Media Performance

DENIS McQUAIL
University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Media performance has a broad reference to the assessment of mass media provision
according to a range of evaluative criteria, primarily employing “objective” indicators
and methods. In practice most attention has been paid to the content of mass media
rather than other aspects of performance, such as audience size and response or mes-
sage effectiveness. However, it is these wider aspects of media performance that really
matter most, and the criteria applied in content research are generally chosen for their
relevance to these wider issues. The primary focus has always been on news and infor-
mation. The criteria applied stem from three main sources: the standards of professional
communicators, often journalists in print and broadcasting; the sources who set the
objectives of the relevant content, such as informing, persuading, or activating; and
external advocates and critics, especially those representing a wider “public interest.”
The methods used are typically those of the social sciences, aiming to be systematic,
reliable, and generalizing in conclusions. The main purpose of performance research is
the “improvement” of content, as seen from the different perspectives mentioned.

Origins and history

Although the origin of the term media performance is uncertain, it was used for many
years to classify topics of articles (mainly studies of news content) in Journalism Quar-
terly, the official publication of the American Association for Education in Journalism
(AAEJ). This positions the notion of media performance in close relation to journalism
education and journalism criticism, and the development of the profession of journal-
ism. James Lemert’s book Criticizing the Media (1989) is a key work in this tradition and
in establishing an identity for media performance research. It is essentially a plea for
“empirical criticism” deploying various concepts of quality of performance and, some-
times, of “structure” (e.g., relating to monopoly ownership).
Lemert distinguished “empirical criticism” from three other theoretical schools,
namely: a Marxist-oriented critique (“political-economic critique” would be a better
term); critical cultural studies; and a social normative orientation. Lemert recom-
mended cooperation between theory and empirical inquiry. His own suggested topics
for enquiry into news quality included the effects of chain ownership of newspapers
on editorial independence and community activism, the coverage of environmental
problems, and the consequences of journalists relying too much on official sources of
information. Each of these reflects a normative impulse and purpose, related in some
way to ideas of the public interest and the role of journalism in society.

The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication, First Edition. Edited by Gianpietro Mazzoleni.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118541555.wbiepc095
2 ME D I A PE R F O R M A N C E

It is not easy to set boundaries around performance research, for the reasons already
mentioned. Data derived from content analysis only become fully meaningful in
the light of additional evidence of message sources, audience response, and effects.
However, performance evidence from content studies can play an important role in
formulating hypotheses about effects and may also provide an efficient shortcut to
prediction. There is a clear boundary between “empirical performance assessment”
and the large volume of speculative, qualitative judgments that are made about media
quality. The field of media performance has expanded and diversified in range and
methods, especially where it is applied to characterize the output of a medium (e.g.,
the press), a media system (e.g., that of a country), or a channel (e.g., a newspaper title
or a TV station).
As noted, the earliest phase of media performance research was shaped by a concern
to improve the professional quality of journalism. Most at issue were qualities of: accu-
racy and completeness of reporting of relevant facts; the match between “reality” and
the news account given; the separation of opinion from “fact”; the presence of “bias” and
propaganda; and the avoidance of “sensationalism” or “trivialization.” From the 1960s
onwards, media performance research was more influenced by social and political crit-
icism than by “internal” professional concerns, following a strong trend towards more
press concentration and the rise of radical movements and critical theory in both North
America and Europe. The established news media were regarded as too closely tied to
powerful financial or political interests, subordinate to commercial objectives, and lack-
ing in accountability to their publics. The rise of television to a primary position as a
source of news for the majority of the public in developed economies was another fac-
tor behind critical thinking, since broadcasting was operated, even in the United States,
as almost a natural monopoly. In practice, the greater part of news of the wider society
and world reaching the US public was provided by three large TV networks that tended
to copy as well as compete with each other. In Europe, most broadcast news was also
provided by public monopolies, with similar outcomes.
The special status informally accorded to television in many societies at the time
went with an expectation that broadcast news would be essentially fair and balanced
as between competing interests and political groupings in society. This tended to rein-
force a normative approach from both professional and “public interest” perspectives.
Research seemed to show that “politically impartial” television was accorded more pub-
lic attention, trust, and esteem than the more partisan newspaper press.

Relationship with media policy

The situation in Western Europe after World War II clearly shows the quite strong rela-
tion between the theory and practice of media performance research. The United States
provided the first stimulus to normative thinking about news by way of the American
Commission on Freedom of the Press (Hutchins, 1947), through giving expression to a
theory of “social responsibility” alongside the principle of freedom of the press. How-
ever, there was no mechanism for implementing the recommendations for reform or
improvement in journalistic standards and accountability made by the Commission.
 ME D I A PE R F O R M A N C E 3

Even so, in the immediate postwar era the Federal Communications Commis-
sion (FCC) in the United States was able to enforce some normative standards in
the allocation of broadcasting licenses, with particular reference to independence,
informational content, diversity, and provision of local content. For a time, the
deployment of the “Fairness Doctrine” required broadcasters to offer equal opportuni-
ties to opposing candidates in elections, encouraging close monitoring of air time as
between contenders.
In Europe generally, there was more scope for interventionist media policy. There
was both a need to “reconstruct” a free press after war and occupation, and a greater
capacity and will for legitimate intervention. In addition, the public status of radio and
then television required both the supervision of these media and also their acceptance
of criteria of political and other forms of neutrality and diversity, plus high standards
of informativeness.
In several countries, the newspaper press was examined in respect of its standards
by public enquiries and some attempts were made to require more accountability. The
way was led in the United Kingdom by a Royal Commission on the Press (1949) that
eventually led to the establishment of a self-regulatory Press Council. It also established
some principles of quality that had a basis in a program of inquiry, including content
analysis. However, the phase of more or less active “media policy” in Europe (generally
along lines indicated by ideas from “social responsibility theory”) gradually came to an
end, under the combined influence of new technology, privatization, and deregulation,
plus the emergence of quite new forms of public media. Nevertheless, this phase was
significant in stimulating a good deal of research into performance, especially but not
only of news media (see McQuail, 1992).

Main issues for evaluation

Objectivity and bias

The main foundation of media evaluation theory and research was a consensus shared
by most professional journalists, social theorists of the press, and the general public
that news media should provide a continuous service of information that would be rel-
evant to different needs, “truthful,” impartial, and therefore trustworthy. It would also
be audience friendly and effective at public communication on a large scale. The topics
that captured most early attention in the research tradition were those of “readability”
(a key to comprehension), diversity, and informativeness (sometimes recognized by its
absence, or even its opposite, as in “sensationalism”).
However, from at least the early 1970s increasing attention was paid to the obverse of
“objectivity,” namely “bias” or even propaganda. A primary aim of critical research was
to assess the balance of attention in news between various competing sources, subject
matter, political parties, and points of view. There were strong suspicions of hidden
ideological and manipulative motives. This trend in research was associated with the
intensification of efforts to create and manage news on the part of competitors for public
attention on favorable terms. Content analysis was still the main research method and
4 ME D I A PE R F O R M A N C E

political topics predominated (examples include: Efron, 1971; Glasgow Media Group,
1976; Hofstetter, 1976).

Organizational and structural influences

Inquiries into the organization of news production drew attention away from
hypotheses of deliberate propaganda towards the influence of factors stemming from
the structure and work practices of media organizations. Researchers produced con-
vincing evidence that news content was systematically shaped in its production and out-
put by factors other than intrinsic informative significance and value or any deliberate
bias. A review of such studies by Shoemaker and Reese (1996) found the most common
explanations of variations in news quality to lie in one of four categories: personal char-
acteristics of journalists; organizational routines of news-making; external economic
and institutional influences; and ideology and the distribution of power in society.

International communication and balanced flow

A growing critical attention to international communication, especially in the context
of relations between East and West and between North and South, led to a marked
stimulus to performance research, starting with Schramm’s (1964) report for UNESCO,
revealing the very small and skewed attention paid by the US press to the rest of the
world, especially its “undeveloped” regions. The more such research was carried out in
different countries, the clearer became the pattern of “imbalance” in world news atten-
tion, in both quantity and quality. Richer nations transmitted their view of the world
and poorer nations were heavily reliant on it. Explanations could be found mainly in the
effect of organizational imperatives, deeply rooted “news values,” and the structure of
the market for news, as well as fundamental imbalances between nation-states. Every-
day practice contradicted in its outcomes the standards of objective reflection of the
“real” world, but no solution could be found that would be compatible with principles
of press freedom or political and economic realities.

Diversity
The standard of “diversity” (of sources, orientation, and information provided) was
advanced from an early point as a desirable condition of media provision, especially
because of its clear link with the more fundamental principle of freedom. It seemed
axiomatic that the more freedom in media arrangements, the more diverse would be
the outcome in opportunities for would-be voices in the society and choice for con-
sumers of information. The idea of diversity proved to be more complex in practice to
operationalize (see below), with several varieties claiming priority as ideal subcriteria.

War and peace news

A perennial object of attention in the postwar era was the media coverage accorded to
a series of conflicts in which western powers were involved, including recurrent out-
breaks in the Middle East, the Vietnam War, and, more recently, the wars in Iraq and
 ME D I A PE R F O R M A N C E 5

Afghanistan. Numerous other conflicts, often semi-colonial or related to the Cold War,
also gained attention. Notable was the steadily increasing visibility and accessibility of
such events to journalism and the corresponding increased efforts by the participants to
manage the emerging news picture in their favor. The emerging consensus of research
has confirmed the relative success of these efforts and the widespread willingness of
national news media to follow the lines set by their own governments, at least in the
short term. However, there is also evidence of greater global diversity of reporting and
of the temporary character of much news manipulation.

Implications for political communication

The study of political communication has been in itself a major stimulus to research on
media performance, as outlined here, because of the intimate connection with potential
or actual effects. Several key concepts of the tradition are central to political commu-
nication and others have been developed for their particular relevance. Among the
former, most attention has been paid to the issues of bias and objectivity, as discussed.
In respect of the latter are found more complex notions, relating to the type of informa-
tion provided and the style and tone of presentation. Relevant political communication
research began with the study of the part played by the media in the 1940 US presiden-
tial election (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, & Gaudet, 1944). A core element here was a measure
of time and space available to different candidates and issues, with a view to correlating
relative attention to movements of opinion and levels of information.
Such research was more guided by an interest in the effectiveness of media cam-
paigns, or just the empirical outcomes of news coverage, than by a wish to apply nor-
mative judgments about possible bias or imbalance. Most of the seeds of later concerns
were already planted, however. In the intervening years, some distinctly new concerns
have emerged in political communication research. One relates to the quality of the
information offered by mass media during an election campaign, according to criteria
of what voters in a democracy might be expected to need. This was first highlighted by
evidence showing a distinct tendency for media to give differential attention to personal
and “horse-race” aspects of the events, focusing on the personalities and the “game”
rather than the political issues at stake (Graber, 1976). While this may help to attract
and keep audiences, it also deprives them of much relevant information for political
choice and reduces the chances of contenders to persuade on the basis of substantive
issues.
In the United States, where political advertising has few limits, its effects have often
been studied, with similar ideas in mind. Advertising typically provides very limited
information or argument, relying on visual and emotional impact and repetition, often
with a very negative message. The culprits here are the political sources, not the media
themselves.
Building on varied evidence, researchers have developed and tested a number of
related hypotheses about political communication, and in a number of countries. They
are largely summed up under the term “mediatization” (Schulz, 2004). This is a complex
6 ME D I A PE R F O R M A N C E

concept, but its central idea is that political communication by or on behalf of politi-
cal parties and candidates has largely been “captured” by the media, which apply their
own performance standards rather than those of the agents or mediators of politics.
The founding idea is related to the influence of a “media logic.” This means a way of
thinking about how best to use a medium so as to maximize appeal, audience size, and
impact. In the case of television this means giving priority to features such as visual-
ization, personification, dramatization, and so on. The information and other subject
matter is secondary to the forms most favored by media professionals for conveying it.
Many of the features mentioned are open to systematic monitoring from a normative
or critical perspective.

Main indicators of performance relevant to political

communication

The three leading indicators that have figured in performance research are probably
those of “independence,” “objectivity,” “informativeness,” and “diversity.” All four have
been defined and measured in various ways.
The concept of independence has been the most difficult to assess, beyond the point at
which the media structure and system protect and encourage the virtue of media free-
dom by way of law, economic regulation, or institution-building. How media actually
use their freedom is another story and harder to assess, although evidence can be gained
from observation of practice. Thus, the more media are critical, investigative, argumen-
tative, participant, and stimulating to action in their reporting, the more independent
they may be accounted.
Objectivity has been the object of much critical and definitional effort. The simple
idea is that it means adopting a neutral standpoint, concentrating on verifiable facts,
separating these from comment, being “fair” to alternative “sides” and points of view,
and avoiding conscious bias or ideology. A more developed view distinguishes qualities
of “informativeness” from those of balance, linking it to both trust and reliability, and
distinguishing qualities of the “message” from those of the form of presentation (that
can affect the perceived balance) (Westerstahl, 1980).
Informativeness provides a blanket term to refer to several basic features of the public
role allotted to, or accepted by, mass media in a modern society. It has several subprin-
ciples. First, there should be a comprehensive monitoring of events and conditions in
a national society and in the wider international environment, essential for warning of
risks, dangers, or emerging problems and relevant to the public reached. Second, the
information published should be based on good evidence and as far as possible true to
the reality observed. It should be complete enough in essentials, accessible and com-
prehensible, and, if possible, presented in ways that are effective in achieving learning
outcomes and raising broad public awareness of relevant facts.
Diversity may have even more complexities of definition, partly because it can apply
to several quite different aspects of performance, although the simple meaning is clear.
Better for citizens from the point of view of democratic political theory is access to a
wide range of different sources, kinds of information, ideas, and points of view from
 ME D I A PE R F O R M A N C E 7

which to choose. Better for would-be communicators is access to alternative channels

and varied audiences. Even so, there are normative choices to be made, for instance
between a condition of separation and tension between political alternatives and one
of consensus and mixed values and beliefs. The often unstated basis for judging the
diversity of media arrangements is the extent to which media content and sources or
voices reflect the composition of a population in proportional and relevant terms, for
instances in relation to political allegiance, social class, ethnicity, geographical location,
and so on.
In line with more recent thinking about “mediatization,” outlined above, a number
of other concepts have come into play. Significant are the following:

• Sensationalism, as indicated by a bias to the personal, dramatic, negative types of

content and forms of presentation.
• Negativity, a widely observed tendency in journalism to portray all politics in an
unfavorable light, emphasizing its tendencies to dishonesty, hypocrisy, unreliability,
self-serving nature, even corruption. The effects are said to emerge in a more cynical
attitude among voters generally and a detachment from political participation.
• Investigative and “watchdog” features. Primary among the positive virtues to be
expected from political journalism (as opposed to political actors) is a devotion
to uncovering and publicizing any form of malpractice on the part of government
or other major social institution. However, the assessment of the way in which
this role is carried out is not straightforward. Much depends on the actual target
of investigation and its significance, as well as on the quality of evidence gathered
and the style of reporting. More to be valued is reporting that takes on powerful
opponents, cares about victims, and accepts some economic costs and other risks
as a result.

Theoretical challenges arising from changing media

The central paradigms for performance research date from a period when key media
in the public sphere were (mass) press and broadcasting. The rise of online media
and now “mobile” media has not only changed the actual forms and platforms of
political communication, but also introduced new criteria of quality and success.
The central basic change has been from a linear, transmission model to a circular,
interactive process. Effective and desirable communications in the public sphere
involve new elements of audience and citizen involvement and mutual responsiveness.
New types of access, and new forms and formats within new structures, have given rise
to new possibilities and challenges. All of this requires much rethinking of concepts,
forms of assessment, and relevance of the existence repertoire of media performance
research.
8 ME D I A PE R F O R M A N C E

Research methods and problems

The predominant method of research into media performance, leaving aside questions
of reach and effect, has been that of content analysis, initially of printed texts but later
extended to audiovisual media and more recently to online channels. This transition
was not too difficult in respect of such variables as sources, topics, and objects of
attention, since time allocation could be equated with word counts. Familiar conven-
tions of presentation of print media in terms of sequence and relative prominence
could also be assumed to apply equally to other media. However, visual elements
presented new issues that were not always faced.
Text analysis typically assumed that words used in natural languages have known and
more or less fixed meanings, with a very limited range of interpretation. News photos
and other images, however, typically have no known code as a certain guide to the likely
interpretation, and moving picture and multimedia news or other reports present even
greater problems of assessment of direction, meaning, intention, and interpretation.
Developments in discourse analysis, semiology, and linguistics have helped, but also
opened up more doubts than solutions.
Despite such well-known difficulties, a variety of strategies and approaches have been
developed to solve practical problems. These developments include the invention of
software for qualitative analysis of content, the recognition of recurrent visual codes in
news, new ways of assessing value direction, the application of the notion of “framing”
to all forms of presentation, and the use of ethnographic methods to record varia-
tions in the pattern of audience interpretation. At first sight, online news and informa-
tion do not seem to present any insuperable obstacle and may even have some advan-
tages, by virtue of their ready availability. However, they have as yet no settled form
and the conventions of presentation and patterns of audience use and response have
not been established. Performance analysis remains viable, but has also become more
demanding.
Changes in media and media systems have also been challenging. Of particular
relevance is the sheer multiplication and diversification of relevant outlets of media
content, especially online. In the past, it was usually possible to focus closely on a
national media system and on the key channels that would have most general social
or political significance—a few major or popular newspapers and a few widely viewed
television channels. It was possible to make assumptions from concentrated attention
on these about overall “quality” and probable tendencies of effect on a majority of
citizens.

Future of performance research

The last decade or so of media change has seen a reduction in the societal control
exerted on media, aside from the disciplines of the marketplace, and thus less interest
on the part of lawmakers and regulators in the “quality” of content. Critical voices
and some of the pressure behind demands for monitoring or normative intervention
have been weakened. The greater reliance on media self-regulation has allocated the
 ME D I A PE R F O R M A N C E 9

task of “media evaluation” to the management of media firms. Some control of media
structure to limit concentration, guarantee basic freedoms, protect individuals from
harm, and ensure a minimum degree of accountability is still to be found, but these
goals are not very actively pursued in most national contexts. The trends mentioned do
not, however, reflect any lessening of the need for evaluative research on behalf of the
wider society and citizens, or of the importance of implementing appropriate norms
in an ever more “mediated” society.

SEE ALSO: Accountability; Content Analysis; Media Logic; Mediatization; Normative

Theories; Political Communication; Public Interest

References

Efron, E. (1971). The news twisters. Los Angeles, CA: Nash.

Glasgow Media Group (1976). Bad news. London, UK: Routledge.
Graber, D. (1976). Press and television as opinion resources in presidential campaigns. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 40(3), 285–303.
Hofstetter, C. R. (1976). Bias in the news: Network coverage of the 1972 election campaign. Colum-
bus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
Hutchins, R. (1947). Committee on Freedom of the Press. A free and responsible press. Chicago,
IL: Chicago University Press.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The people’s choice. New York, NY: Columbia
University Press,.
Lemert, J. B. (1989) Criticizing the media. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
McQuail, D. (1992). Media performance. London, UK: Sage.
Royal Commission on the Press (1947–1949). Report. Cmd 7700. London, UK: HMSO.
Schramm, W. (1964). Mass media and national development. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Schulz, W. (2004). Reconstructing “mediatization” as an analytic concept. European Journal of
Communication, 19(1), 87–102.
Shoemaker, P., & Reese, S. (1996) Mediating the message (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Westerstahl, J. (1980) Objective news reporting. Communication Research, 10, 403–424.

Further reading

Bennett, W. L., Laurence, R. G., & Livingston, S. (2007). When the press fails. Chicago, IL: Chicago
University Press.

Denis McQuail is professor emeritus and honorary fellow at the Amsterdam School
for Communication Research (ASCOR), University of Amsterdam, where he taught
for 20 years until retirement in 1997. He is probably best known for his book McQuail’s
Mass Communication Theory, which has appeared in six editions and been translated
into numerous languages. His most recent book publication is Journalism and Soci-
ety (Sage, 2013). Although he is no longer actively engaged in research, his interests
remain in all aspects of communication and theory, with particular reference to public
communication, politics, and society.