ACCIDENTALLY INFORMED: INCIDENTAL

NEWS EXPOSURE ON THE WORLD

WIDE WEB

By David Tewksbury, Andrew J. Weaver, and Brett D. Maddex

An important element of news delivery on the World Wide YJeb today isthe near ubiquity of breaking news headlines. What used to be calledsearch engines (e.g.. Yahoo! and Lycos) are noiv "portals" or "hubs,popular services that use news, weather, and other content features toextend the time users spend on the sites. Traditional models of newsdissemination in the mass media often assume some level of intentionbehind tnost news exposure. The prevalence of news on the disparatecorners of the Web provides opportunities for people to encounter currentaffairs information in an incidental fashion, a byproduct of their otheronline activities. This study uses survey data from 1996 and 1998 to testwhether accidental exposure to news on the Web is positively associatedwith awareness of current affairs information. The results indicate thatincidental online news exposure was unrelated to knowledge in 1996 butacted as a positive predictor in 1998.

Many political theorists believe an informed public is a necessaryingredient for a healthy democracy,' Citizens are expected to be awareof important issues and to provide feedback to the political system,- Asthe primary information source for many people, mass mediated news isa key element in any contemporary political system,' As a consequence,evaluating the effectiveness of the media in performing their role is animportant topic for scholars. There is a great deal of research on thetraditional media and their effectiveness in transmitting information,^However, the field does not yet have a good grasp of the potential effectsof the newest major medium, the Intemet, Researchers in this area areasking whether the Intemet provides a unique avenue for citizens toacquire knowledge about current events,

Newsgathering has typically been seen as a purposeful, directedactivity, Reading newspapers, listening to news on the radio, and

, watching television news programs are normally seen as the result ofconscious choices,^ In the traditional media, news is relatively segre-gated from other content. Audiences can quite easily turn on thetelevision, for example, without coming across news stories. In contrast,

David Tewksbury is an assistant professor in the Department of Speech Communicationand the Department of Political Science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Andrew J. Weaver is a graduate student in the Department of Speech Communication atthe University ofUlinois at Urbana-Champaign. Brett D. Maddex is a graduate studentin the Department of Communication at the University of Colorado, Boulder. The authorswish to thank Seth Finn for helpful commenta.

Introduction

IbMC QuarterlyVo/,7S,;\o.,5Autumn 2001

©2ooi.if;-\/c

533

many of the most popular sites on the World Wide Web have integratedquite diverse areas of content on centralized services and pages. The Webmay be unique in its ability to provide a typical user with an array ofinformation choices that extend far beyond what he or she intentionallyseeks. News headlines are an almost constant feature of the mostfrequently visited sites on the Web, and there is some evidence thatpeople encounter current affairs information when they had not beenactively seeking it.* Encounters of this sort may be called incidentalexposure, and this may be an important contemporary avenue for citizenacquisition of current affairs information.

Learning from the Traditional Media. Most views of learning fromthe media conceptualize it as an active process in which people aremotivated to seek out and retain information about a specific subject.̂Often, citizens will turn to the media to learn about public affairs andpolitics and a host of other issues that concern them.* For example,newspaper readers commonly cite a need to keep up with the news as areason for reading, and these people typically score higher on tests ofissue knowledge.' These findings are quite robust. Even when research-ers account for such demographic variables as age, education level, andincome, newspaper reading is still a significant predictor of issue knowl-edge.'«

Of course, not all knowledge gained from the media comes fromactive learning. Even those with little or no interest in public affairs canlearn from the media." Passive learning, by definition, occurs in theabsence of a motivation to become informed.̂ ^ All that is required forinformation gain to occur is some minimal level of attention to the mediain question. For example, people who watch the evening news regularlymay learn about issues aired on the news, even when they are notinterested in following those issues.'^

It seems clear that active and incidental learning are not mutuallyexclusive phenomena. Rather, there are undoubtedly a number offactors that can influence the blend of these two modes in practice. Onesuch element may be the frequency with which people are exposed tospecific news items. Researchers have found that news viewers havesome difficulty in recalling information the day after it was presented ontelevision news programs.'^ What is more, many viewers cannot recallany of the specific stories presented in a news show they have justwatched.'^ Thus, there is evidence that exposure to one story presenteda single time may not necessarily lead to learning of any significance.Important events and issues often receive extensive coverage over timeand across news outlets, however. This repetition may be central toaudience retention of the information.'* When the media present thesame or similar stories over a period of time, they are giving the audiencea chance to mentally rehearse the information. Even within televisionnews broadcasts, viewers are often teased with major headlines beforestories are shown. Such rehearsal allows individuals to retain theinformation, even in cases of passive learning.'^

News channel factors also can influence news processing style.Researchers have found that broadcast television news and newspaperuse can vary in the types of learning that result. Individuals who are

actively seeking information tend to go to newspapers for that informa-tion, as newspapers offer more depth and easier access to particularstories."* Partly as a result of this active information seeking, newspaperreaders tend to be more informed than those who rely on other forms ofmedia for news.'' Television viewers, on the other hand, may tendtowards more passive learning.̂ *^ A television news viewer may beinterested in only sports and weather, but the viewer will often sitthrough the opening news stories to get to those segments. Again, thiskind of exposure can lead to learning, even without direct intention. Thetelevision format does not allow the same kind of depth and thoughtfulprocessing (e.g., rereading, time for elaboration, etc.) that the print mediaallow. However, television news is more widely accessible, and the useof graphics and visuals leads to a more memorable and more digestiblepresentation.^^ Thus, television \ iewers are able to acquire informationat relatively low levels of attention.

Clearly there is a difference between print and television news, butthey contribute in complementary ways to public information gain.Though newspaper use typifies active learning, relatively passive learn-ing may still occur. As a reader flips through the paper, headlines mayflash into consciousness whether the reader is interested or not. Simi-larly, while television is largely associated with passive learning, activelearning can still occur through television viewing. For example, if aviewer tunes in to see a particular local news story, that viewer is activelygathering information on that issue. Furthermore, a combination of thedifferent media can lead to a stronger learning effect along the lines ofrepetitive learning described above. If people see the same story on theevening news that they read about in the morning paper, the repetitionwill form stronger connections in memory.

Learning from the World Wide Web. Comparisons among print,television, and radio as sources for news learning have been going on fordecades.̂ ^ Recently, the Internet has been added to the mix. Earlyresearch on computer-mediated news indicated that knowledge gainfrom use of that medium may be equal to that obtained from newspaperreading.^ This is not surprising given that early computer-mediatednews was very similar to printed copy. However, things have changedsince the early 1990s; the World Wide Web of today is much moreinteractive and offers a wider range of content and formats. Web userscan now view streanüng audio and video, and they can follow \ii\ks to awide array of background information. They can even customize theironline experience to fit their personal needs.^*

Given the wealth of information available on the Web, it wouldseem that at the very least this medium would be an arena for active, goal-directed learning.^ The layout of the Web is ideal for searching forspecific information. Many of the most popular sites are search enginesthat direct people to the information they want. Indeed, almost half of thepeople orüine are attracted to Web-based news because of the ability tosearch for news on a specific topic that interests them.̂ ^

However, while most media use is goal directed, not all goalsinvolve the acquisition of information. In order to make a distinctionbetween intentional and unintentional learning on the Web, it is impor-

AcciDCNTAUY INFORMED 535

tant to look at the different ways people use the medium. The uses andgratifications approach posits that people use media to fulfill certaingoals, and different uses can lead to different effects.^ This is useful inlooking at the varieties of learning that come from Web use because,again, people have different goals when going orüine.^ For example, aprimary use of the Internet involves information seeking.^ This is in linewith research that has found the Internet is an outlet for active learning.*However, many Internet users also find pleasure in simply surfing,following links to xmknown destinations.^' Others núght use the Web tochat or play games. These are situations in which any current eventslearning that occurs is likely to be less than active.

There is some evidence that there is less current affairs learningfrom Web use than there is from the traditional media. For example,when a comparison was made between a print newspaper and theelectronic version of that newspaper, readers of the print versionscored better in a test of public affairs knowledge.''^ Moreover, there isa question of whether unintentional learning could occur on the Web asit does in the traditional media. It may be that relatively few Web usersgo online to browse through news sites as one might browse through anewspaper. Most Internet use is goal directed,'^ and acquiringcurrent affairs information is rarely a primary goal.^ Therefore, it wouldseem that incidental learning through use of the Web would not besigrüfícant.

However, there are reasons to believe that nonpurposive newscontact does occur on the World Wide Web, and more important, thisincidental nwvs exposure could positively influence leanüng aboutcurrent events. What may be happening for Web users is not so muchpassive learning of the variety Krugman^ and Zukin and Snyder* havedescribed but learrüng that proceeds from spontaneously generatedinterest. That is, interest may be piqued by a headline or by the merepresence of a list of news items. Graber has demonstrated that audienceinterests are an important component of the decision to read specificnewspaper articles.^^ We believe that the Web provides an importantnew route by which people are exposed to news. We believe audiencesmay see a number of news headlines in the course of their Web use. Onoccasion, their interest is aroused long enough for them to register aheadline and perhaps click cind read the accompanying story. In thisway, exposure to news occurs when people may have been using theWeb for reasons enfirely unrelated to informafion seeking.

Two factors are central to current patterns of incidental onlinenews exposure: the move by many Web sites from being simple searchengines to acting as iriformation services and the substantial popularityof these first-stop or portal sites. The portal sector of the Internet industrybelieves that transforming search engines and first-stop Web sites toinformation and/or personalized services is not orUy advantageous butis also necessary to remain competitive.^ On almost all portal Web sites(e.g.. Yahoo!, Lycos, and Excite), news of the day and/or breaking newsstories are displayed on the welcome page, the starting point for mostWeb activity. Users can elect to have news from additiorul categories,such as international news, political news, or sports, displayed as well.

536 ¡OUKNALBM&MASSCOUUBJMCJinONQUMtaB

While many Web sites are doing some version of this "infomating," theportal sites have made this a mainstay of their business strategy.^ Thisis significant because a number of these portal or first-stop services areamong the most popular sites on the Web. In fact, of the seven mostfrequently visited Internet properties for March 2001, four were prima-rily portal sites (e.g., Lycos) and two featured sites designed like portalsthat carried news of the day on the front page (e.g., MSN).*" These topseven sites were visited by 18 percent to 65 percent of the people whoused the Web that month, and people spent more than three times asmuch time on portal sites as they did on news sites.*'

The result of these developments is that users are increasinglylikely to encounter news items, even when searching the Web forspedfic non-news information. If a similar level of news saturationwas present in one's offline activities, it would be akin to comingacross news headlines posted on the front of a telephone book, on thefront door of the bookstore, or at the beginning of telephone conversa-tions. It would almost be as though television and radio audiencesreceived news headlines every time they tuned their receivers in searchof content. We may be overstating the case a bit, but the point is that formany people news seeking is not a core media habit. We believe thesepeople may encounter news more frequently on the Web than theywould offline.

The prevalence of news on the Web could increase the learning ofcurrent events issues through the repetitive nature of exposure. Repeti-tion of news stories in the traditional media increases knowledge ofthose issues.*^ Presumably, this same effect occurs when people areexposed to stories many times on the Web. Moreover, people typicallyuse the Web in conjimction with other media. A person may read themoming newspaper, use the Web at work, and then watch the localtelevision news in the evening. This allows for repetition of the storiesacross media. Because the Internet is often an addition to rather than areplacement of traditional media, we believe that Web use will increaseincidental learning about current events in part because of the comple-mentary nature of contemporary media.*^

Of course, before we can get to tin increase in learning coming froman increase in exposure to news headlines, it is necessary to look atwhether incidental exposure to news headlines is a function of Web use.We expect that the more time people spend on the Web, the more theyshould come across news. This should be the case even if they are notspecifically looking for news items. So, the first research hypothesis

'states,

HI: The frequency of Web use will be positively asso-ciated with incidental exposure to news on the Web.

Following the uses and gratifications approach, the goals peoplehave for surfing the Web could impact incidental exposure. Clearly, ifpeople are looking for particular current events information, they aremore likely to come across other news items. However, we are alsointerested in how other goals relate to incidental exposure.

537

RQl : Do different uses of the Web result in differencesin incidental exposure to news?

Assuming that Web users are incidentally exposed to news head-lines, our primary concern is whether this additional exposure to newshas an effect. Because of the repetition of news stories that Web usersexperience, and because relatively passive learning has been demon-strated in other media, we believe we will see incidental learning in thiscontext,

H2: Incidental exposure to news on the Web will bepositively associated with knowledge of current events.

Method Data useful for testing our expectations were available from thePew Research Center for the People and the Press, At irregular intervalsthe Pew Center conducts national surveys of media and communicationtechnology use by the American public. Surveys relevant to the presentresearch questions were taken in Autumn (21 through 31 October) 1996,Spring (24 April through 11 May) 1998, and Autumn (26 October through1 December) 1998, The first and third surveys were specifically focusedon Intemet use, while the second was more broadly concerned with newsmedia use. Identical or nearly identical question wording was used fora number of the variables of interest. However, there are cases in whichonly a subset of the items is available in any one survey. Taken together,however, they were adequate for the task at hand.

The data allowed us to examine both our central research hypoth-esis and to examine the potential antecedents of incidental news expo-sure. Perhaps the biggest challenge with testing our expectations withsurvey data was the measurement of the primary independent variable,incidental exposure to news on the Web. Included in all three surveyswere measures of current affairs knowledge and incidental exposure tonews while online,'" As one would expect, there is no ideal way tomeasure the latter concept in a survey context. The Pew data featured arelatively straight-forward question (see below), but it is likely that aretrospective assessment of one's own experiences may suffer from somelevel of unreliability. As an alternate approach, one could approximatethe likelihood of incidental news exposure with measures of respon-dents' overall time online minus their time online spent seeking news.That is, the conceptual definition of incidental news exposure is encoun-tering current affairs information while performing some other task. Thelikelihood of such exposure occurring should increase with use of theWeb with a goal unrelated to news seeking.

Where possible, we performed parallel tests of our incidentalexposure hypothesis. We used a dichotomous self-report of such occur-rences (a relatively direct measure) in some analyses and overall timeonline, controlling for online news seeking (a relatively indirect mea-sure), in others. While both measures undoubtedly carry some level oferror in tapping the concept that interests us, we hoped that a dual-pronged approach would help us overcome some of that error. In all tests

538

of our expectations, we attempted to control for factors that may haveproduced a spurious relationship between our independent variablesand current affairs knowledge. Thus, our multivariate analyses featuredmeasures of respondents' interest in politics and political news, theirgeneral news exposure patterns, their frequency of online news seeking,and demographic variables (e.g,, education, gender, and income) thatmay be associated with political knowledge acquisition.^'

Samples. The 1996 survey was a telephone re-interview of 1,003adult respondents who had reported Internet use in previous Pew Centerstudies and a small random sample of those who had reported owner-ship of a computer but no Internet use. Both 1998 surveys were con-ducted for the Pew Center by Princeton Survey Research Associates. TheSpring data were from a national random-digit (RD) sample of 3,002adults. Only a subset of respondents («=1,192) reported use of theInternet, of course. All analyses of these data were limited to that subset.The Autumn data were drawn from a national RD telephone survey of3,184 adults. This dataset included an oversample of Internet users.There are 1,993 respondents available for the present analyses/**

Current Affairs Knowledge. Each of the Pew Center surveys con-tained a handful of current affairs questions. Question wording for theseand other measures is given in the Appendix. The 1996 survey measuredrespondents' knowledge of two elements of the presidential campaign ofthat year, candidates' positions on tax cuts, and the owner of the phrase"bridge to the future." Another question assessed awareness of whichpolitical party controlled the U.S. House of Representatives. Responsesto these items were recoded (correct = 1, all others = 0) and sununed toform an index of public affairs awareness (M = 2.16; SD = .92).

There were three questions available in the Spring 1998 survey, buttwo of them had to be discarded. The first was an item that askedrespondents whether high cholesterol is generally considered to be bador good for one's health. Ninety-six percent of respondents answeredthis correctly, so it was not particularly diagnostic of differences inknowledge level. The other item concerned the direction of weatherpattern movement in the United States, This question did not appear totap the desired concept in this case. The question retained for analysisasked for the identity of the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.Sixty-four percent of respondents correctly answered this nominal mea-sure of knowledge (correct = 1, all others = 0).

Finally, the Autumn 1998 survey included three relevant ques-tions: Items about the federal government's antitrust case againstMicrosoft, the identity of the party in control of the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the names of countries who had recently explodednuclear devices. Correct responses to the third item were India, Pakistan,or both. Respondents who answered with one were scored with a .5,those who gave both received a 1, and those who could provide neitherwere given a 0. This item was added to the others (both recoded as 1 =correct and 0 = all other responses). The mean score on this index was 1.77(SD = .98). The survey also included an item about the meaning of the"org" suffix in Internet addresses. However, this question did not tapcurrent affairs knowledge so it was discarded.

539

Incidental Online News Exposure. Unintentional exposure toWeb-based news was assessed with a simple yes/no question in all threesurveys (see Appendix for wording). Responses were recoded (yes = 1,no = 0). In each of the surveys, about half of the sampled Internet usenresponded in the affirmative (53% in 1996; 55% and 49% in Spring andAutumn 1998, respectively).

Frequency of General and News-Oriented Use. Overall onlineexposure and use with the goal of news reading were assessed withparallel questions in the 1996 and Autumn 1998 surveys (seeAppendix for wording). Only the latter was measured in the Spring 1998study. All responses were given on a 6-point scale (every day, 3 to 5 daysper week, 1 or 2 days per week, once every few weeks, less often, ornever). These responses were recoded to more closely resemble aninterval level scale by assigning the values of every day = 7,3 to 5 daysper week = 4,1 or 2 days per week = 1.5, once every few weeks = .5, lessoften = .05, and never = 0. The mean response for overall online usefrequency in both surveys was almost 4 days (M = 3.58 in 1996,3.73 inAutumn 1998; SDs = 2.46 and 2.54, respectively). Naturally, the meanresponses for online news use were subsets of these levels (Ms = 1.50 and1.52, SDs = 2.10 and 2.27, respectively; M = 2.37 and SD = 2.61 in theSpring 1998 survey).

Online Activities. In the 1996 and Autumn 1998 surveys, a batteryof questioris measured the genercd character of respondents' activities onthe Web. Four items were included in both studies: commimicating withothers, obtaining financial information or trading securities, gettingnews, and obtaining entertainment-oriented content (see Appendix forwording).*^ The 1996 survey also included a measure of going online toobtain work-related information. This question was included in theAutumn 1998 survey, but it was administered to only half of the respon-dents. Its inclusion in those analyses would have dramatically reducedthe available sample size, and so it was discarded. A final question askedof all respondents in Autumn 1998 dealt with going online to gethealth or medical information. Responses to all of the items were givenon a 6-point frequency scale, subsequently recoded as described above.Information seeking for work turned out to be the most frequent activityin 1996 (M = 1.86 days per week, SD = 2.25) and obtaining entertainment-related information was the least frequent (M = .84, SD = 1.40). Newsseeking, a close second in 1996, was the most frequent activity in Autumn1998 (M = 1.45, SD = 2.17) and obtaining health-related information wasthe least firequent (M = .50, SD = 1.22).

interest in Politics and News. The surveys did not contain aconsistent measure of interest in politics. An item in the 1996 study askedrespondents about their level of interest in politics, and a question inSpring 1998 asked how much they generally kept up with the news. Anitem Üiat used the traditional National Election Studies assessment offollowing politics appeared in the Autumn 1998 study. Responses to allthree questions were given on 4-point ordirud scales (scored 1 to 4; seeAppendix for wording) recoded so that higher scores indicated greaterinterest in news and politics. For the purposes of the analyses reportedhere, they were taken to approximate interval-level scales. The mean for

540

the 1996 question was 1.94 (SD = .81). For the Spring 1998 item it was 3.36(SD = .75), and in the Autumn it was 3.24 (SD = .94).

News Exposure. Participants' newspaper and television newsexposure were assessed with two-part questions. The first was a filterthat asked whether respondents had read the previous day's paper orwatched television news the day before the study. Those answering yeswere probed for the number of minutes they spent reading or watching.The duration values were used in the present analyses with respondentsreporting no exposure the previous day receiving a value of 0. Radionews exposiire was assessed with one question with no-listening givenas one of the response options (recoded to zero here). All three durationquestior\s were recoded from an ordinal scale to a form more closelyapproximating an interval measure (less than 15 minutes = 7.5, 15-29minutes = 22,30-59 minutes = 44, and 1 hour or more = 60).

Demographics. Included in each of the surveys were gender(coded female = 1, male = 0 here) and age. The proportion of females inthe samples increased from 39% in 1996 to 46% in Spring 1998 and 50%later that year. Mean ages were 38 in 1996 and Spring 1998 and 39 inAutumn 1998. Also included in all three surveys were measures ofeducation and income (see Appendix for question wording). As isusually the case, the income variable had a substantial portion of missingdata, presumably due to refusals. The mean education level in 1996 wascollege graduate; in the later surveys it was "some college, no 4-yeardegree. " The median income level in 1996 and Autumn 1998 (the Internetuser samples) was $50,000 to under $75,000. In Spring 1998 it was $40,000to under $50,000.

Predicting Accidental Exposure. On an operational level, the firsthypothesis states that overall exposure to the Web should be positivelyassociated with self-reports of incidental exposure to news there. Datafor testing that expectation were available in the 1996 survey and theAutumn 1998 study. On a bivariate level, there is rrüxed support for thehypothesis. A measure of nominal-by-interval association (TI) shows noreal relationship between online use frequency and the nomii\al measureof incidental exposure in 1996 (r|= .03). However, the association inAutumn 1998 is significant (i\ = .16).** In an effort to remove the effectsof tíürd factors, we performed logistic regressions in which incidentalexposure was the dependent variable and demographic factors and the

.Web activity items were independent variables. The results are showmin Table 1. The logistic regression coefficients for overall Web usesupport the bivariate findii»gs. In 1996, there is no meaningful associa-tion but in 1998 there is. In summary then, there is orüy mixed supportfor the first hypothesis.

The data in Table 1 address our research question, as well. Theissue here is whether we can identify the Web activities associated withself-reported incidental news exf>osure. In both cases, we find that,controlling for the overall number of days respondents go online and forthe frequency of selected other activities, seeking current events ir\f orma-tion increases the likelihood of incidental exposure. In the 1996 study.

541

TABLE 1Likelihood of Reporting Accidental News Exposure

Demographic Variables

Female

Age

Education

Income

Autumn 1996

-.30 (.17)

-.03 (.Ol)»"

-.00 (.07)

.06 (.05)

Autumn 1998

-.14 (.11)

-.02 (.00)*

.07 (.04)

.02 (.03)

Overall Online Frequency -.02 (.04) .09 (.02)*»»

Online Activities

Communicate with Others .08 (.05)

Get Financial Information .07 (.04)

Get Information for Job -.12 (.04)»»

Get Current Events News .16 (.04)»»

Get Entertainment Information ,02 (.06)

Get Health/Medical Information —

-.00 (.03)

-.02 (.03)

.19 (.03)»»»

.04 (.03)

.05 (.05)

Constant

Model Chi-SquareN

1.04 (.45)»

48,74»»»731

-.21 (.26)

128.38»1,604

Note: Dependent variable is self-reported occurrence of incidental online news exptosure (yes = 1, no= 0). Female is coded 0 = male, 1 = female. Cell entries are logistic regression coefficients. Entriesin pctrentheses are standard errors.

using the Internet to obtain infonñation for one's job was also a predictor,but this activity tended to reduce the likelihood of accidental exposure.While a number of tiie other activities exhibit bivariate associations withincidental exposure (e.g., in the 1996 data, commimicating with others,getting entertainment information, and getting financial informationwere positively correlated with incidental exposure, all rs = .11, ps < .01),these relatior\ships washed out in the regression analyses. In summary,the situation is much as one might expect: Those who tend to look fornews orrline are the ones who tend to come across it by accident as well.

542

TABLE 2Antecedents of Current Affairs Knowledge

Autumn 1996 Spring 1998 Autunm 1998

Demographic Variables

Female

Age

Education

Income

-.29 (.Oó)»"

.00 (.00)

.11 (.03)*»»

.05 (.02)*»

-.27 (.06)"*

.00 (.00)

.11 (.02)»"

.05 (.02)"

-.52 (.20)» -.42 (.04)»« -.43 (.04)"*

.01 (.01) .01 (.OO)"» .01 (.00)»»»

.25 (.07)»*» .15 (.02)»»» .16 (.02)»»»

.09 (.05) .04 (.01)»» .04 (.01)»»»

Interest in politics/news .32 (.04)»»» .35 (.04)»» ,38 (.15)» .28 (.02)»»» .28 (.03)»»»

News Media Expœure

Newspaper -.00 (.00) -.00 (.00) .01 (.01) .00 (.00) ,00 (.00)

Radio News .00 (.00) .00 (.00) .00 (.00) .00 (.00) .00 (.00)»»

Television News .00 (.00) .00 (.00) -.00 (.00) -.00 (.00) -.00 (.00)

Online News .03 (.02)» .01 (.01) -.05 (.04) -.02 (.01) .03 (.01)»»

Overall Online Frequency -.03 (.01)* .04 (.01)»»» —

Incidental Exposure to News — .04 (.06) .38 (.22) — ,14 (.04)»»

Constant .64 (.17)»

R-squared / Chi-square .20»»»N 733

.46 (.16)»» -2.71 (.59)»»» -.50 (,11)»»» -.52 (.11)»

.22»»» 59.76»»»863 516

.36»»»1,591

.35»»»1,585

Note: Cell entries for Autumn 1998 and 1996 are unstandardized OLS regression coefficients. Cellentries for Spring 1998 are logistic regression coefficients. All entries in parentheses are standard errors.

. Interest in politics/news question wording varies by survey. See appendix for wording. Female iscoded 0 = male, 1 = female; incidental exposure to news online is coded 0 = no, 1 = yes.

It appears that accidental news exposure might be happening, in part,among those already oriented toward news. This highlights thenecessity for our analyses of the second hypothesis to include adequatecontrols for news consumption behaviors. Finally, of the demographicfactors, only age exerted a significant independent influence such

AcanomuybiFaaiED 543

that older respondents were less likely to report incidental news expo-sure.

Incidental Exposure and Current Affairs Knowledge. The secondhypothesis states that incidental exposure to online news will have apositive association with current affairs knowledge. The bivariate rela-tionships between current affairs knowledge and self-reports of inciden-tal exposure show an inconsistent pattern. In Spring 1996, the twovariables appeared unrelated (r\ = ,04), However, in both of the 1998studies, there is a significant positive relationship (x^(l, 578) = 6.97,p< .01in Spring 1998; TI = .14 in Autumn 1998)."'

Table 2 presents the results of our multivariate analyses. TheAutumn 1996 and 1998 sets of columns present the results of OLSregressions of current affairs knowledge indices on demographic andother control factors. Because we had two indicators of incidentalexposure (overall frequency of online use and self-reports of exposure),there are two equations for each survey. The Spring 1998 study featuredonly one usable knowledge question, so the third column reports theresults of a logistic regression of that dichotomous item on the anteced-ents. Also, because an overall measure of Web use frequency was notavailable in that survey, only one set of results is reported.

Across the board, the measures of demographics and a generalinterest in politics were significant predictors of current affairs aware-ness. Males were more likely to correctly answer the questions, as werethose with higher education and income. In Autumn 1998, age alsoemerged as a positive predictor of knowledge. Much as one wouldexpect, interest in news and politics—as it was variously measured—was a consistent positive predictor of knowledge. Surprisingly, expo-sure to both traditional and orüine news outlets exhibited little effect inthese data. They were all moderately associated with current affairsknowledge on a bivariate level (rs and ris typically in the .05 to ,15 rangein all three surveys); however, their effects were washed out by the othervariables in the equations.

The key test for the second hypothesis was whether the indirectand direct indicators of incidental exposure would predict current affairsknowledge once other factors were controlled. There are some interest-ing results here. First, it is clear that the 1996 and 1998 data behave verydifferently from one another. In 1996, the direct measure of incidentalexposure failed to exert an influence on knowledge. The coefficient foroverall frequency of use is significant, but its sign is opposite whatwas expected. Thus, with frequency of orüine news use controlled,additional online activity was associated with lower current affairsknowledge. In Spring 1998, with only the self-report of incidentalexposure and one knowledge item available, the association betweenthem is marginally significant (p=.O8). This is closer to what wasexpected. The final survey exhibits relationships that fall in line withexpectations. Both overall time online and self-reported incidentalexposure to news emerge as positive predictors of current affairs knowl-edge. To be sure, the effect they are exerting is not large (the standardizedcoefficient for the self-report measure is .07), but it is equivalent to thatobserved for intentional online news seeking (its beta is also .07). Thus,

544

above and beyond the effects of relevant demographic variables, othernews media exposure, and a general tendency to follow politics, our twoindicators of incidental exposure to online news exert a significant,though small, positive influence on current affairs knowledge in the late1998 sample.

The results of our analyses offer some evidence that incidental Lftscusstonexposure to news while using the Web is a phenomenon worthy offurther investigation. As expected, the more frequently people wentonline in 1998, the more likely they were to report unintentional newsexposure. Much as one might expect, the tendency to report this sort ofexposure was positively associated with users' news-seeking activity.We had asked whether other Web use goals might emerge as correlatesof incidental exposure, but none was a significant predictor in themultivariate tests. We found in these three sur\ eys that approximatelyhalf of all respondents reported incidental news exposure. Those whodid tended to be a bit younger and more likely to go online for newsgathering than were other users.

More important, we find some evidence that unintentional expo-sure can lead to greater knowledge of current affairs. To be sure, thepicture is mixed, but there are some reasons to conclude that thishypothesis has support. We did not find any level of association betweenself-reported incidental exposure and current affairs recall in 1996.Additionally, the indirect measure of incidental exposure exhibited asigrüficant negative relationship in that study. In Spring 1998, therelatioriship was in the predicted direction but was only marginallysigruficant. The Autumn 1998 analyses revealed a consistent, positiveassociation of incidental exposure (measured two ways) with recall. Thetask now lies in explaining this pattern.

There are a number of possible explanations for the surprisingfindings in 1996 and the positive findings in late 1998. The first possibilityis that the nature of the samples was meaningfully different in thesesurveys. The three surveys used here contained only people withInternet access, of course. It is possible that the population of Internetusers changed sufficiently over the intervening two years for a differentset of behaviors and effects to have been present. It is clear that the sizeof the Internet audience increased dramatically in that period, climbingfrom 23 percent of the American population to 41 percent and becamedemographically more like the general populace.™ As the samplesbecame more representative of everyday Americans, it could be thattheir habits, in the aggregate, changed in the manner exhibited in thesedata. This may account for the null findings in 1996 and the positiveresults in 1998 for both of our hypotheses.

A second possibility is that some of the pattern we see across thesesurveys is the result of measurement error. Certainly, the Spring 1998data are suspect in this regard. There is only one measure of currentaffairs knowledge (a norrunal recall item), and there is only one indicatorof incidental news exposure. Although the association between themwas as predicted in both bivariate and mulfivariate settings, the signifi-

545

canee level of the latter was only marginal. The measurement errorexplanation may be able to account for part of the difference in findingsbetween 1996 and late 1998, but this alone may not fully explain thedisparity,

A third explanation is that the online environment was verydifferent in 1996 than it was in 1998, From this line of reasoning, theopportunity for incidental exposure was much greater in 1998 than twoyears earlier. There is some evidence in support of this explanation. Webelieve a substantial portion of incidental exposure occurs as people aregoing about their everyday activities on the Web, As the "portal" concepttook off in 1997 and 1998,̂ ' the inclusion of news headlines became animportant content feature designed to keep Web users from straying toofar away,''̂ Thus, while many important news outlets (e,g,, CNN and theNew York Times) had a substantial Web presence in 1996, users at the timewere less likely to encounter news on other popular sites than they weretwo years later. The presence of an association between the incidentalexposure measure and frequency of use in 1998 but not in 1996 offerssome support for that explanation. Although people reported incidentalnews exposure just as frequently in 1996 as in 1998, it may be thatrespondents in 1996 were thinking of only occasional exposure and thosetwo years later were thinking of frequent exposure. In other words,despite coming across news less frequently, people in 1996 were still ableto answer the exposure question in the affirmative. Their relativelyinfrequent exposure meant that they were unlikely to incidentally ac-quire current affairs information in any meaningful sense. Our indirectmeasure of incidental exposure (i,e,, online use frequency, controlling fornews exposure) also failed as a predictor of knowledge in 1996 becausethe paucity of news on non-news sites meant that a measurable acquisi-tion of information was likely fo occur only through purposeful newsseeking. As a result of these factors, we failed to find the expected linkbetween knowledge and our independent variables in 1996, By 1998 thesituation had changed, and our indicators of incidental exposure emergedas reliable, positive predictors.

Among the limitations of this study is the lack of more recent data.The Pew Center omitted the incidental exposure question and overall usefrequency measure in its next general Internet study,^' and we have notfound a replacement source for these data, We also would have preferredbetter measures of current affairs knowledge. In the best of the availableindices (Autumn 1998), there were only three questions. Also lacking isa more precise measure of accidental news exposure. Given the naturalconstraints of survey research, conducting an experiment ought to be abetter approach. Future research may want to head in that direction.

Another important limitation lies with the relatively small effectsizes here. The two indicators of incidental news exposure each ac-counted for only about 1 percent of the variance of the dependentvariable in Autumn 1998, Thus, while the impact of incidental exposureis statistically significant, we do not have evidence that it is substantial.Of course, the less than ideal measurements of knowledge and incidentalexposure may be partly responsible here. It may be that some level ofrandom error has obscured the impact of incidental exposure. Unfortu-

546

nately, we cannot be sure. Finally, we would have liked a generalmeasure of political knowledge, one that contains background ratherthan current affairs knowledge. Prior research has demonstrated that theknowledgeable are the ones most likely to acquire new information fromthe media.** We would certainly be interested in how that operated in thecontext of incidental exposure.

In many ways, the idealized citizen is one who lives for the bodypolitic. He or she continually monitors the information envirorunent,sifts through the available news, talks to family and friends, and providesinput to the political system.^ It is unlikely that many such citizer\s existin a modem democracy. Rather, there is likely great variance in politicaland informational involvement in any population. There are those whoactively seek current affairs information, but a great many probably seeit as merely a greater or lessor piece of their overall media diet. For thisgroup of people, incidental exposure to the news may be an importantavenue for acquiring information. Indeed, we found in late 1998 that 41percent of Internet users who claim to follow govemment and publicaffairs "most of the time" reported incidental news exposure butamong those who claim to follow it "hardly at all," 51 percent reportedit (Í 11,167] = 2.35, p < .05).

In other words, the World Wide Web of today may provide a publicspace where a broad cross section of the population encounters news notpurposively but accidentally while going about daily business. Cer-tainly this has been possible and maybe even frequent with the tradi-tional media. However, the convergence of such a disparate range ofactivities on this one medium means that the Web provides the infra-structure for a much wider dissemination of breaking news headlines.For this reason, perhaps more than for many hyperbolic claims one hears,the Web may be a positive force in American politics.

Appendix and Notes follow.

547

Current AffairsKnowledge

APPENDIXQuestion Wording

Autumn * As far as you know, which presidential candidate1996 calls for a 15 percent across-the-bocird income tax cut

and a 50 percent cut in the capital gains tax? Is it BillClinton, Bob Dole, or Ross Perot?

* Do you happen to know which political party has amajority in the U.S. House of Representatives?

» Do you happen to know which candidate has usedthe phrase "bridge to the future"? Is it Bill Clinton,Bob Dole, or Ross Perot?

Spring Who is the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representa-1998 tives?

Autumn » Do you happen to know which computer software1998 company is involved in an anti-trust dispute with the

Justice Department?

* Do you happen to know which political party has amajority in the U.S. House of Representatives?

* Can you name any of the countries that recentlyexploded nuclear weapons? If respondent named one,interviewer probed once. Can you name any others?Responses were coded as India, Pakistan, some othercountry, or don't know/refused.

Incidental Online AutumnNews Exposure 1996

Spring &Autuumn

1998

When you go on-line, are you ever exposed to newsand information on current events, public issues, orpolitics when you may have been going on-line for apurpose other than to get the news?

When you go online, do you ever encounter or comeacross news and infonnation on current events, publicissues, or politics when you may have tieen goingonline for a purpose other than to get the news?

Overall online Autumn How often do you go on-line to (Intemet provider)frequency 1996 every day, 3 to 5 days per week, 1 or 2 days per week,

once every few weeks, less often, or never?

Autumn How often do you go online... every day, 3 to 5 days1998 per week, 1 or 2 days per week, once every few weeks,

or less often?

Online news use Autumn First, how often do you go on-line to get news and

548 /oumwsM fir JMASS CcMMiNCQXw QuiuncMy

Online Activities

1996 information on current events, public issues or politics,everyday.. .3-5 days per week, 1 or 2 days per week,once every few weeks, less often, or never?

Spring & How frequently do you go online to get news... wouldAutumn you say every day, 3 to 5 days per week, 1 or 2 days

1998 per week, once every few weeks, or less often?

Autumn How often do you go on-line to (activity) everyday, 3-51996 & days per week, 1 or 2 days per week, once every few1998 weeks, less often, or never?

* Communicate with other people through onlineforums, discussion lists, or chat groups

* Get financial information such as stock quotes orcorporate information or to buy stocks or bonds?

* Get news and information on current events, publicissues or politics

* Get information about hobbies, movies, restaurants orother entertairunent-related activities

Interest inPolitics/News

Autumn1996

Autimm1998

Autumn1996

Spring1998

Autumn1998

Newspaper, AutumnTelevision, and 1996;Radio Exposure Spring &

Autumn1998

• Look for information for your work or job

* Get health or medical information

Generally speaking, how much interest wovild you sayyou have in politics: a great deal, a fair amount, only alittle, or no interest at all?

How much do you enjoy keeping up with the news? Alot, some, not much, or not at all?

Some people seem to follow what's going on ingovernment and public affairs most of the time,whether there's an election or not. Others aren't thatinterested. Would you say you follow what's going onin government and public affairs most of the time,some of the time, only now and then, or hardly at all?

* Did you get a chance to read a daily newspaperyesterday, or not? If yes: About how much time didyou spend reading a daily newspaper yesterday?Responses categorized by interviewer as less than 15min., 15-29 min., 30-59 min., 1 hour or more, or don't

Appendix A cont. next page

AoaoammbaoiiMCD 549

Appendix A cont.

Educafion

Income

know/refused.

* Did you watch the news or a news program ontelevision yesterday, or not? If yes: About how muchtime did you spend watching the news or any newsprograms on TV yesterday? Responses recorded asabove.

* About how much time, if any, did you spendlistening to any news on the radio yesterday, or didn'tyou happen to listen to the news on the radio yesterday? Responses categorized by interviewer as less than 15min., 15-29 min., 30-59 min., 1 hour or more, didn'tlisten, or don't know/refused.

Autumn What is the last grade or class that you completed in1996; school? Responses categorized as none, grade 1 - 8;

Spring & high school incomplete (Grades 9-11); high schoolAutumn graduate (Grade 12 or GED certificate); business,

1998 technical or vocational school after high school; somecollege, no 4-year degree; college graduate (B.S., B.A.,or other 4-year degree); post-graduate training orprofessional schooling after college; or don't know/refused.

Autumn . Last year, that is in (prior tax year), what was your1996; total family income from all sources, before taxes? Just

Spring & stop me when I get to the right category. Less thanAutumn $10,000, $10,(KX) to under $20,000, $20,000 to imder

1998 $30,000, $30,000 to under $40,000, $40,000 to under$50,000, $50,000 to vmder $75,000, $75,000 to imder$100,000, $100,000 or more?

550

NOTES

1. John Stuart Mill, "Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion," inUtilitarianism, On Liberty, and Considerations ofRepresentative Government,ed. Harry Acton (London: J.M. Dent, [1859] 1972).

2. For a different perspective, see Michael Schudson, The GoodCitizen: A History of American Civic Life (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Urü-versity Press, 1998).

3. Harold D. Uisswell, "The Structure and Function of Commimi-cation in Society," in Mass Communications, ed. Wilbur Schramm (Ur-bana, IL: Umversity of Illinois Press, 1960), 117-30.

4. For reviews see Doris Graber, Mass Media and American Politics,5th ed. (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1997); StevenH. Chaffee and Stacey F. Kanihan, "Learning About Politics from theMass Media," Political Communication 14 (October-December 1997): 421-30.

5. For examples see Charles Atkin, "Instrumental Utilities andInformation Seeking," in New Models for Mass Communication Research,ed. Peter Clark (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1973); Mark R. Levy and SvenWindahl, "Audience Activity and Gratifications: A Conceptual Clarifi-cation and Exploration," Communication Research 11 (January 1984): 51-78.

6. Pew Research Center, 77K Internet News Audience Goes Ordinary:Online Newcomers More Middle-Brow, Less Work-Oriented (Washington,DC: Author, 1999).

7. Atkin, "Instrumental Utilities and Informafion Seeking"; Rich-ard C. Vincent and Michael D. Basil, "College Students' News Gratifica-tions, Media Use, and Current Events Knowledge," Journal of Broadcast-ing & Electronic Media 41 (summer 1997): 380-92.

8. Michael Gurevitch and Jay G. Blumler, "Political Commimica-tion Systems and Democratic Values," in Democracy and the Mass Media,ed. Judith Lichtenberg (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press,1990), 269-89; Lasswell, "The Structure and Function of Commurücationin Society," 117-30.

9. Dan Berkowitz and David Pritchard, "Political Knowledge andCommunication Resources," Journalism Quarterly 66 (autumn 1989): 697-701; Hugh M. Culbertson and Guido H. Stempel HI, "How Media Useand Reliance Affect Knowledge Level," Communication Research 13 (Oc-tober 1986): 579-602.

10. John P. Robir\son and Mark R. Levy, "News Media Use and theInformed Public: A 199O's Update," Journal cf Communication 46 (spring1996): 129-35.

11. Jay G. Blumler and E>erüs McQuail, Television and Politics: Its Usesand Influences (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1969).

12. Herbert E. Krugman and Eugene L. Hartley, "Passive LearningThrough Television," Public Opinion Quarterly 34 (summer 1970), 184-90.

13. Cliff Zukin and Robin Snyder, "Passive Learning: When theMedia Environment is the Message," Public Opinion Quarterly 48 (au-tumn 1984): 629-38.

14. John P. Robinson and Mark R. Levy, The Main Source: Learning

551

from Television News (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1986).15. C. Edward Wilson, "The Effect of Medium on Loss of Informa-

tion," Journalism Quarterly 51 (spring 1974): 115; W. Russell Neuman,"Patterns of Recall Among Television News Viewers," Public OpinionQuarterly 40 (spring 1976): 115-23.

16. Doris Graber, Processing the News: How People Tame the InformationTide, 2d ed. (New York, NY: Longman, 1988).

17. Robert H. Wicks, "Improvement Over Time in Recall of MediaInformation: An Exploratory Study," Journal of Broadcasting & ElectronicMedia 36 (summer 1992): 287-302.

18. Chaffee and Kanihan, "Learning About Politics"; Berkowitz andPritchard, "Political Knowledge."

19. Robinson and Levy, "News Media Use."20. Zukin and Snyder, "Passive Learning."21. Mickie Edwardson, Kurt Kent, and Maeve McConnell, "Televi-

sion News Information Gain: Videotex Versus a Talking Head," Journalof Broadcasting & Electronic Media 29 (fall 1985): 367-7%) Doris Graber,"Seeing is Remembering: How Visuals Contribute to Learning fromTelevision News," Journal of Communication 40 (summer 1990): 134-55.

22. See, for example, Alan Booth, "The Recall of News Items," PublicOpinion Quarterly 34 (winter 1970-1971): 604-10.

23. Melvin L. DeFleur, Lucinda Davenport, Mary Cronin, and Mar-garet DeFleur, "Audience Recall of News Stories Presented by Newspa-per, Computer, Television, and Radio," Journalism Quarterly 69 (winter1992): 1010-22.

24. Christopher Harper, "The Daily Me," American Journalism Review19 (April 1997): 41-44.

25. Thomas J. Jolmson, Mahmoud A. M. Braima, and JayanÜüSothirajah, "Doing the Traditional Media Sidestep: Comparing the Ef-fects of the Intemet and Other Nontraditioruil Media with TraditionalMedia in the 1996 Presidential Campaign," Journalism & Mass Communi-cation Quarterly 76 (spring 1999): 99-123.

26. Andrew Kohut, "Intemet Users are on the Rise; but Public AffairsInterest Isn't," Columbia Journalism Review 38 Qanuary/February 2000):68^9.

27. Elihu Katz, Jay G. Blumler, and Micheal Gurevitch, "Utilizationof Mass Communication by the Individual," in The Uses of Mass Commu-nications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research, ed. Jay G. Blumlerand Elihu Katz (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1974), 19-32.

28. Douglas A. Ferguson and Elizabeth M. Perse, "The World WideWeb as a Fimctional Alternative to Television," Journal cfBroadcastingandElectronic Media 44 (spring 2000): 155-74; Andrew Flanigan and MiriamJ. Metzger, "Intemet Use in the Contemporary Media Environment,"HMmflKCow?MM«ica//onRcsearc/i27(January2001):153-81;ZiziPapacharissiand Alan M. Rubin, "Predictors of Intemet Use," Journal of Broadcastingand Electronic Media 44 (spring 2000): 175-96.

29. Papacharissi and Rubin, "Predictors of Intemet Use." It isimportant to note that Intemet use is not necessarily the same as WorldWide Web use. Web content, after all, is merely a subset of Intemettraffic.

552 JouRíMLBM if MASS CCMMUMOOION QuAiemx

30. See, for example, Kohut, "Intemet Users are on the Rise."31. "Study Reveals Web as Loosely Woven," New York Times, 18 May

2(K)0,sec.G,p. 8,col. 1.32. David Tewksbury and Scott L. Althaus, "Differences in Knowl-

edge Acquisition Among Readers of the Paper and Online Versions of aNational Newspaper," Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 77(autumn 2000): 457-79.

33. Kohut, "Intemet Users are on the Rise."34. Ferguson and Perse, "The World Wide Web as a Functional

Alternative."35. Herbert E. Krugman, "The Impact of Television Advertising:

Learning Without Involvement," Public Opinion Quarterly 29 (autumn1965): 349-56.

36. Zukin and Snyder, "Passive Learning."37. Grat>er, Processing the News.38. Matthew Broersma, "Net Giants Battle for Portal Dominance,"

ZDNN (Online): available at http://www.zdnet.com/zdrm/stories/news, accessed July 1999; Matthew Broersma, "You've Got E-Mail!Portals Himgry for Piece of Growing E-Commerce Pie," ZDNN (Online):available at h t tp : / /www.zdnet .com/zdnn/s tor ies /news/0,4586,2163823,00.html; accessed July 1999.

39. Broersma, "Net Giants Battle.'40. Nielson//Net Ratings, "Monthly Top Ten Properties"

(Online): Available at http://209.249.142.27/nnpm/owa/Nrpublicreports.toppropertiesmonthly, accessed May 2001.

41. Nielson//Net Ratings, "Monthly Top Ten, Properties"; MediaMetrix, "Top 10 Stickiest sites in November 2000; Average MinutesSpent Per Usage Month," (Online): available at h t t p : / /us.mediametrix.com/data/metrixcentral.jsp; accessed May 2001.

42. Graber, Processing the News; Wicks, "Improvement Over Time."43. Scott L. Althaus and David Tewksbury, "Patterns of Intemet and

Traditional News Media Use in a Networked Conunimity," PoliticalCommunication 17 (January-March 2000): 21-45.

44. Given that the Intemet and the World Wide Web are not entirelysynonymous, it is important to note that the Pew Center surveys gener-ally asked respondents about things they do when they "go online" (seeAppendix for question wording). It is unlikely that many Americans areaware of the differences between using the Intemet and the Web, so thePew Center may have used "going online" as a simple umbrella term.Because of popular ambiguity of the terminology, we believe there is anadequate, though not perfect, fit between Web use patterns and the PewCenter measures.

45. Robinson and Lev^, "News Media Use."46. The Pew Center provides a demographic weighting variable

with each of its data sets. Such a variable can be useful for descriptiveanalyses. However, application of the weight to the data dramaticallyincreases the apparent size of each sample, which can seriously affect thesignificance levels of regression coefficients. Consequently, Û\e weight-ing factor will not be applied in the analyses reported here.

47. In the 1996 survey, the news gathering question is the same item

AcoDO/awr baautieD 5 5 3

described above as online news use.48. For nominal-by-interval analyses of this sort, eta is equivalent to

a Pearson product moment correlation. Although etas do not carry asignificance level, a correlation of this magnitude for a sample of this sizewould be significant at the .001 level.

49. The self-report item was the only incidental exposure measureappropriate for these bivariate analyses. Overall online use frequencyshould be a measure of incidental exposure only after the removal ofvariance shared with online news seeking. Multivariate tests will waitfor the analyses that follow.

50. Pew Research Center, The Intemet News Audience.51. Broersma, "Net Giants Battle."52. America Online, the most frequently visited Web site on the

Intemet (Nielsen/ /NetRatings, "Monthly Top Ten Properties"), did notpost news headlines to its home page imtil after the 1996 general electionJohn W. Mashek, Lawrence T. McGill, and Adam Clayton PoweU m.Lethargy '96: How the Media Covered a Listless Campaign [Arlington, VA:The Freedom Forum, 1997]).

53. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Investors NowGo Online for Quotes, Advice; Intemet Sapping Broadcast News Audience(Washington, DC: Author, 2000).

54. Vincent Price and John Zaller, "Who Gets the News? AlternativeMeasures of News Reception and Their Implications for Research,"Public Opinion Quarterly 57 (summer 1993): 133-64.

55. Bemard Berelson, "Democratic Theory and Public Opinion,"Public OpinionjQuarterly 16 (autumn 1952): 313-30.

554

Copyright of Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly is the property of Association for Education in

Journalism & Mass Communication and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a

listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or

email articles for individual use.