All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Businessmen, Partisans and Oligarchs: Political Control, News Production Philosophies And Partisan Bias In Mexican Television News
Unformatted Document Text:  18 Table 2: Multivariate Predictors of Partisan Coverage PRI AC/PAN AM/PRD Constant 28.4** (8.28) 20.6** (2.57) 14.3** (2.06) Share of 1997 vote .289 (18.9) .184* (7.04) .264** (8.08) State-owned station with own party in power 6.33* (2.64) 1.89 (5.57) 6.39 (4.68) State-owned station with another party in power -15.9** (5.20) -5.78** (1.95) -3.18 (1.96) Network television in D.F. -8.87 † (5.09) 4.23 † (2.50) -6.47* (3.20) Adjusted R-squared .30 .24 .11 F-statistic 93 93 93 N 11.2 8.4 3.9 N.B.: Listwise deletion employed. Cell entries are OLS coefficients (with standard errors). Base case is private stations other than Televisa and Televisión Azteca stations in the national capital. **Significant at 1% level *Significant at 5% level † Significant at 10% level All told, Table 2 supports the notion that ownership patterns and political pressure shaped television coverage in Mexico’s 2000 race, even when past electoral performance is taken into account. For instance, coverage of the PRI was best on state government-owned television programs broadcast from those states where the ruling party retained the governorship. Controlling for the party’s share of the vote in 1997, the PRI’s share of coverage in 2000 was approximately 6.3% higher on these programs than on private broadcasts. By contrast, it was about 9% lower on the main news shows in the capital and 16% lower on public stations in opposition-controlled states. Thus, in a state where the PRI received 40% of the vote, the PRI could expect to receive almost exactly 40% of the programming on a private broadcast (the constant value plus 40 times the coefficient for its 1997 share of the vote, 0.289). If that broadcast originated from a government-owned station in a state where another party controlled the governorship, the PRI would receive only about 24% of the coverage. On the other hand, if

Authors: Hughes, Sallie. and Lawson, Chappell.
first   previous   Page 18 of 42   next   last



background image
18
Table 2: Multivariate Predictors of Partisan Coverage
PRI AC/PAN
AM/PRD
Constant
28.4**
(8.28)
20.6**
(2.57)
14.3**
(2.06)
Share of 1997 vote
.289
(18.9)
.184*
(7.04)
.264**
(8.08)
State-owned station with
own party in power
6.33*
(2.64)
1.89
(5.57)
6.39
(4.68)
State-owned station with
another party in power
-15.9**
(5.20)
-5.78**
(1.95)
-3.18
(1.96)
Network television in D.F.
-8.87
(5.09)
4.23
(2.50)
-6.47*
(3.20)
Adjusted R-squared
.30
.24
.11
F-statistic 93
93
93
N
11.2
8.4
3.9
N.B.: Listwise deletion employed. Cell entries are OLS coefficients (with standard errors). Base
case is private stations other than Televisa and Televisión Azteca stations in the national capital.
**Significant at 1% level
*Significant at 5% level
Significant at 10% level
All told, Table 2 supports the notion that ownership patterns and political pressure shaped
television coverage in Mexico’s 2000 race, even when past electoral performance is taken into
account. For instance, coverage of the PRI was best on state government-owned television
programs broadcast from those states where the ruling party retained the governorship.
Controlling for the party’s share of the vote in 1997, the PRI’s share of coverage in 2000 was
approximately 6.3% higher on these programs than on private broadcasts. By contrast, it was
about 9% lower on the main news shows in the capital and 16% lower on public stations in
opposition-controlled states. Thus, in a state where the PRI received 40% of the vote, the PRI
could expect to receive almost exactly 40% of the programming on a private broadcast (the
constant value plus 40 times the coefficient for its 1997 share of the vote, 0.289). If that
broadcast originated from a government-owned station in a state where another party controlled
the governorship, the PRI would receive only about 24% of the coverage. On the other hand, if


Convention
Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 18 of 42   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.