Nir, Lilach 2017. Social Representations, News Exposure, and Knowledge Gaps. Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 98, Issue. 3, p. 786.
Allen, Henry Connolly, Sara and Hargreaves Heap, Shaun P. 2017. Media pluralism: What matters for governance and regulation?. Journal of Media Economics, Vol. 30, Issue. 2, p. 47.
Strömbäck, Jesper 2017. Does Public Service TV and the Intensity of the Political Information Environment Matter?. Journalism Studies, Vol. 18, Issue. 11, p. 1415.
Goidel, Kirby Gaddie, Keith and Ehrl, Marco 2017. Watching the News and Support for Democracy: Why Media Systems Matter. Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 98, Issue. 3, p. 836.
Van Aelst, Peter Strömbäck, Jesper Aalberg, Toril Esser, Frank de Vreese, Claes Matthes, Jörg Hopmann, David Salgado, Susana Hubé, Nicolas Stępińska, Agnieszka Papathanassopoulos, Stylianos Berganza, Rosa Legnante, Guido Reinemann, Carsten Sheafer, Tamir and Stanyer, James 2017. Political communication in a high-choice media environment: a challenge for democracy?. Annals of the International Communication Association, Vol. 41, Issue. 1, p. 3.
Banducci, Susan Giebler, Heiko and Kritzinger, Sylvia 2017. Knowing More from Less: How the Information Environment Increases Knowledge of Party Positions. British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 47, Issue. 03, p. 571.
Ihara, Saori and Yazaki, Yukihiro 2017. Determinants of Public Service Broadcasting Size. Economics of Governance, Vol. 18, Issue. 2, p. 129.
Kruikemeier, Sanne and Shehata, Adam 2017. News Media Use and Political Engagement Among Adolescents: An Analysis of Virtuous Circles Using Panel Data. Political Communication, Vol. 34, Issue. 2, p. 221.
Wlezien, Christopher Soroka, Stuart and Stecula, Dominik 2017. A Cross-National Analysis of the Causes and Consequences of Economic News. Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 98, Issue. 3, p. 1010.
Lecheler, Sophie and de Vreese, Claes H. 2017. News Media, Knowledge, and Political Interest: Evidence of a Dual Role From a Field Experiment. Journal of Communication, Vol. 67, Issue. 4, p. 545.
Prato, Carlo and Wolton, Stephane 2016. The Voters' Curses: Why We Need Goldilocks Voters. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 60, Issue. 3, p. 726.
Yang, JungHwan Rojas, Hernando Wojcieszak, Magdalena Aalberg, Toril Coen, Sharon Curran, James Hayashi, Kaori Iyengar, Shanto Jones, Paul K. Mazzoleni, Gianpietro Papathanassopoulos, Stylianos Rhee, June Woong Rowe, David Soroka, Stuart and Tiffen, Rodney 2016. Why Are “Others” So Polarized? Perceived Political Polarization and Media Use in 10 Countries. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 21, Issue. 5, p. 349.
Sørensen, Rune J. 2016. The Impact of State Television on Voter Turnout. British Journal of Political Science, p. 1.
O’Mahen, Patrick 2016. A Big Bird effect? The interaction among public broadcasting, public subsidies, and political knowledge. European Political Science Review, Vol. 8, Issue. 02, p. 311.
pollock, william barabas, jason jerit, jennifer schoonvelde, martijn banducci, susan and stevens, daniel 2015. studying media events in the european social surveys across research designs, countries, time, issues, and outcomes. European Political Science, Vol. 14, Issue. 4, p. 394.
Ariely, Gal 2015. Does Commercialized Political Coverage Undermine Political Trust?: Evidence Across European Countries. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Vol. 59, Issue. 3, p. 438.
Fraile, Marta and Iyengar, Shanto 2014. Not All News Sources Are Equally Informative. The International Journal of Press/Politics, Vol. 19, Issue. 3, p. 275.
Tiffen, Rodney Jones, Paul K. Rowe, David Aalberg, Toril Coen, Sharon Curran, James Hayashi, Kaori Iyengar, Shanto Mazzoleni, Gianpietro Papathanassopoulos, Stylianos Rojas, Hernando and Soroka, Stuart 2014. Sources in the News. Journalism Studies, Vol. 15, Issue. 4, p. 374.
Curran, James Coen, Sharon Soroka, Stuart Aalberg, Toril Hayashi, Kaori Hichy, Zira Iyengar, Shanto Jones, Paul Mazzoleni, Gianpietro Papathanassopoulos, Stylianos Rhee, June Woong Rojas, Hernando Rowe, David and Tiffen, Rod 2014. Reconsidering ‘virtuous circle’ and ‘media malaise’ theories of the media: An 11-nation study. Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism, Vol. 15, Issue. 7, p. 815.
Aalberg, Toril Papathanassopoulos, Stylianos Soroka, Stuart Curran, James Hayashi, Kaori Iyengar, Shanto Jones, Paul K. Mazzoleni, Gianpietro Rojas, Hernando Rowe, David and Tiffen, Rodney 2013. INTERNATIONAL TV NEWS, FOREIGN AFFAIRS INTEREST AND PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. Journalism Studies, Vol. 14, Issue. 3, p. 387.
Public service broadcasters (PSBs) are a central part of national news media landscapes, and are often regarded as specialists in the provision of hard news. But does exposure to public versus commercial news influence citizens’ knowledge of current affairs? This question is investigated in this article using cross-national surveys capturing knowledge of current affairs and media consumption. Propensity score analyses test for effects of PSBs on knowledge, and examine whether PSBs vary in this regard. Results indicate that compared to commercial news, PSBs have a positive influence on knowledge of hard news, though not all PSBs are equally effective in this way. Cross-national differences are related to factors such as de jure independence, proportion of public financing and audience share.
Soroka, McGill University (email:
1 Holbert R. Lance, Kwak Nojin and Shah Dhavan V., ‘Environmental Concern, Patterns of Television Viewing, and Pro-Environmental Behaviors: Integrating Models of Media Consumption and Effects’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47 (2003), 177–197
Soroka Stuart, ‘Good News and Bad News: Asymmetric Responses to Economic Information’, Journal of Politics, 68 (2006), 372–385
2 Hanretty Chris, ‘Explaining the De Facto Independence of Public Broadcasters’, British Journal of Political Science, 40 (2010), 75–89
Bardoel Johannes and d'Haenens Leen, ‘Reinventing Public Service Broadcasting in Europe: Prospects, Promises and Problems’, Media, Culture & Society, 30 (2008), 337–355
Connolly Sara and Hargreaves-Heap Shaun P., ‘Cross Country Differences in Trust in Television and the Governance of Public Broadcasters’, Kyklos, 60 (2007), 3–14
Baek Mijeong, ‘A Comparative Analysis of Political Communication Systems and Voter Turnout’, American Journal of Political Science, 53 (2009), 376–393
Iyengar Shanto, Curran James, Lund Anker Brink, Salovaara-Moring Inka, Hahn Kyu S. and Coen Sharon, ‘Cross-National versus Individual-Level Differences in Political Information: A Media Systems Perspective’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 20 (2010), 291–309
3 Hibberd Matthew, ‘Conflicts of Interest and Media Pluralism in Italian Broadcasting’, West European Politics, 30 (2007), 881–902
D'Arma Alessandro, ‘Broadcasting Policy in Italy's “Second Republic”: National Politics and European Influences’, Media, Culture and Society, 31 (2009), 769–786
Flew Terry, ‘The Special Broadcasting Service after 30 Years: Public Service Media and New Ways of Thinking about Media and Citizenship’, Media International Australia, 133 (2009), 9–14
Grummell Bernie, ‘The Educational Character of Public Service Broadcasting: From Cultural Enrichment to Knowledge Society’, European Journal of Communication, 24 (2009), 267–285
4 Lang Annie, ‘The Information Processing of Mediated Messages: A Framework for Communication Research’, Journal of Communication, 50 (2000), 46–70
5 Bennett Lance W. and Iyengar Shanto, ‘A New Era of Minimal Effects: The Changing Foundations of Political Communication’, Journal of Communication, 58 (2008), 707–731
Mullainathan Sendhil and Shleifer Andrei, ‘The Market for News’, American Economic Review, 95 (2005), 1031–1053
6 Norris Pippa, A Virtuous Circle? Political Communications in Post-Industrial Democracies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000)
Strömbäck Jesper and Shehata Adam, ‘Media Malaise or a Virtuous Circle? Exploring the Causal Relationships Between News Media Exposure, Political News Attention and Political Interest’, European Journal of Political Research, 49 (2010), 575–597
Avery James, ‘Videomalaise or Virtuous Circle?’, International Journal of Press/Politics, 14 (2009), 410–433
Knobloch-Westerwick Silvia and Meng Jingbo, ‘Reinforcement of the Political Self through Selective Exposure to Political Messages’, Journal of Communication, 61 (2011), 349–368
7 See online Appendix for further discussion of this point.
8 But not inconceivable, since news programming judged similar in content might still produce knowledge effects via presentation and/or framing differences from one newscast to another.
9 Peter Jochen, Lauf Edmund and Semetko Holli A., ‘Television Coverage of the 1999 European Parliamentary Elections’, Political Communication, 21 (2004), 415–433
Toril Aalberg, Peter van Aelst and James Curran, ‘Media Systems and the Political Information Environment: A Cross-National Comparison’, International Journal of Press/Politics, 15 (2010), 255–271
Kolmer Christian and Semetko Holli A., ‘International Television News: Germany Compared’, Journalism Studies, 11 (2010), 700–717
10 Kerbel Matthew R., Sumaiya Apee and Ross Marc Howard, ‘PBS Ain't So Different: Public Broadcasting, Election Frames, and Democratic Empowerment’, Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 5 (2000), 8–32
Claes H. de Vreese, ‘Election Coverage – New Directions for Public Broadcasting – The Netherlands and Beyond’, European Journal of Communication, 16 (2001), 155–180
Hoynes William, ‘Political Discourse and the “New PBS”’, Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 7 (2002), 34–56
Lunt Peter, ‘Television, Public Participation, and Public Service: From Value Consensus to the Politics of Identity’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 625 (2009), 128–138
11 Debrett Mary, ‘Riding the Wave: Public Service Television in the Multi-Platform Era’, Media, Culture and Society, 31 (2009), 807–827
Larsen Håkon, ‘Serving The Democracy: The Debate on Public Service Broadcasting in Norway and Sweden’, Tidsskrift for Samfunnsforskning, 49 (2008), 313–342
Larsen Håkon, ‘Legitimation Strategies of Public Service Broadcasters: The Divergent Rhetoric in Norway and Sweden’, Media, Culture and Society, 32 (2010), 267–283
Brant Kees, ‘Auditing Public Broadcasting Performance: Its Theory and Practice’, Javnost, 10 (2003), 5–11
12 Aalberg, Aelst and Curran, ‘Media Systems and the Political Information Environment: A Cross-National Comparison’.
13 Prior Markus, Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007)
14 Carpini Michael X. Delli and Keeter Scott, What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1996)
Bennett Stephen Earl, Flickinger Richard S., Baker John R., Rhine Staci L. and M.Bennett Linda, ‘Citizen's Knowledge of Foreign Affairs’, Harvard International Journal of Press and Politics, 1 (1996), 1–29
15 Graber Doris A., Processing Politics: Learning from Television in the Internet Age (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001)
16 Xenos Michael and Moy Patricia, ‘Direct and Differential Effects of the Internet on Political and Civic Engagement’, Journal of Communication, 57 (2007), 704–718
Dalrymple Kajsa E. and Scheufele Dietram A., ‘Finally Informing the Electorate? How the Internet Got People Thinking about Presidential Politics in 2004’, Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 12 (2007), 96–111
Boulianne Shelley, ‘Stimulating or Reinforcing Political Interest: Using Panel Data to Examine Reciprocal Effects between News Media and Political Interest’, Political Communication, 28 (2011), 147–162
Tom P. Bakker and Claes H. de Vreese, ‘Good News for the Future? Young People, Internet Use, and Political Participation’, Communication Research, 38 (2011), 451–470
17 Of course, the impact of one medium versus that of another may have less to do with the medium itself than with the content of that medium. Knowledge effects resulting from selecting newspapers instead of television newscasts are likely to be due to the tendency for newspapers to print more relevant news for the task of answering the knowledge indicators. In this way, findings on newspapers versus television may not be very different from research focused on differences between public and commercial news programmes.
18 Jenssen Anders Todal, ‘Does Public Broadcasting Make a Difference? Political Knowledge and Electoral Campaigns on Television’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 32 (2009), 247–271
19 Claes H. de Vreese and Hajo Boomgaarden, ‘News, Political Knowledge and Participation: The Differential Effects of News Media Exposure on Political Knowledge and Participation’, Acta Politica, 41 (2006), 317–341
20 Aarts Kees and Semetko Holli A., ‘The Dividend Electorate: Media Use and Political Involvement’, Journal of Politics, 65 (2003), 759–784
21 Holtz-Bacha Christina and Norris Pippa, ‘To Entertain, Inform, and Educate: Still the Role of Public Television’, Political Communication, 18 (2001), 123–140
Toka Gabor and Popescu Marina, ‘Public Television, Private Television and Citizens’ Political Knowledge’, EUI Working Papers RSCASS (2009)
Jenssen Andres Todal, Aalberg Toril and Aarts Kees, ‘Informed Citizens, Media Use, and Public Knowledge of Parties Policy Positions’, in Toril Aalberg and James Curran, eds, How Media Inform Democracy. A Comparative Approach (New York: Routledge, 2012, pp. 138–158
22 Holtz-Bacha and Norris, ‘To Entertain, Inform, and Educate’.
23 Toka and Popescu, ‘Public Television, Private Television and Citizens’ Political Knowledge’.
24 Iyengar Shanto, Hahn Kyu S., Bonfadelli Heinz and Marr Mirko, ‘ “Dark Areas of Ignorance” Revisited: Comparing International Affairs Knowledge in Switzerland and the United States’, Communication Research, 36 (2009), 341–358
Curran James, Iyengar Shanto, Lund Anker Brink and Salovaara-Moring Inka, ‘Media Systems, Public Knowledge and Democracy: A Comparative Study’, European Journal of Communication, 24 (2009), 5–26
Curran James, Salovaara-Moring Inka, Coen Sharon and Iyengar Shanto, ‘Crime Foreigners and Hard News: A Cross-National Comparison of Reporting and Public Perception’, Journalism, 11 (2010), 1–17
25 Aalberg, Aelst and Curran, ‘Media Systems and the Political Information Environment’.
26 It is important to note that the Aalberg et al. study does not find evidence of cross-national news supply convergence over the past thirty years. If anything, the opposite trend is occurring: that is, the amount of news programming offered (and consumed) in commercialized versus publicly-oriented systems is diverging if we focus on peak viewing hours and audience share.
27 Though note that we should be careful not to blend individual-level and country-level hypotheses. Within countries, exposure to public broadcasting may be associated with higher levels of current affairs knowledge. But across countries, the existence of PSBs may or may not be associated with the provision of (and knowledge of) current affairs news. A strong PSB may increase the volume of current affairs information available on its own; it may encourage private broadcasters in the same market to present similar types of information; and/or it may encourage private broadcasters to do exactly the opposite – to focus exclusively on soft news and entertainment since the PSB takes care of the rest. The ‘net’ effect on the availability of hard news, in short, is not clear; nor is the connection between PSBs and aggregate-level knowledge across countries. See also a related discussion in the conclusions.
28 Aalberg Toril and Curran James, ‘Main Conclusions’, in Toril Aalberg and James Curran, eds, How Media Inform Democracy: A Comparative Approach (New York: Routledge, 2012), pp. 189–199
29 Curran et al., ‘Crime Foreigners and Hard News’; Curran et al., ‘News Content, Media Consumption, and Current Affairs Knowledge’, in Aalberg and Curran, How Media Inform Democracy.
30 Hallin Daniel C. and Mancini Paolo, Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)
31 Iyengar et al., ‘ “Dark Areas of Ignorance” Revisited’.
32 Three of those countries – Greece, Columbia and India – are not included here due to differences in survey methodology and data availability.
33 Russell W. Neuman, Marion R. Just and Ann N. Crigler, Common Knowledge: News and the Construction of Political Meaning (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992)
34 Rubin Donald B., ‘Matching to Remove Bias in Observational Studies’, Biometrics, 29 (1973), 153–183
Rubin Donald B., ‘Estimating Causal Effects to Treatments in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 66 (1974), 688–701
Rosenbaum Paul R. and Rubin Donald B., ‘The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects’, Biometrika, 70 (1983), 41–50
Rosenbaum Paul R. and Rubin Donald B., ‘The Bias due to Incomplete Matching’, Biometrics, 41 (1985), 103–116
35 Note, then, that unmatched individuals are dropped from matching analyses. This is of course one of the major differences between matching and more traditional approaches.
36 Heckman James J., Ichimura Hidehiko and Todd Petra E., ‘Matching as an Econometric Evluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme’, Review of Economic Studies, 64 (1997), 605–654
Black Dan A. and Smith Jeffrey A., ‘How Robust Is the Evidence on the Effects of College Quality? Evidence from Matching’, Journal of Econometrics, 121 (2004), 99–124
Michalopoulos Charles, Bloom Howard S. and Hill Carolyn J., ‘Can Propensity-Score Methods Match the Findings from a Random Assignment Evaluation of Mandatory Welfare-to-Work Programs?’ Review of Economics and Statistics, 86 (2004), 156–179
Smith Jeffrey and Todd Petra, ‘Does Matching Overcome LaLonde's Critique of Nonexperimental Methods?’ Journal of Econometrics, 125 (2005), 305–353
Arceneaux Kevin, Gerber Alan S. and Green Donald P., ‘Comparing Experimental and Matching Methods Using a Large-Scale Voter Mobilization experiment’, Political Analysis, 14 (2006), 37–62
37 Levendusky Matthew S., ‘Rethinking the Role of Political Information’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 75 (2011), 42–64
38 Those advantages are discussed in some detail elsewhere; see fnn. 34 and 35, as well as the online appendix. And note that in this case, just to be sure, all the results reported below were replicated using a more traditional regression approach. Results are very similar, though with a somewhat larger effect for media exposure. This is in line with the expectation that proximity matching would yield somewhat more conservative estimates; but our focus here is not to test the relative merits of proximity matching, but rather the impact of public versus private broadcasting on knowledge, and in this regard the differences across media and across countries are very similar using either approach.
39 Becker Sascha O. and Ichino Andrea, ‘Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Based on Propensity Scores’, Stata Journal, 2 (2002), 358–377
40 For a particularly useful discussion, see Marco Caliendo and Sabine Kopeinig, ‘Some Practical Guidance for the Implementation of Propensity Score Matching’ (IZA Discussion Paper No. 1588, 2005).
41 Dehejia Rajeev H. and Wahba Sadek, ‘Causal Effects in Nonexperimental Studies: Reevaluation of the Evaluation of Training Program’, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94 (1999), 1053–1062
42 Additional results are available upon request.
43 Age is divided into groups, rather than used in its raw, interval-level form, in order to achieve balance for the matching procedure. That said, results do not change when the interval-level measure of age is used as a control in an OLS regression.
44 Shehata Adam and Strömbäck Jesper, ‘A Matter of Context: A Comparative Study of Media Environments and News Consumption Gaps in Europe’, Political Communication, 28 (2011), 110–134
Blekesaune Arild, Elvestad Eiri and Aalberg Toril, ‘Tuning out the World of News and Current Affairs’, European Sociological Review, 28(2010), 110–126
45 See online appendix for complete results.
46 Established in 1982, Channel 4 was Britain's second commercial broadcaster, though it was not exclusively commercial – rather, it reflected (and continues to reflect) a compromise between public-service and commercial approaches. It is publicly owned, and largely commercially funded; at the same time, it has a remit of public service obligations and is regulated by the Office of Communications (Ofcom).
47 Note that the negative coefficient for ITV news is a little peculiar. We might expect private news to not contribute to knowledge; to actually reduce knowledge is another matter. That said, the impact is not implausible: exposure to private television content may distract enough from current affairs information gleaned elsewhere that viewers know less about current affairs than they would had they not spent so much time on ITV. Of course, this may also be partly a product of self-selection – those who know less about current affairs continue to know less by watching ITV.
48 All financial information applies to the 2010 fiscal year (ending 31 March 2011) and is sourced from Annual Reports published online by each broadcaster.
49 Note that we do not distinguish between public monies derived from licence fees versus parliamentary appropriation. Though we might expect that those broadcasters reliant on compulsory, universal licence fees would be most inclined to air content with broad appeal (i.e., something for everyone/audience-driven); and parliamentary appropriation may be the funding model best suited for public broadcasters to act as ‘market failure broadcasters’ – filling gaps in programming created by entertainment-driven commercial media. This is purely conjecture at this stage, however.
50 Here, audience share is proportion of total television viewing, on average, for each hour of prime time. Note that we include all channels available from the main public broadcaster in each country. Thus in Britain, for instance, audience share is the combined share for BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three and so forth. Note also that the standard definition of prime time varies somewhat by country, but ranges from a minimum of 18:00 to a maximum of 23:00. Audience numbers are current (2010 and 2011), as reported in the Annual Report of each broadcaster and which frequently appear in press reports within in each country. Media use is typically measured by private, independent firms such as BBM Canada, Auditel Italy, BARD UK, and Gallup Norway.
51 Iyengar et al., ‘Cross-National versus Individual-Level Differences in Political Information’; Curran et al., ‘Media Systems, Public Knowledge and Democracy’.
52 Hanretty Chris, Public Broadcasting and Political Interference (London: Routledge, 2011)
53 Note, the de jure independence statistic for RAI corresponds with 2005 broadcasting legislation in Italy. It is possible that the impact of the Gasparri Law on RAI, enacted in the spring of 2004, is not fully captured by this statistic.
54 Brekken Tove, Thorbjørnsrud Kjersti and Aalberg Toril, ‘News Substance: The Relative Importance of Soft and De-contextualized News’, in Toril Aalberg and James Curran, eds, How Media Inform Democracy: A Comparative Approach (New York: Routledge, 2012), pp. 64–78
55 Hamilton James T., ‘The (Many) Markets for International News: How News from Abroad Sells at Home’, Journalism Studies, 11 (2010), 650–666
56 Napoli Philip M., ‘Market Conditions and Public Affairs Programming: Implications for Digital Television Policy’, Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 6 (2001), 15–29
57 McChesney Robert W. and Nichols John, The Death and Life of American Journalism: The Media Revolution that will Begin the World Again (Philadelphia: Nation Books, 2010)
58 In Norway and Britain, for instance, television viewing has about twice the impact of newspaper consumption on what people know about the world.
59 Devra C. Moehler and Naunihal Singh. ‘Whose News Do You Trust? Explaining Trust in Private versus Public Media in Africa’, Political Research Quarterly, 64 (2011), 276–292
60 Recall also that knowledge variance between disadvantaged and advantaged groups is directly related to the broadcasting model. Disadvantaged groups in the United States perform especially poorly on knowledge indicators which suggests that gaps between groups will grow as media systems become more commercialized and/or if PSBs weaken.
61 Iosifidis Petros, Public Television in Europe: Technological Challenges and New Strategies (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007)
62 Seymour Emily and Barnett Steven, ‘Factual International Programming on UK Public Service Television, 2005’ (London: Communication Research Unit, University of Westminster, 2006)
Winston Brian, ‘Towards Tabloidization? Glasgow Revisited, 1975–2001’, Journalism Studies, 3 (2002), 5–20
63 Tracey Michael, The Decline and Fall of Public Service Broadcasting (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998)
64 Hanretty Chris, Public Broadcasting's Continued Rude Health (London: British Academy Report, 2011)
65 Gavyn Davies, ‘The BBC and Public Value’, in Dieter Helm, Damian Green, Mark Oliver, Simon Terrington, Andrew Graham, Bill Robinson, Gavyn Davies, Jeremy Mayhew and Luke Bradley-Jones, eds, Can the Market Deliver? Funding Public Service Television in the Digital Age (New Barnet, Herts.: John Libbey, 2005), pp. 129–50; Andrew Graham and Gavyn Davies, Broadcasting, Society and Policy in the Multimedia Age (Luton: University of Luton Press, 2001).
* Soroka, McGill University (email: email@example.com); Andrew, Université de Montréal; Aalberg, Norwegian University of Science and Technology; Shanto Iyengar, Stanford University; Curran, Goldsmiths, London University; Coen, Salford University; Hayashi, University of Tokyo; Jones, University of New South Wales; Mazzeleni, University of Milan; Rhee, Seoul National University; Rowe, University of Western Sydney; Tiffen, University of Sydney. This work was supported by a number of funding agencies, including: Soroka and Andrew, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada; Aalberg, the Research Council of Norway; Iyengar, the Korean Science Foundation; Curran, the Economic and Social Research Council, UK; Hayashi, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science; Rhee, a Korea Research Foundation Grant, Korean Government. In addition to the appendix table in the printed version, supplementary material is available in an appendix to be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007123412000555.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 16th January 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.