when it is returned. The list of names is then destroyed so that individual names can never be connected to the results in any way. Protecting the confidentiality of people‟s answers is very important to QUT.

We hope you will fill out and return the questionnaire soon, but if for any reason you prefer not to answer it, please let us know by contacting me via telephone on 0421 868 342; or via email at [email protected]. This will enable us to remove your name from the mailing list.

Sincerely,

Kim Moody PhD Student Faculty of Information Technology

P.S. If you have any questions or comments about this study, we would be happy to talk with you. Please contact myself via telephone on 0421 868 342; or via email at [email protected].

Appendix 5: Participant Information Sheet

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION for QUT RESEARCH PROJECT

Information Seeking About Socio-Political Issues: An Australian Perspective Research Team Contact Kim Moody Dr Helen Partridge PhD Student Principal Supervisor Faculty of Information Technology Faculty of Information Technology Queensland University of Technology Queensland University of Technology Phone: 0438 765 733 Phone: (07) 3138 9047 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Description This project is being undertaken as part of a PhD program at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT). The purpose of this project is to explore the way people feel about the media, as well as to learn how different types of people find out information about important social and political issues. You do not have to be interested in politics to take part in the survey – we need responses from all types of people, both those interested in politics, and those who are not. The research team requests your assistance because your responses will provide an important Australian perspective to research about socio-political information seeking. Results from the survey can be used to help community organisations to provide trustworthy and balanced information to the people of Brisbane about important social and political issues. This will make it easier for you to find high quality information when you need to make important decisions that affect our State’s future. Participation Your participation in this project is voluntary. You may withdraw from the project at any time prior to submission of the completed questionnaire, however after your confidential questionnaire is returned, it will not be possible to withdraw the form again. Your decision to participate (or not) will in no way impact upon your current or future relationship with QUT (for example your grades). Your participation will involve the completion of a written questionnaire. It is anticipated that this questionnaire will take 10 minutes to complete. If you would like a copy of the research results, please contact the researcher, Kim Moody, using the contact details at the top of the page. Your responses to this questionnaire will remain confidential. Please answer every question. Confidentiality All comments and responses will be treated confidentially. The names of individual persons are not required in any of the responses. The questionnaire identification number on the front page of the survey will be used only to cross your name off the mailing list when this questionnaire is returned. The survey front page will then be destroyed so that individual names can never be connected to the results in any way. At the end of the project, the entire database will be deleted. Consent to Participate The return of the completed questionnaire is accepted as an indication of your consent to participate in this project. Questions / further information about the project Please contact the researcher named above to have any questions answered or if you require further information about the project. Concerns / complaints regarding the conduct of the project QUT is committed to researcher integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Officer on (07) 3138 2340 or [email protected]. The Research Ethics Officer is not connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner. Thank you for participating in this survey.

Appendix 6: Pilot Study

The pilot study At the time of the pilot study, the survey was intended to be administered in a face-to-face manner. The pilot study was conducted in September 2007 with a sample size of 50. The pilot survey instrument is included at the end of this Appendix. For the pilot, a convenience sample within the sample frame was used, however attempts were made to maximize variety amongst respondents with regard to socio-economic characteristics. Data collection locations included Mitchelton State School (parents were approached), the human resource training departments of CRS Australia and Child Support Agency; and the suburbs of New Farm and Mitchelton. Participants were approached in person by the researcher or by volunteer assistants who were trained with regard to the sample frame and appropriate approach. Of the 50 surveys distributed, 47 were usable. Table A6.1 includes details of the characteristics of the pilot sample.

Survey content and design A number of changes were made to the survey instrument based on the pilot study. Three returned surveys were unusable because the respondents did not fit the sample frame, despite being asked in advance whether they lived within the Brisbane City Council area. This problem was resolved once the decision was made to administer the survey via a mail out, as only addresses within the Brisbane City Council region were selected. Participants had in some cases made notes on the completed surveys indicating that the response scale in Section 3 (information source usage data) of the survey was confusing. As a result, the question and response scale were reworded for the main study to simplify the question. For example, the question as worded in the pilot asked “Please indicate how frequently you use each of the following resources to find out about political issues, using the rating scale below”, with the rating scale: Never; Less than once per year; At least once per year; At least once per month; At least once per week; Daily. For the main survey, the question will be changed to: “Please indicate which of the following you usually use to find out about socio-political issues”. Another response scale which seemed to confuse respondents was the Employment Status question, particularly for people who both work and study. In addition, it was decided upon reflection that a more useful measure would the amount of time spent on work and study activities. The question was therefore changed to “In total, how many hours do you usually spend per week on both work and study?”. Data input of the pilot responses revealed a range of coding problems which were corrected to streamline data entry for the main study. Such changes included reversing the Likert scale responses (whilst maintaining consistency throughout the survey) to minimise the need for reverse-coding of data.

Table A6.1: Characteristics of the pilot sample Characteristic Valid percent* Age 18-29 years 19 30-39 45 40-49 21 50-59 9 60+ 6 Gender Male 38 Female 62 Employment status Work FT 70 Work PT 9 Work and study 13 Unemployed 2 Retired 6 Household income $20,000-40,000 9 $40,001-60,000 18 $60,001-80,000 21 $80,0001-100,000 18 $100,001-120,000 21 $120,000+ 14 Highest education High school 17 Tafe/Technical college 17 Undergraduate degree/Honours 36 Postgraduate degree 23 Higher research degree 2 Other 4 Interest in politics Not much 9 Some 56 A good deal 36 Partisanship ALP 36 Liberal 16 Greens 18 Democrats 2 No party 29 * Some categories may not total 100 due to rounding

Initial data analysis Due to the small sample size of the pilot, factor analyses on the survey indexes were not possible. From their review of the literature, Meyers, Gamst & Guarino suggest that sample sizes of 50 are a “very poor” basis for factor analysis (2006, p.467). Instead, presented here are some basic analyses on several of the survey items and indexes.

Tables A6.2 and A6.3 present the mean values for the various information source exposure items.

Table A6.2 Mean scores for weekly exposure to information sources* (number of days used)

Information Source Mean Std. Deviation Daily Newspapers 3.13 2.618 Commercial TV News 3.02 2.152 ABC TV News 2.79 2.196 Commercial Radio News 2.18 2.396 ABC Radio News 1.96 2.756 Commercial News Website 1.89 2.461 SBS TV News 1.13 1.752 ABC News Website 0.83 1.711 ABC Talkback 0.64 1.51 Commercial Talkback 0.4 1.136 Alternative News Website 0.36 0.919 SBS Radio News 0.26 1.093 SBS News Website 0.2 0.749 Community Radio News 0.11 0.487 Briz31 TV News 0.02 0.147 *Bold print indicates a mainstream information source

Table A6.3 Mean scores for exposure to other information sources*

Information Source Mean Std. Deviation ABC TV Current Affairs 4.15 1.56 Friends 4.06 1.374 Commercial TV Current Affairs 4.04 1.551 Local newspaper 3.77 1.507 Comedy TV shows 3.59 1.514 TV Documentaries 3.26 1.421 ABC Radio Current Affairs 2.89 1.816 SBS TV Current Affairs 2.64 1.524 Mainstream mags 2.55 1.558 Books 2.48 1.487 Commercial Radio Current Affairs 2.22 1.65 F2F events (festivals, conferences, public speaking events, etc) 2.2 1.276 Alternative mags 2.19 1.296 Charity newsletters 2.17 1.257 Other websites 2.17 1.568 Political Party newsletters 1.7 1.082 Political Party websites 1.66 1.185 SBS Radio Current Affairs 1.61 1.164 Charity websites 1.55 1.1 Email lists 1.53 1.139 Community Radio Current Affairs 1.49 1.014 *Bold print indicates a mainstream information source

Media Scepticism Index

The Media Scepticism Index (MSI) has a potential range from 0 to 35, with 35 indicating a very high level of scepticism. The Cronbach’s alpha for the 9 items was .79, which is acceptable. The mean was 26.6 with SD of 4.9. The distribution of the MSI scores, included in Figure 3.2, appears to be skewed toward the higher end of the scale. Such skewing may indicate a skewing within sample, due to the convenience sampling approach employed for the pilot. Alternatively, it may represent a genuine level of scepticism within the population. Figure A6.1: Distribution of Media Scepticism Index scores

12.5

10.0

Frequency 7.5

5.0

2.5

0.0 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 Media Scepticism Index Scores

Need for Cognition Index

The Need for Cognition Index (NFCI) has a potential range from 0 to 72, with 72 indicating a very high level of NFC. The Cronbach’s alpha for the 18 items was good, measuring .89. The mean was 46.9 with SD of 8.9. The distribution of the NFCI scores, included in Figure 3.3, appears on visual inspection to be reasonably normal. Figure A6.2: Distribution of Need for Cognition Index scores

Frequency 6

0 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 NFC Index

Gratifications Sought Index

The Gratifications Sought Index (GSI) differs from the previous two indexes as it is designed to measure multiple gratifications factors rather than a single latent factor. Reliable factor analysis is required to identify the underlying factors and their associated index items. Therefore, no further analysis can be conducted on this index at present.

Pilot survey instrument

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION for QUT RESEARCH PROJECT

Information Seeking About Politics: An Australian Perspective Research Team Contacts Kim Moody Master of Information Technology (Research) Student Faculty of Information Technology Queensland University of Technology Phone: 0438 765 733 Email: [email protected]

Description This project is being undertaken as part of a Masters of Information Technology (Research) program at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT). The purpose of this project is to explore the way different types of people find out information about political issues. You do not have to be interested in politics to take part in the survey – we need responses from all types of Australians, both those interested in politics, and those who are not. The research team requests your assistance because your responses will provide an important Australian perspective to research about political information seeking. This information will help researchers to understand more about where Australians look for information about political issues. Participation Your participation in this project is voluntary. You may withdraw from the project at any time prior to submission of the completed survey form, however after your anonymous survey form is submitted to the researcher, it will not be possible to withdraw the form again. Your decision to participate (or not) will in no way impact upon your current or future relationship with QUT (for example your grades). Your participation will involve the completion of a written survey. It is anticipated that this questionnaire will take 10 to 15 minutes to complete. If you would like a copy of the research results, please contact the researcher, Kim Moody, using the contact details at the top of the page. Your responses to this questionnaire will remain confidential and anonymous. Please answer truthfully. Please answer every question. Any answer is acceptable. Confidentiality All comments and responses are anonymous and will be treated confidentially. The names of individual persons are not required in any of the responses. Consent to Participate The return of the completed questionnaire is accepted as an indication of your consent to participate in this project. Questions / further information about the project Please contact the researcher named above to have any questions answered or if you require further information about the project. Concerns / complaints regarding the conduct of the project QUT is committed to researcher integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Officer on 3138 2340 or [email protected]. The Research Ethics Officer is not connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner. Thank you for participating in this survey.

Section 1: This section asks about your opinion of the media in general. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements 1. Media organizations can be trusted to report the news fairly (Please circle) Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor Disagree Strongly disagree disagree

Thinking about the news media in general, please tick whether you believe: Strongly Agree Neither agree Disagree Strongly agree or disagree disagree 2. The media are fair…………………………………..      3. The media tell the whole story…………………….      4. The media are accurate……………………………      5. The media can be trusted………………………….      6. I have a lot of confidence in the people running media institutions in Australia……………………...     

And of the following options, which do you agree with? 7. All in all, how would you rate the job the media has done in covering the 2007 Federal Election issues so far? Excellent Good Fair Poor

8. Thinking about the news media, would you say the news media usually help society to solve its problems, OR the news media usually get in the way of society solving its problems? Help society Get in the way

9. Which do you think the news media care more about, in general? Being the first to report a story Being accurate in reporting a story

Section 2: We are interested in which (if any) types of information sources you have used in the past seven days.

For each of the following information sources please indicate how many days out of the past week you used it. INFORMATION SOURCES NUMBER OF DAYS YOU USED IT TELEVISION NEWS (whether you watched them on the Internet or on the TV) Channel 2 (ABC) TV News (at any time of day) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Channel 7, 9, 10 or cable TV News (at any time of day) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SBS TV News (in any language) (at any time of day) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Briz31 TV News (at any time of day) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 RADIO NEWS (whether you listened to them on the Internet or on the radio) SBS Radio news bulletins 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Any ABC radio station news bulletins 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Any commercial radio news bulletins (eg. 4BC, 4KQ, Triple M, B105 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and others) Any community radio news bulletins (eg. Murri Radio) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TALKBACK RADIO (whether you listened to them on the Internet or on the radio) Any ABC radio station talkback shows 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Any commercial radio station talkback shows 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEWSPAPERS (whether you read them on the Internet or in print) Any daily Australian newspapers (eg. Courier Mail/Sunday Mail; The Australian/Weekend Australian; Sydney Morning Herald; The Age and 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 others) INTERNET ABC news website 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SBS news website 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Online news run by major commercial media organizations (eg. Nine 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MSN, CNN, FoxNews) Alternative news websites (eg. indymedia.org, newmatilda.com, 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 crikey.com.au)

Section 3: This section asks about what other types of information sources you use to find out about political issues.

Some people use a variety of different information sources (newspapers, TV shows, websites and so on) to find out about political issues. Political issues include topics discussed by our government, or important topics which you believe ought to be discussed by our government. Examples could include interest rates, unemployment, religious tolerance, climate change, immigration, the economy, workplace relations, terrorism, health care, and many other topics. We are interested in what other sources of information you may use to find out about political issues. Please indicate how frequently you use each of the following resources to find out about political issues, using the rating scale below. Rating scale: Never Less than once At least At least At least Daily per year once per year once per month once per week 1 2 3 4 5 6

FREQUENCY OF USE INFORMATION SOURCE (NUMBERS REFER TO RATING SCALE ABOVE) TV CURRENT AFFAIRS PROGRAMS Channel 2 (ABC) (eg. 7.30 Report, Four Corners, Foreign 1 2 3 4 5 6 Correspondent, Stateline, Lateline, Difference of Opinion) SBS (eg. Dateline, Insight) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Channel 7, 9, 10 or cable (eg. 60 Minutes, Sunday, A Current Affair, 1 2 3 4 5 6 Today Tonight) OTHER TV PROGRAMS Television documentaries about political issue/s (any channel) (eg. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Cutting Edge) Comedy programs that send up the news (eg. The Chaser) 1 2 3 4 5 6 RADIO CURRENT AFFAIRS (radio shows that cover issues in depth – do NOT include here regular news bulletins) Any ABC radio station 1 2 3 4 5 6 Any SBS radio station 1 2 3 4 5 6 Any community radio station (eg. 4ZZZ, Murri Radio) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Any commercial radio station 1 2 3 4 5 6 PRINT MATERIALS The local free newspaper (eg. Northern News, South-West News, West- 1 2 3 4 5 6 Side News) Mainstream magazines (eg. Business Review Weekly, The Bulletin) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Alternative magazines (eg. The Monthly, Big Issue, Green Left Weekly, 1 2 3 4 5 6 Quadrant) Political party newsletters 1 2 3 4 5 6 Charity newsletters and magazines (eg. Amnesty International, 1 2 3 4 5 6 Greenpeace) Section 3 continues over page >

Section 3 continues

Rating scale: Never Less than once At least At least At least Daily per year once per year once per month once per week 1 2 3 4 5 6

FREQUENCY OF USE INFORMATION SOURCE (NUMBERS REFER TO RATING SCALE ABOVE) INTERNET Political party websites (including official party / politician YouTube or 1 2 3 4 5 6 MySpace) Charity websites (eg. Amnesty International, Greenpeace) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Other websites (any type you use to find out about political issues) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Email lists 1 2 3 4 5 6 OTHER Friends, family or work colleagues 1 2 3 4 5 6 Books 1 2 3 4 5 6 Conferences, festivals, public speaking events, political meetings (eg. community forums; Brisbane Writers Festival; Ideas Festival, book 1 2 3 4 5 6 launches)

Section 4: In this section, we want to find out some of your reasons for seeking political information Please rate (tick) how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:

Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly I pay attention to political information in the agree agree or disagree disagree media… 1. to help me get away from everyday worries………………..      2. to find out things I need to know about daily life……………      3. because it shows me what society is like nowadays………      4. because it helps me when I want to be cheered up………..      5. because it is entertaining……………………………………..      6. to help me judge what political leaders are really like……..      7. so I can learn about what might happen to me…………….      8. because it helps me to take my mind off things……………      9. because it’s enjoyable…………………………………………      10. so I can keep up with what the government is doing……..      11. because it’s exciting………………………………………….      12. so I can talk with other people about what’s covered…….      13. because it helps me satisfy my curiosity…………………..      14. to help me relax………………………………………………      15. because it amuses me      16. so I can learn what is going on in the country and the world……………………………………………………………..      17. because it helps me learn things about myself and others      18. so I can understand the world………………………………      19. because it makes me want to learn more about things…..      20. because it sometimes gives me a good laugh or cry…….      21. because it is thrilling………………………………………….      22. because it helps me to forget about work/school…………     

Section 5: In this section, we want to find out a little about your personality.

Please rate (tick) how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements: Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly agree agree or disagree disagree 1. I prefer to deal with complex things rather than simple things…………………………………………………………….      2. I like to have the responsibility of handling a situation that requires a lot of thinking……………………………………….      3. Thinking is not my idea of fun………………………………...      4. I would rather do something that requires little thought than something that is sure to challenge my thinking abilities…………………………………………………………..      5. I try to anticipate and avoid situations where there is a likely chance I will have to think in depth about something.      6. I find satisfaction deliberating long and hard for hours…….      7. I only think as hard as I have to………………………………      8. I prefer to think about small, daily projects to long-term ones……………………………………………………………..      9. I like tasks that require little thought once I’ve learned them……………………………………………………………..      10. The idea of relying on thought to make my way to the top appeals to me…………………………………………………..      11. I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems………………………………………….      12. Learning new ways to think doesn’t excite me very much.      13. I prefer my life to be filled with puzzles that I must solve...      14. The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me……..      15. When doing an important task, I prefer it to be intellectual and challenging rather than requiring little thought………...      16. I feel relief rather than satisfaction after completing a task that required a lot of mental effort………………………      17. Its enough for me that something gets the job done; I don’t care how or why it works………………………………..      18. I usually end up deliberating about issues even when they do not affect me personally……………………………..     

Section 6: This section of the survey asks for some information about you. All responses are anonymous and confidential.

1. Do you live in the Brisbane City Council area?  Yes  No

2. Are you:  Female  Male

3. What year were you born? ______

4. Where were you born (which country)?  Australia  New Zealand  Vietnam  China  South Africa  Other country (please specify)  Italy  United Kingdom ______

5. Do you identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander?  Yes  No

6. Are you registered to vote in Australian elections?  Yes  No

7. What is the approximate annual income of your household before tax?  No income  $60,001-80,000  $1-20,000  $80,001-100,000  $20,001-40,000  $100,001-120,000  $40,001-60,000  $120,001+

8. What is your highest completed level of education?  Primary School  University postgraduate degree  High School  Research degree (eg. Masters by research, PhD)  TAFE/Technical College  Other (Please specify) ______ University Degree / Honours

9. Do you have a computer with Internet access (tick all that apply):  No  Yes, at home  Yes, at work/ uni  Yes, somewhere else

10. Do you use the Internet other than as part of your paid work?  Yes  No

11. Which of the following best describes your current employment status?  Work full time  Working student  Not in paid employment  Work part time  Nonworking student  Retired

Section 7: This section asks some questions about your interest in politics. 1. Generally speaking, how much interest do you usually have in what’s going on in politics? (Please circle) A good deal Some Not much None

2. Generally speaking, which political party do you feel closest to? (Please tick one only)  Labor (ALP)  Family First  Liberal  Socialist Alliance  National  Other  Greens  No party (If you tick this box, there are no more questions, thank you for your time!)  Democrats

3. Would you call yourself a very strong, fairly strong, or not very strong supporter of that party? (Please circle) Very strong Fairly strong Not very strong

Thank you for completing this survey!

Appendix 7: Categorisation of information sources listed in free text portions of survey section 2. Active Net search – search engines, such as “Google search”, “Yahoo search”.

Other social networking sites: eg. Bebo

Other mainstream news sources – this would include sources that have news/politics as a key focus, and are mainstream. Specific sources included in this category:

“UK News” Media releases Advertisements on tv and in mags Media report Background briefing MSN.com Bigpond.com.au MSNBC Bulletin NBC Today CBS Early Show New Yorker CNBC News.co.uk Courts NY Times Face the Press (US TV show) Qld Country Life Far Eastern Economic Review (Dow Salon.com Jones) Sky news.com Fiji Times Online (newscorp) Slate.com Good Morning America Sun Herald Google News The Independent UK Govt white papers The Land newspaper (Fairfax) Guardian (uk) Times UK Hindsight Veterans Affairs News Law report Washington post Local council letters/mailouts

Other non-mainstream news sources – this would include sources that have news/politics as a key focus, and non-mainstream. Specific sources included in this category:

101.1FM (Logan City community radio) getup.com.au 4EB radio, 98.1FM (ethnic radio In the National Interest station) Independent newspaper (Australia) Agenda (Sky/Fox) Livejournal.com Al Jazeera Marymushi.com Behind The News (BTN) Monocle magazine Catholic Leader Pride Christian Broadcast (CBN) Q Magazine DW News (Briz31) Q Times Eco report (Sky/Fox) SIC (Portuguese) Fascist Times Southern Cross newspaper (church publication) Foreign language print news materials The Great Debate

The Senior www.pollbludger.com www.gazeta.pl Yen magazine

Other – other sources listed which do not have news/politics as a key focus. Specific sources included in this category:

“church – for example if the politician Inside Film magazine is a Christian “ Larry King 101.6fm Late Night with Conan O’Brien 4MBS Libraries/librarians 4RPH radio Limelight magazine 91.9 Sea FM Movies 92.5fm Alpine Radio My Business (magazine) 92.9fm National Geographic channel ABC Classic FM106.1 Neighbourhood Watch newsletter Accume (magazine) New Life newspaper Army newspaper New Scientist Art, photography New Scientist At The Movies Notebook magazine Australian Country Style (magazine) Professional Associations/industry journals Australian Geographic Radio 1008 (racing) Big Love Readers Digest Brisbane News (magazine) Rhema Christian radio 1065FM Catalyst (ABC) River 94.9FM Christianity Today School newsletter Church social groups Science daily news Discovery channel Scientific American Dolly Slashdot Dr Phil Smart Investor Earth Garden Talking Heads (ABC television) Education News The Simpsons Fortune Theatre G magazine Theedge.com Gawker Media Travel overseas Girlfriend University journals Global Village (SBS) Yes Minister Herald of Hope

Appendix 8: Mainstream vs non-mainstream classification of Information sources listed in the questionnaire

Note: Mainstream information sources are media information sources which do not identify themselves as providing „alternative‟ viewpoints.

Non-mainstream information sources are media information sources which identify themselves as providing alternative viewpoints (as evidenced by their mission statement, slogan, or otherwise).

Information Traditional Classification Justification Source source format BBC News TV/Website Mainstream CNN News TV/Website Mainstream Sky News TV Mainstream Fox News TV/Website Mainstream Landline TV Mainstream 4AAA (Murri) Radio Non- “Our Mission Statement: To be an appropriate media service for 98.9FM (n.d.). About 98.9FM. Retrieved 6th November mainstream the cultural and economic independence of Indigenous people." 2008 from 98.9FM has won a number of awards for Indigenous http://989fm.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&ta broadcasting, and continues to display a strong commitment to sk=view&id=9&Itemid=6 quality broadcasting of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander music, issues and news.”

4BC Radio Mainstream 4BH Radio Mainstream 4KQ Radio Mainstream 4ZZZ Radio Non- “Throughout its history, 4ZzZ has been renowned for supporting 4ZZZ Brisbane 102.1 FM (n.d.). 4ZZZ Profile. Retrieved mainstream local music and artists, putting on great events, presenting 6th November 2008 from news and opinions not found in mainstream media and http://www.4zzzfm.org.au/about/index.cfm providing support to our local community.” 5.30pm 10HD TV Mainstream News 60 Minutes TV Mainstream 7.30 Report TV Mainstream 96.5 Radio Mainstream 97.3 Radio Mainstream 9am with David TV Mainstream & Kim A Current Affair TV Mainstream

ABC Local radio Radio Mainstream ABC News TV Mainstream ABC news radio Radio Mainstream

ABC Radio Radio Mainstream National ABC website Website Mainstream Arena Magazine Non- “Arena: the website of left political, social and cultural Arena (n.d.). Retrieved 6th November 2008 form mainstream commentary” http://www.arena.org.au/arenamag.html Australian Newspaper Mainstream Financial Review Australian Story TV Mainstream B105 Radio Mainstream BBC website Website Mainstream Big Issue Magazine Non- “an independent magazine committed to all forms of social The Big Issue. (2008). Our Magazine. Retrieved 27th mainstream justice” October 2008, from http://www.bigissue.org.au/our- magazine Bloomberg Website Mainstream Brisbane Times Newspaper Mainstream BRW Magazine Mainstream Ch 10 Early TV Mainstream News Ch 7 News TV Mainstream Channel 10 web Website Mainstream Channel 7 web Website Mainstream Channel 9 web Website Mainstream Cleo Magazine Mainstream CNN web Website Mainstream Colbert Report TV Mainstream Compass TV Mainstream Cosmo Magazine Mainstream Courier Mail Newspaper Mainstream Crikey Website Non- “Crikey is an independent online media service… it tackles the Crikey (2008). About. Retrieved 6th November 2008 mainstream stories insiders are talking about but other media can't or won't from http://www.crikey.com.au/About.html cover.” Difference of TV Non- "Difference of Opinion will aim high for intelligent, positive Australian Broadcasting Corporation (2007). Difference Opinion mainstream debate that carefully examines a diverse range of views beyond of Opinion: About the show. Retrieved 23rd Oct 2008 conventional wisdom and helps stimulate the process of from constructing a stronger society." http://www.abc.net.au/tv/differenceofopinion/about.htm

Enough Rope TV Non- “As well as conducting extraordinary interviews with some of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (2008). Enough

mainstream world‟s most famous people… host Andrew Denton also talks Rope with Andrew Denton: About us. Retrieved 23rd with those not normally found on the talk show circuit: con men, October 2008 from Nobel Peace Prize winners, nurses, truckies, schizophrenics, http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/about/about.htm mountaineers, homeless people and murderers. Using humour and original lines of questioning, Andrew manages to open up his guests in ways that even surprise them. An interview can run from five to 50 minutes. Each show is different.”

Extra TV Mainstream Foreign Affairs Magazine Mainstream Foreign TV Mainstream Correspondent Four Corners TV Mainstream FoxNews web Website Mainstream Good News TV Non- “Each week, Paul & two Captains will lead teams of comedians, Network Ten (2008). Good News Week: About the Week mainstream media personalities, politicians and "special" guests as they show. Retrieved 23rd October 2008 from decipher, dissect, deconstruct & completely misrepresent the http://ten.com.au/gnw-about-the-show.html news of the week.” Green Left Newspaper Non- “Green Left – Australia‟s leading radical newspaper” Green Left Online (n.d.). About Green Left Weekly. Weekly mainstream Retrieved 6th November 2008 from http://www.greenleft.org.au/about.php Indymedia Website Non- “Indymedia is a collective of independent media organizations Independent Media Center (n.d.). Retrieved 6th mainstream and hundreds of journalists offering grassroots, non-corporate November 2008 from coverage. Indymedia is a democratic media outlet for the http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth.” Insiders TV Mainstream “Each week the program brings together the experience and Australian Broadcasting Corporation (2008). Insiders: insights of leading political commentators and other contributors About us. Retrieved 23rd October 2008 from representing a wide range of opinions.” http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/aboutus.htm

Lateline/Lateline TV Mainstream Business Local free paper Newspaper Mainstream (Fox) Madison Magazine Mainstream Marie Claire Magazine Mainstream Media Watch TV Non- “Media Watch is Australia's leading forum for media analysis Australian Broadcasting Corporation (2008). About mainstream and comment. Conflicts of interest, bank backflips, deceit, Media Watch. Retrieved 23rd October 2008, from misrepresentation, manipulation, plagiarism, abuse of power, http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/more.htm technical lies and straight out fraud: Media Watch has built an unrivalled record of exposing media shenanigans since it first went to air in 1989. The media provides the information we

need to make decisions about our lives, but how reliable are the media reports that shape our views of the world? Media Watch turns the spotlight onto those who literally 'make the news': the reporters, editors, sub-editors, producers, camera operators, sound recordists and photographers who claim to deliver the world to our doorsteps, radios, computers and living rooms. We also keep an eye on those who try to manipulate the media: the PR consultants, spin-doctors, lobbyists and "news makers" who set the agenda.“

Meet the Press TV Mainstream Message Stick TV Non- “Message Stick is a half hour TV program about Aboriginal and Australian Broadcasting Corporation (2008). Message mainstream Torres Strait Islander lifestyles, culture and issues…It allows Stick: About. Retrieved 23rd October 2008 from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians to tell their http://www.abc.net.au/tv/messagestick/about/ stories in their own way… It gives our audience intimate access to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander lifestyles, perspectives and aspirations.”

Midday Report TV Mainstream MMM Radio Mainstream Mornings with TV Mainstream Kerri-Anne MX (Fox) Newspaper Mainstream National Magazine Mainstream Geographic National Nine TV Mainstream Morning News National Nine TV Mainstream News National Press TV Mainstream Club Address New Idea Magazine Mainstream New Magazine Non- “With over 30 years of publishing under its belt, and more than New Internationalist (n.d.). About New Internationalist. Internationalist mainstream 75,000 subscribers worldwide, the New Internationalist is Retrieved 6th November 2008 from renowned for its radical, campaigning stance on a range of http://www.newint.org/about/ world issues, from the cynical marketing of babymilk in the Majority World to human rights in Burma.” New Statesman Magazine Non- “The New Statesman was created in 1913 with the aim of New Statesman (2008). About New Statesman. mainstream permeating the educated and influential classes with socialist Retrieved 11th November 2008 from ideas. Its founders were Sidney and Beatrice Webb… New http://www.newstatesman.com/nsabout.htm Statesman online and weekly magazine further the original aims

of Beatrice and Sydney Webb. Irreverent, beautifully written and witty, the New Statesman remains the essential read for bright thinkers everywhere.” New Woman Magazine Mainstream Newmatilda Website Non- “newmatilda.com is an independent website of news, analysis newmatilda.com (n.d.). About us. Retrieved 6th mainstream and satire. We publish a vibrant mix of views and voices, November 2008 from http://newmatilda.com/about/ actively seeking out new information and perspectives to broaden public debate.” News.com.au Website Mainstream Newsweek Magazine Mainstream Nightline TV Mainstream Nova Radio Mainstream Now Australia Magazine Mainstream Oprah TV Mainstream Parliament TV Mainstream Question Time Quadrant Magazine Non- “[w]hile fashionable thought in much of the Australian media, Quadrant Magazine. (2008). About us. Retrieved 27th mainstream universities and the arts remains influenced by left-wing moral October 2008, from authoritarianism, Quadrant has persistently questioned this http://www.quadrant.org.au/pages/about-us orthodoxy” SBS radio Radio Non- “With diverse cultural and community views, Radio is a bridge Special Broadcasting Service (2008). About SBS Radio. mainstream linking to the 3.1+ million Australians who speak another Retrieved 6th November 2008 from language.” http://www.sbs.com.au/radio/aboutus SBS Television TV Non- SBS Television…“present[s] the many points of view, the Special Broadcasting Service. (2002a). SBS (all): mainstream myriad stories and the different personalities of multicultural and Corporation: Interactive overview. Retrieved 24th SBS NES News indigenous Australia” October 2008, from Business Report http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/index.php?id=12 The Journal 09 Newshour with Jim Lehrer SBS World News Australia 6.30pm SBS World News Australia 9.30pm Dateline Hot Docs Inside Australia Insight Living Black Newstopia

SBS website Website Non- “was established to give voice and exposure to multicultural Special Broadcasting Service. (2002b). SBS mainstream Australia; to define, foster and celebrate Australia's cultural Corporation: Overview. Retrieved 27th October 2008, diversity” from http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/

Seven Morning TV Mainstream News SMH Newspaper Mainstream Socialist Worker Newspaper Non- “Socialist Worker is produced by the International Socialist International Socialist Organisation. (). The International mainstream Organisation (ISO) in Australia… Reporting and campaigning Socialist Organisation. Retrieved 6th November 2008 on the big issues facing working people, it is an introduction to from http://www.socialistworker.org.au/the-international- the ideas and politics of the ISO and is aimed at people who are socialist-organisation/ serious about changing the world.” Stateline TV Mainstream Sunday TV Mainstream Sunday Mail Newspaper Mainstream Sunday TV Mainstream Spectrum Sunrise TV Mainstream Switch 1197 Radio Mainstream Ten Late Night TV Mainstream News Ten Morning TV Mainstream News Ten News TV Mainstream The Age Newspaper Mainstream The Australian Newspaper Mainstream The Chaser TV Non- “The Chaser - satirical news” Chaser Publishing (2008). About the Chaser team. mainstream Retrieved 11th November from http://www.chaser.com.au/content/view/15/52/ The Daily Show TV Non- “The Emmy and Peabody Award-winning Daily Show takes a Comedy Partners (2008). About the show. Retrieved with Jon Stewart mainstream reality-based look at news, trends, pop culture, current events, 11th November 2008 from politics, sports and entertainment with an alternative point of http://www.thedailyshow.com/about.jhtml view.” The Economist Magazine Mainstream The Late Show TV Mainstream with Letterman The Monthly Magazine Non- “This is the independent voice Australia needs. The Monthly, a The Monthly (2008). About. Retrieved 11th November mainstream national magazine of politics, society and the arts, arrived in 2008 from http://www.themonthly.com.au/tm/node/354 2005... It is unlike any Australian publication that has come and gone before… If Australia‟s existing magazines are stuck in a

rut, growing fatter yet thinner, then The Monthly is like a free- spirited friend who comes to visit, full of stories, insight, wit and surprise. The times cry out for an intelligent, independent voice. The long wait is over. The Morning TV Mainstream Show The Spectator Magazine Non- “The Spectator was established in 1828, and is the oldest The Spectator (2008). The Spectator: About us. mainstream continuously published magazine in the English language. The Retrieved 11th November 2008 from Spectator's taste for controversy, however, remains http://www.spectator.co.uk/corporate/about- undiminished. There is no party line to which our writers are us/15224/about-us.thtml bound - originality of thought and elegance of expression are the sole editorial constraints. The result, week after week, is that the best British journalists, critics, authors and cartoonists turn out their best work, to produce an extraordinarily wide- ranging title.” The West Wing TV Mainstream Time Magazine Mainstream Today TV Mainstream Today Tonight TV Mainstream Triple J Radio Non- “Triple J is for young Australians. We‟re not so interested in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (2008). Triple J: mainstream rest. Whether it‟s bringing live music to all corners of the About. Retrieved 11th November 2008 from country, or uncovering the stories that matter to you, triple j is http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/about/ here to satisfy all your musical and cultural needs.” TTN TV Mainstream Weekend Newspaper Mainstream Australian Womans Day Magazine Mainstream Women‟s Magazine Mainstream Weekly

Appendix 9: Tabloid versus broadsheet distinction as applied to media sources in the study

As discussed in Chapter Four, the distinction between tabloid and broadsheet media is difficult to make with precision. For the purposes of the current study, tabloid sources were identified thus:

. Amongst the broadcast media, tabloid sources were identified by having typically brief coverage of news stories, shallow treatment of issues, or by their frequent employment of tabloid production and/or journalistic techniques (for example, emotive lighting and music, ‘foot-in-the-door’ interrogating, hidden cameras and dramatized ‘re-enactments’).

. Tabloid newspapers were identified simply by their tabloid physical format.

Using these distinctions, the following media sources were identified as tabloid:

Sunrise Today Tonight Today A Current Affair 60 Minutes Fox News Courier Mail Sunday Mail MX newspaper

Appendix 10: Low news content versus high news content radio stations

Low news content radio stations High news content radio stations 4KQ 4BC Triple M Murri Radio B105 4ZZZ Nova SBS radio (all stations) FM973 ABC Radio National FM965 ABC Local Radio 4BH Triple J Switch FM ABC News Radio

Appendix 11: Ethics Approval Certificate

Appendix 12: Correlations Table

Mainstream/Non TV News TV Current Affairs -mainstream Tabloid/Broadshe Private/Public NewspaperTabloid/Br Radio Low/High News Tabloid/Broadsheet Tabloid/Broadsheet Non-News Media MediaDiet et Media Diet Media Diet Internet SPIR Print Media SPIR Newspaper SPIR oadsheet Media Diet Radio SPIR Coverage Media Diet TV SPIR Media Diet Media Diet SPIR Overall SPIR Total Media Scepticism Score Pearson Correlation -.119 -.009 -.122 .013 -.049 -.053 -.040 .001 -.081 -.036 -.039 -.093 .135 .011 Sig. (2-tailed) .005 .834 .004 .759 .245 .208 .341 .973 .055 .399 .361 .028 .001 .793 N 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 Total NFC Score Pearson Correlation -.064 -.200 -.133 .183 .115 .094 -.250 .078 -.094 .013 -.097 -.168 .317 .182 Sig. (2-tailed) .134 .000 .002 .000 .007 .027 .000 .067 .027 .754 .023 .000 .000 .000 N 551 551 551 551 551 551 551 551 551 551 551 551 551 551 Entertainment Gratifications Pearson Correlation .141 -.232 -.003 .155 .226 .220 -.106 .112 -.029 .224 -.152 -.129 .169 .298 Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .946 .000 .000 .000 .013 .008 .490 .000 .000 .002 .000 .000 N 551 551 551 551 551 551 551 551 551 551 551 551 551 551 Surveillance Gratifications Pearson Correlation .170 -.303 -.093 .142 .247 .241 -.049 .098 -.084 .272 -.280 -.228 .231 .346 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .028 .001 .000 .000 .250 .021 .047 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 553 553 553 553 553 553 553 553 553 553 553 553 553 553 Escape Gratifications Pearson Correlation .194 -.091 .153 .051 .088 .076 .016 .129 .118 .153 -.032 .038 -.045 .128 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .033 .000 .226 .037 .072 .715 .002 .005 .000 .454 .375 .292 .002 N 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 Political Interest Not Much Pearson Correlation -.149 .261 .104 -.089 -.176 -.162 .091 -.093 .164 -.235 .236 .223 -.108 -.275 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .012 .032 .000 .000 .027 .025 .000 .000 .000 .000 .009 .000 N 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 Political Interest Some Pearson Correlation -.039 .137 .162 -.051 -.064 -.062 .066 -.068 .142 -.056 .140 .181 -.104 -.106 Sig. (2-tailed) .346 .001 .000 .214 .123 .134 .111 .101 .001 .177 .001 .000 .012 .011 N 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 Political Interest A Good Deal Pearson Correlation .169 -.373 -.261 .147 .234 .232 -.156 .165 -.293 .247 -.344 -.379 .225 .351 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 Political Interest None Pearson Correlation -.093 .095 .005 -.024 -.127 -.138 .000 -.085 .044 -.076 .071 .039 -.067 -.115 Sig. (2-tailed) .024 .021 .904 .562 .002 .001 .993 .041 .290 .068 .087 .348 .108 .006 N 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 Age at 2008 birthday Pearson Correlation .154 -.111 -.228 -.258 .052 .050 .073 -.087 -.326 .189 -.242 -.204 -.181 .040 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .008 .000 .000 .219 .236 .083 .037 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .342 N 566 566 566 566 566 566 566 566 566 566 566 566 566 566 Gender Pearson Correlation -.094 -.095 -.175 .032 -.099 -.018 -.144 .015 -.199 -.050 -.076 -.111 -.117 -.056 Sig. (2-tailed) .023 .022 .000 .435 .017 .666 .001 .717 .000 .227 .066 .008 .005 .178 N 581 581 581 581 581 581 581 581 581 581 581 581 581 581 University Qualification Pearson Correlation -.035 -.191 -.111 .150 .124 .160 -.298 .044 -.093 .012 -.098 -.135 .163 .122 Sig. (2-tailed) .393 .000 .007 .000 .003 .000 .000 .284 .025 .767 .017 .001 .000 .003 N 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 Internet Access - None Pearson Correlation .075 .063 .044 -.229 .020 -.081 .123 -.038 -.012 .104 -.022 .034 -.175 -.031 Sig. (2-tailed) .072 .130 .285 .000 .624 .052 .003 .355 .770 .012 .590 .412 .000 .457 N 580 580 580 580 580 580 580 580 580 580 580 580 580 580 ALP partisanship Pearson Correlation .030 .004 -.029 -.002 .019 .031 .057 .020 .046 .083 -.014 -.051 .020 .062 Sig. (2-tailed) .462 .926 .488 .970 .655 .451 .172 .625 .269 .046 .730 .218 .625 .135 N 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585

Liberal/National Parties partisanship Pearson Correlation .138 -.013 .095 -.014 .048 .035 .028 .024 -.040 .015 -.009 .034 -.067 .002 Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .750 .022 .739 .243 .396 .496 .563 .331 .714 .830 .410 .105 .952 N 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 Minor Parties partisanship Pearson Correlation -.155 -.049 -.119 .064 -.024 -.023 -.130 -.059 -.051 .010 -.044 -.048 .153 .045 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .233 .004 .121 .567 .584 .002 .156 .215 .809 .287 .245 .000 .274 N 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 No Partisanship Pearson Correlation -.120 .028 -.027 -.009 -.091 -.082 -.035 -.017 -.006 -.124 .051 .031 -.043 -.111 Sig. (2-tailed) .004 .505 .517 .834 .028 .047 .396 .678 .884 .003 .216 .454 .294 .007 N 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 Household Income Pearson Correlation -.011 -.105 -.094 .037 .085 .140 -.128 -.012 -.071 -.004 -.088 -.109 .052 .048 Sig. (2-tailed) .795 .011 .023 .376 .039 .001 .002 .772 .086 .920 .034 .009 .211 .250 N 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 Hours Spent at Work/Study Pearson Correlation -.038 -.048 .034 .138 .061 .107 -.140 .064 .068 -.099 .034 -.002 .131 .047 Sig. (2-tailed) .361 .242 .410 .001 .140 .009 .001 .125 .102 .016 .416 .967 .001 .253 N 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585