Down, set, frame: Second-level agenda building and the NFL Network carriage dispute<br />Stephen W. Dittmore, University o...
The Network is Born<br />“They created it to have viable alternatives if everybody doesn’t pay what the NFL thinks they ou...
Four Years Later<br />“The owners’ decision to put the games on the NFL Network was to help build a 24-7 network about foo...
NFL Network Situation<br />In placing games on NFLN, the league turned down approximately $300 million/year from Comcast-o...
Senate Judiciary Committee<br />“Competition in sports programming and distribution: Are consumers winning?” (Nov. 14, 200...
Agenda Setting<br />Process through which increased media focus on a topic raises the salience of that issue relative to o...
Framing<br />Framing, sometimes referred to as second level-agenda setting (McCombs, 2005), proposes that the media – thro...
Research Questions<br />RQ1 – Which issue attributes were used by the media to frame the NFL Network carriage dispute?<br ...
Methodology<br />Content analysis of national, regional, and trade media as well as corporate press releases between Jan. ...
Methodology<br />Pro-NFL framing attributes<br />“Blame cable” = fans are not getting to see games because of cable operat...
Methodology<br />Pro-Cable framing attributes<br />“Blame NFL” = fans are not getting to see games because of the NFL Netw...
Methodology<br />Two graduate students with previous content analysis experience were trained by the primary researcher<br...
Results – RQ1<br />Which issue attributes were used by the media to frame the NFL Network carriage dispute?<br />X2 = 50.7...
Results – RQ2<br />Was the NFL Network carriage dispute framed differently in national, regional, and trade media?<br />* ...
Results – RQ3<br />Who had more success in framing the carriage issue in the media – pro-NFL or pro-cable forces?<br />Use...
Results – RQ4<br />Which sources were used by the media in its coverage of the NFL Network carriage dispute?<br />68 media...
Results – RQ5<br />Did the framing of the carriage issue evolve over time as real-world events unfolded?<br />T1 = Jan. 1,...
Discussion<br />In general, the overall media framing of the NFL Network carriage dispute was negative in its tone<br />Pr...
Discussion<br />Part of the reason for the NFL’s success relative to cable operators in framing the issue may have been th...
Limitations & Future Research<br />Limited content available that could be used in determining the public relations agenda...
Questions?<br />dittmore@uark.edu<br />trent.seltzer@ttu.edu<br />
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

NFLN agenda building 09

647 views
501 views

Published on

Research presented at the 2009 NASSM conference on agenda building in the NFL Network v. Big Cable carriage dispute

Published in: Sports, News & Politics
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
647
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • New York State Supreme Court ruled on May 10, 2007 that Comcast can move NFLN to sports tier
  • This study uses the second-level agenda-building and agenda-setting processes as a framework for investigating not only how the media framed the NFL Network carriage debate, but also how the NFL and cable operators attempted to competitively frame the issue via their respective public relations efforts.
  • It should be noted that a vigorous ongoing discussion exists regarding the intersection of framing and second-level agenda setting theories; however, resolving this debate is beyond the scope of this study. Here, we have utilized the concept of “framing” as analogous to second-level agenda setting of thematic issue attributes (e.g., McCombs, 1997, 2005). See Scheufele and Tewksbury (2007) and McCombs (2005) for concise summaries of the alternate perspectives, as well as Reese (2007) for an analysis on the possibility of reconciling these various approaches.
  • Table 1. Intercoder reliability for substantive and affective issue attributes. VariableScott’s piIssue valence 87.9NFL presence 100NFL valence 80.7Cable operator presence 100Cable operator valence 87.5Predominant framing of carriage issue 88.6Pro-NFL source presence 100Pro-NFL source type 100Pro-cable source presence 100Pro-cable source type 100Blame cable 96.6Broad appeal 82.9Expanded coverage 95.8Competition 100Premium tier 100Blame NFL 92.1Narrow appeal 100Make money 100Pay content 100
  • A chi-square goodness of fit test was conducted comparing the frequency of occurrence of media stories that were negative, neutral, and positive in tone regarding the evaluation of the carriage issue itself. If the coverage was balanced, then the expected frequencies of stories falling into each category should be equal. The resulting significant chi-square statistic (X2= 50.75, df = 2, p < .001) suggests that the media framing of the carriage issue was not balanced. The majority of the media coverage portrayed the carriage issue itself in a negative light (59.7% of all media articles) compared to just 26.8% that framed it neutrally and 13.4% that framed it positively. Due to the number of chi-square tests used, the Bonferroni correction was applied (α = .05/4 = .0125) to control for the increased chance of making a Type I error. It should be noted that by applying a more conservative significance level, the probability of making a Type II error is increased (Field, 2005).
  • USA Today was strongly correlated with all the regional and national outlets, but not the trade outlets. This may be because USA Today is more likely to be read by sports fans, an audience that may be more concerned about who is to blame for the “crisis.” Meanwhile, Mediaweek and Sports Business Journal are more likely to be read by sports executives who have an interest in the particulars of the debate and solutions for its resolution.
  • Time 1 (T1) included all media content from Jan. 1, 2006, through Oct. 28, 2007 (n = 69 stories); this period represents a “pre-crisis” phase and includes coverage of the carriage issue up to the month before the Green Bay at Dallas game. Time 2 (T2) included all media content from Oct. 29, 2007, through Nov. 29, 2007 (n = 32 stories); this period represents the month just prior to the Green Bay at Dallas game when the carriage issue gained increased relevance. Time 3 (T3) included all media content from Nov. 30, 2007, through Dec. 29, 2007 (n = 44 stories); this period represents the month between the Green Bay at Dallas game and the climactic New England at New York game. One-month lags between T1, T2, and T3 were appropriate since four to six weeks has been suggested as an ideal time period for observing agenda-setting effects (Tedesco, 2005; Winter, & Eyal, 1981).
  • Future studies could consider first-level agenda-building and agenda-setting effects by including additional issues in the analysis that make up the larger tapestry of football media coverage. This would be beneficial for sport communication research since studies involving agenda-building and agenda-setting efforts by professional sports organizations are not common.
  • NFLN agenda building 09

    1. 1. Down, set, frame: Second-level agenda building and the NFL Network carriage dispute<br />Stephen W. Dittmore, University of Arkansas<br />Trent Seltzer, Texas Tech University<br />
    2. 2. The Network is Born<br />“They created it to have viable alternatives if everybody doesn’t pay what the NFL thinks they ought to. It won’t be a meaningful network until they have live games on it.” <br />- Barry Frank, vice chairman of IMG media, quoted by Kaplan in Sports Business Journal, May 5, 2003, para. 2<br />
    3. 3. Four Years Later<br />“The owners’ decision to put the games on the NFL Network was to help build a 24-7 network about football. That is our goal. We are not concerned about making more money on another TV rights deal. We want to create a year round football network.”<br />- Pat Bowlen, Denver Broncos President and Chairman of the NFL’s Broadcasting Committee, quoted by Consoliin MediaWeek, April 23, 2007, para. 4<br />
    4. 4. NFL Network Situation<br />In placing games on NFLN, the league turned down approximately $300 million/year from Comcast-owned Versus network<br />Comcast and other major cable operators refused to carry NFLN on widely-distributed basic tiers<br />Public debate intensified in late 2007 as fans were faced with missing important games between Green Bay-Dallas and New England-New York<br />
    5. 5. Senate Judiciary Committee<br />“Competition in sports programming and distribution: Are consumers winning?” (Nov. 14, 2006)<br />NFL<br />Time Warner Cable<br />“Vertically integrated sports programming: Are cable companies excluding competition?” (Dec. 7, 2006)<br />Comcast<br />
    6. 6.
    7. 7.
    8. 8. Agenda Setting<br />Process through which increased media focus on a topic raises the salience of that issue relative to others in the minds of media consumers (e.g., Kiousis & McCombs, 2004; McCombs 2004, 2005; McCombs & Shaw, 1972)<br />Sports-related issues<br />Denham (2004) = SI and MLB Drug Policy<br />Fortunato (2000, 2001) = NBA and broadcasting strategies<br />Fortunato (2008) = NFL and broadcasting schedule<br />Seltzer & Mitrook (in press) = Heisman Trophy and expert opinion<br />
    9. 9. Framing<br />Framing, sometimes referred to as second level-agenda setting (McCombs, 2005), proposes that the media – through the process of selecting particular themes, phrases, images, and sources to present a particular story – also determines the salience of specific attributes attached to an issue and thus determines how the issue is perceived (Entman, 1993; Ghanem, 1997; Lopez-Escobar, Llamas, & McCombs, 1998; McCombs & Ghanem, 2001)<br />Whereas first-level agenda setting suggests that the media tell the public what issues the public should think about (Cohen, 1963), the framing of issues that occurs at the second-level of agenda setting suggests that the media also tell the public how to think about issues (Golan & Wanta, 2001)<br />
    10. 10. Research Questions<br />RQ1 – Which issue attributes were used by the media to frame the NFL Network carriage dispute?<br />RQ2 – Was the NFL Network carriage dispute framed differently in national, regional, and trade media?<br />RQ3 – Who had more success in framing the carriage issue in the media – pro-NFL or pro-cable forces?<br />RQ4 – Which sources were used by the media in its coverage of the NFL Network carriage dispute?<br />RQ5 – Did the framing of the carriage issue evolve over time as real-world events unfolded?<br />
    11. 11. Methodology<br />Content analysis of national, regional, and trade media as well as corporate press releases between Jan. 1, 2006-Dec. 31, 2007<br />Keyword searches of Lexis/Nexis database<br />National media = USA Today, New York Times (Winter & Eyal, 1981)<br />Regional media = Newsday, Dallas Morning News, Los Angeles Times<br />Trade media = Mediaweek, Sports Business Journal<br />Unit of analysis was individual article or press release<br />Coded for presence or absence of mentions of the NFL, cable operators, sources supporting pro-NFL or pro-cable viewpoints, source type, and valence (negative, neutral, or positive)<br />
    12. 12. Methodology<br />Pro-NFL framing attributes<br />“Blame cable” = fans are not getting to see games because of cable operators<br />“Broad appeal” = NFL Network should be on basic cable because of its broad appeal<br />“Expanded coverage” = NFL Network provides fans with expanded coverage of football<br />“Competition” = cable operators are opposed to NFL Network because they are worried about competition with their own sports channels<br />“Premium tier” = cable operators want subscribers to pay for a premium sports tier<br />
    13. 13. Methodology<br />Pro-Cable framing attributes<br />“Blame NFL” = fans are not getting to see games because of the NFL Network<br />“Narrow appeal” = NFL Network should be on a premium sports tier because of its narrow appeal<br />“Make money” = NFL Network is only concerned with trying to make money<br />“Pay content” = NFL Network wants all subscribers to pay for content that only a few people want<br />
    14. 14. Methodology<br />Two graduate students with previous content analysis experience were trained by the primary researcher<br />Scott’s pi (1955) used to assess intercoder reliability<br />Coders demonstrated &gt;87% agreement for all variables except NFL valence and “broad appeal” frame attribute; however, all were well above recommended 75% agreement for pi (Wimmer & Dominick, 2000)<br />149 relevant media articles<br />18 relevant press releases<br />
    15. 15. Results – RQ1<br />Which issue attributes were used by the media to frame the NFL Network carriage dispute?<br />X2 = 50.75, df = 2, <br />p &lt; .001<br />
    16. 16. Results – RQ2<br />Was the NFL Network carriage dispute framed differently in national, regional, and trade media?<br />* - p &lt; .05<br />** - p &lt; .01<br />
    17. 17. Results – RQ3<br />Who had more success in framing the carriage issue in the media – pro-NFL or pro-cable forces?<br />Used one-tailed Kendall’s tau rank order correlation<br />No significant correlation between the media and the pro-NFL releases or between the media and the pro-Cable releases<br />Significant negative correlation between ranking of frame attributes in pro-NFL and pro-Cable releases (τ = -.702, p &lt; .05), confirming two sides attempted to frame dispute in distinctly different ways<br />
    18. 18. Results – RQ4<br />Which sources were used by the media in its coverage of the NFL Network carriage dispute?<br />68 media stories with a pro-NFL source<br />Official NFL spokespersons used 80.9% of time<br />39 media stories with a pro-Cable source<br />Official cable operator spokesperson used 90% of time<br />Series of McNemar Tests for correlated proportions, indicated pro-NFL sources were present in a significantly higher proportion of media stories than pro-Cable sources (X2 = 18.23, p &lt; .001)<br />
    19. 19. Results – RQ5<br />Did the framing of the carriage issue evolve over time as real-world events unfolded?<br />T1 = Jan. 1, 2006-Oct. 28, 2007<br />T2 = Oct. 29, 2007-Nov. 29, 2007<br />T3 = Nov. 30, 2007-Dec. 31, 2007<br />
    20. 20. Discussion<br />In general, the overall media framing of the NFL Network carriage dispute was negative in its tone<br />Pro-NFL attributes of “blame cable” and “broad appeal” along with pro-Cable attributes of “blame NFL” and “make money” were used to frame the issue most frequently in the media<br />Focus on assigning blame for the problem and providing a sinister motive for the “responsible” party’s actions<br />Consistent with previous research’s suggestion that media frames act as a plotline for a narrative, part of whose function is to identify problems and their underlying causes (e.g., Nelson, Clawson, & Oxley, 2008)<br />
    21. 21. Discussion<br />Part of the reason for the NFL’s success relative to cable operators in framing the issue may have been the media’s reliance on NFL sources, primarily official NFL spokespeople<br />Lack of fan support in the pro-NFL stories suggests the NFL missed an opportunity to involve grassroots advocates; this might have served the NFL better in the long run as the issue developed and may have led to further success in building an issue frame that would have continued to appeal to the media<br />
    22. 22. Limitations & Future Research<br />Limited content available that could be used in determining the public relations agenda of the NFL and cable operators<br />Future investigations should be expanded to include other types of public relations information subsidies such as organizational spokespersons’ speeches or testimony as well as content from each party’s advocacy Web sites<br />Future studies could examine the ability of leagues and governing bodies to frame media stories during periods of public debate or controversy. Given the speed at which weblogs and message boards spread rumor and innuendo, the ability of a sport organization to set an agenda and have its message resonate is more difficult – and more critical – than ever<br />
    23. 23. Questions?<br />dittmore@uark.edu<br />trent.seltzer@ttu.edu<br />

    ×