TELEVISION PERSONALITIES AS OPINION LEADERS

A Thesis
submitted to the Faculty of the
Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
of Georgetown University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of
Master of Arts
In Communication, Culture and Technology

By

Kendra Brown Mendelsohn

Washington, DC
May 1, 2003
Copyright 2003 by Kendra Brown Mendelsohn
All Rights Reserved

ii
 TELEVISION PERSONALITIES AS OPINION LEADERS

Kendra Brown Mendelsohn

Thesis Advisor: Diana Owen, Ph.D.

ABSTRACT

When viewers receive a message from a television personality, does their perception of the

personality influence the message? This study combines three core theories using a meta-

approach to comprehensively answer the research question. In research about political

communication, the role of the opinion leader is well documented. With the increasing

dominance of television viewing through many sources, television personalities can be

considered opinion leaders, in the classic two-step flow model.

This work is divided into three key studies, which use a combination of focus groups, an on-

line survey, controlled questionnaire and one-on-one interviews to test seven hypotheses to

effectively answer the research question. The first study examines the role of television

personalities as opinion leaders. The second study tests the role of four program categories

and investigates whether viewers perceive information differently across the sources. The

information sources include: daytime variety shows, evening news, newsmagazines and late-

night entertainment. The final study builds on the first two and through one-on-one interviews

scrutinizes the interpersonal relationship established between viewers and television

personalities.

The findings confirm that when a viewer receives a message from a television personality,

his/her perception of the personality definitely influences the way the message is processed.

We demonstrate that television personalities can serve as opinion leaders based on their

iii
level of influence and the quality of information they present. Secondly, there is a hierarchy of

opinion leadership, where expert sources serve as "opinion leaders of the opinion leaders."

The research illustrates that television personalities wield influence based on their credibility

and the believability of the information. Further, public perception of the personality

influences the ability of the personality to serve as an opinion leader. Surprisingly, the four

sources we investigated show no significant impact on perception across the program

categories, or on the personalities’ ability to serve as opinion leaders. We substantiate that

viewers formulate a personal relationship with the personality, which they describe and

quantify as a ‘real’ relationship. As in face-to-face communication and personal relationships,

viewers may directly and indirectly provide feedback to the personality when deciding to place

them in the expert role. The personalities verify the importance of the relationship and that

this relationship must be built over time and with a tremendous amount of trust.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To my dear family, network of friends and everyone who listened, inspired and supported the

research and writing of this thesis - I dedicate this work to all of you. It is my belief that no

individual reaches success without the help of others. Success comes when people who care

about you provide guidance, encouragement and support. The true reward for success and

gratitude comes when we are able to acknowledge those who helped us reach our goal. This

project would not be complete or even possible if so many wonderful, bright, kind-hearted

individuals had not taken the time to help, support, and offer guidance. I deeply appreciate

the many study participants and for the overwhelmingly busy television personalities who

found time in their busy day to talk to me.

A special thanks to Dr. Diana Owen for encouraging me throughout my journey and

especially for helping me feel confident with my ideas and vision. She always stimulated my

mind whether in class or one-on-one and guided me toward success.

I am grateful to Dr. Marilyn Liebrenz-Himes for reading my work and providing valuable input

throughout the writing process. Mark Chudnoff enhanced the project by helping me in the

field to use the statistics I learned from Dr. Owen and assisting in questionnaire design and

analysis. His wisdom, support, and patience helped to make Studies One and Two a

remarkable success.

I extend my deepest appreciation to my family who always lent me their ear when I said, “Do

you have a minute?” They listened to me, motivated me and supported the entire research

v
and writing process. To my mother, Linda, for many hours of inspiration, boosting my spirits

and endless editing; to my father and brother, Ken and Kevin, who are always there for me

and constantly cheering me on, thank you. My thanks also go to my in-laws, Syma and

Marty, for their motivation and for sitting through my, “we need to have a thesis meeting,”

moments – they lovingly supported me.

Finally, this work is devoted to my dear husband, James, my biggest fan. His love,

continuous encouragement, challenging temperament and patience were all extended at the

appropriate moment. His ability to gently remind me that my deep passion about the subject

was important but that theory, the 95% confidence interval and rejecting the null outweighed

passion when writing a thesis. He shared my tears and glory and constantly dared me to

think differently, motivated the left side of my brain, and widened my thoughts. He reaffirmed

my belief about life and mostly about myself; with him I know all things are possible.

Many thanks to all,

Kendra B. Mendelsohn

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... iii

Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................... v

Chapter I
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................1

Chapter II
Theoretical Framework...................................................................................................................10
Two-Step Flow Model................................................................................................10
Parasocial Relationship Theory.................................................................................13
Shannon-Weaver Model............................................................................................16

Chapter III
Literature Review............................................................................................................................21
Models .......................................................................................................................21
The Two-Step Flow Model Of Opinion Leadership ...................................................22
Parasocial Relationship Theory.................................................................................28
The Shannon-Weaver Model.....................................................................................33
Related Phenomena..................................................................................................41
Conclusion .................................................................................................................47

Chapter IV
Concepts and Operations...............................................................................................................48
Television Personality................................................................................................48
Television Programs..................................................................................................49
Attributes....................................................................................................................50
Opinion Leader ..........................................................................................................51
Studies Included In The Thesis .................................................................................52

Chapter V
Study One: Newscasters As Opinion Leaders ...............................................................................54
Research Hypotheses ...............................................................................................55
Methodology ..............................................................................................................57
Research Findings.....................................................................................................58
Hypothesis Testing ....................................................................................................68
Summary Discussion.................................................................................................68

Chapter VI
Study Two: Television Personalities Across Program Categories .................................................71
Research Hypotheses ...............................................................................................72
Methodology .............................................................................................................73
Research Findings.....................................................................................................75
Hypothesis Testing ....................................................................................................81
Summary Discussion.................................................................................................82

vii
Chapter VII
Study Three: Viewer And Television Personality Perceptions .......................................................84
Research Hypotheses ...............................................................................................85
Methodology ..............................................................................................................86
Broadcaster Findings.................................................................................................88
Viewer Findings .........................................................................................................92
Hypothesis Testing ..................................................................................................100
Summary Discussion...............................................................................................101
Chapter Notes..........................................................................................................103

Chapter VIII
Conclusion....................................................................................................................................107
Theory And Framework Review ..............................................................................107
Research Question..................................................................................................109
Answering The Research Question.........................................................................109
Summary Of Hypothesis Testing.............................................................................109
Discussion ...............................................................................................................111
Implications For Future Research ...........................................................................116

Appendices...................................................................................................................................119
Study 1 Questionnaire .............................................................................................120
Study 2 Email Invitation ...........................................................................................134
Study 2 On-Line Survey ..........................................................................................135
Study 3 Viewer Invitation Email ...............................................................................155
Study 3 Personality Invitation Email ........................................................................156
Study 3 Sample Consent Form ...............................................................................157
Study 3 Viewer Instrument ......................................................................................158
Study 3 Personality Instrument................................................................................160

Works Cited ..................................................................................................................................161

Selected Bibliography...................................................................................................................167

viii
 Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

Do you remember what it was like to live without television? The number of people who have

never lived without television continues to grow; the medium is part of every household. In

fact, a television is more than just a household appliance, but something for which families

are designing extravagant media rooms. Televisions are no longer derided -- they have

advanced to picture-thin screens hanging on the wall like a decorative piece of art. 98% of

American households have at least one television set, and 76% have more than one. Digital

television, the latest technology innovation, is already a multi-billion dollar industry.

Television is the source of the most broadly shared images and messages in history. It is a

centralized system of storytelling. It is part and parcel of our daily lives. Its dramas,

commercials, news, and other programs bring a relatively coherent world of common images

and messages into every home.

Even away from home, we cannot seem to get away from screens projecting images and

sounds. We consistently pass screens in gymnasiums, at work, in schools, elevators,

showrooms, airports and doctors’ offices. Whether the broadcast is news, a reality program

or a favorite sitcom, Americans are watching and we have the ratings to prove it. According

to the 2000 Nielsen Report, the television set in the typical home is in use for almost 8 hours

a day and actual viewing by an average American is over 4 hours per day.

1
Occasionally, the news and specialty programs instantly and completely dictate our total

behavior. Whether it is an earthquake, hurricane or snowstorm, viewers know they can

obtain valuable up-to-the-minute information from television news. Tragedy also finds its way

immediately to the screen. On September 11, 2001, the World Trade Center Towers were

displayed on television screens moments after the first tower was struck. The fall of the

Columbia Space Shuttle (using an amateur’s video camera) was also projected minutes after

the explosion. Long gone are the days of gathering information from the evening newspaper.

When we hear of a tragedy and tune-in for updates, to whom do we turn? Is it ABC, NBC, or

CBS? Or CNN or MSNBC or Fox News? Or is it a particular person instead of a favorite

network? We depend on that familiar voice and personality to comfort, soothe and report the

news. These television personalities don’t just merely ‘read the news’ or ‘share information.’

They have evolved and are shaping public opinion with a twist, either their own or their

networks’ biases.

While we crave accurate and credible information, we continue to put our trust in television

personalities. These well-groomed individuals talk and we obligingly listen; we empower

them, as they become part of our home and our daily routine. They have become household

names and are considered celebrities. We believe them and week after week continue to

tune in for more of them, not just the news. Like Hollywood stars, if they deliver high ratings,

they are paid colossal salaries to accompany their fame, guaranteeing their next contract and

place in history.

Famous and powerful, television personalities and their networks influence not only our

political beliefs, but also our personal values, and everything in between. In fact, there is a

2
natural bridge between the political and the non-political world of information and public

opinion. We have a sustained line of scholarly research on mass communication that traces

the influence of the news media on voter behavior.

Lazarsfeld’s opinion leader model is one example of a politically-derived model that is

applicable to both political and non-political communication. Lippmann eloquently noted the

role of the news media in defining our world. He felt that the media defined more than the

politics during and between elections, but also almost our entire world beyond immediate

personal and family concerns. He made an important distinction between the environment

(i.e., the world that is really out there) and the pseudo-environment (i.e., our private

perceptions of that world). Lippmann argued that it is the news media that sketch so many of

those pictures in our heads (Lowery and DeFleur 266).

This view of the impact of news was congruent with both scholarly and popular assessment in

Lippmann’s day of the power of mass communication, views growing out of experiences with

mass communication and propaganda during World War I. But subsequent scholarly

investigation such as the Erie County study, led scholars down another path in later decades

(Lowery and DeFleur 72-91).

That journey led to the investigation of how mass media influences public opinion not directly,

but indirectly via opinion leaders. Ideas flow from mass media to opinion leaders – those who

both actively follow media and actively share their knowledge with others. Thus, there are

two steps: from mass media to opinion leaders, and from opinion leaders to opinion

followers. Opinion followers are less active consumers of information media, and are more

3
likely to seek information from others. Opinion leaders are likely to be trusted, respected

members of a homogenous group, rather than demagogues.

Opinion leaders in the original, early formulation of the model, typically engage in face-to-face

contact with the recipients they influence. However, when viewers watch the screen and

receive information, they develop a parasocial relationship with the personality and feel as if

they know and are communicating with the individual. Parasocial relationships have often

been examined from the perspective of motivations. The “uses and gratifications” perspective

contends that people are not passive recipients of media messages; rather, they seek out

particular media content because they are motivated by goals, needs, desires, and or

preferences.

An underlying tenet of its social contract with the public is that the media are not supposed to

set an agenda, but there is ample evidence to the contrary. We also would like to believe that

it is not the professional journalist’s goal to persuade anybody about anything, but again,

there is evidence of widespread use of persuasion tactics. The Roper study, which tracks the

relative trustworthiness of different news media, reports that television is the most trusted

source for information among mass media. The media are a mass society version of the

town meeting, where citizens have access to information about events, issues and problems

that require their attention and decisions. The attention and decisions extend far beyond

accessing information from the news. Television personalities are on every channel

presenting all types of information. Viewers obtain information from four sources on

television: daytime variety, news magazines, nightly network news and late-night

entertainment. These shows are the primary vehicles to inform the public and influence

opinion.

4
In 2002, only about half (48%) of Americans say they enjoy keeping up with the news. While

high, this is a decline from 1995 when 54% kept up with the news. 55% watch the news at

least once per week, while 45% pay attention to the news only when a major event is

happening. About one-third (32%) regularly watch one of the three major network nightly

news broadcasts; roughly the same level of penetration (33%) is seen for cable news viewing,

although these two audiences have some overlap. Newsmagazines have dropped in viewer

penetration, from 49% in the early 1990’s to 24% in 2002, despite the growing number of

newsmagazine programs. In the recent television season, the only consistent newsmagazine

program to perform in the Nielsen top 20 ratings was 60 Minutes, which has been a viewer

choice long before the newsmagazine format penetrated weekday prime time schedules.

(Pew Research, Public’s News; Striking).

Given the diversity of the shows and ‘information’ presented, it is suspected that viewers

detect no difference in believability of information across the sources. However, the viewer’s

perception of the personality is most likely influenced by the program category. Even with a

notable difference in perception, television personalities, especially newscasters, are being

seen as opinion leaders. Could these personalities be influencing public opinion directly?

To paraphrase Marshall McLuhan (“the medium is the message”), the state of media has

evolved so that now, the messenger is the message. Since any communication is comprised

of both the sender and the message, the receiver’s perception of the sender is a factor. The

flow of information is grounded in interpersonal influence as a function of word of mouth.

Word of mouth spreads because of the importance of the message and the communication

style of the messenger and receiver. In the case of the television personality, the ‘word’ is

now coming from the personalities ‘mouth’ first. This creates a hierarchy where the television

5
personalities are the first level of opinion leadership, and the mass opinion leaders are the

second level. To explore these questions and implications, the television personality will be

considered as an opinion leader, in a modification of the classic two-step flow model.

First, it is important to consider the question of the variability of the information that people

receive across the four sources. This also incorporates the importance of interpersonal

relations such as knowledge and believability between the viewer and the television

personality. Through survey testing, the impact of the personality on their ability to influence

opinion will be determined, and the variability of the phenomenon across show categories

assessed.

Since any communication is comprised of both sender and the message, the receiver’s

perception of the sender is a factor. When a television personality, more specifically, a

newscaster, plays the role of sender, does the receiver’s perception of the newscaster’s

personality influence their processing of the information? With the newscaster as an opinion

leader, the hierarchy of opinion leadership will be tested to see if newscasters accurately fill

the role of influencer of opinion, not just provider of information. This also incorporates the

importance of interpersonal relations between the viewer and the newscaster. Through

experimental testing, the impact of the newscaster’s personality on their ability to influence

opinion will be determined.

Successful communication includes six elements: a source, encoder, message, channel,

decoder and a receiver. Communication is a continuous process that amalgamates

feedback. In face-to-face communication, we get feedback in the visual channel, while

television broadcasters get their feedback from Nielsen ratings. Networks desire high ratings

6
and hire charismatic personalities that will bring in more viewers, thus delivering the high

ratings. Essentially, television personalities are the backbone and talent for the shows and

they must have viewer support or they will not survive. They hold the power: they talk, and

we listen. Could they deliberately be exerting their power as opinion leaders? Do viewers

explicitly place television personalities in the role of opinion leader?

This first phenomenon says that the receiver (viewer) generates latent feedback in their

decoding of the signal based on their perceptions of the sender (personality). This is a

nonverbal and dynamic process that amplifies the signal regardless of the encoding. The

second enhancement is that the receiver provides indirect feedback to the personality/sender

by continuing to seek information from him/her. For example, when a television viewer

continues to watch the personality on television, this adds to the personality’s ability to be an

opinion leader and changes the way their messages are encoded. Or, the viewer may

become an advocate of the personality in the marketplace, which also raises the personality’s

ability to lead opinion and similarly changes the encoding paradigm.

To examine the interpersonal relationship established between the television personality (as

opinion leader) and the viewer (as follower) interviews will be conducted. Network producers

and personalities will be queried about their use of power as an opinion leader. Similarly,

viewers’ perceptions will be investigated to understand how they assign opinion leadership.

While many studies about mass communication have been conducted especially in the area

of political communication, the role and individual power of the television personality have not

been investigated. Few opinion dynamics between television personalities and viewers have

been documented. This study is designed to specifically investigate and examine the role of

7
various television personalities as opinion leaders, and to better understand the phenomenon

between personality and viewer.

Building on traditional communication theory and great theorists like Lazarsfeld, Lippmann

and McLuhan, this study will discover principles, processes and influences of mass

communication. The goal is not to replace, but to add new perspectives and refine and

update preexisting models to better reflect current media reality, while enhancing

understanding across the disciplines. The findings of this study seek to provide a better

understanding about television personalities as opinion leaders. The goal is to open another

scholarly door and move closer to understanding the interpersonal phenomenon between

personalities and their viewers.

The study integrates separate parts using a meta-approach, so we can understand the entire

phenomenon. Chapter II provides a theoretical framework to serve as the foundation for the

study. To help gain full perspective, Chapter III summarizes explanations from other

communication theorists and shares their discoveries about the phenomena under

investigation. Chapter IV defines the concepts and operations used throughout the three

studies that comprised this research, and articulates seven hypotheses for scrutiny. Chapters

V, VI and VII offer a threefold approach to hypothesis testing. While independent, each

experiment builds on another to test the hypotheses. The discussion includes methodology,

findings, hypothesis testing and discussion of conclusions. Chapter V examines newscasters

as opinion leaders in the two-step flow model. Chapter VI specifically examines how viewers

perceive information and the personalities differently across the program sources. Chapter

VII looks at the entire phenomenon through an individual lens from the viewers’ perception,

producers’ awareness, and finally from the television personalities’ vantage point. Chapter

8
VIII merges the findings to provide an overall explanation, and builds on past theory. It offers

an overall conclusion, and suggestions for future research.

9
 Chapter II

Theoretical Framework

This study relies on three theoretical streams to support and integrate the overall

investigation. The triangle includes the two-step flow model, parasocial relationship theory

and Shannon-Weaver’s communication model. We posit that newscasters serve as opinion

leaders in the current communication environment. For a newscaster to function as an

opinion leader, we need to determine the modification of the classic two-step flow model of

opinion leadership. Next, since the interaction between the newscaster and viewer is a highly

personal one, the parasocial nature of the relationship contributes to the phenomenon.

Finally, since the exchange is a transmitted communication, an applied model of sender-

receiver dynamics is necessary.

TWO-STEP FLOW MODEL

The two-step flow model states that mass media influence public opinion not directly, but

indirectly via opinion leaders. Ideas flow from mass media to opinion leaders – those who

both actively follow media, and actively share their knowledge with others. Thus, there are

two steps: from mass media to opinion leaders, and from opinion leaders to opinion followers.

Opinion followers are less active consumers of information media, and are more likely to seek

information from others. Opinion leaders are likely to be trusted, respected members of a

homogenous group, rather than demagogues.

10
The two-step flow model is grounded in interpersonal influence as a function of word of

mouth. Word of mouth spreads because of the importance of the message and the

communication style of the messenger and receiver. In the case of the newscaster, the

‘word’ is now coming from the newscaster’s ‘mouth’ first. This creates a hierarchy where the

newscasters are the first level of opinion leadership, and the mass opinion leaders are the

second level.

The scientific roots of the two-step flow model are in Lazarsfeld et al.’s studies of presidential

elections in Erie County, Ohio. He discovered that people who had not decided how to vote

tended to follow the opinions of their friends and colleagues. The study demonstrated that

opinions of opinion leaders are what really count; their voice is heard loudest and they

influence the masses to follow their lead. This proof led to the belief that opinion leadership

and interpersonal communications are more important than mass media alone (Katz 63-64).

Two-Step Flow Model

Two-Step Flow Model Two-Step Flow Model Hierarchy Modification
Newscaster Modification
Mass Media

Mass Media Mass Media

Expert Source
Opinion
Leader
Opinion
Newscaster
Leader
Opinion
Leader

Opinion Opinion
Follower Follower Opinion
Follower

11
The two-step flow model is an understanding of indirect communications, versus the earlier

view of mass communications as directly influencing public opinion. The hypodermic effects

model views communications as one-way and with single effect. The sender sends the

message, and the audience receives and accepts it without challenge. A classic proof of the

hypodermic effects model is the War of the Worlds broadcast, where mass media generated

panic (Lowery and DeFleur 45-65). However, the direct model of communication breaks

down when communications are intended to shape opinion, versus merely creating

awareness. In order to form an opinion, people consider multiple sources of information, and

must have trust and respect for the source (Robinson and Kohut 174-88).

According to the original model, an individual must meet three tests in order to be an opinion

leader: to have personal influence, to be identifiable to their followers, and to have sufficient

media exposure. A broader view of the sources of information would extend beyond mass

media to include any expert source. This leads to a subset of opinion leaders (those who

influence other opinion leaders) and further reinforces the notion of a hierarchy of opinion

leadership (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet 151-2).

In seeking information to form an opinion, individuals must view the opinion leader with trust

and respect. For newscasters to serve as opinion leaders, it is necessary for the public to

treat them as expert sources in the proposed hierarchy.

12
PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIP THEORY

A parasocial relationship is created when individuals develop a bond with real or fictional

characters and personalities in a variety of media genres including news programs and talk

shows (Hoffner 60). In this type of relationship, viewers feel as though they are actually

involved in the events, and they respond as if they were participating in real interaction with

people they know. This involvement and familiarity leads to the formation of emotional

attachments known as parasocial bonds. Parasocial bonds are equally strong regardless of

whether the object of the relationship is real or fictional. They are also equally strong whether

the relationship is built through continuous media exposure, such as with an anchor on a

nightly news broadcast (e.g., Tom Brokaw), or through news coverage, such as with a

celebrity (e.g., Princess Diana). Understanding how parasocial relationships are formed and

sustained is relevant to our understanding the implicit behavior of television viewers. This

theory also illuminates the process by which people form interpersonal relationships.

Parasocial relationships create an intersection between mass communication and

interpersonal communication. Early research on parasocial relationships found that

parasocial bonds were similar in many ways to the social relationships that people develop

through face-to-face contact with others. In an authentic social relationship, face-to-face

interaction creates the psychological bonds, which become the roots of the interpersonal

dynamics between the parties. In a parasocial relationship, the viewer accepts the televised

avatar, instead of the actual face. As such, for news personalities, the bond is created

between the viewer and the newscaster.

13
The viewer relies on parasocial bonds to reduce uncertainty. In watching news or absorbing

information, the viewer-newscaster relationship has the potential to increase confidence in the

information being presented. This risk-reduction strategy is a passive one, manifest by the

viewer’s direct observation of the broadcast, and indirect absorption of the faux face-to-face

communications. The parasocial bonds formed passively are complemented by ones formed

more actively, as when the viewer talks with others about the personality, which creates a

collective opinion and a stronger parasocial bond. The real-life parallel is when a person

becomes familiar with “friends of their friends,” either by meeting them or by hearing about

them, and begins to rely on them for validation or other information. In the parasocial

environment, when the viewer advocates the newscaster’s point of view, the newscaster is

functioning as a “para-friend of a friend.”

Parasocial relationships form for three reasons. First, they provide social and emotional

gratification to the viewer. Second, they motivate further viewing, and are therefore fomented

as a tactic to build audiences for broadcasters. Third, they satisfy a fundamental human need

for affiliation and the validation of being part of a group. Donald Horton and R. Richard Wohl

first introduced this paradigm, and much of the parasocial relationship theory, in their seminal

article “Mass Communication and Para-Social Interaction.” They coined the term “parasocial

interaction” to describe the imaginary interactions between television variety show hosts and

their home audiences, as well as the seeming face-to-face relationship that viewers

developed with personalities (Hoffner 60).

The principal psychological perspective on parasocial behavior is founded on motivational

theory. Borrowing from a “uses and gratifications” model, this perspective contends that

people are not passive recipients of media messages. Instead, they seek out particular

14
media content because they are motivated by goals, needs, desires and or preferences.

Horton and Wohl believe that viewers accepted the sense of interaction conveyed because

television hosts appeared as themselves and often directly addressed the audience. Several

other studies support this theory and indicate that parasocial relationships are enhanced

when media characters or performers directly address the audience, which simulates the

process of face-to-face interaction.

Rubin, Perse and Powell developed a self-reported parasocial interaction scale to measure

the perceived bond that viewers have with local television news personalities (155-180).

Using this scale, the benefits of parasocial relationships can be described in three ways.

First, they can be emotionally gratifying, which is consistent with the psychology approach.

Second, they provide viewers with a sense of companionship and pseudo- (or para-)

friendship. In examining this second phenomenon, however, it is not uniformly true that those

with parasocial relationships are in any way consistently deficient in authentic social

relationships. Third, parasocial interactions enable viewers to participate vicariously in

relationships as preparation for real-life social roles (Hoffner 64). In addition, parasocial

relationships encourage viewers’ reliance on media characters and personalities as role

models. In this case, viewers seek personally relevant information, such as how to behave in

different situations or how to cope with problems.

In the initial stages of any relationship, individuals engage in the process of impression

formation. This is true for parasocial relationships as well. In forming impressions of others,

people use a wide range of observable information, including physical appearance,

behaviors, and emotional reactions. Impressions also change over time; in parasocial

relationships, audience members learn more about the background, personality, behavioral

15
tendencies, and emotional makeup of media characters and personalities. Research

confirms that media characters and personalities whose personal attributes and behaviors are

perceived favorably are generally liked more. This supports the distinction that viewers make

between favorable perceptions and likeability.

Viewers also tend to be more attracted to characters and personalities who they perceive to

be similar to themselves. Viewers are attracted to personalities, and often view them as role

models – people they want to be like – rather than friends. Since individuals trust and respect

role models, it is also a natural instinct to seek information and allow the personality to shape

the viewers’ opinion. Along with trust and respect, the viewer is selectively placing the

television personality (newscasters) in a role model category, and as an expert source for

information. These relationships easily translate to the equivalent of a believable face-to-face

interaction.

SHANNON-WEAVER MODEL

The Shannon-Weaver model is a way to structurally diagnose and decompose

communications between sender and receiver. There are six fundamental parts: source,

encoder, message, channel, decoder and receiver (McQuail and Windahl 16). The model

builds on Lasswell’s original formula, which stated that all communication starts from a sender

and ends with a receiver (McQuail and Windahl 13). The importance of the Shannon-Weaver

model is its recognition that there is a combination of people and processes that affects mass

communication. In examining the communication between a newscaster and a viewer, there

are three important implications. First, for mass communication, the model can be used to

16
understand the exchange of information. Second, by casting the newscaster as sender and

the viewer as receiver, it can help clarify the process of transmission. Third, examining

amplifications to the model, such as feedback, help to simplify the meta-dynamics of the

multiple layers of communication between the newscaster and viewer.

Noise

Channel
Source Encoder Decoder Receiver
MESSAGE

Feedback

In the Shannon-Weaver model, when newscasters transmit a message, they are acting as a

sender, and the viewer is acting as a receiver. Before sending the message, the sender

encodes the message through an encoding process. Similarly, before receiving a message,

the receiver decodes the message using a decoding process. The receiver provides

feedback to the sender, both indirectly (via the efficacy of the decoding process), and directly.

In face-to-face communication, direct feedback is given in a variety of ways. These include

non-verbal signals and paralanguage, clarifying questions, affirmative or negative responses,

or declarative agreements or objections. In the mass communication parallel, direct feedback

is more difficult to provide. In the specific newscaster-viewer dynamic, direct feedback is

provided through continued participation in the audience (passive feedback), and advocacy,

either directly to the newscaster, or evangelistically to the public (active feedback).

17
Regardless of whether the communication is mass or direct, feedback plays a crucial role, so

the sender of the message will know if the message was effectively understood and or

accepted.

Originally, these models were developed to measure the efficacy of telephony equipment and

networks, which is a potential limitation on their use. Over time, this theory has been

generalized to interpersonal communication. It broadly works because interpersonal

communication has the same structure as mechanically transmitted communications.

It is part of a family of models that examine the transmissions between sender and receiver.

The generalizable view of S/M/C/R (source/message/channel/receiver) can be found in the

work of Lasswell, Berlo, and others (Underwood, Berlo 1-10). While communication models

have been extended, the Shannon-Weaver model is the most effective diagnostic of human

interpersonal communication. The effectiveness of human communication, Weaver said,

might be measured by "the success with which the meaning conveyed to the receiver leads to

the desired conduct on his part” (Simpson 1).

The ability of newscasters to function as opinion leaders is based directly on their successful

communication to the viewer. For this to be true, the encoding on the part of the newscaster

and the decoding by the viewer must be in sync. Additionally, the viewer must provide

feedback, either passively or actively. When viewers decode the message, their decoding

process can specifically place the newscaster in the role of opinion leader, or specifically

exclude them from that role. Using the Shannon-Weaver model we can continue to

demonstrate that receivers generate latent feedback in their decoding of the message based

on their perception of the sender. This is a nonverbal dynamic process that amplifies the

18
signal regardless of the encoding. When the newscaster is more broadly empowered as an

opinion leader, there is a secondary effect on their encoding process.

Marrying these three frameworks – two-step flow, parasocial relationship theory, and

Shannon-Weaver model – creates a meta-approach to understanding the effect of the

newscaster on the viewer. First, the viewer must have a relationship with the newscaster,

which is a function of the parasocial bonds and the relationship formed by the viewer.

Second, the viewer must receive information that is transmitted, which is derived from the

Shannon-Weaver model of communication. Especially important in this are the decoding and

feedback processes. Finally, the viewer can place the newscaster in the role of opinion

leader, as borne out in the two-step flow model, based on the combination of respect,

expertise, and acceptance.

Using the proposed triangulation, this study will build on the three models in two directions.

First, this study will explicitly connect the models in a generalizable approach to interpersonal

communication. Second, it will specifically apply this meta-approach to the viewer-

newscaster relationship, which has become increasingly important in the modern era of

continuous news cycles.

The meta-approach can be summarized as a series of interactions. Viewers’ initial

involvement with the personality (newscaster) creates familiarity, which sparks formation of

parasocial bonds. Once parasocial bonds are formed, these lead to a parasocial relationship,

in which the viewer places trust in the personality and is more accepting of their messages.

In the Shannon-Weaver model, the parasocial relationship is manifested in the decoding

process; and, once the feedback loop is completed, in the newscaster’s encoding process as

19
well. When viewers are effectively receiving and decoding messages from a trusted source,

they begin to exhibit opinion follower-ship, placing the newscaster in the opinion leader role.

As this opinion leadership becomes more explicit, it reinforces the parasocial bond the viewer

has with the newscaster, and amplifies the communication signal in both directions

(transmission and feedback).

The following research question will be addressed in this study: When viewers receive a

message from a television personality, does their perception of the personality influence the

message?

There are four goals for this investigation.

1. Examine the role of the television personalities as opinion leaders in the

modified two-step flow model;

2. Determine differences in how people perceive information and television

personalities;

3. Test the role of different television program categories; and

4. Scrutinize the interpersonal relationship established between the television

personality and the viewer.

20
 Chapter III

Literature Review

To fully understand how newscasters become opinion leaders, and validate the use of the

meta-approach proposed in the theoretical framework, it is necessary to revisit the academic

roots of each of these models. In addition, there is a need to review the overall study in two

general contexts (psychology and media bias).

MODELS

The three models that form the theoretical framework for this examination are well known and

developed. In understanding each of them, it is important to recognize not only their

foundations, but also where others have contributed to their development, and their

applications and extensions. In general, each model has a generalizable core, a set of

specific applications to communications, and a set of more specific applications to the

relationship of viewers and the news media.

The largest body of work is in the mass communications field, which has logical connections

to both the information and influence models (such as the two-step flow model), and cognitive

psychological models (such as the parasocial relationship phenomenon). There has been

little to no explicit connection of the specific models, and no application treats all three of

them together. Therefore, the purpose of reviewing the research surrounding the work is to

better ground the assessments and appropriateness of the proposed meta-approach.

21
In general, models give a picture of a range of different specific circumstances. Models also

help by explaining or simplifying information that would otherwise be complicated or

ambiguous. Models may also be used for predictions under certain sets of assumptions and

conditions, and help in making generalizations, which is the overarching goal of social

science. While models are a useful tool to guide researchers to key points of a process or

system, they also represent a potential limitation to exploratory thinking and innovation.

Models may also perpetuate fallacious assumptions about themselves or the processes they

intend to represent (McQuail and Windahl 2-3). It will be important to be both analytical and

creative in evaluating the models in our framework.

THE TWO STEP-FLOW MODEL OF OPINION LEADERSHIP

The two-step flow model and its subsequent proofs support the idea of the opinion leader

hierarchy, and its general applicability outside of political issues. The original discussion of

the model in The People’s Choice presented four key findings (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and

Gaudet 150-8):

1. The impact of personal influence on voting decisions was greater than that of mass
media
2. The flow of personal influence led to identifying influential individuals, called ‘opinion
leaders’
3. The phenomenon of opinion leadership is present in every level of society, since
people influence those who they are most like (socially and demographically)
4. Opinion leaders have higher levels of exposure to mass media (radio, newspapers,
and magazines)

Originally, Lazarfeld’s academic emphasis was to understand why people made choices –

specifically, vote choices. He hypothesized that any act needed to have a specific goal or

motivation at its start (Czitrom 129). The practical application of this hypothesis emerged in

22
the examination of informed choices, and the search for the sources of the information.

Ultimately, this resulted in the need to understand the ways in which communication affected

public opinion and ultimately policy (Czitrom 132-3). The two-step flow model is the result of

this development.

Subsequent research has validated and extended both the two-step flow model and the

concept of opinion leadership. In the Rovere Study, opinion leadership was identified at the

individual level. This quantified the level of influence and reinforced the nature of

interpersonal communication in opinion leadership. The Decatur study shifted the opinion

leader model to non-political decisions, by looking at the role of influentials in fashion,

marketing, movie-going, and public affairs. This study examined the dynamic between

influencer and influencee, and quantified that even opinion leaders are influenced, creating

different classes of opinion leaders. The Elmira Study confirmed that opinion leaders are

themselves influenced by others, reinforcing the hierarchy of opinion leadership. The Drug

Study extended the model to include an expert source as opinion leader by examining how

doctors make decisions to prescribe new drugs. This reduced or eliminated the personal

element that was present in the original voting model although not the interpersonal

dimension (Katz 61-78).

Lazarsfeld and Katz’s further development of the two-step flow model also established four

bases for opinion leadership. People become opinion leaders based on their life cycle

position, their social position, their economic position, and their natural gregariousness

(Underwood 1-2).

23
In Troldahl’s 1965 Boston experiment, he demonstrated the hierarchy of opinion leadership

and the existence of ‘horizontal flow’ among opinion leaders (622). The importance of

interpersonal communication, and its impact on opinion leadership, is also present in

Robinson’s work quantifying the amount of information sharing among social networks in

presidential voting (304-19). Both of these studies support the existence of hierarchical

opinion leadership, while reinforcing the fundamental role of mass media as the source of

information.

The two-step flow model, however, has its flaws. Deutschmann’s 1962 study of computer

simulation revived the direct model. He demonstrated that modern mass media

communicates directly with the public, without intermediaries, finding that “initial mass media

information on important events goes directly to people on the whole and is not relayed to any

great extent.” This has been demonstrated in other research, including that by Westley and

Rogers (Manzano 1-8).

Other criticisms of the two-step flow model include Lin’s insistence on a dichotomy of opinion

leadership and opinion following, Gitlin’s criticism of the standardization of the model across

categories and Weimann’s analysis of its unidirectional nature (Manzano 6-7). However, with

mass media as the base of communications, the strengths of the two-step flow model, with

the hierarchical modification, seem to outweigh its weaknesses. Especially important is the

nature of interpersonal communication. Rogers identified that mass media was effective at

generating awareness, but that face-to-face communication was more effective at shaping

opinion. Allowing the newscaster to be one of the ‘faces,’ this supports the original idea that

the newscaster plays a central role in the communication flow.

24
Rogers’ diffusion of innovation model and diffusion research in general also look at how

information spreads and how beliefs are adopted. There are specific actors in the process.

First, an innovator tries new things and is observed by others. Second, a communicator

communicates the existence and benefits of the innovation. Third, influencers have an

impact on others’ actions. Fourth, there are skeptics who insist on more proof that the

innovation is worthwhile. Opinion leaders play both the communicating and influencing roles

in the diffusion process. This works within the framework of the two-step flow model in that

opinion leaders must both communicate and reinforce (Rubin 169-170).

Frank offers a criticism of the impact of the two-step flow model in the television-dominated

world (11). He assumes a high level of persuasiveness of television, and also assumes that

this effect is reasonably uniform. These are both valid assumptions. He further proposes that

information seeking among peers has decreased, so that people’s use of television

information as the primary source eliminates the need for traditional opinion leadership as a

reinforcement mechanism. In practical terms, this means that instead of asking an opinion

leader for information, viewers of a televised message seek to share their information for

validation. Frank’s criticism is consistent with the meta-approach, especially in that viewers

are implicitly placing television newscasters in the classic role of opinion leader.

The application of the two-step flow model extends to people as well as publications. “An

opinion leader is a person or publication that helps form or change opinions much more

effectively than the average publication or person” (Rubin 169). Interestingly, in a study of

businessmen, when asked specifically to identify opinion leaders, respondents did not identify

any individuals. This audience viewed publications as opinion leaders, including The Wall

25
Street Journal, Forbes and Barron’s. They also identified classes of people, such as chief

executive officers and television newscasters (Rubin 173).

In the televised world, television can serve to reinforce current beliefs but it also has the

potential to change them. From the opinion leader perspective, opinion leaders may also be

more frequent viewers of television, since people that do not watch “enough” television tend

to get their information from those that do (Bryant and Zillman, Perspectives 21). Frank found

that television news does influence public opinion (10).

The media do not always play a balanced role in the communications link between political

leaders and the people. In an ideal state, the people’s voice to their political leaders would

not be filtered or affected by the media. In reality, since the people effectively only hear their

leaders through the media, but have little recourse to the media, their voice may be minimized

in everyday communication (Bennett 247-8).

Assessments of newscasters and the programs in which they are featured have focused

mostly on their believability and credibility. Robinson and Kohut separated the newscaster

from the news program, showing that news anchors are more likely to be believed than

correspondents. They also demonstrated the impact of the personality of the newscaster on

the believability of the news broadcast (178).

This relationship between viewer, newscaster, and news program is central to research about

mass media. Gans’ evaluations of the media suggest a hierarchy of the media themselves –

an “elite” media that serve as opinion leaders within the news environment. “When editors

and producers are uncertain about a selection decision, they will check whether, where, and

26
how the [New York] Times front-page stories find their way into television programs and

magazines” (Jamieson and Campbell 18).

Jamieson’s research considers the non-news implications of mass media, which has

implications for the opinion leader model as well. In her view, individuals consume mass

media messages alone and in small groups (carpools, families, office workers, etc.). In the

group setting, the opinion leader can either be the newscaster or one of the participants.

Jamieson and Campbell also view the impact of media as more diffuse than merely news.

“Many Americans wake up to the sounds of music and news on a clock radio, wash and dress

to the “Today” show or “Good Morning America,” breakfast with the morning paper, commute

to the patter of a favorite disc jockey, dine with the evening news, relax with prime-time

television, and doze to the strains of music on the clock radio” (1).

Newscasters can become participants in the events they are covering (Patterson 28-37). If

newscasters step into active participant roles, the public will continue to follow them as long

as the public generally supports the newscasters’ goals and actions. An example of this is

Walter Cronkite (then and now, one of the most trusted newscasters) made it possible for

Egypt Premier Anwar Sadat to travel to Israel in 1977. Since the public generally agreed with

Cronkite’s goals and actions, there was no harm, and potentially some benefit, to their

perception of Cronkite as a trustworthy, credible source (Jamieson and Campbell 90).

Further investigation of the role of the newscaster as opinion leader, in the hierarchical two-

step flow model, can shed more light on whether the public’s view of the newscaster affects

their reception of information.

27
PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIP THEORY

The study of interpersonal relationships is a mature and robust field, with tendrils in sociology,

psychology, and communication. In an increasingly media-driven society, an emerging field

is the study of “parasocial” relationships, in which one of the people in the relationship is

either fictional, or only available through media consumption. Ultimately, a good definition of

a parasocial relationship is “a perceived interpersonal relationship on the part of a television

viewer with a mass media persona” (Perse and Rubin 59-77). Importantly, these

relationships are not reciprocal (Bucy 2).

Audiences are active participants in any broadcast. The parasocial relationship serves as

one form of audience response. “In true communication there is a reciprocity, some kind of

response from the audience” (Harris 4).

Horton and Wohl first developed this theory in 1956. They observed “parasocial interactions”

between viewers of television shows and the hosts of these shows. These interactions were

termed “para-social” since the host of the show was not directly participating in a social

relationship with the viewer, even though many of the characteristics of a social relationship

are present. They theorized that this relationship was possible since the television host was

addressing the viewer directly. They also demonstrated that over time, loyalty to the show

morphed into personal loyalty to the host, which in turn increased the perception of the host’s

reliability and trustworthiness (Horton and Wohl 215-29).

Further research showed that even when the television character did not directly address the

viewer, parasocial relationships were possible. People are easily able to form intensely

28
personal relationships with media figures, as shown in the work of Caughey, Alperstein, and

Berger. Beyond traditional talk shows or game shows, viewers’ relationships with fictional

characters from television programs (soap operas, dramas, and situation comedies) were

observed (Alperstein 43-45). In another extension of the original model, Rubin, Perse, and

Powell developed a test of the parasocial relationship between viewers and news

personalities (Rubin et al. 155-180).

Parasocial relationships are driven by the human needs for social or emotional gratification

through affiliation and validation. However, those engaging in parasocial relationships do not

appear to do so as a substitute for interpersonal relationships, nor do they suffer from any

higher levels of loneliness or anxiety than those who do not have parasocial relationships.

Cole & Leets found that the ability to form relationships is constant, and those who find it

difficult to form interpersonal relationships also find it difficult to form parasocial relationships.

Ashe and McCutcheon directly examined the relationship of shyness and loneliness to

parasocial relationships, finding no significant effects (124-133). Additional research in this

vein by McCourt and Fitzpatrick separates viewers interested in parasocial interaction for

romantic versus informational purposes (42-58).

People easily make personality assumptions about television characters. Relationships are

formed with media characters based on liking, perceived similarity, and the desire to emulate

the personality. These are also the three basic elements of attraction (Bryant and Zillman,

Responding 63-64). So, the attraction of a viewer to a real or fictional television figure is

initially based on the same impressions that would attract them in person. These impressions

include physical appearance, behavior, or other emotional cues. As people favor characters

and personalities that they perceive to be similar to themselves, in the news environment this

29
may lead to the selection of anchors or correspondents who reflect the demographic

composition of the audience.

The impact of a personality on the viewer in a parasocial relationship is created via the

“illusion of intimacy.” This is achieved by regular viewing in which the viewer gets to know the

appearance, characteristics, and style of the performer (Bucy 4).

Viewers base their opinions on the combination of their knowledge and their perception of the

character or media personality (Bryant and Zillman, Responding 76-77). Psychologically,

Hoffner and Cantor showed that the cognitive process involved in forming impressions of real

people and media characters is essentially the same (Bryant and Zillman, Responding 76).

Turner studied the affiliation factor and found that some viewers were attracted to news or

media personalities as a way of compensating for low self-esteem. The personality’s

presence on air served as a form of validation for the viewer. Rubin & McHugh showed that

when viewers found the personality important, they were more likely to develop a parasocial

relationship (Hoffner 64).

People generally watch television and create relationships with media characters for one or

both of two reasons. First, they may seek social compensation, which is the use of television

as a replacement for social interaction. Second, they may desire mood-management, which

is the use of television as an aid for relaxation or for specific stimulus such as information or

inspiration (Zillman and Vorderer 239). Parasocial relationships can manifest themselves in

extreme emotional feelings for people that in reality have never met. Common examples are

the relationship of the viewing public with public figures such as John Lennon, John Kennedy,

30
and Princess Diana, as manifested in the mourning and grieving over each death. This is

possible for characters that are fictional as well (Bryant and Zillman, Responding 84).

Viewers of the television show M*A*S*H were dramatically affected by the death of the

character, Lt. Col. Henry Blake, although they showed no emotion for the real-life actor

McLean Stevenson (Harris 39).

The media can and do take advantage of the fact that people choose to believe that what is

shown on television is an objective portrayal of reality (Harris 38). Production choices such

as pacing, camera angles, accompanying music, and the use of close-ups influence what the

viewers see and cue them to perceive the presentation differently (Bryant and Zillman,

Responding 89). This has both direct and indirect impact on their perception of the media

character.

Over the long term, parasocial relationships create dependence in the same way that

interpersonal relationships do. While in the infancy stage, viewers seek relatively banal

inputs from their media personalities. As the relationships develop, the personalities are a

source for cues and advice about how to make substantial choices about life or how to cope

with problems (Hoffner 64). In fact, responsiveness to personalities in parasocial

relationships influence purchasing decisions through both emulation and belief systems,

although this effect can be either positive or negative. The intent of the broadcaster or

advertiser does not always have the desired outcome, depending on the viewer’s

interpretation of the personality and the message (Alperstein 47; Perse and Rubin 61). Levy

found that media personalities had significant power to influence the viewer’s beliefs based

on how they presented the news (Alperstein 43).

31
Parasocial relationships are abundant between viewers and the news media. TV reporters

become “trusted friends,” and this is especially true for news anchors. People will even

respond to the greetings these anchors offer at the start of their broadcast: “when Tom

Brokaw says ‘Good evening,’ some viewers reply ‘Hi, Tom,’” (Harris 140). Diamond

summarizes this phenomenon: “The common perception is that what we see is what we get,

that we know our anchormen, with their instantly recognizable faces, that we can call them by

their first names: Dan, Peter, Tom. Each weeknight they come into millions of American

households to deliver the news, familiar guests at our hearth” (38).

This relationship is necessary in order for people to consume the news. Without a parasocial

relationship with an anchor or news personality, viewers risk being uninformed. The

relationship does require that the viewers reconcile any difference between their views and

the way in which the media portrays events (Bennett 212-3). Viewers choose a broadcaster

based on a number of characteristics beyond the news that is actually presented.

The combination of necessity on the part of the viewer and economic incentive on the part of

the network (i.e., the more viewers watch, the more valuable the broadcast becomes as an

advertisable commodity) is the catalyst for an interesting homogeneity. In addition to

generally reporting the same content, the media now generally reports it in the same way.

“News anchors all appear to possess common sense, rationality, and sanity; they seem

knowledgeable, informed, and impartial. If male, they are authoritative; if female, they are

likeable” (Paletz 70). Ultimately, the nightly news programs are only different based on the

perceptual differences the viewers have of the anchors (Diamond 38-9).

32
The dynamics of the relationship are interestingly one-sided. Anchors typically know very

little about their audiences, while the public is encouraged to believe the personas of their

anchors (Cook 168). Historically, this developed when emotion began to play a part in the

news and human interest became a factor in both national and local coverage (Allen 66-7).

The shift in the balance between “hard news” and human interest created a shift where

people began choosing their news programs not on the content of the news but on the

personalities on the show (Allen 188). These choices meant that anchors had to be

understandable, friendly, enthusiastic, credible, and attractive (Allen 193).

The gold-standard parasocial relationship between a news personality and the viewer is that

of Walter Cronkite. Cronkite intentionally set out to form relationships with viewers, initially as

a one-anchor alternative to the two-anchor news broadcasts on competitive networks.

Through a combination of his straightforward, genial style, and his effectiveness at “leading”

viewers through key events like the Kennedy assassination, Cronkite became the man that

most people in America trusted, more so than the President or the Pope. His relationship

with the public has continued long after he has stepped down from the anchor desk (Allen

64).

THE SHANNON-WEAVER MODEL

Communication models simplify reality, select key elements, and indicate relationships. They

vary in that some are more dynamic (dealing with process and change) or more static

(dealing with structure and relationships), although both aspects are present in all

communication. The models also have potential disadvantages. Important features may be

33
omitted due to simplification and selection. The more general the model the less true it will be

to any one particular case (Barnouw et al. 36).

In the 1940’s and early 1950’s communication models were developed to generalize

communication because of the emergence of a new science of communication. The

phenomenon was initially the concept of information and seemed to offer the basis for the

new science. Information was conceived of mainly as “uncertainty reduction,” following

contemporary thinking about cybernetics (Barnouw et al. 36). The science of communication

has developed somewhat differently, retaining a humanist component, while resisting efforts

to treat the subject purely in a narrow, mechanistic way.

In examining communication models generically, there are ten distinct elements that most or

all of these models use. Importantly, not all models use all of the elements. Three of these

potential elements concern the participants – the sender, the receiver, and the relationship.

Three of these deal with the processes of communication – a process of encoding a message

into signals or symbols, a parallel decoding process, and a feedback link from receiver to

sender. The remaining elements deal with the structure of the communication – the message

itself, the channel, a set of referents (things to which the message refers), and the effect of

the message, whether actual or probable, intended or accidental (Barnouw et al. 36).

Given the potential combinations of these elements, it is important that a set of models be

identified as appropriate to the theoretical framework, and further, that a model works in the

meta-approach necessary for the phenomenon. To evaluate the models, it is important to

consider the historical roots of their development, as well as how they treat each of the

important elements.

34
The root of the basic communication model is in Harold Lasswell’s seminal work in

communications. The Lasswell Formula consists of five elements, and can be represented as

a series of five questions: Who? Says What? In Which Channel? To Whom? With What

Effect? (McQuail and Windahl 13). Empirically, it can be represented as five of the core

elements: Sender, Message, Channel, Receiver, and Effect. The major value of the Lasswell

Formula is to validate the structural approach to interpersonal communication. Without this

foundation, it would be difficult to break down communication for examination. Lasswell’s is

the humanist root of communication, and enables a series of examinations, both of the

elements of the formula, and of the chain they form when they are connected.

The immediate technical innovation to the Lasswell Formula is the Shannon-Weaver model,

considered the foundational root of mechanical communication. The intent of the Shannon-

Weaver model was an engineering process to optimize signal strength and fidelity on a

communication network. It is a linear, one-way process. Its broad application to human

communication stems from how it builds on the Lasswell Formula. In addition to the five

elements of Lasswell, which focus on the participants and the structure of the communication,

Shannon-Weaver adds elements that focus on the process of communication. These focus

on how the information is converted for transmission by the sender, and converted for

reception by the receiver. The power in Shannon-Weaver is in the recognition that the

message intended is not always the message received, and that this difference is

measurable, understandable, and potentially controllable (McQuail and Windahl 16-17;

Barnouw et al. 37).

Further developments built on Shannon-Weaver in two important ways. DeFleur added the

element of feedback, creating a loop within the model that reinforces communication between

35
receiver and sender. The basis for this addition was an examination of the alignment

between the messages at the time of transmission versus the time of reception. DeFleur’s

analysis challenged the assumption that the only impairment to true fidelity in the

communication process is noise during the process. The lack of “correspondence” between

the intended and received messages is also a function of interpretive meaning. Feedback is

a potential way to close the gap. With feedback from the receiver, the sender has the

opportunity to adapt its message before subsequent transmissions (McQuail and Windahl 17-

18).

Osgood and Schramm formally labeled the conversion processes in the Shannon-Weaver

model as encoding by the sender and decoding by the receiver, making the processes both

conscious and circular. Their assessment is of the parties as equals in the process, with the

sender using an encoding process for conversion, and the receiver using a decoding process.

Both parties also use an interpretative process, which can be different for each combination

of sender and receiver (i.e., each receiver’s decoding process is constant, but their

interpretive process varies with the sender). Their leverage of DeFleur’s feedback

component moved the Shannon-Weaver model away from linear transmission toward a fully

circular model for interpersonal communication. This extension is very important for the

application of the model to mass communications (MacQuail and Windahl 19-21).

The innovations of DeFleur, Osgood and Schramm make some improvements to the

Shannon-Weaver model, although the feedback is still limited and indirect. The final relevant

extension to the Shannon-Weaver model was in its application to the transmission of

information in a mass communication environment, as shown by Westley & MacLean. The

Westley & MacLean conceptual model builds on both Shannon-Weaver and on other

36
transmission models. It allows for communicators to select from a variety of messages and

transmit via different channels to different receivers, allowing for multiple streams of feedback

from each combination of receiver and channel (McQuail and Windahl 38-45; Barnouw et al.

38).

Other models focus on different challenges for communication, including the complexity of

frequency, the role of context, and the impact of objective goals for communication on how

the message is ultimately received. For example, Gerbner’s proposed model of

communication encompasses messages, events, perception, and content (McQuail and

Windahl 23-26; Barnouw et al. 37), and Dance’s helix model proposes a higher level of

dynamics among the actors in a communication model (McQuail and Windahl 20-22).

Newcomb’s ABX model simplifies the relationship between the communicators A and B, by

focusing the communication on supporting the message X (McQuail and Windahl 27-29).

These models, and others, can be classified into two general threads of exploration. The first

thread is focused on the mechanics of communication, seeking to find holistic ways to both

theoretically represent and mathematically replicate communication networks. Notable efforts

in this vein include Maletzke’s schema of mass communication, and Riley’s societal

communication model (Barnouw et al. 39; McQuail and Windahl 46-53).

The second thread is focused on the outcomes of communication, and is further divided into

studies that focus on the impact on information and public opinion, and those that focus on

marketing and advertising in commercial contexts. The two-step flow model is an example of

the application of the basic SMCR framework to the informational context. Other models that

have similar constructs include Rogers and Shoemaker’s work in innovation diffusion

37
(McQuail and Windahl 73), Donohew and Tipton’s conceptual model of information seeking,

and White’s model of gatekeeping (Barnouw et al. 42-3). Commercial applications of the

model are focused mostly on media communication, such as Linne and von Felitzen’s media

audience model (Barnouw et al. 41). A specific version of this is Comstock’s model on the

effect of advertising on behavior (McQuail and Windahl 67-8).

There is little dissent to the generalized model of interpersonal communication, and the body

of research surrounding it tends to amplify or specify the basic model rather than refute or

simplify it. The collective impact of this development is a more thorough understanding of

how communication works. The International Encyclopedia of Communications summarizes

this understanding in five points:

(1) There is selectivity in attention, perception, and retention of messages by the

receiver;
(2) Communication is essentially transactional, with the receiver playing an active role in
the course of any communication process;
(3) Communication does not always flow directly from one sender to one receiver but by
way of intervening processes;
(4) Mass communication processes involve professional mediation between senders and
receivers; and
(5) Communication takes place in complex social systems rather than in isolated acts of
transmission and reception (Barnouw et al. 36).

Interpersonal communication models allow for a precise examination of the dynamics of

communication between multiple parties, examining roles, processes, and structure.

Fundamentally, the Shannon-Weaver model, with the extensions discussed, provides the

best theoretical approach for our hypotheses. First, the Shannon-Weaver model balances

simplicity and technical depth. It provides for enough complexity in analyzing the

communication dynamics among the parties, without bogging the analysis down in technical

details. Second, the modularity of Shannon-Weaver is a tremendous benefit to any meta-

analysis, and specifically in our meta-approach. The components of Shannon-Weaver

38
provide a way to easily map the interpersonal communication dynamics to the other elements

of the meta-approach (parasocial relationships and opinion leadership). Finally, Shannon-

Weaver is a standard, generally accepted model for interpersonal communication, and the

combination of its utility and familiarity is very powerful. As Johnson and Klare say in their

review of communication models, “Of all single contributions to the widespread interest on

models today, [Shannon-Weaver] is the most important” (McQuail and Windahl 16).

The application of the Shannon-Weaver model to the study of media communications has

been fruitful. Early assumptions that media have uniform effects have given way to the notion

that media has selective effects, based on the individual differences among viewers (Harris

16). Further, there is recognition that viewers are not only selective about what and who they

watch, but that a variety of psychological and social factors impact the relationship between

sender and receiver when placed in a mass communication environment (Bryant and Zillman,

Perspectives 283).

When specifically applied to the transmission of information, the evident conclusion is that

mass communication is a necessary but not sufficient way to influence the public. There are

many mediating factors that contribute a greater portion of what people ultimately take away

from mass communication than the content of the communication itself (Czitrom 138). While

“the traditional view of the way citizens gain information from the media is dominated by

imagery of a vegetative audience, passively absorbing media influence,” this is a false

stereotype (Bennett 214). There is strong evidence that viewers are actively interpreting the

news, adding meaning based on their own personal experiences. A typical viewing involves

active filtering and selection of both messages and meanings that are drawn from a news

broadcast. Simplistically, there is simultaneously an enormous volume of information

39
transmitted in a fragmented way, forcing the viewer to develop an ordering mechanism in

order to handle it (Bennett 214; Cook 166).

There is also evidence of the components of the Shannon-Weaver model in examining news

broadcasts. For example, there are specific encoding mechanisms seen in how the news is

presented. This is the gatekeeping function of the news, both in selecting what to include in

the news, and the way in which it is presented (Frank 7).

The essential bridge between the interpersonal and mass communication models is the mass

society theory. This theory recognizes that interpersonal dynamics do not require face-to-

face interaction, but can be achieved through mass exposure (Czitrom 136). Another family

of models, media effects, looks at attitude change, behavior change and information gain as a

result of exposure (Bryant and Zillman, Perspectives 281). These models were developed in

an effort to more carefully specify the outcomes of media use and exposure to expand

beyond the behavioral focus of full effects models, such as hypodermic effects.

When examining the ultimate impact of mass communication on public opinion, Lemert

proposes three tests. First, there has to be sufficient communication to create a change in

public opinion. Second, there has to be some reason for public opinion to change. Third, the

public opinion has to actually change in a uniform, tangible way. The critical difference in this

formula is that the media are not influencing public opinion by changing individual attitudes.

Rather, the media influences public opinion by shaping what individuals should have attitudes

about (Lemert 1-2).

40
RELATED PHENOMENA

The models that represent the theoretical framework for this study are not the only context for

this research. There are two categorical phenomena that also need to be addressed. First,

many components in these models are from psychological analysis, particularly the way in

which people learn and understand (cognitive processes). Second, any analysis of the media

needs to include an examination of the ways in which the media wield power, and the

pervasive discussion of whether or how the news media are biased, and whether or how that

bias influences the public.

Cognitive Processes and Effects

Many of the frameworks of the examination rely on principles from cognitive psychology. The

basic processes by which people absorb, process, and react to information are an important

part of how viewers interact with television. In turn, this leads to an understanding of how

people use information to form and change their own opinions.

Two important cognitive processes that play a large role are abstractions and information

processing. Abstractions represent beliefs that a person has about reality. These provide a

basic structure that the person can use to absorb and process new information. In the

television news environment, abstractions provide a method for a viewer to watch the news

and interpret its content (Bryant and Zillman, Responding 220). Information processing is

done through a combination of conscious and reflexive processes. The most common view is

that most information is automatically transferred in a linear fashion, and the person

intentionally constructs some information to some principle of order before processing it as

input. Haskell offers a third, hybrid version, where the person is unconsciously processing

41
information using implicit factors (Bryant and Zillman, Responding 221). This version is

consistent with the constructs of parasocial relationships and the encoding paradigm of

interpersonal communication, where these factors play a role in how the viewer processes

information.

Belief structures, and the ability of the news to influence beliefs, is another important cognitive

phenomenon. Anderson and Burns found that television does not have uniform effects, and

the way in which people pay attention cannot only be measured by the information retained.

Watching television influences perception and other knowledge (Bryant and Zillman,

Responding 3). However, attitudes do not have to change completely in order to be

influenced. Influence can manifest even without a wholesale conversion of belief (Lemert 21).

Essentially, people’s interpretation of the news will be a function of their own beliefs, the

objective truth, and their belief about the person presenting the facts. Lemert offers the

example of a pro-war news commentary on the war’s progress to anti-war viewers. The

viewers are not likely to change their beliefs based on the commentary, although they may

accept some of the objective facts of the commentary (40). However, the viewers may be

influenced by the commentator’s point of view, just as the commentator may have presented

the information in a more neutral fashion in order to maximize his/her ability to influence the

viewers.

The variability of perception among different viewers is a phenomenon Sanbonmatsu and

Fazio label “construct accessibility,” which is largely based on Bruner’s work on perceptual

readiness and the impact that memory has on the way people interpret events. The core of

this theory is that differences in people create differences in observation of the same

42
objective event. This is a function of both recency and the activation of related or generic

constructs. The results are selective attention and impact on viewer decoding processes, so

that the viewer will add meaning to the objective presentation (Bryant and Zillman,

Responding 45-48). Bryant and Rockwell extend this analysis. In addition to understanding

how people select media messages, and how they make choices, we must understand the

internal processes that people use to interpret the messages and turn them into choices

(Bryant and Zillman, Responding 217).

Finally, Weaver studied the effect of audience personality characteristics on media impact.

This application of the uses-and-gratifications model takes into account individual

psychological differences in members of the audience. This is consistent with personality

theory, which reflects the need to distinguish individuals based on perceptual characteristics.

In effect, perceptions of the media function as attitudes, they are “evaluative judgements

summarizing the gratification that consumers anticipate receiving from their interaction with

the media” (Zillman and Vorderer 236-7).

Media Power and Bias

In addition to analysis of the presence of media influence on public opinion, attention has

been paid to whether and how the media uses this power. In general, the media have an

ability to set the agenda by choosing what to cover (Harris 18; Rowse 10). Cleniden’s

research on the power of the editor shows the influence that story selection has on public

opinion (Dennis and Snyder 13-21). While the freedom of the press is a cherished one, and

often invoked as a protection for the media’s behaviors, Rowse views the press as possibly

abusing the public’s trust. “The [Founding Fathers] never dreamed that the press…would use

its freedom so extensively to make money and so little to communicate the nation’s needs.

43
They could not have envisaged a press so tied into the commercial world and with so little

interest in serving the public” (11).

The blurring of lines between the media reporting the news, and being or staging the news, is

also a matter for debate. While Walter Cronkite’s role in arranging the Sadat/Begin meeting

in 1977 is generally seen as a positive one, there are questions about whether this

represented too powerful a role for a media personality to play. Similar questions have been

raised about the role of networks in war coverage. These roles range from network’s offering

to financially contribute to the cost of wars, to the incident of a soldier cutting off the ear of a

dead Vietcong solider in 1967 after being offered a knife by a TV cameraman (Harris 147).

Gans makes the point that while opinion makers include politicians and commentators, the

American public forms the majority of public opinion as it makes up its own mind. A top-down

view says that politicians or pundits can strongly influence opinion. In the top-down view the

media are extraordinarily important as they transmit the opinion from the maker to the people.

A bottom-up view says “that people choose what they wish to consider from what they watch

or read but make up their minds – and develop opinions – on the basis of many other

considerations.” Like many things, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. This is

consistent with the idea that the people signal to the news media through audience behavior

what they want covered (Dennis and Snyder 87-94).

One of the most common debates surrounding the question of the media’s influence on public

opinion is whether the media are biased, and how this bias manifests itself in the way people

treat the information presented. These are difficult questions, based on assessments of

44
journalistic objectivity, perceived bias in media presentations, and evaluation of the public’s

ability (or inability) to recognize and filter bias as they process information.

The question of journalistic objectivity has to include a discussion of the role of the media. If

the media are only to present objective facts, it is unlikely that this will actually produce

understandable information. Journalists must use tools of critical analysis in order to reduce

the volume of news data into information, which is why “true” objectivity is impossible

(Bennett 182). Former Vice President Al Gore expressed the dual role of the media to inform

and to interpret. “The media have a responsibility to inform and to educate, to tell us not only

what is happening, but also why it is happening and what it will mean to us – today and

tomorrow…television and radio commentators and talk shows impact policy and perception”

(Dennis and Snyder 3). Perhaps unusual for a politician, this statement overtly recognizes

that media have an impact not only on public opinion, but both directly and indirectly on policy

(Dennis and Snyder 3).

In the journalism code of ethics, objectivity was replaced with truth, accuracy, and

comprehensiveness in 1996. Journalists still claim to seek to be objective, although many

express it in terms of being “fair” rather than being “objective” (Bennett 183-4). Jonathan

Alter viewed this dilemma as a tension between standards and reality. “If a journalist has a

point of view, it often seems, he or she can’t be doing the job right. Journalists who pretend

to an objectivity they can never fulfill, or who are unwilling to end up out of step with the public

opinion, can contribute to this misconception” (Dennis and Snyder 3). In general, journalists

will seek to be accurate, impartial, fair, and balanced (Paletz 65).

45
The common stereotype is that the media, with some exceptions, are generally liberal.

However, while stories may have tinges of liberalism or conservatism, there is no consistent

emphasis that is observable over time. Some of the ways in which preference comes through

in broadcasts may also reflect public opinion, rather than being an attempt to influence it.

Also, since reporting is not done in a vacuum, journalists’ attempts to stay balanced may be

swayed by activist PR efforts from other parties. For example, while journalists’ reports about

the Reagan White House were normally neutral, the White House constantly featured positive

interpretations of events, making the journalists’ reports appear more positive (Bennett 2).

Lance Bennett sums up this issue nicely. “Liberals think the press is too conservative and

protective of establishment values, while conservatives find the press too liberal and hostile to

business and traditional social values. How could news reports possibly satisfy the range of

different and often changing public beliefs about various politicians and political issues?”

(Bennett 3-4).

Increasingly, the profit motive for media organizations also acts as a check on political bias.

The business management of a media outlet will ensure that things intended to be

mainstream are in fact neutral (Bennett 3). Overall, media is more sensitive to the pressures

of the “business of news” and the need to deliver an audience to advertisers, than the need to

provide an objective, accountable news product to the citizens (Cook 168).

Finally, the public is generally better at recognizing bias in reporting and filtering it according

to their individual beliefs. Lemert defines public opinion as “a perception imposed by the

perceiver on information about citizen attitudes toward a publicly debated issue, personality,

candidate, practice, or outcome,” which definition importantly places the perceiver in the

46
primary position of determining the opinion (12). Also, omnivorous media consumption

dampens the potential impact of biased reporting. “Liberals watch other than liberal

programming and conservatives do not select only conservative informative and persuasive

programming” (Frank 10).

CONCLUSION

We combine these three core theories as a way to examine the phenomena from an

interdisciplinary perspective. Our proposed meta-approach will build on this foundation in two

ways. First, it will connect the models in a generalizable approach to interpersonal

communication. Second, it will specifically apply the meta-approach to the viewer-newscaster

relationship. The ultimate benefit of this extension will be to further the utility of these theories

in the field of communication research, and advance the interdisciplinary view. The studies

included in this investigation will demonstrate the validity of the meta-approach as well as

supporting the presence of the phenomenon.

47
 Chapter IV

Concepts and Operations

For the purposes of this study, we will define several terms that are central to our hypothesis

testing.

PERCEPTION

A common definition of perception is “the processing of information received through the five

senses” (Glynn et al. 178). This study will use the term perception similarly. This study

focuses on specific perceptions that viewers have of media, news programs, and television

personalities. These perceptions will be measured through survey research and individual

interviews.

TELEVISION PERSONALITY

A television personality is the featured, primary individual that a viewer sees on the screen.

This individual may be a talk show host, news anchor, broadcaster, newscaster or

correspondent. This study honed in on the following 22 television personalities:

48
 Barbara Walters Jay Leno Stone Phillips
Charles Gibson John Stossel Ted Koppel
Connie Chung Katie Couric Tom Brokaw
Dan Rather Kelly Ripa Tim Russert
David Letterman Mike Wallace Walter Cronkite
Diane Sawyer Oprah Winfrey Wolf Blitzer
George Stephanopoulos Peter Jennings
Jane Pauley Regis Philbin

The personalities were selected as well-known individuals appearing on the core broadcast

networks (ABC, CBS, NBC), and the premier cable news network, CNN. Consideration was

then given based on the range of their roles (anchor, correspondent and host). Perceived

popularity of the personality also played a part in the selection process.

TELEVISION PROGRAMS

Television news, information, and infotainment programs are shows seen on network (ABC,

CBS, NBC) or cable (CNN) channels. The programs included in this study were separated

into four program categories:

Daytime Variety (DV)

Evening News (EN)

Newsmagazine (NM)

Late-Night Entertainment (LE)

The four categories were selected because of the range in airtime. Additionally, viewers

receive information from a variety of television sources, but these four chosen categories are

the most popular. The four categories seem to be an adequate representation of what people

are watching on television. The studies include the following 18 television programs:

49
 20/20 (NM) Good Morning America Nightline (NM)
60 Minutes (NM) (DV) Oprah (DV)
ABC World News Tonight Late Night with David Primetime (NM)
(EN) Letterman (LE) The Tonight Show with
CBS Evening News (EN) Live with Regis and Kelly Jay Leno (LE)
Dateline (NM) (DV) The View (DV)
Face the Nation (NM) Meet the Press (NM) This Week (NM)
NBC Nightly News (EN) Today (DV)

ATTRIBUTES

Terms describing the television program and personality will be used throughout the three

studies that constitute this work. There were eight terms or characteristics repeatedly

referred to during the studies. The eight characteristics or attributes help diagnose the

relationship between the viewer and personality. These characteristics were derived from a

variety of sources including prior research in the field and media research reports. The terms

are interdisciplinary, and for this purpose can be used in all three of the theoretical streams.

The characteristics can be measured along many dimensions, some positive and some

negative. In most cases these characteristics are measured using anchored scales. Some

are explicit (opinion leader) while others are implicit (trust, likeability, fascination, respect).

The characteristics are meant to cast a wide net, so the same set could apply to the

personality, shows and category combinations. The eight characteristics commonly used are:

Familiarity Trust Credibility

Likeability Fascination Relating
Respect Believability

The terms are defined below using Webster’s New World Dictionary 3rd Edition, edited by

Victoria Neufeldt and David B. Guralnik.

Familiarity: Close association; intimacy; close acquaintance with something (489).

50
Likeability: To have a taste or fondness for; be pleased with; have a preference for;

enjoy; having qualities that inspire liking; easy to like because attractive,

pleasant, genial (783).

Trust: Firm belief or confidence in the honesty, integrity, reliability, justice of another

person or thing; faith; reliance (1436).

Fascination: To bewitch, charm; strong attraction; allure; to hold the attention of by being

very interesting or delightful; captivate (492).

Respect: To feel or show honor or esteem for; hold in high regard; to show

consideration for; consideration; courteous expression of regard (1143).

Credibility: That can be believed; believable; reliable (325).

Relating: To connect or associate, as in thought or meaning; show as having to do

with; show a relation between; to have some connection or relationship; to

show sympathetic understanding; to have reference (1132).

Believability: To take as true, real; to have confidence in a statement or promise of

another person; to suppose or think; to have trust or confidence in as being

true, real, good; to have religious faith; to suppose or think (127).

OPINION LEADER

For the purposes of the study, an opinion leader will be defined using the same three tests as

the original two-step flow model. The individual must have personal influence, be identifiable

to their followers, and have sufficient media exposure. A broader view of the sources of

information would extend beyond mass media to include any expert source. This leads to a

subset of opinion leaders (those who influence other opinion leaders) and further reinforces

51
the notion of a hierarchy of opinion leadership (Underwood, Katz 1-2). In seeking information

to form an opinion, individuals must view the opinion leader with trust and respect. For

newscasters to serve as opinion leaders, it is necessary for the public to treat them as expert

sources in the proposed hierarchy.

“An opinion is in contrast to a fact, and it is a value, belief, or attitude expressed verbally. An

opinion leader is a person or publication that helps form or change opinions much more

effectively than the average publication or person. An attitude is a systematized network of

opinions held by a person or persons” (Rubin 169).

STUDIES INCLUDED IN THE THESIS

The thesis includes three separate studies and tests a total of seven hypotheses. Below is a

description of each study and its associated hypotheses.

Study 1

This study focuses on testing three separate hypotheses about the role of the newscaster as

opinion leader in the modified two-step flow model.

H1: The two-step flow model can be modified with the television personality as an opinion

leader, using the three original tests for opinion leadership:

1) Presence of influence

2) Homogeneity of influencer and influencee

3) Higher exposure to mass media

52
The television personality as an opinion leader also indicates the presence of the hierarchy of

opinion leadership.

H2: The ability of newscasters to influence opinion is based on their credibility, which is a

function of their believability.

H3: The ability of newscasters to be opinion leaders is a function of the public’s

perception of their personality, both in general, and in that it affects their credibility.

Study 2

This study tests two separate hypotheses about the role of different program categories,

specifically how people’s perceptions of how the information and the personalities differ. The

four categories mentioned earlier will be included (daytime variety, evening news,

newsmagazine program and late-night entertainment).

H4: There is a difference in believability of information across the sources.

H5: There is a difference in the viewer’s perception of the personalities among these four

sources.

Study 3

This study examines the interpersonal relationship established between the television

personality (as opinion leader) and the viewer (as opinion follower).

H6: Television personalities deliberately exert their power as opinion leaders.

H7: Viewers explicitly place television personalities in the role of opinion leader.

53
 Chapter V

Study One: Newscasters As Opinion Leaders

The triangle formed by combining the two-step flow model, parasocial relationship theory and

Shannon-Weaver’s communication model will be key to the testing of our hypotheses. This

meta-approach will help us to understand the effect of the newscaster on the viewer. To

begin testing our hypotheses we will first examine newscasters as opinion leaders using the

two-step flow model and its subsequent modification mentioned in chapter II. First, however,

we should recall that the two-step flow model states that mass media influence public opinion

not directly, but indirectly via opinion leaders. Ideas flow from mass media to opinion leaders

– those who both actively follow media, and actively share their knowledge with others. Thus,

there are two steps: from mass media to opinion leaders, and from opinion leaders to opinion

followers. Opinion followers are less active consumers of information media, and are more

likely to seek information from others. Opinion leaders are likely to be trusted, respected

members of a homogenous group, rather than demagogues.

According to the original model, an individual must meet three tests in order to be an opinion

leader: to have personal influence, to be identifiable to their followers, and to have sufficient

media exposure. A broader view of the sources of information would extend beyond mass

media to include any expert source. This leads to a subset of opinion leaders (those who

influence other opinion leaders) and further reinforces the notion of a hierarchy of opinion

leadership (Underwood, Katz 1-2).

54
In seeking information to form an opinion, individuals must view the opinion leader with trust

and respect. For the newscaster to serve as an opinion leader, it is necessary for the public

to treat them as the expert source in the proposed hierarchy. Further investigation of the role

of the newscaster as opinion leader, in the hierarchical two-step flow model, can shed more

light on whether the public’s view of the newscaster affects their reception of information.

Two-Step Flow Model

Hierarchy Modification
Two-Step Flow Model Two-Step Flow Model
Newscaster Modification
Mass Media

Mass Media Mass Media

Expert Source
Opinion
Leader

Opinion
Newscaster
Leader
Opinion
Leader

Opinion Opinion
Follower Follower Opinion
Follower

RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

This portion of our research specifically focused on testing three separate hypotheses about

the role of the newscaster as opinion leader in the modified two-step flow model.

H1: The two-step flow model can be modified with the newscaster as opinion leader,

using the three original tests for opinion leadership:

1. Presence of influence
2. Homogeneity of influencer and influencee
3. Higher exposure to mass media

55
 The newscaster as opinion leader also indicates the presence of the hierarchy of

opinion leadership.

H0: The two-step flow model cannot be modified with the newscaster as opinion leader,

using the original three tests for opinion leadership.

GOAL: Reject the null. This means we can use the original three tests to test our

proposed hierarchy.

H2: The ability of newscasters to influence opinion is based on their credibility, which is a

function of their believability.

H0: The ability of newscasters to influence opinion is not based on their credibility, or that

this credibility is not a function of their believability.

GOAL: Reject the null. This means viewers are influenced based on the

newscasters’ credibility, which is a function of their believability.

H3: The ability of newscasters to be opinion leaders is a function of the public’s

perception of their personality, both in general, and in that it affects their credibility.

H0: The ability of newscasters to be opinion leaders is not a function of the public’s

perception of their personality, neither in general, nor in that it affects their credibility.

GOAL: Reject the null. This means the ability for the newscaster to be an opinion

leader is a function of his or her credibility and believability.

56
METHODOLOGY

A questionnaire-based study was conducted to gather data to quantitatively test these

hypotheses. Two sessions (14 and 20, total 34 participants) were held in a private, media-

equipped room at Georgetown University. When recruited, participants were given no

information on the topic or content of the sessions. Each session lasted approximately one

hour. During the sessions, respondents were given a controlled questionnaire, which they

answered one page at a time. After initial demographic questions, respondents were asked

about their awareness and familiarity with 14 newscasters from network and cable television.

Respondents were then shown video clips of 9 newscasters, answering questions after each

clip. Clips were drawn at random from broadcasts in the 6 weeks prior to the sessions, and

shown in the same order in both sessions. Clips were at least one minute and no more than

three minutes long. Questions about the newscasters were identical. After all clips were

shown, respondents were asked general questions about newscasters, and then asked to

recall the newscaster and associate them with the topic of the broadcast. In the recall

question, there were 10 choices, of which 2 were dummy choices (i.e., the topic had not been

shown in the clip).

The 9 newscasters included the three major nightly news anchors – Peter Jennings (ABC),

Tom Brokaw (NBC), and Dan Rather (CBS), four newsmagazine correspondents – Mike

Wallace (60 Minutes), Stone Phillips (Dateline), Barbara Walters (20/20), and Diane Sawyer

(Primetime), and one political show host – Tim Russert (Meet The Press).

57
Respondents constituted a convenience sample that was initiated from personal contacts.

The group was comprised of 22 women and 12 men. Most (16) were aged 25-34, 8 were 18-

25, and 10 were 34-54. The majority (19) were married or in committed relationships. All had

at least a bachelor’s degree, with the majority (20) having some graduate-level education.

On average, the respondents report watching 2.76 hours of television per day (mode = 2.00).

88% watch television news, 71% use news websites on the Internet, and 43% read news

magazines. Compared to a national average as reported by the Pew Research Center, the

sample watches significantly less television (2.76 hours versus 4 hours), and is much more

likely to watch the news (88% versus 55%). So, the population in this study watches 50% as

much television, and is 60% more likely to watch the news, than the general population. This

roughly translates to the sample having three times the news consumption. It will be

important to remember this as context for interpreting the results.

RESEARCH FINDINGS

General Awareness, Familiarity, and Liking of Newscasters

On average, newscasters were recognized by 74% of respondents, with individual

newscasters ranging from 29% (Elizabeth Vargas) to 97% (Barbara Walters). Before seeing

the video clips, awareness for the subset of 9 newscasters was 79%, ranging from 38% (John

Stossel) to 97% (Barbara Walters). The range of awareness in the subset makes the subset

a good proxy for newscasters generally.

58
Respondents were also asked to rate familiarity and liking of each newscaster for which they

were aware, on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely familiar). Generally, awareness was

strongly correlated with familiarity (r = 0.94), and slightly correlated with liking (r = 0.54).

Familiarity and liking were also correlated (r = 0.67). These three statistics show the

relationship between these three variables. Respondents did not strongly differentiate

between being aware of, familiar with, and liking a newscaster.

Awareness, Familiarity, and Liking of Newscasters (Pre-Exposure)

Newscaster Awareness Familiarity Liking

Barbara Walters 97.1% 6.41 4.41
Peter Jennings 94.1% 6.21 5.09
Tom Brokaw 91.2% 6.18 5.45
Connie Chung 88.2% 5.55 4.48
Diane Sawyer 88.2% 5.38 4.41
Dan Rather 88.2% 5.97 4.71
Walter Cronkite 82.4% 4.87 5.14
Stone Phillips 79.4% 4.45 3.71
Mike Wallace 76.5% 4.83 4.50
Wolf Blitzer 73.5% 3.88 3.83
Tim Russert 61.8% 4.52 5.22
Brian Mitchell 44.1% 2.79 3.95
John Stossel 38.2% 3.23 3.76
Elizabeth Vargas 29.4% 2.65 3.86

Awareness vs. Familiarity Awareness Versus Liking Fam iliarity vs. Liking
r = 0.93 r = 0.54 r = 0.67

7 7 7

6 6 6

5
5 5
4
4 4
3
3 3
2
2 2 1
1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Fa mi l i a r i t y

59
In general, the news anchors performed better than the newsmagazine correspondents. 89%

of respondents were aware of the nightly news anchors, versus 68% for the newsmagazine

correspondents. The higher awareness of the news anchors was accompanied by higher

mean ratings for familiarity (5.81 vs. 4.37) and liking (5.10 vs. 4.21).

Aw areness Liking and Familiarity

100% 7

80%
5
60%
3
40%

20% 1
New s
89.0% 67.6% New s Anchors
Correspondents
0%
New s Anchors New s Familiarity 5.81 4.37
Correspondents Liking 5.10 4.21

When exposed to each of the newscasters through the videotape, ratings for liking on

average increased 0.18 points, although not all newscasters increased. There were no

statistically significant relationships observed between prior awareness and change in liking

based on the video exposure. This is not surprising given the heavy media use habits of the

group and their tendency to have formed opinion through repeated exposure to the

personalities in real world conditions.

Increases Decreases
Walters 0.9 Russert -0.57
Rather 0.79 Stossel -0.42
Jennings 0.77 Sawyer -0.41
Phillips 0.34 Brokaw -0.07
Wallace 0.28

60
Presence of Influence: Newscaster as Opinion Leader

The first test of opinion leadership is the ability to influence and impact the opinion follower’s

knowledge. There are two paths to assess the influence of the newscaster: directly and

indirectly. To test for the direct presence of influence, respondents were asked to rate the

newscasters as opinion leaders. To test for the indirect presence of influence, respondents

were asked a series of questions about the newscaster and their recall of the information –

the behavioral result of being an opinion follower.

In the direct test, there were encouraging levels of agreement that the newscasters were

opinion leaders. Given the agreement scale, the three nightly news anchors, and two of the

magazine correspondents (Russert and Walters) were considered opinion leaders. For five of

nine newscasters, the respondents directly affirmed their role as opinion leaders. While the

overall level of agreement was not high, this is consistent with the original People’s Choice

study, where individuals are less likely to directly identify others as opinion leaders.

Opinion
Leader
Jennings 4.12
Brokaw 4.32
Rather 4.12
Russert 4.35
Wallace 3.94
Stossel 3.44
Phillips 3.15
Walters 5.00
Sawyer 3.82

In the indirect test, the power of the newscaster as opinion leader is more evident. General

levels of agreement for recall, meaningfulness, understanding, and believability were

significantly higher (5.61 versus 4.03) than for the direct measure of opinion leadership.

61
Given the agreement scale of 1 to 7, in all cases the average result indicated agreement that

the respondent understood and believed the newscaster.

Remember Content was

story meaningful Understood it Believed it
Jennings 5.94 5.35 6.35 5.41
Brokaw 5.71 5.35 6.00 5.47
Rather 5.50 5.03 5.71 5.03
Russert 5.59 5.56 6.03 5.06
Wallace 6.03 4.91 6.03 5.50
Stossel 6.06 5.26 6.09 4.82
Phillips 5.79 4.36 5.94 5.06
Walters 6.36 5.52 6.30 5.55
Sawyer 5.82 5.12 5.74 4.82

Homogeneity: Presence of Like-Like Influences

The second test of opinion leadership is the presence of like-like influences, where opinion

followers look to people who are like themselves for opinion leadership. One way of

assessing the presence of like-like influences is to examine the difference in ratings by

matching the gender of the newscaster to the gender of the respondent. There were no

significant differences in mens’ awareness or ratings between male and female newscasters.

Among women, there was stronger awareness and familiarity for female newscasters, but no

difference in liking.

62
 Male Female
Newscasters Newscasters
Awareness Men 74.1% 76.7%
Women 69.4% s 80.4%

Familiarity Men 4.37 4.60

Women 4.81 s 5.41

Liking Men 4.34 4.20

Women 4.81 4.71

This is consistent with the opinion leader model, which states that opinion leadership is a

function of social homogeneity beyond demographics. An alternative way to measure like-like

influence is respondents’ ability to relate to the newscaster. On average, respondents

somewhat disagreed they could relate to these newscasters, with an aggregate agreement

score of only 3.68. Only two of the newscasters – Peter Jennings and Tim Russert scored at

the agreement level (4.00) or higher.

Relate to him/her
Jennings 4.06
Brokaw 3.94
Rather 3.38
Russert 4.00
Wallace 3.35
Stossel 3.32
Phillips 3.50
Walters 3.88
Sawyer 3.71

The lack of strong like-like influences weakens the ability of the newscaster to serve as an

opinion leader in the classic model.

63
Information and Knowledge

The third test of opinion leadership is the level of information and knowledge of the

prospective opinion leader, normally a function of higher exposure to mass media. In the

case of newscasters, however, since they are formally part of the mass media, a modification

of this test is logically necessary. To test for the appropriate level of information and

knowledge, respondents rated newscasters on the quality and accuracy of their information.

Credible Easy to
Knowledgeable source understand
Jennings 5.29 5.12 6.06
Brokaw 5.59 5.18 5.53
Rather 5.32 4.85 5.29
Russert 4.97 5.03 5.50
Wallace 5.21 5.00 5.56
Stossel 4.00 4.06 5.53
Phillips 4.56 4.44 5.44
Walters 5.52 5.21 5.45
Sawyer 5.15 4.74 5.47

Again, there was universal agreement that these newscasters provided credible, easy to

understand information, and were generally knowledgeable.

An alternative way of measuring this effect is the accuracy of the respondents’ recall of the

messages the newscasters delivered. At the end of the session, respondents were asked to

match the message to the newscaster, with two dummy messages included in the exercise,

and one newscaster’s message (Tom Brokaw) not listed.

The overall accuracy of the exercise was 63% (214 correct of 340 possible matches). This

varied by newscaster, with Dan Rather the lowest at 29% and Barbara Walters the highest at

64
94%. This high accuracy supports the idea of the newscaster as opinion leader based on the

information they impart to the public. This was a difficult task for participants to accomplish,

given the amount of information presented in a short time frame and number of matches they

were asked to make. Thus, an accuracy rate of 63% is especially impressive and supports

the opinion leader model.

Match
Accuracy
Jennings 61.8%
Rather 29.4%
Russert 32.4%
Wallace 67.6%
Stossel 67.6%
Phillips 44.1%
Walters 94.1%
Sawyer 82.4%

Opinion Leadership as a function of Credibility and Believability

The role of the newscaster as opinion leader stems from their ability to directly and indirectly

influence opinion, and the accuracy of their information. At the heart of both of these effects

is the credibility of the individual newscaster, and the relationship of credibility to opinion

leadership.

In almost all cases, there was agreement that these newscasters were trusted, respected,

and had good reporting style. These are generally correlated with credibility (trust r = 0.95,

respect r = 0.98, reporting style r = 0.77). Versus the direct opinion leader rating, credibility

also has a high correlation, r = 0.83.

65
 Trust what Good Credible
s/he says Reporting style Respect source
Jennings 5.38 5.53 5.15 5.12
Brokaw 5.44 5.18 4.97 5.18
Rather 4.76 4.41 4.65 4.85
Russert 5.09 4.68 4.82 5.03
Wallace 5.09 5.09 4.85 5.00
Stossel 4.35 429 3.79 4.06
Phillips 4.56 4.32 4.18 4.44
Walters 5.30 4.79 4.94 5.21
Sawyer 4.79 4.71 4.62 4.74

It is also interesting to examine this relationship individually. The correlation between

credibility and opinion leadership varies with the newscaster. While overall levels of

correlation drop, for 7 of 9 newscasters the correlation is still statistically significant. There is

nothing categorical in the difference, suggesting that the general phenomenon may not be as

strong as the aggregate data indicate.

Credibility of
Newscaster/
Opinion Leader
Jennings .133 ns
Brokaw .344 s
Rather .376 s
Russert .646 s
Wallace .315 ns
Stossel .443 s
Phillips .509 s
Walters .465 s
Sawyer .523 s

Credibility is also a function of the believability of the information the newscaster presented.

While people may find the individual credible, the information itself can be suspicious. In

Robinson & Kohut’s research, they found this separation between programs and

66
newscasters. Here, the test is between newscasters and topics. Generally, believability and

credibility are highly correlated, r = 0.77. At the individual newscaster level, this also varies,

but is generally high.

Believability of Topic/
Credibility of Newscaster
Jennings .815 s
Brokaw .586 s
Rather .512 s
Russert .749 s
Wallace .542 s
Stossel .769 s
Phillips .667 s
Walters .721 s
Sawyer .582 s

Impact of Personality on Opinion Leadership

The perception of the personality of the newscaster also plays a role in their opinion

leadership. Respondents evaluated the newscasters for overall liking, as well as for

fascination and annoyance. These were strongly correlated with opinion leadership as well

as credibility.

Opinion
Leadership Credibility
Overall Liking .628 s .846 s
Fascination .703 s .464 s
Annoyance -.245 s -.762 s

At the individual newscaster level, these relationships hold as well. The frequency of

significant correlations supports the overall conclusion that positive perceptions of the

newscasters (measured as the presence of overall liking and fascination and the absence of

annoyance) are related to their ability to be opinion leaders, both directly and indirectly.

67
 Opinion
Leadership Credibility
Overall Liking 5 7
Fascination 9 6
Annoyance 9 9

Therefore, the perception of the newscaster’s personality plays a strong role in whether they

can be considered opinion leaders directly, or indirectly via their credibility.

HYPOTHESIS TESTING

For the hypothesis (H1) about whether the newscaster functions as an opinion leader, reject

the null. The data support that newscasters meet two of the three test for opinion leadership.

For the hypothesis (H2) about the ability of the newscaster to influence opinion based on

his/her credibility, as a function of his/her believability, reject the null. The data show a strong

relationship between opinion leadership and credibility, and credibility with believability. For

the hypothesis (H3) about the impact of viewer perception on the ability of the newscaster to

be an opinion leader, reject the null. The data show a high correlation of viewer perception

with credibility.

SUMMARY DISCUSSION

The research findings generally support the three hypotheses about the role of newscaster as

opinion leader in the modified two-step flow model. We are able to accept all three

hypotheses and reject each null based on our data findings.

68
First, the newscasters meet two of the three tests for opinion leadership. Remember the

three tests for opinion leadership in the original two-step flow model are: (1) presence of

influence; (2) homogeneity of influencer and influencee; and (3) higher exposure to mass

media. The newscaster does influence, and they represent an accurate level of knowledge

and information. When directly asked, viewers agreed that five of the nine newscasters were

opinion leaders. In the indirect test the power of opinion leader is more evident based on

general levels of recall, meaningfulness, understanding and believability. These findings are

consistent with the original People’s Choice Study, where individuals are less likely to directly

identify others as opinion leaders and more likely measure this influence indirectly.

There is less evidence to support the presence of like-like influence. This is consistent with

the original opinion leader model, which states that opinion leadership is a function of social

homogeneity beyond demographics. The data also support the presence of the hierarchy of

opinion leadership, where the newscaster is creating the first level of opinion leadership

between mass media and opinion follower.

Second, the influence of the newscaster is based on the credibility of his/her message, which

is a function of his/her personal credibility. This personal credibility is also evident in the

amount of trust and respect they command from the public, which is manifest in the

believability of their messages. Thus, our third hypothesis is supported and the ability of the

newscasters to influence opinion based on their credibility is in fact a function of their

believability. In our study, there was universal agreement that the newscasters provided

credible, easy to understand information and were generally knowledgeable. Additionally our

dummy recall test demonstrated with high accuracy the idea of the newscasters as opinion

leaders based on the information they impart to the public.

69
Finally, the public’s perception of the personalities affects their ability to be opinion leaders.

Their credibility is the foundation of their influence. Therefore, they are less likely to influence

if the public does not perceive them as credible sources. We are able to support our third

hypothesis based on the high correlation of believability with credibility. The public’s

(viewers) perception of the newscaster or personality is largely related to the degree to which

a viewer relies on the newscaster as a credible source of information. This phenomenon was

also seen at the individual level for each newscaster. If viewers find the newscaster to be

credible, they are more likely to place the newscaster in the role of opinion leader. This does

not undermine other attributes or the perception of the newscaster, it only reminds us that

credibility is one of the more prominent attributes associated with opinion leadership in our

proposed hierarchy.

We can confirm that the viewer placed the newscaster in the role of opinion leader, as borne

out in the two-step flow model, based on the combination of respect, liking, expertise, and

acceptance. The perception of the newscaster’s personality definitely plays a strong role in

whether or not they can be considered an opinion leader directly, or indirectly via their

credibility.

Study 1 examined the role of the personality (newscaster) in influencing opinion. In the next

chapter, Study 2 we will investigate whether this phenomenon is confined to the news, or

more broadly true across program categories.

70
 Chapter VII

Study Three: Viewer And Television Personality Perceptions

The examination of the perceptual data about personalities, information, and program

categories leads to important conclusions. It emphasizes the impact of the personality

perception on the information that viewers absorb. This conclusion is both incomplete and

preliminary; in the third study we seek to complete and finalize it.

The third study is intended to qualitatively assess both the meta-approach and the

phenomena observed in the perceptual data. The meta-approach posits that opinion

leadership is a function of both parasocial bonds and interpersonal communication dynamics.

Much of this dynamic is dependent on viewer attitudes. Assessing viewer attitudes can also

extend the observation that opinion leadership is a function of credibility, and credibility is

strongly influenced by likeability.

In addition, the difference in the performance of personalities raises the question of whether

some are explicitly attempting to lead opinion. The general notion of the power of the media

also affects this phenomenon. Assessing the beliefs and attitudes of those on the

broadcasters’ side of the television (both personalities and producers) will help determine

whether they are aware of the phenomena, and whether they are deliberately using their

power over viewers to influence the information.

84
The research hypothesis for the viewers is that viewers explicitly place personalities in the

role of opinion leaders. The examination will focus on both the classic definition of opinion

leadership, and the proposed meta-approach based on parasocial relationships and

interpersonal communication. The research question for the broadcasters is whether they

deliberately use their ability to lead opinion to influence information when conveying it to the

viewer.

RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

This research is focused on examining the interpersonal relationship established between the

television personality (as opinion leader) and the viewer (as opinion follower).

H6: Television personalities deliberately exert their power as opinion leaders.

H0: Television personalities do not deliberately exert their power as opinion leaders.

GOAL: Reject the null. This means that television personalities deliberately exert

their power as opinion leaders.

H7: Viewers explicitly place television personalities in the role of opinion leader.

H0: Viewers do not explicitly place television personalities in the role of opinion leader.

GOAL: Reject the null. This means that viewers place personalities in the role of

opinion leader.

85
METHODOLOGY

Qualitative questionnaires were developed to gather data from both viewers and broadcasters

(both questionnaires are in the Appendix). For the purposes of this study, the group in the

“broadcasters” segment includes personalities and producers, from both local and national

media. All viewer interviews were conducted over the telephone. Broadcaster interviews

were conducted in person, over the telephone, and through e-mail. After the interview, each

participant was thanked via e-mail.

The broadcaster questionnaire was designed to examine the role of television personalities

as opinion leaders. The goal of the instrument was to probe and understand the

broadcasters’ viewpoint about their role in communicating to viewers, and their opinions about

the viewers’ perceptions. While the original instrument had ten questions, due to time

limitations in the interview sessions, seven questions were used in most of the sessions.

Nine (9) interviews were ultimately conducted, seven with personalities and two with

producers. Both producers were on national programs; three (3) personalities were on

national programs and four (4) were on local programs. Three (3) personalities were on

evening news broadcasts (anchors and correspondents), three (3) were on newsmagazine

programs, and one was on a daytime news broadcast. Four were from ABC and affiliates,

two were from CBS, and one from PBS. Below are the personalities and producers that were

interviewed.

Maureen Bunyan, ABC, Evening News, Anchor

Elliot Francis, ABC, Good Morning Washington, Anchor

George Griffin, ABC, Nightline, Producer

86
 Gwen Ifill, PBS, Washington Week, Host

Seth Kaplan, CBS, News Correspondent

Michel Martin, ABC, Nightline, Correspondent

Gordon Peterson, CBS, Evening News, Anchor

George Stephanopoulos, ABC, This Week, Host

Kevin Tedesco, CBS, 60 Minutes, PR Director

The viewer questionnaire consisted of fifteen questions and was designed to query television

viewers on the interpersonal relationship established with a television news personality.

There were also several questions about attributes associated with opinion leadership. An

invitation e-mail (see Appendix) was sent to a convenience sample of 65 individuals. To

qualify, individuals had to self-identify as someone who “watches the news (evening or

daytime), Sunday talk shows, or evening newsmagazines (like 60 Minutes or Dateline),” and

agree to the conditions of participation set forth in the consent form (see appendix).

Twenty-two (22) people replied indicating an interest to participate in the research. After

screening to verify that the participants were qualified (i.e., watched the news), a total of 18

phone interviews were conducted over a two-week period with interviews taking from twelve

(12) to thirty (30) minutes. All participants allowed the interview to be recorded. There were

nine (9) female and nine (9) male respondents. The group was geographically dispersed.

Eight (8) were from the mid-Atlantic region (Washington to New York), six (6) were from

Florida, 2 were from the Midwest (Ohio and Michigan), one was from Mississippi and one

from Idaho. The age range was from 26-65. All were high school graduates, eleven (11) had

completed a bachelor’s degree, seven (7) had advanced degrees in education, business,

psychology or law.

87
BROADCASTER FINDINGS

The broadcaster interviews were extremely productive in identifying four key findings about

the personality side of the equation. In general, the personalities and their producers are very

conscious of their viewers, while simultaneously seeming to feel that they are very different

than their viewers. This group believes they are reporting objectively, and see their role as

conveying information, rather than leading opinion. While some admit to some bias in the

media, most believe it is isolated and driven more by perception than reality. Finally, they

prize their relationships with viewers, and seek to create them as a way to earn trust.

Viewers are very important, yet most of the personalities did not seem informed about or

connected with their viewers. Many seemed to feel that the success or failure of their show

was not driven by the size of their audience. Rather, the quality of engagement, or the quality

of audience, was important. There was very little knowledge about what types of people were

tuning in, and the assumptions about viewers were reflective more of the broadcasters

themselves (i.e., the viewers are like them) than the broader demographics of their audience.

There is awareness that the audience is fragmented with multiple sources and choices.

“I don’t have a conscious sense of target audience.”

“My sense is that highly educated people feel they are too good to watch TV.”

“I don’t really know [the target audience].”

“I’m guessing that we have a broader demographic now [that we are covering the
war].”

“The bottom line is that whatever that person is, they’re not with us for very long.
They have something [else] to do.”

“I suspect our typical viewer is a college-educated, highly engaged individual.”

88
 “There are things that make TV more or less attractive to people. I think that if we did
[things to make us more attractive] we wouldn’t be [us].”

“[Our viewer is] politically engaged, probably more affluent than the average citizen.”

“I couldn’t say if any of our viewers is ‘typical.’”

They see themselves as a different type of person, separate and distinct from their viewers,

which creates a gap that has to be bridged. The education and professional training that

journalists receive drives some of this difference. The gap may also be somewhat due to the

highly insular world in which they operate.

“People in the broadcast media make a lot of money…they make more money than
the rest of the population. As a consequence of that there is a certain set of habits
and worldview that goes with being better educated and making a lot more money
than other people.”

“When you have a bunch of journalists who go to the same type of schools, they’re
going to think a certain type of way.”

Broadcasters do not seek to set an agenda or deliberately influence public opinion. They are

trying to explain and analyze, rather than simply download the information. Viewers have the

responsibility to draw conclusions. The principal concerns of broadcasters are being fair,

accurate, and clear.

“I think people can handle complex ideas, but they have to be explained in a way that
a broader range of people can [understand and] accept it.”

“[We want] objectivity, plain and simple.”

“News is fact, plain and simple.”

“I see a lot of bad writing, that is totally subjective, and I make it a point to try and
make it just as down the center as possible.”

“We get a lot of wire writers who are trying to be flamboyant and cute and it has
nothing to do with the news.”

89
 “I think our viewers see us as a way to build on everything else they know.”

“I wish that viewers see [the program] as an alternative that takes them inside a story,
and one that includes more than just two sides of an issue.”

“It’s not the truth we necessarily deal with, it’s the facts. It is sort of the gathering and
understanding and analysis of facts that will hopefully get you to the truth.”

“What I‘m most interested in is that what I’m reporting is right, that it’s accurate. To
the extent that I take the viewer into account I want it to be clear, that what I’m
communicating is clear, and especially when I’m interviewing, that I’m perceived as
fair.”

“What you worry about is presenting the news in as fair, balanced, judicious, [and]
straight a manner as you can.”

“Journalists, of course, want to talk about what’s happening, what’s news, what
viewers need to make informed decisions about their communities and their lives.”

“I don’t think we stop and think about how something we are reporting is going to
affect public opinion. We might think for a second, ‘oh, I wonder how people will
respond to this,’ or ‘maybe the audience won’t like this or maybe they will like this,’
but I don’t think our thoughts about public opinion go any further than that.”

“I would hope [viewers] would think we’re doing a thorough job. We’re under
pressure to put a lot of stories on the air in a short period of time.”

None of the group believes there is a consistent bias in the media. There is some agreement

that there are incidents where bias creeps in, but bias is viewed as an isolated, unintentional

phenomenon. There is some recognition that the network has power and can set editorial

policy.

“I don’t think there’s a political bias [in the media].”

“What I think people are confusing as political bias is a reaction to [the journalist’s]
job, which is to provide an oversight of the government.”

“I was told that certain stories could not be pitched because they would not fly with
the network.”

“When I find that individual reporters and anchors have a bias that sometimes seeps
in, I think it is just a matter of careless reporting.”

90
 “I do not think there is “bias” in the media in the way that most critics use that word.”

“I think there’s less of a bias today than there used to be.”

“Sometimes, you’re so conscious of the fact that you don’t want your own biases to
show through that you almost overcompensated, to cover other viewpoints that you
don’t personally agree with.”

“Reporters, print and broadcast, generally speaking, are too busy trying to hit their
deadlines to indulge their biases.”

“I think the media reflect a lot of American society, and if you are a part of American
society that you don’t see reflected in the media, then you may say ‘Well, they’re
biased, because they don’t reflect my point of view, or my culture, or my types of
people.’”

“People used to say the media was too liberal, now they’re saying we’re too
conservative.”

The relationship with the viewer is very important, and most of the broadcaster group actively

wants to have this relationship. There is evidence that the personalities are aware of

parasocial types of interactions. The trust of the viewer seems like the most precious

resource available to television personalities.

“It is really hard to build credibility instantly…it is developed over time.”

“[The need is] to develop trust in a relationship.”

“I think people are going to make that decision [about who to watch] purely on an
emotional level.”

“What we try to do [with viewers] is the same thing that we all try to do in real life. We
try to appeal to each other. We try to make a friend.”

“You’re trying to gain someone’s confidence. It’s all on an emotional level.”

“Anyone sitting and watching their TV, they’re watching the person on the other end
of the camera. It is just those two people.”

“I think [viewers] like me.”

“Whatever source they are turning to is credible, honest, hopefully not slanted, and
that they get it right."

91
 “I think people should tune into someone they trust, someone they trust to [give them
the] straight story. What’s interesting about that is that you can’t divorce that from
who you like.”

“It has been my experience that the honest, clean, direct approach will in the end
garner the most eyes on the screen.”

“I would hope the viewers would think that I do have the viewers’ interest at heart,
and that I do want to present the news that is going to be of most meaning for the
viewer, and that he or she most needs to know.”

“You build your relationship with them by treating them as a peer. Not talking at
them, not announcing or telling them what you think they need to know, but what they
need to know from your point of view. You have to treat them with respect.”

VIEWER FINDINGS

The viewer interviews helped identify three key findings about how viewers perceive

television personalities. As expected, viewers have a favorite personality they like to watch

while receiving information and news. Secondly, viewers overtly admit that they trust their

information source. This trust is founded on the quality of reporting, a perceived lack of bias,

and general likeability. Finally, there was strong evidence of parasocial relationships, both

positive and negative. Positive relationships were based on longevity and familiarity. A lack

of familiarity, a perception of bias, or a reaction to a specific behavior or trait caused negative

relationships.

The respondents consume a lot of news and from different sources. Viewers were not

prompted for either sources or personalities, and there was a wide range of spontaneous

recall. Across the 18 interviews, there were 46 different sources of news mentioned as the

“primary” source for news. Most of these mentions were the major network broadcasts and

newsmagazines.

92
Viewers also have clear opinions about whom they like and dislike. There were 12

personalities that viewers liked, the most frequent being Tom Brokaw, with Peter Jennings

and Ted Koppel also receiving multiple mentions. There were 8 that viewers disliked, the

most frequent being Peter Jennings, with Dan Rather, “anyone” from Fox News, Barbara

Walters, and Connie Chung receiving multiple mentions. Being “liked” was powerful, since

viewers indicated a strong reliance on “their favorite” for news information.

Eight respondents acknowledged that they share information they receive from their favorite

personality with others, including work colleagues, family and friends. They are very likely to

give the personality credit. Some will even wait to hear their favorite personality report before

making up their mind on important issues.

In general, people trust and seek opinions from their favorite source personality. Since the

currency of the transaction between the viewer and the personality is information, it is

extremely important that the source be viewed as trustworthy.

“I think [Peter Jennings] is most trustworthy. He is reporting what he knows to be

fact, or the facts, that he is reporting is as he sees it. He does make it believable
when he reports it.”

“I just find [Tom Brokaw] trustworthy. I find his vocabulary not too high tech or not too
difficult to understand but also not too dumbing it down.”

“I think [Tom Brokaw] is reporting the news and I think he is the most trustworthy of
the national news broadcasters.”

“I just think [Tom Brokaw] reports the news straightforward as it is. That’s the
impression that I get from him. That’s why I say he’s the most trustworthy.”

“I think [Tom Brokaw] is believable. I tend to accept the news that comes from him. I
tend to be unskeptical about it. I see him as a professional journalist. I don’t see him
as an entertainer. So I tend to feel like I’m getting real information from him.”

93
 “I trust what [Tom Brokaw] is saying.”

“I would have to find them to be trustworthy [in order to watch them], in my mind, to
be trustworthy. By my standards.”

The trust that is developed is based on several factors. The first factor is the belief that the

quality of the reporting and information is excellent and well researched. Viewers want to

believe that not only is the information correct, but that the personality would not deliver the

report if they did not personally believe it.

“[Diane Sawyer] is real thorough as far as the reporting she does.”

“I believe that [Ted Koppel] is being honest with his reporting. I don’t see him as
being flashy or blowing it up to be bigger than what it is for the purpose of generating
ratings. I find that he is very direct.”

“[Peter Jennings] makes it where I can understand what he is talking about.”

“I think [Tom Brokaw] does a very good job of trying to supply information and letting
you gather the results rather than people telling you what the story is meant to be.”

“I think [Peter Jennings] is more trustworthy than anything. The quality is as good as
it gets.”

“Whereas I think some of the others build in additional information that may or may
not be true sometimes just to make the story more interesting. I think [Tom] Brokaw
is more straightforward.”

“If Tom [Brokaw] said it first, I probably would believe him. If [Barbara Walters] said it
first, I would want to check with Tom.”

“I think [Matt Lauer] is credible and trustworthy. That to me is more important than
the entertaining when I am listening for news. I’m just looking for good quality
information that I can believe.”

“I just feel that [Bill O’Reilly] tells it like it is.”

The second factor creating trust is the perceived lack of bias. Interestingly, when the viewer

cared for the personality, they found absolutely no bias in the reporting. In fact, when naming

94
a least favorite personality, biases in the reporting were the chief negative. It is very difficult

to separate whether perceptions of objectivity in reporting have led to evaluating likeability on

the basis of neutrality, or whether perceptions of likeability have led to conclusions about

objectivity. Regardless, it is obvious that the fairness of the reporting is an important driver of

trust.

“I don’t think [Peter Jennings] inputs what he really feels so much as to just report the
news.”

“I think that when [Tim Russert] talks about anybody, he is very clear, he shows both
sides of the issue and lets the viewer draw their own set of facts. I think he is the
most neutral based reporter that I think exists in TV media.”

“I probably like [Chris Matthews] mostly because I find him less partisan than the
others.”

“I think [Tom Brokaw] hides his liberalness better than the other ones. I think he has
a tendency not to slant news.”

“[Matt Lauer] seems very objective. He doesn’t, I don’t think he puts the spin of his
views on the news, which I like.”

“I believe what [Tom Brokaw] has to say and I think it’s because he doesn’t seem to
insert his personal view into what he’s doing. He is doing what he was hired to do –
give the news, not give an opinion.”

“I’m aware that [Tom Brokaw] has an opinion; however, when he is doing the news,
it’s just like getting straight, clean, hard facts. And, as best as he knows them, as
clean, hard facts. And that’s why I’m far more inclined to turn on his network.”

Public passion about the need for neutrality is also demonstrated by the strength of feeling

about the potential for bias, and the effect either political bias or grandstanding has on the

perception of the personality and their reporting.

“The broadcasters are the quickest people against censorship and yet they are the
biggest censors of news that there is. They decide what is the news and they decide
how they are going to tell it.”

95
 “I think too many people come into journalism, bringing their own ideas and how they
want to change the world instead of just bringing the news to the people and letting
them make their own decision.”

“In some of the interviews that [Dan Rather] does, they appear to be provocative and
they feel to me that they are meant to showcase Dan as opposed to elicit any kind of
real information that will be useful to the viewer.”

The third and potentially most important driver of trust in the relationship between viewer and

personality was the relationship itself. “I just like him” or “I just like her” was a common

justification for trusting, believing, and watching the broadcast. Often that statement would be

followed by, “I don’t know why, I just do!” Likeability is very powerful and viewers feel very

connected to the personality whom they like.

“I feel like [Tom Brokaw] is a person that I could have a normal conversation with.”

“I like [Peter Jennings’] demeanor. I think that he is calm. I think he presents the
news in a very effective way.”

“I don’t know – I have the feeling that [Tom Brokaw] is very believable, very honest.
I’ve read his book. I just like the way he reports the news, even though he’s probably
not writing it himself; it’s all written for him. I just feel that [he] has a sincerity about
him that I like.”

“I feel that when [Diane Sawyer] is talking into the camera, she is really reaching out
to her audience, you know, trying to pull you into the story that she is telling.”

“The way in which he [Tom] brings the news across. He is a very serious minded
person and he seems to love the country, although I believe he’s Canadian but he
just seems to be interested in what he is doing. His whole staff seems to research
the news more. He’s just my preference.”

“I find [Tom Brokaw] very approachable. I like his style. I like that kind of Midwest
honestness. He’s not aggressive. He feels to me to be pretty straightforward, like
he’s giving me the news straight rather than slanting it.”

96
Parasocial bonds form when the viewer connects to the televised figure in a way that seems

real to the viewer. There is strong evidence of positive and negative parasocial relationships

– just as in real life, viewers like some people, and dislike other people.

Principally, the same things that drive real relationships drive parasocial relationships. There

is a feeling of connectivity that leads to a positive relationship for the viewer with the

personality. Viewers feel they can relate to the personality and that the information is being

presented directly to them. They connect to the personality and understand the

communication and reporting style. Viewers welcome the personality into their homes, they

enjoy having dinner with them. They take pleasure in hearing the personality’s voice around

the house while doing chores and they rely on the voice in the morning as they conduct their

daily routines before leaving home for the office.

“They come across more as personalities, rather than as news broadcasters.”

“I like [Tom Brokaw’s] broadcast but I read his book “The [Greatest] Generation” and I
related to it and I think he comes across more honest to me than some of the others.”

“[Matt Lauer] just seems very personable, very pleasant, he can interject humor at
appropriate times, so it makes it more like a real person rather than just a talking
head.”

“You get comfortable with somebody that you trust. I would believe Matt [Lauer].”

“[Aaron Brown] seems very unbiased. I like his personality because he seems down
to earth. He seems like a guy that you would like to have for a friend. He seems very
smart. His commentaries at the end, he gives his own kind of personal commentary
and I think he is extremely educated and smart.”

“[Wolf Blitzer] more or less cares about the people and not the political end of it.”

“They would have to take [Peter Jennings] off the air [for me to stop watching him].”

“I would probably be more swayed [by] Tom Brokaw because he is the one I guess I
just trust more. I consider him honest.”

97
 “It’s the familiarity. It’s just something that I have always done. I guess it is part of
routine. It’s also that I trust [Tom Brokaw] and I am used to his broadcast.”

“I feel so comfortable with them as if they are old friends, although I have obviously
never met any of these people, but because I watch [Tom Brokaw] so frequently. It
just seems very normal. He should be in my kitchen while I am fixing dinner.”

“I guess that because I like [Aaron Brown]’s personality. I trust him more than others.
He does give a personal commentary. It is like an essay that I might read with his
opinion often at the end of the news show and I am almost always in agreement with
his insight and his position.”

In addition, the length of time the viewer had been watching the personality played a part in

creating positive parasocial bonds. In some cases, longevity was a powerful subconscious

factor in driving loyalty, acceptability, and believability.

“I basically trust what [Peter Jennings] says because I have listened to him for so
many years.”

“I have grown to like and trust [Peter Jennings] over the years.”

“I think that I have matured with [Peter Jennings]. I think that Walter Cronkite or
people like that are people of my parents’ generation. This is the man of my
generation and that’s why I like him. I feel that I can relate to him and what he says.”

“I have watched [Matt Lauer] for such a long time, I tend to believe whatever Matt
tells me, which sounds kind of bad but whether he puts a spin on it one way or the
other I don’t know.”

“I have been watching the darn Today Show when I get up everyday, since, probably
for 20 years…I know it’s a habit but I just don’t like the other two programs as well.”

“I guess you just fall into a routine and a pattern when you feel comfortable with
somebody.”

The first driver of dislike was the lack of connection between the viewer and the personality.

Similar to the charisma that drives positive parasocial bonds, the absence of the connection is

a powerful indicator of a negative parasocial relationship.

98
 “[Peter Jennings] just doesn’t seem as professional.”

“I just don’t find [Tom Brokaw] familiar. I don’t have a connection. I find him more
abrupt.”

“They just seem to be trying so hard to be your best friend that it’s so phony, I can’t
stand it.”

For some personalities, a specific behavior or characteristic about them or their reporting

drove significant negative reactions.

“You find [Peter Jennings] occasionally slumping over more in his chair, where Tom
Brokaw’s shoulders are always back.”

“[Dan Rather] annoys me…he always sounds angry to me. He always sounds very
aggressive. It’s not what I want to have coming at me on the television set.”

“[Dan Rather] is irritating.”

“There’s just something about [Dan Rather] that I don’t like.”

“[Bill O’Reilly] is too argumentative.”

“Connie Chung seems like a goon and especially the way she communicates. She
asks really dumb questions.”

“I detest Geraldo [Rivera]…I don’t think he is very smart. I think he is trying to be a

movie star…he is not very classy.”

“I absolutely refuse to listen to [Rush Limbaugh]. I feel that he runs people down
rather than building anyone up.”

“I don’t like the way [Barbara Walters] talks. She doesn’t open her mouth. She’s
annoying.”

“I don’t like [Connie Chung’s] voice quality, I don’t like her expressions. And, if [she]
said the exact same thing [as another broadcaster], I just won’t like it coming from her
mouth and her face.”

Finally, perceptions of bias in reporting were a third powerful way to create a negative

parasocial relationship.

99
 “I think that [NBC] and Tom Brokaw are definitely tilted to the left, to the Democratic,
to the liberal.”

“[Peter Jennings] reports things, especially on the political nature, and you can tell
just by the look on his face, exactly how he feels about it and he doesn’t mind really
letting you know. And, to me that is not journalism. I do not like that.”

“[Dan Rather] started inserting personal opinions into things and I don’t want his
opinions. I’m not tuning in to listen to his opinions.”

“I feel that Peter Jennings, and it’s not that he is really opinionated towards his
political views, but I just think that our political opinions are just really different. He is
more political than what I think a newscaster should be.”

“I think everybody has a bias. I think some hide it better than others.”

Overall, the volume and quality of reasons that people liked and trusted some personalities

were greater than the reasons they disliked and mistrusted others. Part of this is driven by

the implicit feedback that viewers provide personalities they like by continuing to watch them

to the exclusion of others. For example, when someone likes Tom Brokaw, they will continue

to watch him and develop a broader, deeper relationship with him. This means they will not

be watching Peter Jennings or Dan Rather, and the relatively superficial basis with which they

decided not to watch the other two anchors would be maintained. Therefore, when we

examine the relationships, it is not surprising that the quality of relationship with a “liked”

personality is so much stronger and more specific.

HYPOTHESIS TESTING

For the hypothesis (H6) about television personalities deliberately exerting their power as

opinion leaders, support the null. The findings support that television personalities do not

intentionally exert their power as opinion leaders. While they are aware of this power, they

100
prefer to have viewers make up their own minds about issues. The focus of their reporting is

on being fair, accurate, and neutral, rather than to exert influence. They are also conscious of

the importance of the relationship with the viewer.

For the hypothesis (H7) about viewers explicitly placing television personalities in the role of

opinion leader, reject the null. The findings support that viewers consciously place the

television personality in the role of opinion leader and meet the tests required by the

proposed two-step flow model. They are seeking information from the personalities, treating

them as expert sources, and using their information to both make decisions and communicate

to others about current issues. The driver of this behavior is the quality of the parasocial

relationships between viewers and personalities.

SUMMARY DISCUSSION

There is evidence to support the position that interpersonal relationship dynamics exist

between viewers and television personalities. This parasocial relationship leads to the viewer

trusting the personality and ultimately valuing their opinion. It affects the ways in which the

personalities transmit messages to viewers, the ways in which viewers receive those

messages, and the direct and indirect feedback viewers provide.

The qualitative findings show the differences between broadcasters and viewers. Even

though they are part of the same relationship, they each are approaching it very differently.

Broadcasters want viewers to be actively engaged in the same sort of critical analysis and

evaluation that forms their broadcasts. They know viewers are important, and yet they also

feel responsible to the “higher calling” of journalism, to be an objective source in a free

101
democracy. Viewers, on the other hand, want to have a connection with a broadcaster they

can trust. This relationship is in many ways more important than anything else; when it is

strong, it alleviates concerns about bias and provides reinforcement to the quality of

information and reporting.

Overall, the presence and function of the parasocial bonds and interpersonal communication

dynamics drive the opinion leadership of the television personalities. The proposed

framework seems valid – the credibility of personalities is determined by viewer perceptions,

strongly influenced by likeability. This credibility allows the personality to function as an

opinion leader. While they are not explicitly using this power, it is apparent that they are

influencing opinion on a continuous basis among those viewers for which they are the object

of a parasocial relationship. The information these viewers absorb is influenced by the

viewers’ perception of the personality transmitting the message.

102
CHAPTER NOTES

To obtain the broadcaster interviewers required a near-Herculean effort. I am extraordinarily

grateful to the nine professionals that graciously took the time from their schedules to share

their views with me. The following is a summary of the method used to invite participation

from the broadcasters, which I hope will be both accurate and entertaining. It took one month

to get the appointments and another three weeks to conduct the interviews, which lasted

between 10 and 50 minutes each.

The invitation to the broadcast community was focused on the personalities and television

shows that had been included in the first two studies. Initially, e-mail messages were sent to

22 personalities. These included Barbara Walters, Charles Gibson, Connie Chung, Dan

Rather, David Letterman, Diane Sawyer, George Stephanopoulos, Jane Pauley, Jay Leno,

John Stossel, Katie Couric, Kelly Ripa, Mike Wallace, Oprah Winfrey, Peter Jennings, Regis

Philbin, Stone Phillips, Ted Koppel, Tom Brokaw, Tim Russert, Walter Cronkite and Wolf

Blitzer.

E-mail messages were also sent to the 18 television programs that these personalities

represent. These included 20/20, 60 Minutes, ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening

News, Dateline, Face the Nation, Good Morning America, Late Night with David Letterman,

Live with Regis and Kelly, Meet the Press, NBC Nightly News, Nightline, Oprah, Primetime,

The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, The View, This Week and Today. Invitations were also

sent to the public relations departments of all the major networks.

103
The e-mail addresses published on the program websites were used, with the e-mail

addressed to the personality in question. When e-mail addresses were not available, such as

with Kelly Ripa and Regis Philbin, a letter was faxed to their producer (Mr. Michael Gelman)

to request the interview.

In addition, since this phenomenon is also a local one, the affiliates in the Washington, DC

area were added to the list for invitations to participate in the study. These included Maureen

Bunyan (evening news, ABC WJLA-TV7), Elliott Francis (“Good Morning Washington,” ABC

WJLA-TV7), Gordon Peterson (evening news, CBS WUSA-TV9), Kathleen Matthews

(evening news, ABC WJLA-TV7), Wendy Rieger (evening news, NBC WRC-TV4), Jim Vance

(evening news, NBC WRC-TV4), and Del Walters (afternoon news, ABC WJLA-TV7). A final

invitation was sent to Andrew Tyndall of Tyndall Weekly, a professional in the media field.

Seth Kaplan was a referral from a personal friend.

The initial e-mails were followed by phone calls to each of the shows in an attempt to follow

up. Unfortunately, March of 2003 was an eventful month, with all of these news personalities

focused on the war in Iraq. Mr. Ted Koppel’s assistant responded that Mr. Koppel would

agree to meet with me, but the appointment would have to wait until he returned from the

Middle East, where he was embedded with the Third Infantry Division. Understanding my

deadline, she arranged for me to meet with Ms. Michel Martin, one of the “Nightline”

correspondents, and Mr. George Griffin, one of the producers. This was an above-and-

beyond response to my request, and I am extremely grateful for their help. In addition, I was

able to get in touch with many of the production personnel at ABC News to try and arrange

further interviews.

104
While successful at penetrating the gatekeepers at ABC News, it was nearly impossible to

arrange meetings during this time. Of my original list, the one interview I obtained was with

Mr. George Stephanopoulos, and I am very grateful that he was able to give me an

appointment. His availability was, of course, dependent on the state of current events. Mr.

Charles Gibson’s assistant was sympathetic in an e-mail: “I had understood that Mr. Gibson

would be your first choice and spent some time tracking it down with his office but he is

unfortunately unable to meet with you given his work schedule (because of our continuing

coverage of the war)” (Nichols). In another example, Mr. John Stossel answered personally

via e-mail, “Try me again next month pls [sp] when things may be less busy.”

The responsiveness and friendliness at ABC News was the exception rather than the rule.

Typically, the response from the people I spoke to on the phone and contacted via e-mail was

that since I was not a media contact, they could not help me. I was put on hold so often and

for so long that I made a rule to only stay on hold for twenty minutes before hanging up. I hit

my twenty-minute rule more often than I successfully contacted a live person.

I did get successfully transferred to the production office for 60 Minutes at CBS, where Mr.

Kevin Tedesco agreed to spend his lunch hour talking to me on the phone. He was very

gracious with his time, and did commit to convey my request for an interview to Mr. Mike

Wallace, although Mr. Wallace did not respond to the invitation.

The most unsettling experience was contacting the Oprah Winfrey Show. After sending two

different e-mails to her and her producers, I phoned HARPO Studios, which is the production

company. The operator refused to transfer my call to anyone. She directed me to read

Oprah’s biography, and said that any contact would have to be via an e-mail request for a

105
meeting or phone interview. When I explained that I had already sent e-mails twice, the

receptionist informed me that many students call daily with requests and HARPO Studios’

policy is not to respond to any request by phone. Frustrated, I followed her instructions and

sent another e-mail, which was also ignored.

The response and success rate with the local community was much higher. Of the seven

local anchors contacted, three responded positively and participated in the interview. Mr.

Elliott Francis was particularly generous with his time and also offered to contact some of his

colleagues to encourage their participation.

Ms. Michel Martin, from ABC Nightline, was also exceptionally generous with her time. She

was also kind enough to recommend me to Ms. Gwen Ifill, from Washington Week, who

agreed to participate in the interview.

Overall, I estimate having sent over 200 e-mails and making over 100 phone calls to contact

this group of 22 personalities (expanded to 29 with the local additions). The resulting sample

of 9 included 1 of the original 22, 4 of the expanded 29, and 5 that were referrals, for all of

which I am extremely grateful.

While some of the difficulty in gathering information is certainly attributable to the country

being at war, the challenge of contacting and getting a response from this group of people

was very high to start. The broad lack of responsiveness to a request for information may be

reflective of the extremely high volume and frequency of similar requests. It may also imply

that the media profession considers itself remote from, and not responsible to, its viewers.

106
 Chapter VIII

Conclusion

THEORY AND FRAMEWORK REVIEW

We can now reflect on the purpose of this project, our original research question and

summarize the findings using our meta-approach. There were three separate studies

included to test a total of seven hypotheses. The three studies investigated the role of the

newscaster as opinion leader in the modified two-step flow model; examined the role of

different program categories and how viewers perceived the information being presented; and

observed the interpersonal relationship established between the television personality (as

opinion leader) and the viewer (as opinion follower).

We used a meta-approach combining the two-step flow model, parasocial relationship theory

and Shannon-Weaver’s communication model to test our seven hypotheses. The meta-

approach helped us to understand the overall effect of the personality on the viewer and how

the viewer perceives both the personality and categorical information. We presented a

modification to the two-step flow model where we placed the personality directly in the role of

expert source and opinion leader. Here, it is important to recall the three tests according to

the original model that must be met in order to be an opinion leader: one must have personal

influence, be identifiable to their followers, and have sufficient media exposure.

107
We created a hierarchy of opinion leadership, where the news personality became the expert

source, leading to a subset of opinion leaders (those who influence other opinion leaders). In

seeking information to form an opinion, individuals must view the opinion leader with trust and

respect. For the news personality to serve as an opinion leader, it is necessary for the public

to treat the personality as the expert source in the proposed hierarchy.

Adding to our triangular meta-approach, we wanted to test the impact of a television

personality in their ability to influence viewers’ opinions. We were also interested in testing

the variability of the phenomenon across show categories. We investigated television

personalities in roles as daytime correspondents, nightly news anchors, newsmagazine

correspondents, and late-night entertainers. We make a case that for a viewer to receive

information, he/she must personally engage with one of these personalities. Since any

communication flow starts with a sender and message, the receiver’s perception of the

sender is a factor. When the personality is in the role of sender, we claim the viewer’s

perception of the personality influences processing of the information.

Finally, our meta-approach posits that opinion leadership is a function of both parasocial

bonds and interpersonal communication dynamics. We expected that this dynamic was

dependent on the viewers’ attitudes. Therefore assessing viewers’ attitudes would allow us to

observe opinion leadership through a functional lens of credibility, where credibility would be

strongly influenced by likeability. We were curious whether the personalities were explicitly

attempting to lead opinion and if the viewer was consciously placing the personality in the role

of opinion leader. The communication cycle and feedback loop created between sender (the

personality) and receiver (the viewer) allowed us to investigate not only the parasocial

108
bonding between the two, but also the opinion leader hierarchy and phenomenon of

influence.

RESEARCH QUESTION

When viewers receive a message from a television personality, does their perception of the

personality influence the message?

ANSWERING THE RESEARCH QUESTION

Our findings in general display a wealth of evidence to support our hypotheses. Therefore,

the answer to the research question is yes. When a viewer receives a message from a

television personality, their perception of the personality influences the message.

SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESIS TESTING

ACCEPTED H1: The two-step flow model can be modified with the newscaster as

opinion leader, using the three original tests for opinion leadership:

1. Presence of influence

2. Homogeneity of influencer and influencee

3. Higher exposure to mass media

ACCEPTED H2: The ability of newscasters to influence opinion is based on their

109
 credibility, which is a function of their believability.

ACCEPTED H3: The ability of newscasters to be opinion leaders is a function of

the public’s perception of their personality, both in general, and in

that it affects their credibility.

ACCEPTED H0: There is no difference in believability of information across the

sources.

Note: Goal was to accept the null.

REJECTED H5: There is a difference in the viewer’s perception of the personalities

among these four sources.

REJECTED H6: Television personalities deliberately exert their power as

opinion leaders.

ACCEPTED H7: Viewers explicitly place television personalities in the role of

opinion leader.

Our theory was correct for five of the seven hypotheses, as supported by our data findings.

110
DISCUSSION

Our evidence strongly supports that viewers’ perceptions of television personalities play a

vital role in influencing the messages received. This is seen in four core findings. First,

personalities do function as opinion leaders. Second, the ability of the personality to function

as an opinion leader and influence information is based on the viewers’ perceptions. Third,

viewers’ perceptions are created through parasocial relationships. Finally, the impact of the

relationship is seen in the encoding and decoding processes present in the communication

from the personality to the viewer.

In our modified opinion leader model from study one, two of the three tests for opinion

leadership are met. The newscaster definitely influences, and he/she presents an accurate

level of knowledge and information. Our findings are consistent with the original People’s

Choice Study, where individuals are less likely to directly identify others as opinion leaders

and more likely measure the influence indirectly. The like-like influence, while weaker in our

data, was nevertheless consistent with the original test, showing that opinion leadership is a

function of social homogeneity beyond demographics. Our data securely demonstrates the

presence of the hierarchy of opinion leadership, where the newscaster is creating the first

level of opinion leadership between mass media and opinion follower.

In terms of performance across the program categories (daytime variety, evening news,

newsmagazines and late-night entertainment), we found no observable difference among the

personalities. This means we can compare Tom Brokaw to Barbara Walters to Regis Philbin,

and that the phenomenon functions structurally the same way regardless of the category.

This does not necessarily mean that viewers do not discriminate across categories, but in fact

111
what they discriminate on is the performance of the personality, not the category. This could

mean that personalities are more powerful than their categorical environment.

The influence that a newscaster or personality has is based on the credibility of the message,

which is a function of his/her personal credibility. This personal credibility is also evident in

the amount of trust and respect s/he commands from the public, which is highly dependent on

the public’s perceptions of him/her. Therefore, encoding by the personality is extremely

important and can either characterize the personality as an opinion leader or not. The

determinant is whether the personality comes across to the viewer as believable and credible.

Credibility is the foundation of the personalities’ influence; if the public does not see a

personality as a credible source, s/he is less likely to have influence. In our first study, we

found a high correlation of believability with credibility. This tells us that if the viewer is

decoding the message as believable, s/he is also most likely finding the personality a credible

source for information. We are then able to combine respect, liking, expertise and

acceptance to confirm that the viewer does in fact place the newscaster or personality in the

role of opinion leader, consistent with the two-step flow model.

When viewers are effectively receiving and decoding messages from a trusted source, they

begin to exhibit opinion followership, placing the newscaster in the opinion leader role. As

demonstrated in all three of our studies, trust, believability, likeability and credibility are all

linked. Believability and credibility are strongly correlated and play a significant role in the

viewers’ willingness to be an opinion follower to a specific newscaster-as-opinion-leader. Our

first study identified the presence of both direct and indirect opinion leadership characteristics.

112
Our third study uncovered the basis of trust in the quality of reporting, a perceived lack of bias

and general likeability.

A compelling finding from the third study is that television personalities are not deliberately

exerting their power to shape public opinion. Both producers and personalities admitted to

knowing that they have significant power, but all keep to the “journalist’s code” of objectivity.

Their goal is to report the truth, not to influence the public. Personalities repeatedly indicated

that they report information objectively and wish for the viewer to ultimately make up his/her

own mind. The goal of the broadcasters is not to influence opinion, but to present fair,

accurate, clear, and balanced information.

The important perceptions that viewers have of personalities are that they are likeable,

trustworthy, believable, and credible. These four attributes are strongly tied to the formation

of parasocial bonds. The power of parasocial relationships is significant, and their presence

is a catalyst for opinion leadership.

The quality of the parasocial relationship between the viewer and the personality plays a

significant role in how the viewer perceives the message. If the relationship is a strong one,

the viewer will trust the personality and over time place more value on the personality’s

opinion. Liking a personality is strongly associated with positive parasocial relationships. We

discovered how powerful and strong this phenomenon existed between the viewer and the

personality with our one-on-one interviews.

113
The credibility of a personality, as determined by viewers’ perceptions, is strongly influenced

by likeability and respect. Once the viewer likes the personality, s/he begins to respect them

and finally believes what s/he says. This confirms the personality as an expert source. The

credibility as an expert source then allows the personality to function as an opinion leader.

Thus, the viewer is consciously placing the personality in this role of opinion leadership,

based on parasocial bonds. The parasocial bonds formed passively are complemented by

ones formed more actively, as when the viewer talks with others about the personality, which

creates a collective opinion and a stronger parasocial bond. Maintenance of these bonds is a

crucial task for personalities as well, and it makes the personalities more open to feedback

from their viewers.

The quality of the relationships that viewers have with the personalities, which comes across

in both variable attitudes and different ratings behavior, suggests the presence of positive

parasocial relationships. We should also remember that viewers can dislike personalities,

and form equally strong parasocial relationships that are negative. When a viewer does not

like a personality, not only will s/he not watch the individual, but s/he may not believe or

respect the personality or the information. In most cases, our viewer interviews confirmed

this phenomenon. Viewers indicated that they would want to validate information presented

by a non-liked personality with their ‘favorite’ news personality.

Using Shannon-Weaver’s communication model, we can diagram this dynamic by placing the

personality in the role of sender and the viewer in the role of receiver. From this, we can

distinguish that encoding from the personality is crucial to whether or not the message will be

accepted or rejected by the viewer. As the receiver decodes the message s/he may accept

114
the message as truth and consciously place the personality in the ‘expert’ role, or s/he may

decide to reject the message.

While personalities are aware of the encoding and decoding dynamics in a communication

cycle, they are not actively seeking the power of the encoding process. This power is

transferred from the viewer to the personality. Thus, the personalities’ encoding processes

may be function in tandem with the viewers’ decoding processes, rather than linearly. This

dynamic of communication is consistent with the parasocial relationship that exists between

the viewer and the personality.

The primary manifestation of the parasocial relationship in the decoding process was made

evident by our interviews with both viewers and personalities. Viewers generally felt that

newscasters with whom they had a parasocial bond were talking directly to them.

Personalities focused on delivering their report to a single viewer, aware of the opportunity to

connect parasocially with their viewers.

In the Shannon-Weaver model, receivers provide circular feedback to the original source; this

is demonstrably true in the viewer-newscaster relationship. Viewers provide both direct and

indirect feedback to personalities. The most obvious feedback sources are network and

Nielsen ratings. Based on our findings, we can describe much deeper, less numeric

feedback. The viewer can either actively or passively provide feedback to the personality.

Direct feedback is provided through continued participation in the audience (passive

feedback), and advocacy, either directly to the newscaster, or evangelistically to the public

(active feedback).

115
Overall, the holistic framework of the meta-approach ties together the phenomenon as a

series of interactions. Viewers’ initial involvement with the personality (newscaster) creates

familiarity, which sparks formation of parasocial bonds. Viewers create this bond for a

number of cognitive reasons; our data supports these bonds are created mostly based on the

viewer liking the television personality, in the same way that real relationships are formed

primarily on attraction. Once parasocial bonds are formed, this leads to a parasocial

relationship in which the viewer places trust in the personality, finds his/her message credible

and believable, and is more accepting of the message. This places the personality in the role

of opinion leader. As this opinion leadership becomes more explicit, it reinforces the

parasocial bond the viewer has with the newscaster or personality, and amplifies the power of

the communication signal the personality is transmitting. With the powerful encoding process

functioning, the viewer actively decodes both message and influence, and provides feedback

to the personality both passively and actively. Ultimately, the quality of communication from

the personality to the viewer is a function of the perception of the viewer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The research into both media personalities themselves, and how people interpret messages,

is rich with opportunity for further discovery. There are several new questions, which this

research begins to identify. First, how do cognitive behaviors and beliefs impact the way the

viewer makes up his/her mind? The opportunity is to continue the extension of the meta-

approach on an interdisciplinary basis. The link between psychology and communication is a

fertile ground for development.

116
Second, there is a potential gap in the studies of the two-step flow model in the area of

personal leadership dynamics. What makes a follower a follower, and what makes a leader a

leader? How do these choices apply to the two-step flow model? The current definition of

the model is defined behaviorally, and there may be an opportunity to investigate an

attitudinal definition of opinion leadership. Integrating leadership dynamics would both

improve our understanding of the phenomenon, and the ability to use this model as a tool to

influence public opinion.

Third, there is an open question about how people objectively evaluate the information they

receive, and whether they separate fact from fiction. While this research has demonstrated

the power of television personalities influencing public opinion, it has not shown the effect of

simplistic belief – the “if they said it, it must be true” effect – on human behavior and choices.

Additionally, the investigations in this research are limited to a sample of viewers that have

above-average consumption of media. There is an opportunity to normalize the findings in

this research to a more representative population. The self-selection of being a consumer of

media generally, and news specifically, may be driving the presence of the phenomenon we

have observed. Importantly, if this is a generalizable phenomenon, it may be a way to

understand the changes in public opinion among those who do not frequently watch the

news.

Finally, the operational use of this model would be both compelling and unnerving. Much of

media strategy seeks to balance the tension between the truth motives of journalism versus

the profit motive of broadcast television. Thus, the compelling application of this model to

improve the ability of a journalist to communicate is also unnerving, for it can be equally used

117
to suborn the objectivity of the journalist in favor of a more commercially attractive relationship

with the viewer. Regardless, operationalizing the model is a critical next step to explore, and

will continue to bridge the gap between theory and practice in communication and media

research.

118
APPENDICES

119
 Thanks for participating in this research study.
Please do not turn the page until you are given
instructions by the facilitator.

Please mark all answers clearly – this will ensure that your opinion is correctly
represented.

Clearly marked answers Not clearly marked answers

… Sunny … Apple
… Cloudy … Banana
… Rainy … Cherry

If at any time you have questions, please ask for assistance

from one of the facilitators.

120
Please answer the following questions about yourself.

Your age
… 18-24
… 25-34
… 35-44
45-54 On a typical weekday, how many hours of
…
television do you watch?
… 55-64
… Less than 1
… 65+
… 1-2
… 3-4
Your gender
Male … 5+
…
… Female
What kind of television programs do you
regularly watch? (check all that apply)
Your relationship status
… Comedy
… Single
… Drama
… Committed Relationship
… News
… Married
… Sports
Your family status
Live alone Do you regularly read any of the
…
following? (check all that apply)
… Live with roommates or parents
… Print Newspaper
… Live with spouse or significant other
… News Magazines
… Fashion Magazines
Do you have children under 18 at home?
Yes (how many?_____) … Sports Magazines
…
No … Other Magazines
…

What is your highest level of education? Do you use the Internet for any of the
High School following? (check all that apply)
… Email
Some College …
… Academic or business research
Bachelor’s Degree …
… Search engines
Some Graduate School …
… News or media websites
Master’s Degree …
… I do not use the Internet
Doctorate …
…
… Professional Degree (M.D., J.D.)

STOP!
Please do not turn the page
until instructed to do so by the facilitator.

121
1. Thinking of newscasters from evening news and newsmagazine programs, which of the
following do you recognize? Then, how familiar are you with them? Use a scale from 1 to 7,
where 1 means you are not at all familiar (you only recognize the name), and 7 means you are
extremely familiar.

For those you recognize, rate your familiarity

Yes, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I recognize the Not at all Extremely
Familiar Familiar
name
Peter Jennings … … … … … … … …
Connie Chung … … … … … … … …
Tim Russert … … … … … … … …
Mike Wallace … … … … … … … …
Wolf Blitzer … … … … … … … …
John Stossel … … … … … … … …
Diane Sawyer … … … … … … … …
Walter Cronkite … … … … … … … …
Brian Mitchell … … … … … … … …
Elizabeth Vargas … … … … … … … …
Tom Brokaw … … … … … … … …
Stone Phillips … … … … … … … …
Dan Rather … … … … … … … …
Barbara Walters … … … … … … … …

2. Now, for those newscasters you recognized, please indicate how much you like them. Use a
scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you extremely dislike them, and 7 means you extremely like
them.

How much do you like each newscaster?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Dislike Dislike Dislike Like Like Like
Extremely Very Some- Some- Very Extremely
Much what what Much
Peter Jennings … … … … … … …
Connie Chung … … … … … … …
Tim Russert … … … … … … …
Mike Wallace … … … … … … …
Wolf Blitzer … … … … … … …
John Stossel … … … … … … …
Diane Sawyer … … … … … … …
Walter Cronkite … … … … … … …
Brian Mitchell … … … … … … …
Elizabeth Vargas … … … … … … …
Tom Brokaw … … … … … … …
Stone Phillips … … … … … … …
Dan Rather … … … … … … …
Barbara Walters … … … … … … …

STOP!
Please do not turn the page
until instructed to do so by the facilitator.

122
Now that you have watched the tape, please answer the following questions about PETER JENNINGS:

3. How much do you like Peter Jennings? Use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you extremely
dislike him, and 7 means you extremely like him.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Dislike Dislike Very Dislike Some- Like Like Very Like Extremely
Extremely Much what Somewhat Much
… … … … … … …

4. Please indicate how much you agree with each of the following statements about Peter
Jennings. Use a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 means you strongly disagree, and 7 means you
strongly agree.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Some- Some- Strongly
Disagree what what Agree
Disagree Agree
I trust what he says … … … … … … …
I am fascinated by him … … … … … … …
I find him annoying … … … … … … …
He has a good reporting style … … … … … … …
I respect him … … … … … … …
He is knowledgeable … … … … … … …
He is a credible source for … … … … … … …
information
He is easy to understand … … … … … … …
I can relate to him … … … … … … …
I think he is an opinion leader … … … … … … …

5. Now, please indicate your feelings about the content that Peter Jennings presented. Use a
scale from 1 to 7 where 1 means you strongly disagree, and 7 means you strongly agree.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Some- Some- Strongly
Disagree what what Agree
Disagree Agree
I remember what he said … … … … … … …
The content was meaningful to … … … … … … …
me
I understood what he said … … … … … … …
I believe what he said … … … … … … …

STOP!
Please do not turn the page
until instructed to do so by the facilitator.

123
Now that you have watched the tape, please answer the following questions about DAN RATHER:

6. How much do you like Dan Rather? Use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you extremely
dislike him, and 7 means you extremely like him.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Dislike Dislike Very Dislike Some- Like Like Very Like Extremely
Extremely Much what Somewhat Much
… … … … … … …

7. Please indicate how much you agree with each of the following statements about Dan Rather.
Use a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 means you strongly disagree, and 7 means you strongly agree.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Some- Some- Strongly
Disagree what what Agree
Disagree Agree
I trust what he says … … … … … … …
I am fascinated by him … … … … … … …
I find him annoying … … … … … … …
He has a good reporting style … … … … … … …
I respect him … … … … … … …
He is knowledgeable … … … … … … …
He is a credible source for … … … … … … …
information
He is easy to understand … … … … … … …
I can relate to him … … … … … … …
I think he is an opinion leader … … … … … … …

8. Now, please indicate your feelings about the content that Dan Rather presented. Use a scale
from 1 to 7 where 1 means you strongly disagree, and 7 means you strongly agree.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Some- Some- Strongly
Disagree what what Agree
Disagree Agree
I remember what he said … … … … … … …
The content was meaningful to … … … … … … …
me
I understood what he said … … … … … … …
I believe what he said … … … … … … …

STOP!
Please do not turn the page
until instructed to do so by the facilitator.

124
Now that you have watched the tape, please answer the following questions about TOM BROKAW:

9. How much do you like Tom Brokaw? Use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you extremely
dislike him, and 7 means you extremely like him.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Dislike Dislike Very Dislike Some- Like Like Very Like Extremely
Extremely Much what Somewhat Much
… … … … … … …

10. Please indicate how much you agree with each of the following statements about Tom Brokaw.
Use a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 means you strongly disagree, and 7 means you strongly agree.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Some- Some- Strongly
Disagree what what Agree
Disagree Agree
I trust what he says … … … … … … …
I am fascinated by him … … … … … … …
I find him annoying … … … … … … …
He has a good reporting style … … … … … … …
I respect him … … … … … … …
He is knowledgeable … … … … … … …
He is a credible source for … … … … … … …
information
He is easy to understand … … … … … … …
I can relate to him … … … … … … …
I think he is an opinion leader … … … … … … …

11. Now, please indicate your feelings about the content that Tom Brokaw presented. Use a scale
from 1 to 7 where 1 means you strongly disagree, and 7 means you strongly agree.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Some- Some- Strongly
Disagree what what Agree
Disagree Agree
I remember what he said … … … … … … …
The content was meaningful to … … … … … … …
me
I understood what he said … … … … … … …
I believe what he said … … … … … … …

STOP!
Please do not turn the page
until instructed to do so by the facilitator.

125
Now that you have watched the tape, please answer the following questions about TIM RUSSERT:

12. How much do you like Tim Russert? Use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you extremely
dislike him, and 7 means you extremely like him.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Dislike Dislike Very Dislike Some- Like Like Very Like Extremely
Extremely Much what Somewhat Much
… … … … … … …

13. Please indicate how much you agree with each of the following statements about Tim Russert.
Use a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 means you strongly disagree, and 7 means you strongly agree.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Some- Some- Strongly
Disagree what what Agree
Disagree Agree
I trust what he says … … … … … … …
I am fascinated by him … … … … … … …
I find him annoying … … … … … … …
He has a good reporting style … … … … … … …
I respect him … … … … … … …
He is knowledgeable … … … … … … …
He is a credible source for … … … … … … …
information
He is easy to understand … … … … … … …
I can relate to him … … … … … … …
I think he is an opinion leader … … … … … … …

14. Now, please indicate your feelings about the content that Tim Russert presented. Use a scale
from 1 to 7 where 1 means you strongly disagree, and 7 means you strongly agree.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Some- Some- Strongly
Disagree what what Agree
Disagree Agree
I remember what he said … … … … … … …
The content was meaningful to … … … … … … …
me
I understood what he said … … … … … … …
I believe what he said … … … … … … …

STOP!
Please do not turn the page
until instructed to do so by the facilitator.

126
Now that you have watched the tape, please answer the following questions about MIKE WALLACE:

15. How much do you like Mike Wallace? Use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you extremely
dislike him, and 7 means you extremely like him.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Dislike Dislike Very Dislike Some- Like Like Very Like Extremely
Extremely Much what Somewhat Much
… … … … … … …

16. Please indicate how much you agree with each of the following statements about Mike Wallace.
Use a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 means you strongly disagree, and 7 means you strongly agree.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Some- Some- Strongly
Disagree what what Agree
Disagree Agree
I trust what he says … … … … … … …
I am fascinated by him … … … … … … …
I find him annoying … … … … … … …
He has a good reporting style … … … … … … …
I respect him … … … … … … …
He is knowledgeable … … … … … … …
He is a credible source for … … … … … … …
information
He is easy to understand … … … … … … …
I can relate to him … … … … … … …
I think he is an opinion leader … … … … … … …

17. Now, please indicate your feelings about the content that Mike Wallace presented. Use a scale
from 1 to 7 where 1 means you strongly disagree, and 7 means you strongly agree.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Some- Some- Strongly
Disagree what what Agree
Disagree Agree
I remember what he said … … … … … … …
The content was meaningful to … … … … … … …
me
I understood what he said … … … … … … …
I believe what he said … … … … … … …

STOP!
Please do not turn the page
until instructed to do so by the facilitator.

127
Now that you have watched the tape, please answer the following questions about JOHN STOSSEL:

18. How much do you like John Stossel? Use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you extremely
dislike him, and 7 means you extremely like him.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Dislike Dislike Very Dislike Some- Like Like Very Like Extremely
Extremely Much what Somewhat Much
… … … … … … …

19. Please indicate how much you agree with each of the following statements about John Stossel.
Use a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 means you strongly disagree, and 7 means you strongly agree.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Some- Some- Strongly
Disagree what what Agree
Disagree Agree
I trust what he says … … … … … … …
I am fascinated by him … … … … … … …
I find him annoying … … … … … … …
He has a good reporting style … … … … … … …
I respect him … … … … … … …
He is knowledgeable … … … … … … …
He is a credible source for … … … … … … …
information
He is easy to understand … … … … … … …
I can relate to him … … … … … … …
I think he is an opinion leader … … … … … … …

20. Now, please indicate your feelings about the content that John Stossel presented. Use a scale
from 1 to 7 where 1 means you strongly disagree, and 7 means you strongly agree.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Some- Some- Strongly
Disagree what what Agree
Disagree Agree
I remember what he said … … … … … … …
The content was meaningful to … … … … … … …
me
I understood what he said … … … … … … …
I believe what he said … … … … … … …

STOP!
Please do not turn the page
until instructed to do so by the facilitator.

128
Now that you have watched the tape, please answer the following questions about STONE PHILLIPS:

21. How much do you like Stone Phillips? Use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you extremely
dislike him, and 7 means you extremely like him.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Dislike Dislike Very Dislike Some- Like Like Very Like Extremely
Extremely Much what Somewhat Much
… … … … … … …

22. Please indicate how much you agree with each of the following statements about Stone Phillips.
Use a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 means you strongly disagree, and 7 means you strongly agree.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Some- Some- Strongly
Disagree what what Agree
Disagree Agree
I trust what he says … … … … … … …
I am fascinated by him … … … … … … …
I find him annoying … … … … … … …
He has a good reporting style … … … … … … …
I respect him … … … … … … …
He is knowledgeable … … … … … … …
He is a credible source for … … … … … … …
information
He is easy to understand … … … … … … …
I can relate to him … … … … … … …
I think he is an opinion leader … … … … … … …

23. Now, please indicate your feelings about the content that Stone Phillips presented. Use a scale
from 1 to 7 where 1 means you strongly disagree, and 7 means you strongly agree.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Some- Some- Strongly
Disagree what what Agree
Disagree Agree
I remember what he said … … … … … … …
The content was meaningful to … … … … … … …
me
I understood what he said … … … … … … …
I believe what he said … … … … … … …

STOP!
Please do not turn the page
until instructed to do so by the facilitator.

129
Now that you have watched the tape, please answer the following questions about BARBARA
WALTERS:

24. How much do you like Barbara Walters? Use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you extremely
dislike her, and 7 means you extremely like her.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Dislike Dislike Very Dislike Some- Like Like Very Like Extremely
Extremely Much what Somewhat Much
… … … … … … …

25. Please indicate how much you agree with each of the following statements about Barbara
Walters. Use a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 means you strongly disagree, and 7 means you
strongly agree.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Some- Some- Strongly
Disagree what what Agree
Disagree Agree
I trust what she says … … … … … … …
I am fascinated by her … … … … … … …
I find her annoying … … … … … … …
She has a good reporting style … … … … … … …
I respect her … … … … … … …
She is knowledgeable … … … … … … …
She is a credible source for … … … … … … …
information
She is easy to understand … … … … … … …
I can relate to her … … … … … … …
I think she is an opinion leader … … … … … … …

26. Now, please indicate your feelings about the content that Barbara Walters presented. Use a
scale from 1 to 7 where 1 means you strongly disagree, and 7 means you strongly agree.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Some- Some- Strongly
Disagree what what Agree
Disagree Agree
I remember what she said … … … … … … …
The content was meaningful to … … … … … … …
me
I understood what she said … … … … … … …
I believe what she said … … … … … … …

STOP!
Please do not turn the page
until instructed to do so by the facilitator.

130
Now that you have watched the tape, please answer the following questions about DIANE SAWYER:

27. How much do you like Diane Sawyer? Use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you extremely
dislike her, and 7 means you extremely like her.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Dislike Dislike Very Dislike Some- Like Like Very Like Extremely
Extremely Much what Somewhat Much
… … … … … … …

28. Please indicate how much you agree with each of the following statements about Diane Sawyer.
Use a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 means you strongly disagree, and 7 means you strongly agree.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Some- Some- Strongly
Disagree what what Agree
Disagree Agree
I trust what she says … … … … … … …
I am fascinated by her … … … … … … …
I find her annoying … … … … … … …
She has a good reporting style … … … … … … …
I respect her … … … … … … …
She is knowledgeable … … … … … … …
She is a credible source for … … … … … … …
information
She is easy to understand … … … … … … …
I can relate to her … … … … … … …
I think she is an opinion leader … … … … … … …

29. Now, please indicate your feelings about the content that Diane Sawyer presented. Use a scale
from 1 to 7 where 1 means you strongly disagree, and 7 means you strongly agree.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Some- Some- Strongly
Disagree what what Agree
Disagree Agree
I remember what she said … … … … … … …
The content was meaningful to … … … … … … …
me
I understood what she said … … … … … … …
I believe what she said … … … … … … …

STOP!
Please do not turn the page
until instructed to do so by the facilitator.

131
30. Now, thinking about newscasters in general, please answer the following questions. Use a
scale from 1 to 7 where 1 means you strongly disagree, and 7 means you strongly agree.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Some- Some- Strongly
Disagree what what Agree
Disagree Agree
All newscasters are the same … … … … … … …
Every newscaster reports the … … … … … … …
same information
I have a favorite newscaster … … … … … … …
My favorite newscaster is more … … … … … … …
accurate than other
newscasters
My favorite newscaster is … … … … … … …
better looking than other
newscasters
My favorite newscaster has a … … … … … … …
great personality

31. Now, thinking about all the different news reports you saw today, please indicate which of the
following topics you remember seeing. Then, indicate which newscaster reported on which topic.

I don’t I remember this I remember Please write in the

remember topic, but can’t this topic, and name of the newscaster
this topic at remember which know which that reported on it
all newscaster newscaster
reported on it
Justice Department grants … … …
visas to terrorists
Caribou habitat threatened by … … …
oil exploration
Life of typical women in Saudi … … …
Arabia
Vietnam Veteran kills his family … … …
Profile of John Nash … … …
Grade inflation at Harvard … … …
Pickering nomination defeated … … …
in the Senate
Israeli Army takes over … … …
Palestinian cities
Gay couples adopt children … … …
Dick Cheney meets with Arab … … …
leaders

STOP!
Please do not turn the page
until instructed to do so by the facilitator.

132
Thanks for participating in this research study.
You are now finished!

Please give your completed questionnaire to one

of the facilitators.

133
Dear Family, Friends and Colleagues:

I’m writing to ask for your help with a project I am working on as part of my master’s program
at Georgetown. The course is in statistical methodology, and I have designed a study
examining television viewing habits and attitudes. I would greatly appreciate it if you could
help me with this study by taking the survey and sharing your opinion!

In addition to meeting the current course requirement, I will be using this dataset as an
exploratory part of my thesis research over the next semester.

I know everyone is very busy, and I hope you can take 10-15 minutes to respond to the
survey. I am trying to get as many responses as possible to make the analysis robust.
Please feel free to forward this email to any of your friends who may find the survey
interesting.
Your response is confidential and will not be shared. Clicking on the link below will
activate the survey. It will take you approximately 10-15 minutes to complete.

In order to meet my project timeline, I am trying to get all of the responses by the end of the
day on Wednesday, November 20.

I will be presenting the results of this study on December 10. If you are interested in the
study findings, please let me know; I would be happy to share them with you. If you should
have any questions about the survey, please call me at (xxx) xxx-xxxx.

I sincerely appreciate your time, input and support for this very important project.

Best,

Kendra Mendelsohn

Click Here To Take The Survey!

134
Study 3 Viewer Invitation Email

Hello!
I’m writing to ask for your help. While this may not be the first time I’ve asked for help with my
master’s thesis research, it will definitely be the last…as spring approaches, so does my
deadline!!

My thesis research focuses on how people process information from television news
programs, and specifically how they view newscasters. My research to date has looked at
the influence that different newscasters have on the public, both as a function of their
personality and the type of their show.

In the final stage of my research, I am seeking to better understand how the viewer (that's
YOU) interprets messages from television news personalities.

If you watch the news (evening or daytime), Sunday talk shows, or evening newsmagazines
(like 60 Minutes or Dateline), then I would really like to interview you and understand your
feelings about the show and the personality. The interview will take thirty minutes of your
time. I plan to conduct interviews March 15 – 30, and I need about fifteen people to
participate, either by phone or in person.

If you’re interested in participating in my research, please respond and let me know when
would be convenient (day and time) for your schedule.

Thanks in advance for your support!

Best,

Kendra

155
Study 3 Personality Invitation Email

[Sample]

Dear Mr. Brokaw:

Hello, my name is Kendra Mendelsohn. I’m doing my master’s thesis at Georgetown
University in the Communications, Culture, and Technology program. My thesis research
focuses on how people process information from television news programs, and how they
view the newscaster.

I have completed two studies with viewers so far. The findings are very interesting and show
the level of influence on public opinion that newscasters have, both as a function of their
personality and that of their show. I have also looked at the difference in this phenomenon
between news programs and entertainment programs.

I would like to talk with you about the research results and your view of the role you play in
communicating to the public. I would need no more than 15 minutes of your time to discuss
this research. I think you will find the results very interesting and helpful to better understand
how your viewers react and process the information you are communicating.

I know you’re very busy and I would be grateful if you would take a few minutes out of your
schedule so we can talk. Thank you in advance for your time.

Best,

Kendra B. Mendelsohn

156
Study 3 Sample Consent Form

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH SURVEY/INTERVIEW

My name is Kendra Mendelsohn, and I am a graduate student at Georgetown University in the Communications,
Culture, and Technology program. I would like to invite you to take part in my research project, which is about
viewers’ perception of television personalities. I am interested in your views concerning television personalities and
how they impact the information they present.

If you agree to take part in my research, I will conduct an interview with you at the time and location of your choice.
The interview will involve questions about television programs, your perceptions of television personalities, and your
views about the information these personalities present. The interview should last about 15 minutes. With your
permission, I will audiotape the interview. If we conduct the interview via email, I will send you a set of questions for
your response.

I expect to conduct only one interview, however, follow-ups may be needed for additional clarification. If so, I will
contact you by mail or phone.

There are no foreseeable risks to you from participating in this research. There is no direct benefit to you, however
we hope that the research will benefit the field of communications research. There will be no costs to you, other than
your time involved and any personal transportation costs.

All of the information that I obtain from you during the research will be kept confidential. I will store the tape recording
and notes about it in a locked cabinet. I will not use your name or other identifying information in any reports of the
research without your additional consent on this form. After this research is completed, I may save the tape and my
notes for use in future research by others or myself. However, the same confidentiality guarantees given here will
apply to future storage and use of the materials.

Your participation in this research is voluntary. You are free to refuse to take part. You may refuse to answer any
questions and may stop taking part in the study at any time.

If you have any questions about the research, you may call me, Kendra Mendelsohn, at (xxx) xxx-xxxx. If you agree
to take part in the research, please sign the form below. Please keep a copy of this agreement for future reference.

If you have any questions about your rights or treatment as a participant in this research project, please contact
Georgetown University, Institutional Review Board for Social & Behavioral Sciences, at (202) 687-5594. The IRB
approval number for this research project is 03-025C.

I have read this consent form and agree to take part in this research.

Printed Name: ___________________________________________

Signature:_______________________________ Date:____________

I also agree to allow my name or other identifying information to be included in all final reports and publications
resulting from my participation in this research.

Signature:_______________________________ Date:___________

157
STUDY 3 VIEWER INSTRUMENT

[PHONE INTERVIEWS]

Thank you again for taking part in this study. Have I received your consent form?

Do you mind if I audiotape this interview?

This research is focused on your perceptions of television news and the newscasters on
these programs. I will use terms like personality, newscaster, and broadcaster, to refer to the
people on air during these programs. I will also use terms like shows, programs, and
broadcasts to refer to the actual programs on air. If any of these terms are unfamiliar or
confusing please ask me to clarify.

This interview will take about thirty minutes. I have 15 different questions, and will try to keep
our conversation moving along in order to cover all of them. If at any time it’s necessary for
me to move on to the next question, I will let you know. I value your opinion very much, and
do not mean to cut you off prematurely.

First, can you tell me your name, age, and city of residence?

OK, now we’re ready to get started.

1. First, can you tell me where you get your news? For example, newspapers,
television, or radio? Please be specific (shows, channels, titles of publications)

2. (If necessary) Specifically about television, which news programs do you watch?
Which broadcasters?

3. Are there any news shows or broadcasters that you particularly like to watch?

4. Are there any news shows or broadcasters that you particularly avoid?

5. Let’s pick one of the broadcasters you liked (state name). When did you first start
watching this person?

6. Why do you like them?

7. Describe how you feel about the quality of the news this person reports to you. (If
necessary – is it trustworthy? Do you believe it? Are they more interested in
entertaining you than reporting the news?)

8. Do you ever share things you hear from this person with friends, family, or
colleagues?

9. On an important news item – for example, the state of the economy, or the chances
of a war with Iraq – do you wait until you can hear this person report on the news
before you make up your mind about the issue?

158
10. When making up your mind, how do you interpret what this person has reported? (If
necessary – how much “spin” do you think this person adds to the news?)

11. Now let’s talk about a broadcaster you didn’t like (state name). Why do you avoid
them?

12. If the person you generally don’t like reported on the same news item as the person
you generally like, how would you feel if they said the same things? What if they
reported differently?

13. Why do you keep watching the person you like?

14. What would it take for you to stop watching this person and start watching a different
news person? Has this ever happened to you before (when you “switched” news
broadcasters – how did it happen and how did you feel?)?

15. Do you feel this person specifically has a bias in their reporting? Do you think news
broadcasters in general are biased in their reporting?

Those are all of the questions I have. I really appreciate your taking the time to participate in
this survey. For classification purposes, I just have a few demographic questions.

Are you married?

What is the last level of education you completed?
(Record sex & geographic location)

Thanks again. That concludes my interview.

159
STUDY 3 PERSONALITY INSTRUMENT

Thank you again for taking part in this study. Have I received your consent form?

Do you mind if I audiotape this interview?

This research is focused on your perceptions of television news and the viewers of these
programs. I will use terms like personality, newscaster, and broadcaster, to refer to the
people on air during these programs. I will also use terms like shows, programs, and
broadcasts to refer to the actual programs on air. If any of these terms are unfamiliar or
confusing please ask me to clarify.

This interview will take about twenty minutes. I have ten different questions, and will try to
keep our conversation moving along in order to cover all of them. If at any time it’s necessary
for me to move on to the next question, I will let you know. I value your opinion very much,
and do not mean to cut you off prematurely.

First, can you tell me your name, age, and city of residence?

Can you also tell me which news program you are affiliated with?

OK, now we’re ready to get started.

1. First, can you describe your typical viewer? What is the target audience for your
show?

2. What other news sources do these viewers have? How much of their news comes
from television versus other media?

3. Do you have a specific program or broadcaster that you compete with for viewers?

4. Are you the #1 source for a specific type of viewer, or about a specific type of news?

5. When putting together a news broadcast, what considerations do you give to the
effect your broadcast will have on public opinion?

6. How much does current public interest or opinion influence what you report on?

7. There are a lot of different schools of thought on the amount of bias in the media. Do
you think there is a general bias in the media? How do you try and control it?

8. If a person had never watched the news before, and was trying to choose a program
or broadcaster to rely on, how would you want them to make their decision?

9. How do you think that new viewer would evaluate you? What about the person you
most closely compete with? (If necessary – how would this viewer find the two of you
different?)

10. Do you use any relationship tools to keep in touch with viewers – email, newsletters,
correspondence, etc.?
160
 Works Cited

Allen, Craig M. News Is People. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 2001.

Alperstein, Neil M. “Imaginary Social Relationships With Celebrities Appearing In Television

Commercials.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 35 (1991): 43-58.

Ashe, Diane D., and Lynn E. McCutcheon. “Shyness, Loneliness, and Attitude Toward

Celebrities.” Current Research in Social Psychology 6.9 (2001): 124-133.

Baird, Robert. Telephone Interview. 20 March 2003.

Barnes, April. Telephone Interview. 27 March 2003.

Barnouw, Wilbur Schramn, George Gerbner, Tobia L. Worth and Larry Gross. “Models of

Communication.” International Encyclopedia of Communications. Vol. 3. New York:

Oxford University Press, 1989. 36-44.

Bennett, Lance W. News, The Politics of Illusion. 4th ed. Boston: Addison Wesley

Longman, 2001.

Biron, Robert. Telephone Interview. 18 March 2003.

Brinker, Janice. Telephone Interview. 21 March 2003.

Brown, Kenneth. Telephone Interview. 24 March 2003.

Brown, Kevin. Telephone Interview. 20 March 2003.

Bryant, Jennings, and Dolf Zillmann. Perspectives on Media Effects. Hillsdale: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1986.

---. Responding To The Screen: Reception and Reaction Processes. Hillsdale: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1991.

Bucy, Erik. Parasocial Interaction. 27 April 1999. <http://www.indiana.edu/~hotmedia/psi>.

Bunyan, Maureen. Telephone Interview. 16 April 2003.

Cirino, Robert. Don’t Blame The People. Los Angeles: Diversity Press, 1971.

161
Cook, Timothy E. Governing with the News: The News Media as a Political Institution.

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998.

Czitrom, Daniel J. Media And The American Mind From Morse to McLuhan. Chapel Hill:

University of North Carolina Press, 1982.

Dahlgren, Peter, and Colin Sparks. Journalism and Popular Culture. London:

Sage Publications, 1992.

Dennis, Everette E., and Robert W. Snyder. Media & Public Life. New Brunswick:

Transaction Publishers, 1997.

Diamond, Edwin. The Media Show. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1991.

Feldman, Arthur. Telephone Interview. 18 March 2003.

Francis, Elliott. Telephone Interview. 3 April 2003.

Frank, Robert Shelby. Message Dimensions of Television News. Lexington, MA: Lexington

Books, 1973.

Garner, Paula. Telephone Interview. 17 March 2003.

Glynn, Carroll J., Susan Herbst, Garrett J. O’Keefe, and Robert Y. Shapiro.

Public Opinion. Boulder: Westview Press, 1999.

Graber, Doris. Processing the News. New York: Longman, Inc., 1984.

Griffin, George. Personal Interview. 20 March 2003.

Haney, Allen. Telephone Interview. 18 March 2003.

Harris, Richard Jackson. A Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication. 2nd ed. Hillsdale:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994.

Hoffner, Cynthia A. “Attachment To Media Characters.” Encyclopedia of Communication

and Information. Ed. Jorge Reina Schement. Vol. 1. New York: MacMillian

Reference USA, 2002. 60-65.

162
Horton, Donald, and Richard R. Wohl. “Mass Communication and Parasocial Interaction.”

Psychiatry 19 (1956): 215-229.

Ifill, Gwen. E-mail Interview. 6 April 2003.

Isaacson, Walter. Interview with Terence Smith and Walter Isaacson. NewsHour with Jim

Lehrer. PBS. WETA, Washington, DC. 28 January 2002.

Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, and Karlyn Kohrs Campbell. The Interplay of Influence:

News, Advertising, Politics, and the Mass Media. Belmont: Wadsworth Inc., 1992.

Kaplan, Seth. Telephone Interview. 5 April 2003.

Katz, Elihu. “The Two-Step Flow of Communication: An Up-To-Date Report on an

Hypothesis.” Public Opinion Quarterly 21 (1957): 61-78.

Kreta, Laura. Telephone Interview. 18 March 2003.

Langley, Richard. Telephone Interview. 27 March 2003.

Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet. The People’s Choice, How The

Voter Makes Up His Mind In A Presidential Campaign. New York: Duell, Sloan and

Pearce, 1944.

---. The People’s Choice, How The Voter Makes Up His Mind In A Presidential Campaign.

3rd ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 1968.

Lemert, James B. Does Mass Communication Change Public Opinion After All? A New

Approach To Effects Analysis. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1981.

Lowery, Shearon A., and Melvin L. DeFleur. Milestones in Mass Communication

Research. New York: Longman Publishers, 1995.

Manzano, Gabriel. Two-Step Flow of Communication. 29 September 99.

<http://www.ciadvertising.org/studies/student/99_spring/interactive/manzano/

twostep.htm>.

Martin, Michel. Personal Interview. 25 March 2003.

163
McCourt, Andrea, and Jacki Fitzpatrick. “The Role of Personal Characteristics and Romantic

Characteristics in Parasocial Relationships: A Pilot Study.” Journal of Mundane

Behavior 2 (2001): 42-58.

McQuail, Denis and Sven Windahl. Communication Models: For The Study Of Mass

Communication. 2nd ed. New York: Longman Publishing, 1993.

Mendelsohn, Syma. Telephone Interview. 21 March 2003.

Neufeldt, Victoria, and David B. Guralnik. Webster’s New World Dictionary. 3rd Ed. New

York: Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1988.

Nichols, Su-Lin. E-mail to the author. 2 April 2003.

Nielsen Media Research. 2000 Report on Television. New York 2001.

Paletz, David L. The Media in American Politics. New York: Addison-Wesley

Educational Publishers Inc., 2002.

Patterson, Thomas E. Out Of Order. New York: Vintage Books, 1993.

Peavey, Linda. Telephone Interview. 24 March 2003.

Perse, E. M., and R. B. Rubin. “Attribution In Social and Parasocial Relationships.”

Communication Research 16.1 (1989): 59-77.

Peterson, Gordon. E-mail Interview. 14 April 2003.

Pew Research Center For The People And The Press. Public’s News Habits Little Changed

by September 11. Washington, DC, 2002.

---. Striking the Balance: Audience Interests, Business Pressures, and Journalists’ Values.

Washington, DC, 1999.

Robinson, John R. “Interpersonal Influence in Election Campaigns: Two Step-Flow

Hypotheses.” Public Opinion Quarterly 40.3 (1976): 304-319.

Robinson, Michael J., and Andrew Kohut. “Believability and the Press.” Public

Opinion Quarterly 52 (1988): 174-189.

164
The Roper Center For Public Opinion Research. Media Update. Storrs, CT, 2002.

Rowse, Arthur E. Drive-by Journalism. Monroe: Common Courage Press, 2000.

Rubin, Alan M., Elizabeth M. Perse, and Robert A. Powell. “Loneliness, Parasocial

Interaction, and Local Television News Viewing.” Human Communication Research

12 (1985): 155-180.

Rubin, Bernard. Big Business and the Mass Media. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1977.

Scheiner, Rita. Telephone Interview. 17 March 2003.

Schubeck, Cherie. Telephone Interview. 21 March 2003.

Sharma, Vik. Telephone Interview. 17 March 2003.

Shister, Gail. Interview with Terence Smith and Gail Shister. NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.

PBS. WETA, Washington, DC. 4 February 2002.

Simmons, Patricia. Telephone Interview. 18 March 2003.

Simpson, David L. Communication Theory. 7 September 2000.

<http://condor.depaul.edu/~dsimpson/pers/somtheory.html>.

Stephanopoulos, George. Personal Interview. 7 April 2003.

Stossel, John F. E-mail to the author. 4 April 2003.

Tedesco, Kevin. Telephone Interview. 7 April 2003.

Troldahl, Verling C. “A field test of a modified two-step flow of communication

model.” Public Opinion Quarterly 30 (1967): 609-23.

Underwood, Mick. Berlo’s S-M-C-R Model. 6 February 2000.

<http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/muhome/cshtml/media/smcr.html>.

---. Katz and Lazarsfeld. 4 December 2001.

<http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/muhome/cshtml/media/kl.html>.

---. The Lasswell Formula. 10 February 2002.

<http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/muhome/cshtml/media/lasswell.html>.

165
---. Shannon-Weaver Model. 10 February 2002.

http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/muhome/cshtml/media/sw.html>.

Westley, Bruce. “Communication and Social Change.” American Behavioral

Scientist 14 (1971): 719-42.

Zillmann, Dolf and Peter Vorderer. Media Entertainment: The Psychology of its Appeal.

Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000.

166
 Selected Bibliography

Berger, C. R. “Uncertain Outcome Values in Predicted Relationships: Uncertainty Reduction

Theory Then and Now.” Human Communication Research 13 (1984): 34-38.

Caughey, J. Imaginary Social Worlds: A Cultural Approach. Lincoln: University of Nebraska

Press, 1984.

Cole, Tim, and Laura Leets. “Attachment Syles and Intimate Television Viewing: Insecurely

Forming Relationships in a Parasocial Way.” Journal of Social and Personal

Relationship 16 (1999): 495-511.

Deutschmann, Paul. Viewing Conversation and Voting Intentions. Bloomington:

Indiana Press, 1962.

Gitlin, Todd. “Media sociology: the dominant paradigm.” Theory and Society

6 (1978): 206-53.

Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet. The People’s Choice, How The

Voter Makes Up His Mind In A Presidential Campaign. 2nd ed. New York: Columbia

University Press, 1948.

Levy, M. “Watching TV News As Parasocial Interaction.” Journal of Broadcasting 23

(1979): 69-80.

Lin, Nan, Walter M. Ensel and John C. Vaughn. “Social resources, strength of ties

and occupational status attainment.” American Sociological Review 46 (1981):

39-40.

Mancini. Paolo. “Simulated Interaction: How the television journalist speaks.” European

Journal of Communication. 3 (1988): 151-166.

Querido, Steve. Telephone Interview. 21 March 2003.

167
Robinson, John. “Interpersonal influence in election campaigns: two-step flow

hypothesis.” Public Opinion Quarterly 40 (1976): 304-319.

Rogers, Everett. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press, 1962.

Rubin, R., and M. McHugh. “Development of Parasocial Interaction Relationships.” Journal

of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 13.3 (1987): 279-292.

Turner, John R. “Interpersonal and Psychological Predictors of Parasocial Interaction with

Different Television Performers.” Communication Quarterly 41 (1993): 443-453.

Weimann, Gabriel. “The influentials: back to the concept of opinion leaders.” Public

Opinion Quarterly 55 (1991): 267-279.

Wenner, Lawrence A. “Political News on Television: A reconsideration of audience

orientations.” Western Journal of Speech Communication. 47 (1983): 380-395.

168