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:  19 the PRI controlled the state (and thus the station), it could expect to receive about 46%. Because the three minor parties in 2000 always received more media coverage than would be expected given their past electoral strength, the PRI tended to receive a disproportionate share of the three- party coverage. Interestingly, the coefficient for the PRI’s 1997 share of the valid vote was not statistically significant once ownership and government control were taken into account. In other words, how the party had performed in the past was not a particularly good predictor of how much television coverage it would receive in 2000. Rather, reporting on the ruling party was sharply influenced by state ownership and political control. The results for the Left roughly parallel those for the PRI. The AM appears to benefit to the same degree as the PRI on public stations where its party was in power (6.4%). Because there was a much smaller number of such broadcasts, however, this coefficient is not statistically significant. The PRD seems to suffer at the hands of the main networks based in the capital, but this result is partly an artifact of the PRD’s extremely strong showing in the D.F. in 1997 (which made its coverage there look lower than one might expect). If we regard these networks as focused on national-level contests, rather than local ones, coverage of the AM was more balanced. In contrast to both the PRI and the PRD, the PAN did not seem to exploit its control of state-run stations. The coefficient for this variable is less than two, and it fails to reach statistical significance. In other words, the apparently favorable coverage that the PAN received on state- run stations in states it governed is largely explained by its electoral strength. Controlling for its past performance, however, the PAN was penalized somewhat on state-run television programs controlled by other parties. It did somewhat better (about 4%) on

Authors: Hughes, Sallie. and Lawson, Chappell.
first   previous   Page 19 of 42   next   last



background image
19
the PRI controlled the state (and thus the station), it could expect to receive about 46%. Because
the three minor parties in 2000 always received more media coverage than would be expected
given their past electoral strength, the PRI tended to receive a disproportionate share of the three-
party coverage.
Interestingly, the coefficient for the PRI’s 1997 share of the valid vote was not
statistically significant once ownership and government control were taken into account. In
other words, how the party had performed in the past was not a particularly good predictor of
how much television coverage it would receive in 2000. Rather, reporting on the ruling party
was sharply influenced by state ownership and political control.
The results for the Left roughly parallel those for the PRI. The AM appears to benefit to
the same degree as the PRI on public stations where its party was in power (6.4%). Because
there was a much smaller number of such broadcasts, however, this coefficient is not statistically
significant. The PRD seems to suffer at the hands of the main networks based in the capital, but
this result is partly an artifact of the PRD’s extremely strong showing in the D.F. in 1997 (which
made its coverage there look lower than one might expect). If we regard these networks as
focused on national-level contests, rather than local ones, coverage of the AM was more
balanced.
In contrast to both the PRI and the PRD, the PAN did not seem to exploit its control of
state-run stations. The coefficient for this variable is less than two, and it fails to reach statistical
significance. In other words, the apparently favorable coverage that the PAN received on state-
run stations in states it governed is largely explained by its electoral strength.
Controlling for its past performance, however, the PAN was penalized somewhat on
state-run television programs controlled by other parties. It did somewhat better (about 4%) on


Convention
Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote!
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 19 of 42   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.