How Research Shapes The News
Yesterday, Public Eye offered a brief history of audience research in the news, drawn largely from an interview with CBS researcher David Poltrack. Today we look at the techniques researchers use to predict what the audience wants, and how big a role research plays in shaping editorial decisions in the news.
One of the regular complaints of media critics is that certain important stories don't get enough coverage. Take the situation in strife-torn Darfur, in western Sudan. Journalists came late to the conflict, even after thousands were killed. And that's if they came at all. "Normally Africa gets the short end of the stick [when it comes to news coverage]," says Andrew Tyndall, who analyzes network news at The Tyndall Report. "The dominance of Iraq compounds that."
But why don't we cover both Sudan and Iraq? Well, one contributing reason may be that researchers believe people don't care about international news unless it clearly relates to them. (It's worth noting here that at the network level, most people on the editorial side will tell you that research has little impact on the final product.) Iraq has an obvious American angle, but stories out of Africa, like the situation in Sudan, the battle against poverty, and the devastation caused by AIDS, do not. People would tune out, Poltrack says, if the nightly newscasts led with a story about Sudan. Journalists may find the topic newsworthy, he argues, but the American pubic thinks otherwise. "It is not considered by most people to be not particularly relevant to them," he says. "That is unfortunate, but it is true. It doesn't tie back to their life. It doesn't affect them directly. So that's a very tough sell."
How does Poltrack know this? For one thing, he can look at the ratings: Neilson now breaks ratings down minute by minute, so analysts can see exactly when an audience tunes out. But researchers aren't just reactive. They also use quantitative and qualitative analyses to gauge peoples' interest before a program airs. At CBS' facility at the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas, where much of CBS' research goes on, citizens are asked for their reactions to programming. (In case you're wondering why the facility is in Vegas, Poltrack says you get a broad cross section of people from across the country there, most of whom don't have anything to do during the day.) One technique researchers use to get these reactions is to have viewers turn dials in a positive or negative direction depending on whether they like what they're seeing at the moment. Of course, this technique is far more effective when it comes to entertainment programs than news. After all, if you see an extraordinarily sad report from New Orleans, one that packs a strong emotional punch, how do you decide which way to turn the dial?
But there are techniques that researchers find effective when it comes to news. One is to ask people to rank different potential segments in order of interest. The list might include items like "national news," "international news," "Hollywood reports," "consumer news," and "health news," for example.
It's not always as easy as just asking people for their preferences, however, since they might not be telling the truth. "If we ask you if you are going to watch '60 Minutes' or 'Fear Factor,' even though you really are going to secretly watch 'Fear Factor,' you might say '60 Minutes,'" says Poltrack. "How do you get around that? There are techniques that you use to get around it. The best example of this is in the newspaper business. If you survey people in New York, and you ask them what newspaper they read, the New York Times will come up equal to the [New York] Daily News, and the [New York] Post will not show up at all. Yet in total actual daily circulation in New York City, the Post is about equal to the Times and the News is much higher than the Times. People obviously feel they should say they read the Times. But we know how to get around that. In the same survey, you say to people, 'thinking about just today, what newspaper did you read today?' And they'll tell you the truth. They'll say, 'Well, today I didn't get the Times. I actually picked up the Post.'"
The surveys, once all the analysis is said and done, show that people want "useful information" – stories about health, finance, and consumer issues – in addition to the day's news. "International news," as you might guess, usually ranks near the bottom. In focus groups, researchers try to flesh out the categories, asking which kinds of stories within a category people want. They might ask, for example, "what would be a personal finance story you'd like to see?," or go over some possible story topics, like gas prices, and gauge people's reactions. This information goes into reports, but Rob Schlaepfer, Vice President of News Research and Program Planning for CBS, says the research department is not consulted during the editorial process. "Producers will get results from us, but they're not calling over here, saying 'what should we put on?'" he says. "That just doesn't happen."
Jim Murphy, Executive Producer of the CBS Evening News, says audience research has had "very little" impact on the editorial product. "It hasn't contained any surprises for years," he says. Stories like a recent one on the pressures faced by kindergartners, he adds, result not from audience surveys but from his personal experience as a parent.
On the local level, however, it's a different story. "For thirty years, research has been a mainstay of how local news is developed," says Richard Wald, former Senior Vice President of ABC News who is now a professor at the Columbia School of Journalism. "I don't see that changing anytime soon." On national broadcasts, he says, the influence of research is less apparent, because national editors tend to think of their audiences as being more diverse and more difficult to categorize.
No matter how integral it becomes to the news business, however, Wald says research can never be a panacea. "The big drawback of research always has been the fact that audiences can't give you an opinion about something they haven't seen and don't know about," he says. "It's very hard for audiences to come to grips with those things that are new, novel, different, interesting. Audiences tend to stick with those things they know. Research is not going to solve for you the problem of what to do to make a program really interesting."
© 2005 CBS Interactive Inc.. All Rights Reserved. One of the regular complaints of media critics is that certain important stories don't get enough coverage. Take the situation in strife-torn Darfur, in western Sudan. Journalists came late to the conflict, even after thousands were killed. And that's if they came at all. "Normally Africa gets the short end of the stick [when it comes to news coverage]," says Andrew Tyndall, who analyzes network news at The Tyndall Report. "The dominance of Iraq compounds that."
But why don't we cover both Sudan and Iraq? Well, one contributing reason may be that researchers believe people don't care about international news unless it clearly relates to them. (It's worth noting here that at the network level, most people on the editorial side will tell you that research has little impact on the final product.) Iraq has an obvious American angle, but stories out of Africa, like the situation in Sudan, the battle against poverty, and the devastation caused by AIDS, do not. People would tune out, Poltrack says, if the nightly newscasts led with a story about Sudan. Journalists may find the topic newsworthy, he argues, but the American pubic thinks otherwise. "It is not considered by most people to be not particularly relevant to them," he says. "That is unfortunate, but it is true. It doesn't tie back to their life. It doesn't affect them directly. So that's a very tough sell."
How does Poltrack know this? For one thing, he can look at the ratings: Neilson now breaks ratings down minute by minute, so analysts can see exactly when an audience tunes out. But researchers aren't just reactive. They also use quantitative and qualitative analyses to gauge peoples' interest before a program airs. At CBS' facility at the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas, where much of CBS' research goes on, citizens are asked for their reactions to programming. (In case you're wondering why the facility is in Vegas, Poltrack says you get a broad cross section of people from across the country there, most of whom don't have anything to do during the day.) One technique researchers use to get these reactions is to have viewers turn dials in a positive or negative direction depending on whether they like what they're seeing at the moment. Of course, this technique is far more effective when it comes to entertainment programs than news. After all, if you see an extraordinarily sad report from New Orleans, one that packs a strong emotional punch, how do you decide which way to turn the dial?
But there are techniques that researchers find effective when it comes to news. One is to ask people to rank different potential segments in order of interest. The list might include items like "national news," "international news," "Hollywood reports," "consumer news," and "health news," for example.
It's not always as easy as just asking people for their preferences, however, since they might not be telling the truth. "If we ask you if you are going to watch '60 Minutes' or 'Fear Factor,' even though you really are going to secretly watch 'Fear Factor,' you might say '60 Minutes,'" says Poltrack. "How do you get around that? There are techniques that you use to get around it. The best example of this is in the newspaper business. If you survey people in New York, and you ask them what newspaper they read, the New York Times will come up equal to the [New York] Daily News, and the [New York] Post will not show up at all. Yet in total actual daily circulation in New York City, the Post is about equal to the Times and the News is much higher than the Times. People obviously feel they should say they read the Times. But we know how to get around that. In the same survey, you say to people, 'thinking about just today, what newspaper did you read today?' And they'll tell you the truth. They'll say, 'Well, today I didn't get the Times. I actually picked up the Post.'"
The surveys, once all the analysis is said and done, show that people want "useful information" – stories about health, finance, and consumer issues – in addition to the day's news. "International news," as you might guess, usually ranks near the bottom. In focus groups, researchers try to flesh out the categories, asking which kinds of stories within a category people want. They might ask, for example, "what would be a personal finance story you'd like to see?," or go over some possible story topics, like gas prices, and gauge people's reactions. This information goes into reports, but Rob Schlaepfer, Vice President of News Research and Program Planning for CBS, says the research department is not consulted during the editorial process. "Producers will get results from us, but they're not calling over here, saying 'what should we put on?'" he says. "That just doesn't happen."
Jim Murphy, Executive Producer of the CBS Evening News, says audience research has had "very little" impact on the editorial product. "It hasn't contained any surprises for years," he says. Stories like a recent one on the pressures faced by kindergartners, he adds, result not from audience surveys but from his personal experience as a parent.
On the local level, however, it's a different story. "For thirty years, research has been a mainstay of how local news is developed," says Richard Wald, former Senior Vice President of ABC News who is now a professor at the Columbia School of Journalism. "I don't see that changing anytime soon." On national broadcasts, he says, the influence of research is less apparent, because national editors tend to think of their audiences as being more diverse and more difficult to categorize.
No matter how integral it becomes to the news business, however, Wald says research can never be a panacea. "The big drawback of research always has been the fact that audiences can't give you an opinion about something they haven't seen and don't know about," he says. "It's very hard for audiences to come to grips with those things that are new, novel, different, interesting. Audiences tend to stick with those things they know. Research is not going to solve for you the problem of what to do to make a program really interesting."
Recommended
6 Comments Add a Comment
- linkicon reporticon emailicon
- NewsToUs: Goodness. Read the post. Obviously I don\'t want government dictating the news. Beyond the MSM\'s self-professed professional duty to report without fear or favor, the failure of broadcasters to cover obscure but important news is bad business, which threatens the private hold on the franchise. Moreover, it lessens the MSM\'s credibility in delivering complete, unvarnished news, which in turn directly threatens viewership and profitability.
- reply
- linkicon reporticon emailicon
- \"CBS and the MSM are commercial interests with one overarching responsibility which is to make money while TRYING to provide something seen as a \'public service.\'\" That\'s two interests and it is clear which is paramount. Put News in the entertainment division.
- reply
- linkicon reporticon emailicon
- dtweeten - you wrote: \"news gatherers like CBS have an obligation to create, fund, and retain shows guaranteed to fail economically\" It\'s great to have high standards, but NO business has a DUTY to run programming that fails. There is no authority in our nation that provides for that. Nor should there be. That is business lunacy. Not to mention, who wants the government telling us what we have to run? You want that? I would say CBS has done a very good job on the Pakistan quake. I\'ve learned a LOT and I don\'t have to be impacted personally to \"get\" that story or be interested. If you want foreign minuta and the latest on Nigerian politics or the cricket scores in New Zealand, then listen to the BBC. Their government funds them. CBS and the MSM are commercial interests with one overarching responsibility which is to make money while TRYING to provide something seen as a \"public service.\"
- reply
- linkicon reporticon emailicon
- Journalists have a duty to tell the news whether or not it\'s going to get high ratings. Blaming the viewers for your poor coverage of important events is an argument that justifies removing journalistic discretion from private bodies like CBS and handing information distribution privileges to a governmental agency. Nobody wants that. If you fail to cover certain important news because you fear the public will not turn out en masse to listen, you are doing a disservice to all. How is the public to know if it cares about what it doesn\'t know exists? I think many are skeptical of what the MSM declares \"we\" don\'t care about. It is important for journalists to cover perceived unpopular news as well, so that the few who DO tune in can learn what\'s at stake, and can spread the word themselves. The grapevine and blogosphere can then distribute this non-mainstream news, and the public can have the opportunity to find it and decide whether they care or not. This way, news rejected as uninteresting has an opportunity to get legs, and may be headline stuff in the future. I understand the pressures of the ratings contest, but as an essential public utility, news gatherers like CBS have an obligation to create, fund, and retain shows guaranteed to fail economically--just so that the research and reporting gets done. And word gets out. To whoever is listening.
- reply
- linkicon reporticon emailicon
- There are slow news days, yet the time slot must be filled. Might as well be with items the viewers are interested in. However, as one old enough to have trusted Walter Cronkite (hell, I\'m even old enough to remember Edward R. Murrow), I sometimes think that ratings-driven nightly news puts too much store in human-interest segments and in attractive star news readers, rather than the best anchor journalists available.
- reply
- linkicon reporticon emailicon
- So if the info is not used at the network level...why does CBS pay to do the research?
- reply
