we a 2010 media econ develop price

The Mass Media and its Impact on Economics


Meredith M. Price

The University Of Southern Mississippi


Abstract

Mass media is suggested to be a catalyst toward economic impact. Studies

posit that media information has either a negative and positive affect, which in turn

can impact individual’s attitude. Consumer behavior research supports the idea that

negative media content on the certain issues can cause the economy to fluctuate.

This paper explores how mass media functions and how media concepts are

related to economic impact. Research in media impact on the economy of the

Mississippi Gulf Coast after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is the focus of study.

Relating media and it’s impact on the economy is challenging but a necessary factor

to study while in pursuit of understanding other factors in economic impact and

media effects. The behavior of the economy can be impacted by how the media

presents information towards the public.

Introduction of mass media effects

Print, radio, television, Internet, and social networks are common types of

media. Media extends out to large masses of people and provides information to the

public on various subjects, entertain, and to gratify people’s curiosities. As mass

media has expanded and become more obtainable—cell phones, iTouch, and laptops

—so have the influences on a person’s cognitive ability. It would appear that the

individual has become more reliable on consulting the media.

The news media is on a 24 hours and 7 days a week cycle. News is constantly

streaming on the Internet through various websites and blogs. A widely accepted

model of communication is the Westley-MacLean model of communication. It

describes how information is gathered and disseminated to the audience (Severin

2


and Tankard, 2001). A closer look at the Westley-Mac Lean model of communication

aids in the study of how the media functions.


(Figure 1). Westley-MacLean Model of CommunicationWestley, B., and M. MacLean. 1957. “A conseptual Model for Communication Research.” Journalism Quarterly, 34:31-38

4


Westley and MacLean (1955) posit four different participating parties

involved in media communications. The parties are of A (advocacy role), C

(communication), B (receiver), X (objects of orientation), and f (feedback). X’s

represent “objects of orientation” which includes; events, objects, ideas, and people.

The Xs are within the sensory of A, B, and C. The A represents the advocacy roles

and observes the Xs and then transmits purposeful messages about its findings

through media.

C represents the communicator responsible for channel roles that are

received by B. An example of this would be television channels, websites,

newspapers, etc. C also functions as a “gatekeeper” which selects information from

Xs and A, and strives to satisfy B’s desire of information. C then chooses what

outlet/medium is appropriate for obtaining information to B roles. Now with the

Internet and faster means of communication, C is able to receive information from

several Xs. However, creating meaning is difficult out of bias/raw information from

the Xs; therefore, A is still necessary for more accurate perception, according to

Westley and MacLean (1957). .

The Westley-MacLean model allows messages to be purposive (with the

intent of modifying B’s perception of X) or non purposive (without any intent on the

part of the communicator to influence B) (Severin and Tankard, p. 61, 2001). With B

being perceived as the public or individual groups, they need information about


their environment to help gratify self-satisfaction and help solve problems (Severin,

Tankard, p. 63 2001). The model also provides feedback (f) from the receiver (B) to

the communicator (C) as well as from the communicator (C) back to the advocate

(A). Without this connection of feedback from the different consumers there would

be a lack in information development and in construction information selection.

This model is important in the understanding of how consumers take in news

media and how the different channels, orientations, and advocates can affect

consumer perceptions. This mass communications model aids in understanding

how the different theories of mass media effects could effect economic development.

MEDIA EFFECTS

The effects of mass media are theoretically applicable to the fluctuations in

economic development and are either direct or indirect. McGuire noted several of

the most commonly mentioned intended media effects are; (a) the effects of

advertising on purchasing, (b) the effects of political campaigns on voting, (c) the

effects of public service announcements (PSAs) on personal behavior and social

improvement, (d) the effects of media ritual on social control (McGuire, 1989).

McGuire also pointed out the most commonly mentioned unintended media effects;

(a) emotional behavior, (b) the impact of media images on the social construction of

reality, (c) the effects of media bias on stereotyping, and (d) how media forms affect

cognitive activity and style (McGuire, 1989).

In addition to these media effects, McGuire’s partner, McQuail, summarizes

that the main streams of effects research of other areas of media effects are; (a)

knowledge gain and distribution throughout society, (b) diffusion of innovations, (c)

6


socialization to societal norms, and (d) institution and cultural adaptations and

changes (McQuail 1972). A more in-depth analysis will be explored on specific

media effects in this body of work.

Media Agenda Setting

The concept of agenda setting set by the media is a likely factor that can

influence economic development. The agenda-setting function of the media refers

to the media’s capability, through repeated news coverage, of raising the importance

of an issue in the public’s mind (Severin, Tankard pg. 219). McCombs and Shaw

reported the first systematic study of agenda-setting hypothesis in 1972.

Findings in McCombs and Shaw’s “Chapel Hill Study” supported that media-

agenda setting can influence political campaigns (1972). Voter perception of a

particular campaign platform was shaped based on what the media choose to

emphasis on. McCombs and Shaw’s data suggested that a strong relationship

between the emphasis placed on different campaign issues by the media and the

judgments of voters are to the salience and importance of various campaign topics

(1972).

A precursor to McCombs and Shaw’s hypothesis suggests that what people

will think the facts are, and what most people will regard as the way problems are to

be dealt with is portrayed through the media (Norton Long, p. 260 1958). Also,

mass media forces attention to certain issues and are constantly presenting objects

suggesting what individuals in the mass should think about, know about, have

feelings about (Kurt, Gladys Engle Lang p. 232 1959).


Concepts that the media reported on were economic policy of the different

campaigns (McCombs and Shaw 1972). These reports could influence consumer

confidence. The level of consumer confidence augurs consumer spending— and

thus the future trajectory of the economy— and it affects a variety of political

behavior such as election outcomes, macropartisanship (Erikson, MacKuen, and

Stimson 2002), presidential approval (MacKuen, Erikson, and Stimson 1992, public

policy mood (Durr, 1993), congressional approval (Durr, Gilmour, and Wolbrecht

1997), and trust in government (Chanley, Rudolph, and Rahn 2000).

Additional experiments have been conducted to learn more about the effects

of media agenda setting. Media agenda setting determines the criteria by which an

issue will be evaluated (Iyengar, Kinder, Peters, 1982). This concept is known as

priming. Priming is the process in which media attends to particular issues and not

others and thereby alter the standards by which people evaluate and act on an issue

(Severin, Tankard p 226). The concept of priming builds on the idea that mass

media does have the power to build agendas outside of its own. Therefore, the

media acts as a director, actor, and consumer of it’s own product.

The application of agenda setting and it’s influence on economic

development can be seen in the case study of news coverage on women in the 1996

Olympic games and how the economy had a slight dip. Newspaper coverage of the

1996 Olympic games primarily were of women due to the addition of two women’s

events debuted which was soccer and softball, along with women’s mountain biking

and beach volleyball. The media emphasized on women’s progress. Women also

8


were recognized as an important television audience. NBC, the official U.S. Olympic

television network, sought to deliver on promised rating to advertisers by attracting

the largest possible audience and women were the target (Kinnick, 1998).

Women decided to follow the Olympic games by watching television rather

than going out and shopping suggests Kinnick. This in turn caused a brief moment

of loss in the month of August in the gross retails sales on a national level. Little

growth in economic activity was seen and some economist believe that the rise in

women viewership of the Olympics set off the slowing of gross retail sales on a

national level (Kinnick, 1998).

Cultivation theory, used in mass media studies, is a concept that explains

how people’s perceptions, attitudes, and values change from consumption of media.

Exposure to the same messages that debut in the mass media produces what

researchers refer to cultivation, or the teaching of a common worldview, common

roles, and common values (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, and Signorielli, p. 14 1980).

Thus, Media can have a negative impact upon cognitive thinking.

Psychological literature supplements the cultivation theory by suggesting

that unfavorable information has a greater impact on impression than does

favorable information, across a wide variety of situations (e.g., Ronis and Lipinski

1985; Singh and Teoh 2000; Van der Pligt and Eiser 1980; Vonk 1993, 1996). Stuart

N. Soroka’s (2006) research in media’s effect on economics suggests that there

exists an “asymmetric responses to bad and good economic information”.

Research in economics posits a prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky

1979). Prospect theory is a choice under uncertainty, which contains a feature


called loss aversion. People react more fervently towards a loss in utility than they

do towards a gain of equal magnitude (Soroka, 2006). This individual-level loss

adverse behavior is evident in macroeconomic dynamics: consumption tends to

drop more when the economy contracts than rise when the economy expands

(Bowman, Minehart, and Rabin 1999).

Examples in media suggest that overemphasizing the prevalence of violent

crime (e.g., Altheide 1997; Davie and Lee 1995; Smith 1984), and events involving

conflict or crisis receive a greater degree of media attention (Bagdikian 1987;

Herman and Chomsky 1988; Parachos 1988; Patterson 1997; Shoemaker, Danielian,

and Brendlinger 1991). Most relevant to the current analysis, U.S. networks

regularly give more coverage to bad economic trends than to good economic trends

(Harrington 1989).

The prominence of negative media coverage may be driven by the same

individual-level theories such as media agenda setting, priming, and framing.

Journalists are individuals, writing articles to appeal to other individuals and thus

regard negative information as more important, not just based on their own

interests, but also on the interests of their news consuming audience (Soroka,

2006).

There is however, an alternative explanation for the prominence of negative

news. It may be that media outlets’ emphasis on negative news reflects one of the

principle institutional functions in democracy: holding current Governments (and

companies, and indeed some individuals) accountable (Carlyle 1841). Therefore,

media is a surveillance that mainly involves identifying problems and at times over

10


emphasizes negative information. But some scholars think it is the media’s job to do

so (David Lyon, p. 21, 2007).

Surveillance of the media includes economy facts, stock market reports and

the overall well being of a nation (Severin and Tankard, p. 321, 2006). Surveillance

function can cause several dysfunctions such as panic due to the overemphasis of

issues facing a society. Lazarsfeld and Merton (1948/1960) noted that “narcotizing”

dysfunction when individuals fall into a state of apathy or passivity as a result of too

much information to assimilate may leave many audience members with little

perspective of what is normal.

Studies of media effects on economic fluctuations propose that the 1990

recession, in popular belief, was widely spread by the press’s effect on people’s

pessimism of the general economy (Marcelle Chauvet and Jang-Ting Guo, 2003).

Negative reports on the national economy led to a fall in consumer confidence

(Marcelle Chauvet and Jang-Ting Guo, 2003).1

In particular, the minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee meeting in

December 1990 pointed to consumer sentiment as one of the principal contributing

factors for this recession. Blanchard (1993) and Hall (1993) both attribute the 1990

recession to a significant drop in consumption, and speculate that consumer

sentiment may have had something to do with it.

Findings conducted by Chauvet and Guo (2003) pointed out that

consumption growth did switch to a low-growth state at the beginning of the 1989

1 For example, The New York Times on April 3, 1991, reported a quote by Roger Brinner, director of research at DRI/McGraw-Hill, that “If consumers hadn’t panicked, there wouldn’t have been a recession.” In addition, the lead story in The Wall Street Journal on November 4, 1991, was entitled “Economy in the U.S. Isn’t Nearly as Sour as the Country’s Mood. But Pessimism Could Become Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Further Stalling Recover. Can Attitude Be Everything?”


slowing of the economy (Figure 2). Consumer confidence also fell during the

slowing, as observed in all the previous low-growth phases and recessions (f1)

(Chauvet and Guo, 2003). However, the probabilities of consumer pessimism based

on non-fundamentals rose only in July 1990, which coincided with the onset of this

recession (Figure2). The same pattern was observed for growth in personal income,

manufacturing trade and sales, and employment, whose falls coincided with the

beginning of this recession. Therefore, consumers’ pessimism did not seem to be a

source of this recession (Chauvet and Guo, 2003).

However Chauvet and Guo (2003) notes that consumers’ pessimism may

have been an important factor in intensifying and extending the 1989-1992

economic slowdown. The figures created by Chauvet and Guo (2003) reveal that

low consumption growth phase lagged consumers’ pessimism, and lasted until the

end of the sample in 1995. Thus, the unprecedented extended slowdown could have

been a reflection of consumers’ attitudes toward the economy after the official end

of the 1990 economic recession (Chauvet and Guo, 2003).

Chauvet and Guo (2003) proposed at the end of their research that U.S.

recessions and slowdowns could have been responses not to shifts in economic

fundamentals, but to agents’ self-fulfilling pessimism.

12


(Figure 2). (f1-f4 clockwise starting top left) The 1990 recession: Probabilities of consumers’ and investors’ pessimism, lowconsumption and investment growth states, investment growth, 3-month T-Bill rate, growthrates of employment, personal income, and sales—NBER recessions (shaded areas) andslowdowns (- - -).

Marcelle Chauvet . SUNSPOTS, ANIMAL SPIRITS, AND ECONOMIC FLUCTUATIONS. Macroeconomic Dynamics,

Volume 7, Number 1 (February 2003), pp. 140-169, http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?

ArticleID=J8D8D5YBVKD44TTPFUQ6


Self-fulfilling pessimism is the result from news refraction hypothesis

suggested by McLeod and associates (1995). Their hypothesis suggests that local

content of news media exposure could have a strong influence on perceptions of

issues and the “closeness of home”. Therefore, viewer’s doubts suppress the urge

for action, and a reclusive approach is taken towards issues (McLeod et al., 1995).

A study of the media’s impact on the Mississippi Gulf Coast economy after the

Deepwater Horizon oil spill was conducted to support the theory that media can

potentially impact an economy.

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which began after the Deepwater Horizon

rig explosion on April 20th and continued to leak for another three months was a

challenging event for news media to cover. Unlike most catastrophes, which tend to

break quickly and subside almost as fast, the spill was a slow-motion disaster that

demanded constant vigilance and sustained reporting (journalism.org). Also the

media had to learn how to report on the oil spill by using NOAA (National Oceanic

Atmospheric Administration) maps and by consulting scientist and researchers who

were part of the response team for BP.

The story on a national level consisted of three competing story lines-the role

of BP, the Obama Administration, and the events in the Gulf region. The coverage of

the disastrous saga along affected coastal states was in-depth. Texas, Louisiana,

Mississippi, Alabama, and the Florida pan handle was bombarded with journalists

literally waiting on the beaches and headlining articles about how the oil was an

economic, ecological, and political Armageddon.

14


To evaluate the coverage, PEJ (Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence

in Journalism) studied approximately 2,866 stories about the oil spill produced from

April 20 to July 28-from the day that the Deepwater Horizon exploded to the day the

BP CEO Tony Hayard’s departure was announced. From that time, the oil spill was

by far the dominant story in mainstream news media in the 100-day period. It

accounted for 22% of the newshole and in the 14 full weeks included in this study,

the disaster finished amount the top three weekly stories 14 times (PEJ, 2010). It

registered as the No. 1 story in nine of those weeks (PEJ, 2010). Figure 3 represents

the percent of newshole coverage.

(Figure 3)

http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/100_days_gushing_oil


Case Study

A study was conducted of the primary local paper of the Mississippi Gulf

Coast. The Sun Herald ran articles related to the oil spill on a daily since April 22,

2010 until the end of the research on August 31, 2010. In addition to counting how

many articles appeared in the Sun Herald relating to the Oil spill, a word count of

oil/spill was also conducted (Figure 4). In addition, two other newspapers that are

exposed to local residents were studied. Article counts were conducted on the New

Orleans Times-Picayune and the Mobile Press-Register (Figure 4). These two

papers also contained daily articles of the oil spill.

16


(Figure 4)

Collected newspaper dataNewspaper Source

April May June July AugustSun Herald 24 301 358 301 121

Press-Register 33 329 337 284 272

Times-Picayune 12 206 234 181 52

Word CountSun Herald 120 1517 2430 1406 567

Source: Hard copies of each paper


Economic data of Gross retail sales and unemployment rate of the three

coastal counties; Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson, was collected. The months of May,

June, July, and September revealed an increase in unemployment rate (Mississippi

Department of Employment Security, 2010), (Figure 5). The month of August

reported a decrease in the unemployment rate (Figure 6), which related to the

increase in BP volunteers for the month of July when the oil came ashore more

abundantly. Also the newspaper reports less on the oil spill in the months of July

and August. If all newspaper articles were held constant from the previous month,

September’s increase in unemployment though, would prove that little relation

exists between media and economic impact (Figure 7).

18


(Figure 5)Collected Data of Article Count/WordCount, Retail Sales% Change 09-10, Unemployment % Change 09-10Source: Hard copy of newspaper/Unemployment Rates: http://www.mdes.ms.gov/Home/docs/LMI/Publications/Labor%20Market%20Data/labormarketdata.pdfMississippi Gross Retail Sales: Mississippi Department of Revenue:http://www.dor.ms.gov/docs/stats_172summary_1010.pdf, http://www.dor.ms.gov/docs/stats_172summary_0910.pdf, http://www.dor.ms.gov/docs/stats_172summary_0810.pdf, http://www.dor.ms.gov/docs/stats_172summary_0710.pdf,http://www.dor.ms.gov/docs/stats_172summary_0610.pdf, http://www.dor.ms.gov/docs/stats_172summary_0510.pdf,

2009-2010 2009-2010

Month News Paper Article Count Word County Retail Sales % ChangeUnemployment % Change

May Sun Herald 301 1517 Hancock (-)6.12 1.6Press-Register 329 Harrison (-)7.46 2.3Times-Picayune 206 Jackson (-)8.04 2.4

June Sun Herald 358 2430 Hancock (-)14.69 .9Press-Register 337 Harrison (-)6.95 1.4Times-Picayune 234 Jackson (-)7.41 1.3

July Sun Herald 301 1406 Hancock (-)14.69 1.2Press-Register 284 Harrison (-)10.54 1.2Times-Picayune 181 Jackson (-)3.73 1.2

August Sun Herald 121 567 Hancock (-)18.16 (-)0.3

Press-Register 272 Harrison 1.00 (-)0.3Times-Picayune 52 Jackson (-)2.38 (-)0.4

http://www.dor.ms.gov/docs/stats_172summary_0510.pdf






http://www.mdes.ms.gov/Home/docs/LMI/Publications/Labor%20Market%20Data/labormarketdata.pdf


(Figure 7)Mississippi State Tax Commission Two-Year Comparison of Gross Retail Sales 2009-2010

Source: Mississippi Gross Retail Sales: Mississippi Department of Revenue: http://www.dor.ms.gov/docs/stats_172summary_1010.pdf, http://www.dor.ms.gov/docs/stats_172summary_0910.pdf, http://www.dor.ms.gov/docs/stats_172summary_0810.pdf, http://www.dor.ms.gov/docs/stats_172summary_0710.pdf,http://www.dor.ms.gov/docs/stats_172summary_0610.pdf, http://www.dor.ms.gov/docs/stats_172summary_0510.pdf

May 2009 2010 Difference %Hancock County $663,508,863.87 $622,871,688.98 ($40,637,174.89) (-)6.12%Harrison County $4,049,297,147.04 $3,747,045,158.16 ($302,251,988) (-)7.46%Jackson County $1,880,907,665.18 $1,729,726,459.39 ($151,181,205.79) (-)8.04

JuneHancock County $720,090,435.01 $675,428,513.22 ($44,661,921.79) (-)6.20%Harrison County &4,392,627,311.30 $4,087,141,874.45 ($305,485,436.85) (-)6.95%Jackson County $2,044,062,723.58 $1,892,597,535.49 ($151,465,188.09) (-)7.41%

JulyHancock County $71,296,099 $60,822,315 ($10,473,784) (-)14.69%Harrison County $379,195,437 $419,153,048 ($39,957,611) (-)10.54%Jackson County %185,656,947 %192,584,360 ($6,927,413) (-)3.73%

AugustHancock County $140,907,979 $115,323,203 ($25,584,776) (-)18.16%Harrison County $751,422,627 $758,940,117 $7,517,490 1.00%Jackson County $339,872,736 $331,777,981 ($8,094,755) (-)2.38

SeptemberHancock County $165,330,045 $198,709,060 ($33,379,015) (-)16.80%Harrison County $1,073,863,967 $1,101,365,019 ($27,501,052) (-)2.50%Jackson County $461,196,959 $484,196,969 ($23,000,010) (-)4,75%

OctoberHancock County $213,678,199 $254,912,577 ($41,234,378) (-)16.18%Harrison County $1,398,080,157 $1,425,405,084 ($27,324,927) (-)1.92%Jackson County $605,895,473 $649,069,627 ($43,174,154) (-)6.65%

(Figure 6)

20








Unemployment Rate by County Mississippi Department of Employment Security

May 2009 2010 % ChangeHancock 8.0% 9.6 1.6Harrison 7.2% 9.5% 2.3Jackson 7.8% 10.2% 2.4JuneHancock 8.3% 9.2% 0.9Harrison 7.8% 9.2% 1.4Jackson 8.4% 9.7% 1.3JulyHancock 8.4% 9.6% 1.2Harrison 8.1% 9.3% 1.2Jackson 8.7% 9.9% 1.2AugustHancock 8.0% 7.7% (-)0.3Harrison 7.7% 7.2% (-)0.3Jackson 8.3% 7.9% (-)0.4SeptemberHancock 7.9% 8.7% 0.8Harrison 7.5% 8.1% 0.6Jackson 8.4% 8.9% 0.5


A survey was conducted asking 100 coastal residents: What is the greatest

threat from the oil spill? 78% wrote that the greatest threat was towards the local

economy (figure 8). A pole conducted in October revealed that: 42% believed the

media coverage of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was a key factor the slowing of

the local economy while 37% believed the national recession was a possibility, 16%

blamed it on Hurricane Katrina, and 5% responded: no opinion (figure 9).

22


(Figure 8)

(Figure 9)


“Dead sea turtles wash ashore,” claimed the Sun Herald on May 2, 2010.

Journalist would write articles about the turtles even though their cause of death

was not related to the oil spill, which was proved by marine biologists. These types

of articles began to frequently appear in the local papers such as the Times Picayune

of New Orleans, LA, the Pres-Register of Mobile, AL, and the Sun Herald of Gulfport,

MS. These three papers were of particular interest in this case study because they

are the most consumed papers along the Mississippi Gulf Coast.

The media agenda setting effects began to naturally set in as the oil

continued to gush. Story after story from journalist trying to outdo each other has

filled the wires for years to come of the effects of the oil spill. There was an

overreporting of significant but unusual events. This was an issue in the Santa

Barbara oil spill, which was significant but received exaggerated coverage because

of it’s unusualness and because people enjoy the sensationalism (Severin, Tankard p

232 2001).

Observations suggest the media’s agenda emphasized on gushing oil, dying

wildlife, tainted seafood, and oiled beaches (Sun Herald appendix) the media did not

specifically state that small regions affected. Even though the media was clear in

portraying which areas were being impacted, the content was correct. The effects of

the media on a national level could have possibly impacted people pessimisms and

following with possible economic slowdown suggested by (Chauvet, Guo 2003),

economy (figure 9).

As the surge of media reports on the oil spill flooded the mass media,

economic impact along the Mississippi Gulf Coast experienced little significant

24


growth. Overall, the oil spill created job losses and also crushed the fishing industry,

which had a ripple effect that reached restaurant nationwide. At the same time

though, BP created temporary jobs along the gulf states and also occupied hundreds

of hotel rooms. These factors are significant in contributing towards the economic

data researched.

Adam Sacks, managing director of Oxford Economics USA mentioned that

“History and current trends indicate a potential $22.7 billion economic loss to the

travel economics of the Gulf Coast states over the next three years could be

possible” (Sun Herald 07/24/2010). Sacks continues, “One of the most cost-

effective ways to mitigate these damages is to immediately fund strategic marketing

to counter misperceptions and encourage travel to the region” (Sun Herald

07/24/2010). Misperception created by the media is a factor that Sacks mentions in

his consulting towards the Gulf Coast tourism sector.

Conclusion:

Theories support the idea that mass media has significant economic impact.

Media theories such as media agenda setting, priming, framing, and cultural theory

support the concept of how media can impact an economy, however little research

has been conducted on this subject. Economic research supports the idea that

sentiments of the consumer can be affected by media content and therefore could

lead to fluctuations in the economy.

Research posited by Chauvet and Guo (2003), support the idea that an

economic slowdown is impacted by agents’ self-fulfilling pessimism. Studies such as


Soroka’s work (2006) strengthens the argument that; public responses to negative

economic information such as the oil spill, are much greater than are public

responses towards positive information. This suggests that the media’s portrayal of

the oil spill could have caused more harm than good on the perception of the local

economies.

Limitations: The case study of how media’s coverage of Deepwater Horizon and the

impact on the Mississippi Gulf Coast economy is limited in many ways. More

economic data such as sales tax, inflation, and direct tax losses would aid in further

research of how the effects of media relate to the economy’s slump. Also, data

starting pre Katrina would an important addition to real the fluctuations in the

economic cycle of the three coastal counties.

Additional newspaper research is necessary in the future of this research.

The reflection of the articles, negative or positive, could support the pole data that

was conducted as well. Time constraint was the greatest obstacle in research.

Greater evidence from next year’s economic data would be of better support that

what is available now. Quantitative research now is rather premature at this

moment.

26


References:

Altheide, David L. 1997. “The News Media, the Problem Frame, and the Production of Fear.” Sociological Quarterly 38 (4): 647-68.

Bagdikain, Ben. 1987. The Media Monopoly. 2nd ed. Boston: Beacon Press.Blanchard, O.J. (1993) What caused the last recession? Consumption and the recession of 1990-1991. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 83, 270-274.

Bowman, David, Deborah Minehart, and matthew Rabin. 1999. “Loss Aversion in Consumption-Saving Model.” Journal of Economic Behavior and

Organization 38 (2): 155-78.

Carlyle, T. 1841. Heroes: Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History. New York: Charles Scibner and Sons.

Chanley, Virginina A., Thomas J. Rudolph, and Wendy M. Rahn. 2000. “The Origins and Consequences of Public Trust in Governemnt.” Public Opinoin Quarterly 64(3): 239-56.

Chauvet, Marcell. and Guo, Jang-Ting. 2003. “Sunspots, Animal Spirits, and Economic Fluctuations.” Macroeconomic Dynamics. 7:140-169.

Davie, William R., and Jung sook Lee. 1995. “Sex, Violence, and Consonance/Differentiation: An Analysis of Local TV News Vlaues.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 72 (1): 128-38.

Durr Robert H. 1993. “What Moves Policy Sentiment?” American Polcicial Science Review 87(1):158-70.

Durr, Robert H., John B. Gilmour, and Christina Wolbrecht. 1997. “Explaining Congresional Approval.” American Journal of Poitical Science 41(1):175-207.

Erikson, Robert S., Michael B. MacKuen, and James A. Stimson. 2002. The Macro Polity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gerbner, G., L. Gross, M. Morgan, and N. Signorielli. 1980. “The “Mainstreaming” of America.” Violence profile no.11 Journal of Communication, 30(3):

10-29.

Hall, R.E. (1993) Macro theory and the Recession fo 1990-1991. American Economic Review Papers and proceedings 83, 275-279.

Harrington, David E. 1989. “Economic News on Television: The Determinants of Coverage.” Public Opinion Quarterly 53 (1): 566-74.

Herman, Edward S., and noam Chomsky. 1988. Manufacturing Consent: The polical Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books.


Iyengar, Shanto, and Donald R. Kinder. 1987. News that Matters. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk.” Econometrica 47 (2): 263-92.

Kinnick, Katherine. 1998. “Gender Bias in Newspaper Profiles of 1996 Olympic Athletes: A Content Analysis of Major Dailies.” Women’s studies in Communication. 21: 156-59.

Lank, K. and G.E. Lang. 1959. The Mass media and Voting. In E. Burdick and A. J.

Brodbeck, eds. American Voting Behavior. Pp. 217-235. Glencoe, III.:Free Press.

Lazarsfeld, P., and R. Merton (1948/1960). Mass Communication, Popular Taste, and Organized Social Action. In L. Bryson, ed. (1948), The Communication of Ideas. New York: Institute for Religious and Social Studies. Repreinted in W.

Schramm, ed. (1960), Mas Communications. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Long, N.E. 1958. The Local Community as an Ecology of Games. American Journal of Socialogy. 64:251-261.

Lyon, David. 2007. Surveillance Studies An Overview. 1st ed. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

MacKuen, Michael B., Robert S. Erikso, and James A. Stimson. 1992. “Peasants or Bankers? The American Electorate and the U.S. Economy.” American Politcial Science Review 86(3):597-611.

McCombs, M. E. and D.L. Shaw. 1972. The Agenda-setting Function of Mass Meida. Public Opinion Quarterly. 36:176-187.

McGuire, W.J. 1989. “Theoretical Foundations of Campaigns.” In R.E. Rice and C.K. Atkin, eds. Public Communication Campaigns. 2nd ed. Pp.43-65. Newbury Park. Calif.:Sage

McLeod, J.M., K. Daily, W.Eveland, Z. Guo, K. Culver, D.Kurpius, P.Moy, E. Horowitz, and M. Zhong (1995). The Synthetic Crisis: Meida Influences on Perceptions of Crime. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Communication Theory and Methodology Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Washinton, D.C., August.

McQuail, D., J.G. Blumler, and J.R. Brown. 1972. “The Television Audience: A revised Perspective. In D. McQuail, ed., Sociology of Mass Communications, pp. 135-

165. Harmondsworth, Eng.: Penguin.

28


Paraschos, Manny. 1988. “News Coverage of Cyprus: A Case Study in Press treatment of Foreign Policy Issues.” Journal of Political and Military Sociology 16 (2): 201-13.

Patterson, Thomas E. 1997. “The News Meida: An Effective Policial Actor?’ Political Communciation 14 (4):445-55.

Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. 2010. 100 Dys of Gushing Oil. August 25, 2010. http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/100_days_gushing_oil

Ronis, David L., and Edmund R. Lipinski. 1985. “Value and Uncertainty as Weighting Factor in Impression Formation.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 21 (1): 47-60.

Severn, Wener, and Tankard, James. 2001. Communication Theories: Origins, Methods, and Uses in the Mass Media. 5th ed: Longman.

Shoemaker, Pamela, J., Lucig H. danielian, and Nancy Brendlinger. 1991. “Deviant Acts, Risky Business and U.S. Interests: the newsworthiness of World Events.” Journalism Quarterly 68 (4): 781-95.

Singh, R., and J.B.P Teoh. 2000. “Impression Formation from Intellectual and Social Traits: Evidence for Behavioural Adaptation and Cognitive Processing.” British Journal of Social Sychology 39 (4): 537-54.

Smith, Susan J. 1984. “Crime in the News.” British Journal of Criminology 24 (3): 289-95.

Soroka, Stuart N. 2006. “Good News and Bad News: Asymmetric Responses to Economic Information.” The Journal of Politics. 68(2): 372-385.

Van Der Pligt, Joop, and J. Richard Eiser. 1980. “Negativity and Descriptive Extremity in Impression Formation.” European Jouranl of Social Psychology 10 (4): 415-19.

Vonk, Roos. 1996. “Negativity and Potency Effects in Impression Formaiton.” European Journal of Social Psychology 26 (6): 851-65.

Westley, B., and M. MacLean. 1957. “A conseptual Model for Communication Research.” Journalism Quarterly, 34:31-38

http://www.dor.ms.gov/;

http://www.mdes.ms.gov/Home/index.html

http://www.mdes.ms.gov/Home/index.html

http://www.dor.ms.gov/

http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/100_days_gushing_oil

we a 2010 media econ develop price

Documents