The Times of Trenton Archive
COPYRIGHT © The Times of Trenton 2001

Date: 2001/02/04 Sunday Page: Section: Features Edition: Size: 1060
words

Scientific Approach

By KATE McCARTIN
Columnist

Quick now! What do scientists study? And can you trust their findings?

Scientists study physics, you might say, or chemistry. And yes, on the whole,
we usually assume their work has got integrity --at least at first.

But physics and chemistry are only small branches on the science tree. What
about the social scientists out there? Sure, they don't always get respect from those who like
their research ``scientific.'' But they work with people, after all, and we humans are famous
for our quirks.

``Hard'' science snobbery aside, however, social science can be plenty
rigorous. Researchers have their own techniques to guarantee reproducibility (a measure of the
integrity of research). One way is to measure the habits of large groups of people, then
look for corresponding factors in the societal mix, over and over again.

Advertisers have developed communications research, for example, into a
exquisitely powerful tool to sell us stuff. Pollsters, too, can spot hits and misses in political
speeches even while the speech is going on.

But these are thump-you-over-the-head problems. How would you study a much
more subtle communications issue? How would you measure _ say _ tiny slants in
theoretically unbiased news reports?

Former pollster John C. Pollock, now an associate professor in communications
at The College of New Jersey, believes he's got that covered.

``I started out assuming a relationship between the demographics of a city and
reporting on political and social change, and indeed, there is one,'' he told me.

Pollock and his students collect the longest news articles written on a given
topic from large city newspapers. They measure how much attention each article was given
(what page, how big, presence of photo, etc.), and determine what, if any, slant exists. Then
they look for patterns linking that bias with the demographics of the cities they appear in.
And you know what?

Pollock finds that links do exist, that they fit into five broad categories
and that they're strong.

Pollock is not arguing that coverage is skewed because of these five issues _
that would be called causality _ only that a clear correlation exists. In fact, Pollock does
not know much about what actually goes on inside the newsroom, so he can't explain exactly
how such a clear correlation would happen.

``So I don't know why, but the same five things come up again and again,''
Pollock told me. ``They're remarkably consistent, with generations of my students finding
similar results.''

The ``five hypotheses'' as Pollock calls them, may sound complicated at first.
But if you're like me and hang in long enough to check out his examples, you'll see his
point in no time. I think it's worth it.

-- PROTECTION: That the greater the proportion of economic stakeholders in a
city, the more favorable the coverage of issues that concern them.

Example 1: The higher the percentage of families with incomes over $100,000 in
a city, the more unfavorable the reporting of the handover of Hong Kong to China.

That is, newspapers in affluent areas seemed to hate the handover, perhaps
because it would disrupt the global economy. Strangely, perhaps, Pollock found that city
incomes correlated better with Hong Kong coverage than did the number of residents of Asian
descent.

Example 2: The greater the number of people employed in manufacturing in a
city, the more favorable the news coverage of NAFTA.

``Look at that one again,'' Pollock said. ``That went completely contrary to
my original assumption. You'd think papers would be against NAFTA, but in this case they
were going with the big economic interests there _ the employers.''

-- BUFFER: The greater proportion of privileged people in a city _ those with
high income, lots of education and high professional status _ the more accommodating or
benevolent the reporting of civil rights or human rights claims.

Examples: When high proportions of privileged residents lived in a city, news
reporting was more favorable on Anita Hill and on the U.S. open-door policy toward Cuban
refugees, and more negative on China's bid for the Olympics.

-- VIOLATED BUFFER: The higher the proportion of privileged groups in a city,
the more negative the reporting on perceived direct threats to well being or way of
life.

Examples: In affluent cities, reporting about Magic Johnson's HIV infection
was very negative, as was coverage of the master settlement agreement with tobacco
companies and proposals to put women in combat. (AIDS coverage is more balanced now that the
privileged realize HIV affects everyone, Pollock said.)

-- THE STAKEHOLDER: The greater the proportion of the population with an
emotional stake in an issue, the more favorable the reporting.

Example: In cities with high proportions of those 75 and older, coverage was
positive toward the unorthodox approach of Dr. Kevorkian (seniors wanted a choice, Pollock
said) but negative toward the legalization of physician- assisted suicide. (They didn't want
their relatives suggesting that legal euthanasia would be more convenient, he said.)

Example: The more women in the work force in a city, the more negative the
coverage on gun-control. (A strange one, Pollock said, but perhaps showing that when
individuals get more control over their own lives, they accept less regulation?)

-- ACCESS: The greater then number of FM radio (and cable) stations in a city,
the more likely the newspaper coverage is to accommodate social change. Alternatively,
the more AM stations, the more resistance to social change.

Example: Lots of FM stations meant more favorable coverage of hate crime
legislation and of same-sex marriage.

Example: Lots of AM stations meant more negative coverage of the patient's
bill of rights and school vouchers and more positive coverage of capital punishment.

I guess it's not surprising that news coverage sometimes conforms to city
demographics. After all, it's the city residents who are holding the rallies and meetings. They're
the ones that reporters are quoting. And the city is where the reporters live themselves.
But you judge for yourself.

And now, think quickly. What do reporters in big cities write about? And can
the readers trust their stories?

Sure they can. (Trust me.)

NOTE: Kate McCartin writes about science for The Times. E-mail at kcartin@aol.com