---

Considering the Alternatives

The Effect of Group Ownership on the Content  
of an Alternative Weekly Newspaper

 

Introduction 

This paper addresses whether the content of the group-owned weekly newspaper In Pittsburgh is more homogenous than the content of the independently owned newsweekly Pittsburgh City Paper. 

Homogenization is a problem because the value of alternative newsweeklies is derived largely from the fact that their editorial content offers an alternative to the corporate media voice. Most newsweeklies in the United States have a strong tradition of local investigative reporting, independent local ownership, and close links to activists and artists in their communities. These strengths are undermined when newspapers conglomerate, due to the corporate incentives to cut news budgets (i.e., reduce staff and shrink newsholes) and the corporate desires for positive information - two actions which threaten to limit political and cultural diversity. 

"Alternative newsweeklies" refers to the more than 107 tabloid-style papers modeled after the Village Voice that specialize in regional news, arts and entertainment coverage. While daily newspapers struggle to maintain readership, circulation for these weekly newspapers doubled between 1960 and 1980, and has doubled again in the past six years, fueling a recent rash of acquisitions that press critics call "the most significant change in alternative weeklies for a generation." The trend has had severe consequences in some cities: the national alternative chain Stern Publishing (owner of the Village Voice since 1986) recently outbid Phoenix-based New Times, Inc., to purchase both Minneapolis newsweeklies and closed one of them the next day, firing its staff and angering loyal readers. 

The Pittsburgh case offers a particularly interesting case to study conglomerate and independent content. In Pittsburgh, circulation 55,000, was owned by an independent local publisher until it was purchased last summer by Review Publishing Ltd. (owner of Philadelphia Weekly), based 250 miles away. The new owners fired several existing editors and placed their ow management at In Pittsburgh's helm. The dismissed editors subsequently joined the rival Pittsburgh City Paper, circulation 70,500, which is independently and locally owned. 

Existing Research 

Substantial research has been performed regarding the effect of increasingly concentrated ownership on daily newspapers. Some analyses have yielded ambivalent conclusions, suggesting that is difficult to determine when ownership interests become a factor (Bagdikian 1996) and that the effect on content varies, with some paper benefitting from group owners willing and able to fund improvements while other papers suffer from the profit orientation of group owners (Roberts, in Barnouw 1997). 

Most researchers, however, have noted similar broad changes wrought upon new acquisitions: that content is briskly dumbed-down by means of shorter stories, a higher percentage of "soft" news, and fewer total column inches of news; and that group owners commonly reduce local staff and news space (Compaine 1982, Bagdikian 1996, Barnouw 1997). As Gene Roberts, longtime editor of the New York Times, concludes: group ownership is detrimental overall to local coverage, and on the whole the reading public is less well served by groups than under local ownership (in Barnouw 1997). Roberts says, "Group-owned newspapers are so obviously alike from town to town that they aren't meeting the coverage needs." 

Although the homogenizing effect of corporations on the content of daily newspapers has been a rich subject for media analysis, similar trends affecting alternative papers have been largely overlooked. Organizations such as the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, Alternet, the Institute for Alternative Journalism and publications such as Utne Reader (July/Aug. 1997) have reported and commented on mergers and acquisitions as they occur, but empirical research is lacking. Because many newsweeklies profess to voice ideas lacking in other media, whether their content lives up to that mission is a critical question. 

Methodology & Findings 

Homogenization in Pittsburgh newsweeklies was studied by a message system analysis  comparing the editorial content in three issues of the group-owned In Pittsburgh (whose owners, in fact, are in Philadelphia) with three issues of the independent Pittsburgh City Paper from the same time period. I counted the attention (in number of total stories and square inches) given to local vs. non-local stories published; whether those stories emphasize hard news, soft news, or leisure; and the tendency for those stories to be written by full-time staff or freelance writers/interns. 

The In Pittsburgh issues analyzed were from February 11, Febrauary 25, and March 4, 1998. The Pittsburgh City Paper sample included issues dated January 25, February 5, and February 13, 1998. 

The first task was to determine whether the content of In Pittsburgh is, by comparison, dumbed-down. During this stage of the analysis, each story subject was categorized as: 
 

• Hard News: coverage of political, economic or social issues: "the glue that keeps the citizenry informed" (Roberts, in Barnouw) about control of schools, police activities, land use, et al.
• Soft News: where lighter issues related to politics, economics or social issues are treated or lifestyle stories have a harder edge; one example might be availability of alternative health care such as acupuncture. 
• Leisure: pertaining to art, music, entertainment, celebrity gossip, dining. 

 
The total square inches for each category was divided by the overall square inches to yield the percentage of editorial space devoted to that category (Table 1, below). The editorial space measured and categorized in Table 1 included photographs and headlines accompanying each article, but does not include the newspaper's cover, table of contents, and event listings. The total square inches devoted to each story category was divided by the total number of stories in that category in order to arrive at the average story length (Table 2, below). 
  Table 1: Subject of news coverage in alternative weekly newspapers   

	Hard News N=sq.in.         %	Soft News  N=sq.in.         %	Leisure  N=sq.in.          %
In Pittsburgh (group)	417.17     28.2%	328.63     22.2%	679.60      45.9%
Pittsburgh City Paper (independent)	230.10     12.3%	491.00     26.2%	1150.10    61.5%

  Table 2: Average story length in alternative weekly newspapers   

	Hard News  sq.in.	Soft News  sq.in.	Leisure  sq.in.	Overall  sq.in.	Difference %
In Pittsburgh (group)	46.35	109.50	48.54	54.82	-33
Pittsburgh City Paper (independent)	69.00	98.2	66.35	72.9	+32

 
These results show that the group-owned newsweekly did not neglect hard news, offering more than 2.5 times the hard news and less soft news/leisure coverage than the independently owned one. The average story  in the group-owned paper is significantly shorter, however, with hard news more than a third shorter, which may indicate a degree of dumbing down. 

The next objective was to look at both papers' news-gathering commitment, i.e. whether it turns to local stories and full-time reporters or to national stories and non-staff reporters, both of the latter conditions would suggest homogenization. Each story was scored on a scale of 1 to 3, according to whether the news has an entirely local emphasis (3), part local/part national (2), or entirely national (1); Table 3 gives the average score and the difference. The tendency for each story to be written by a staff  or non-staff, local or non-local writer will also be scored with 3 representing permanent staff, 2 temporary staff (i.e. interns and freelancers), and 1 those with no clear affiliation 
with the paper; Table 4 gives the average score and the difference. Event listings, which averaged 8 to 9 percent of printed matter in both papers, were not counted as stories. 
 

Table 3: Local news coverage in alternative weekly newspapers   

	Score=N	Difference=%
In Pittsburgh (group)	2.21	+2.7
Pittsburgh City Paper (independent)	2.15	-2.8

  Table 4: Staff-written articles in alternative weekly newspapers   

	Score=N	Difference=%
In Pittsburgh (group)	1.99	-13
Pittsburgh City Paper (independent)	2.29	+15

 

While the group-owned In Pittsburgh covered more local news than the independent City Paper, it tends to rely on the temporary workforce, i.e. interns and freelancers. 

Last, I determined the newspapers' advertising/editorial ratios in order to compare the size of the newsholes at the group-owned and independently owned papers. This analysis included all non-advertising matter (stories, photographs, headlines, cover, masthead, contents, cartoons, horoscopes, letters to editor, syndicated columns, and event listings). 

Table 5: Newshole in alternative weekly newspapers   

	Ad/Editorial Ratio=%	Difference = %
In Pittsburgh (group)	66.1/33.9	-3.7
Pittsburgh City Paper (independent)	69.8/30.2	+3.7

 
 
The group-owned newspaper devotes a slightly higher percentage of its pages to editorial coverage than the independent paper. 

Conclusion 

This comparative content analysis found that while the group-owned weekly newspaper In Pittsburgh paid more attention to hard news than the locally owned newsweekly in the same market, its content may be considered somewhat dumbed-down due to stories that average 33 percent shorter. As to the group paper's local newsgathering commitment: by comparison to the independent competitor, it averages 2.8 percent more local news and a 3.5 percent larger newshole, although 13 percent less of this content comes from staff writers. 

Thus, there is little basis for cries of content homogenization at this group-owned newspaper. However, one critical factor that may have affected this outcome is the very fact that the group- owned newspaper in question is subject to competition forces. It is necessary to expand this analysis to other alternative weekly newspapers in other markets, including non-competitive ones, to see whether these results are representative of the newsweekly industry as a whole. 

While the focus of this analysis was the effect of group ownership on content, the findings of increased reliance on non-staff writers suggests another area for study: the organizational changes such as hiring and firing of staff that accompanies conglomeration and the concomitant effect on  paper's newsgathering ability and editorial decision-making. An institutional policy analysis of this sort would rely upon co-operation from newspaper management. 

Also, as Barnouw suggests (1997), a stronger case for the effects of conglomeration could be made by considering the content of a newspaper such as In Pittsburgh historically, i.e. under both independent ownership and subsequent group ownership. 

Furthermore, it would be interesting to examine whether and how alternative newsweekly readers perceive these content and ownership differences. 
 
 

Bibliography  
 
Bagdikian, Ben H. The Media Monopoly. Boston: Beacon Press, 1996.  

Barnouw, Erik, et al. Conglomerates and the Media. New York: The New Press, 1997.  

Barsamian, David. Stenographers to Power: Media and Propaganda.  Monroe, Maine: Common  Courage Press, 1997.  

Compaine, Benjamin M., Christopher H. Sterling, Thomas Guback and J. Kendrick Noble, Jr. Who Owns The Media? New York: Knowledge Industry Publications, 1982.  

Demers, David Pearce. The Menace of the Corporate Newspaper: Fact of Fiction? Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1996.  

Ghiglione, Loren, ed. The Buying and Selling of America's Newspapers. Indianapolis: R.J. Berg & Company, 1984.  

Gissler, Sig. "What Happens When Gannett Takes Over: Culture clash and some disturbing changes at two formerly family-owned newspapers." Columbia Journalism Review. Nov.-Dec. 1997:  42-47.  

Parenti, Michael. Inventing Reality: The Politics of News Media. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993.  

Picard, Robert G., et al. Press Concentration and Monopoly: New Perspectives on Newspaper Ownership and Operation. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1988.  

Squires, James D. Read All About It! The Corporate Takeover of America's Newspapers. New York: Times Books, 1993.  

Tucher, Andie. "The Real Dangers of Conglomerate Control: A CJR forum looks at the bad news about corporate synergy." Columbia Journalism Review. March-Apr. 1997: 46-51.  

Walljasper, Jay. "Age of the Mega-Alternatives." Utne Reader. July-Aug. 1997: 91-94. 
 
 

top