This presentation was created for Methods of Communication: Research and Analysis, taught by Dr. John C. Pollock, in the spring of 2008.

1. NATIONWIDE NEWSPAPER COVERAGE OF ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE: A COMMUNITY STRUCTURE APPROACH Teegan Conti Maria Montroni Jenny Smith

6. The Community Structure Approach Definition: Structural approaches linking community context to reporting on critical events have been pioneered by Tichener, Donohue, & Olien (1973-1980) McCleod & Hertog (1990, 1992, 1999), Demers & Viswanath (1999), & Hindman (1996, 1999). The “Community Structure Approach,” extensively tested in a nationwide sample by Pollock and colleagues (1977, 1978, 1994-2004) has consistently shown relations between structural characteristics of U.S. cities and newspaper coverage of political and social change. Alternative Approach: Complements explanations for news coverage based on such conventional factors as attitudes/personalities of journalists, newsroom diversity (ethnicity, gender) or newspaper ownership patterns.

13. Prominence Score* * copyright John C. Pollock, 1994-2008 Direction 4 3 2 1 Placement Front page of first section Front page of inside section Inside page of first section Other Headline Size (# of words) 10+ 8-9 6-7 5 or fewer Article length (# of words) 1,000 + 750-999 500-749 499 or fewer Photos/Graphics 2 or more 1

14. Article Direction Articles coded favorable: Positive coverage of CAM; showed general support for various forms of alternative medicine Articles coded unfavorable: Negative coverage of CAM; opposed various forms of alternative medicine Articles coded balanced/neutral: Presented both sides of the argument objectively; reported general information regarding CAM

15. Media Vector f = sum of the prominence scores coded “favorable” u = sum of the prominence scores coded “unfavorable” n = sum of the prominence scores coded “balanced/neutral” r = f + u + n If f > u (the sum of the favorable prominence scores is greater than the sum of the unfavorable prominence scores), the following formula is used: Favorable Media Vector (FMV): FMV = (f² - fu) (Answer lies between 0 and +1.00) r² If f < u (the sum of the unfavorable prominence scores is greater than the sum of the favorable scores), the following formula is used: Unfavorable Media Vector (UMV): UMV = (fu - u²) (Answer lies between 0 and -1.00) r² *Media Vector copyright John C. Pollock (2000-2008)

16. Results: Media Vector City, State Newspaper Media Vector Kansas City, MO Kansas City Star 0.933 Manchester, NH New Hampshire Union Leader 0.7287 Milwaukee, WI Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 0.4498 Denver, CO The Denver Post 0.4439 Portland, OR The Oregonian 0.4008 Phoenix, AZ Arizona Republic 0.3331 Albuquerque, NM Albuquerque Journal 0.333 Columbus, OH Columbus Dispatch 0.2655 Albany, NY The Times Union 0.2513 New Orleans, LA The New Orleans Time-Picayune 0.2206

17. City, State Newspaper Media Vector Chicago, IL Chicago Sun-Times 0.2188 Orlando, FL Orlando Sentinel 0.2118 Tulsa, OK Tulsa World 0.1712 St. Petersburg, FL St. Petersburg Times 0.1278 St. Louis, MI St. Louis Post-Dispatch 0.1263 Bismarck, ND The Bismarck Tribune 0.0984 San Francisco, CA San Francisco Chronicle 0.0495 Pittsburgh, PA Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 0.0272 Richmond, VA Richmond Times Dispatch -0.0042 Salt Lake City, UT The Deseret Morning News -0.0481 Boston, MA The Boston Globe -0.187

18. Regional Media Vector Averages Scott’s Pi Average: 77.2135 Region Media Vector Midwest .3486 West .2520 Northeast .2051 Southeast .1454

20. Results: Pearson Correlations * = Significant at the .05 level City Characteristic (%) Pearson Correlation Significance Municipal Spending on Healthcare .407 .034* Family Income $100,000+ .399 .037* Unemployed .405 .043* Generation 25-44 -.393 .043* Generation 45-64 -.376 .051 Generation 18-24 -.355 .062 Children 11-14 .306 .095 Children 15-19 .251 .142 Physicians per 100,000 -.238 .150 Generation 65+ -.224 .171

21. City Characteristic (%) Pearson Correlation Significance Professionals .211 .180 Catholics -.212 .192 College Educated .193 .201 Children 5-10 .193 .208 Below Poverty .158 .252 Protestants -.149 .271 Children under 5 -.107 .327 Democratic .078 .369 Republican -.064 .391 Devotional Reading -.026 .458 Evangelicals .014 .477

22. Results: Regression Model R R Square R Square Change F Change Sig. F Change Generation 25-44 .434 .188 .188 3.480 .082 Generation 25-44, Income .620 .384 196 4.461 .053 Generation 25-44, Income, Generation 45 - 64 .758 .575 .190 5.814 .031