The International Journal of Hispanic Media · global Hispanic population continues to grow, and as technology changes how people communicate, there ... that the Latino/Hispanic1

The International Journal of Hispanic Media

Issue 1 Volume 1 | February 2014Volume 8 | 2015ISSN 2377-9837 (online)

Sponsored by:

15 Who Owns Spanish Media in the United States?Alan B. Albarran, Ph.D. and Terry Moellinger, Ph.D.

2 El Ambiente y Las Noticias: Understanding U.S. Spanish-Language Newsrooms’ Coverage of Environmental IssuesBruno Takahashi, Ph.D., Juliet Pinto, Ph.D., Mercedes Vigón, Ph.D., Manuel Chavez, Ph.D.

38 An Unimaginable Combination: Journalists React to the Jorge Ramos-Donald Trump ConfrontationRonald Bishop, Ph.D.

1 Volume 8 Editor’s NoteKenton T. Wilkinson, Ph.D.

24 Contenidos y Audiencias de los Magacines Matinales de Radio en Argentina y EspañaMaría del Pilar Martínez-Costa, Ph.D. and María José Müller, Ph.D.

The International Journal of Hispanic Media • Volume 8 • 2015 • 1

This eighth volume of the International Journal of Hispanic Media includes engaging articles on several timely topics. Two of the articles, by Albarran and Moellinger, and Martínez-Costa and Müeller, were top papers delivered at the 2015 International Conference on Hispanic/Latino Media & Marketing hosted by the Center for Hispanic Marketing Communication in the College of Communication and Information at Florida State University. The following is a note from the conference chair, Dr. Sindy Chapa, who is also director of the Center.

Multicultural markets emerge with the proliferation of new media, which facilitates cultural transfer. As the global Hispanic population continues to grow, and as technology changes how people communicate, there is a need to study new opportunities and challenges associated with the ways that information is presented and used to connect with Latino audiences. There is also a need to educate students and professionals alike, to empower them and leverage growing interest and opportunities in the Hispanic sector.

In February 2015, the Center for Hispanic Marketing Communication at Florida State University hosted the Fifth International Conference on Hispanic/Latino Media and Marketing. The event served as a forum for scholars, graduate students, media analysts, and marketing professionals to present their research and offer assessments of current issues surrounding Spanish-language media, Latino audiences, and Hispanic consumers in the United States and around the world.

Without a doubt, the digital world, and the new media practices resulting from technological changes, are playing key roles in how marketers communicate and sell today. This requires a better understanding of how Hispanics—who are diverse in terms of acculturation, country of origin, education level and generational status—use new technologies to communicate.

Today’s media consumption is closely related to consumers’ cultural intelligence, and cultural sensitivity in the media gains importance as more highly-educated, diverse and cosmopolitan consumers come of age using a variety of new technologies. Ready access to new media allows audiences to connect more closely with their own culture as well as other societies around the world, opening new opportunities for academicians to investigate how consumers’ ethnic identity, diversity, and values relate to media consumption. The papers

presented at the conference and included in this journal serve as an example of the current state of Hispanic media consumption in the United States, Latin America and Spain.

In their assessment of who owns U.S. Spanish-language media, Albarran and Moellinger address a longstanding concern regarding ethnic-oriented media. Ownership and control issues have become particularly thorny in a period of growing buying power among Hispanic consumers and, consequently, rising values of media outlets that reach them. The authors show that a substantial majority of such outlets are owned and controlled by large, general market media corporations, not Hispanics/Latinos.

Martínez-Costa and Müeller compare radio magazine programs in two important Spanish-speaking national markets, Argentina and Spain. They find similarities in genre content as well as audience across the two countries, where younger audiences eschew the programs that their parents and grandparents tune in regularly. As in other regions, and languages, radio host personalities, infotainment content and listener call-ins are common characteristics of the radio magazine genre. The other two articles comprising this volume address sensitive contemporary issues.

Takahashi, Pinto, Vigón, and Chavez examine how Spanish-language newsrooms manage reporting on environmental affairs. They employ content analysis of reports about the environment as well as interviews with newsroom staff and reporters working in Spanish-language television to reveal the principal factors impacting coverage. Profit motives and ambiguity regarding the salience and urgency of environmental issues have lead to scant reporting on the topic, the authors conclude.

Last and by no means least, Ronald Bishop applies narrative analysis to a widely-reported event that occurred early in the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign: a dramatic, televised clash between Republican candidate Donald Trump and Univision news anchor Jorge Ramos. The confrontation at a press conference took place two months after Trump made disparaging remarks about Mexican immigrants to the U.S. during the speech announcing his candidacy for president. Bishop explores the shifting roles and objectives of journalists in recent decades before going on to identify and discuss six narrative themes in news reporting regarding Ramos’ role in the conflict.

Editor’s NoteKenton T. Wilkinson, Ph.D.


El Ambiente y Las Noticias: Understanding U.S. Spanish-

Language Newsrooms’ Coverage of Environmental Issues

Bruno Takahashi, Ph.D.Michigan State University, USA

Email: [email protected]

Juliet Pinto, Ph.D.Florida International University, USA


Mercedes Vigón, Ph.D.Florida International University, USA


Manuel Chavez, Ph.D.Michigan State University, USA


AbstractScholars of science and environmental communication have frequently studied the content of environmental affairs cover-age in the mass media. However, little still is known about the approaches used by newsrooms in Spanish-language media in the United States. This study shows the nature and content of environmental news and the models used by decision makers in Spanish-language newsrooms regarding content and editorial decisions. This study is based on a content analysis of environ-mental news in Spanish-language media, and on data collected through interviews with senior newsroom staff and reporters who have experience in covering environmental affairs at major U.S. Spanish-language television stations. The findings demon-strate the impact of revenue-streams needs, the perception that environmental news is not important, and the perception that environmental coverage lacks immediacy and impact. These find-ings reflect other research examining the output of U.S. English-language journalism and of other ethnic media, and provide impetus for future research.

Keywords: Environmental communication, Spanish-language television, ethnic media, news coverage, editorial decision making


Introduction

Scholars of science and environmental communication have frequently studied the content of the coverage of environmental issues (with a recent focus on climate change) in global mass media. However, less is known of how and why decisions are made in newsrooms regarding coverage of those issues (Smith, 2005). Much less still is known about the editorial approaches and decision-making processes used by newsrooms in Spanish-language media in the United States, something with important implications for public understanding of relevant issues for major sectors of the U.S. population. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that the Latino/Hispanic1 population in the United States accounts for more than 50 million people, which represents 16% of the total population and a growth of 43% from the 2000 Census (Ennis et al., 2011). In a study commissioned by the Sierra Club and the National Council of La Raza in 2012, Hispanic voters were also observed to strongly support clean energy and conservation measures, and to believe that climate change is already happening.2 However, little research has examined U.S. Spanish-language news coverage of environmental issues, with one finding scant attention to the topic of climate change in the U.S. Hispanic press (Villar & Pinto, 2013), something that has import for public awareness and policy direction.

Therefore, this study seeks a deeper understanding of how and why environmental issues such as climate change are perceived within U.S. Spanish-language newsrooms, and how those perceptions affect coverage for Spanish-speaking populations. We investigate the editorial models applied, given contextual nuances such as the global recession and internal dynamics of newsrooms, along with the fast-growing Spanish-language media in the U.S., and how forces associated with restructuring, innovation, and cultural and value systems affect coverage, or the lack of it. We ask how the leaders in Spanish-language news see their roles in communicating environmental issues to their publics, therefore illuminating variables that help our understanding of the interfaces with science and environmental issues, public opinion, news values, and cultural contexts.

This study is based on data collected in 2013 through semi-structured, in-depth interviews with senior personnel (news directors, executive producers, and editors), and reporters who have considerable experience at major Spanish-language news media at regional and national levels in the United States, including South Florida, a major hub for Spanish-language media. We also conducted a content analysis of environmental news in major Spanish-language news outlets. Findings are discussed in terms of implications for policy, public and news agendas, and will constitute a base for future scholarly and industry research on this issue. We contextualize our research questions and analysis by borrowing from the perspectives of the hierarchy of influences model (Reese, 2001; Shoemaker & Reese, 1996), as well as the acculturation functions of Spanish-language mass media (Subervi-Vélez, 2008).

Literature Review

U.S. Spanish-Language News Coverage

Research focusing on the coverage of environmental issues in ethnic media in the U.S. is scarce. With such paucity of research examining environmental coverage in Spanish-language media, we turn to examinations of other issues of import for U.S. Spanish-speaking populations. This research can provide preliminary explanations to the limited coverage of issues that are not considered as priorities for news decision makers or the audiences, something we discuss in more detail in the next sections.

Research in this area has examined the content, with many studies focusing on issues of import to Hispanic audiences, such as labor, voting, political empowerment, health care or immigration (Abrajano & Singh, 2009; Lozano, 1989; Subervi-Vélez, 2008; Thorson, 2006; Vargas, 2000; Vargas and De Pyssler, 1999; Veciana-Suárez, 1990; Vigón, 2010; Villar & Bueno, 2013). The content reported in these studies can be explained from the perspective of a functionalist role of the media. Subervi-Vélez (1986) first proposed to analyze empirically the double functions of assimilation and pluralism served by the Latino media. These refer to the media as a means to assimilate into the dominant culture, and to provide the amplitude of perspectives that serve the heterogeneous cultural group. Subervi-Vélez (2008) has referred to the concept of acculturation, where specific traits of the dominant culture are learned and adapted to the individual’s or group’s culture, as a better concept to explain the roles of the media within Latino audiences. Others have found nuanced differences among ethnic- and general-market media, as well as within their audiences (e.g. Guzmán, 2006; Kerevel, 2011; Subervi-Vélez, 1986, 1999; Soruco, 1996; Ríos & Gaines, 1998). In a recent study, Kerevel (2011, p. 509) argued: “The effect of using Spanish-language media serves to promote a sense of group consciousness among Latinos by reinforcing roots in Latin America and the commonalities among Latinos of varying national origin.”

Some other studies in the area have also compared the reporting of Spanish-language media and English-language media to determine similarities and differences. For example, Hale, Olsen, and Fowler (2009) reported that Spanish-language media devoted less time to coverage of the 2004 presidential election than English-language media, and that the former focused more on horse-race than on issues. Similarly, Branton and Dunaway (2008) compared the coverage of immigration reform between English- and Spanish-language newspapers from an economic theory perspective. They argued that consumer preferences influence the volume and type of coverage. Spanish-language newspapers provide more volume, while English-language newspapers use a negative framing more frequently. Finally, a comparative study between ethnic media (El Nuevo Herald) and mainstream media (The Miami Herald) about coverage of immigration showed that El Nuevo Herald attempted to include diverse voices and took a more dialogue-based


approach, while The Miami Herald was more conservative and critical (Guzmán, 2006). Fowler, Hale, and Olsen (2009, p. 248) summarized this trend:

To a certain extent, our findings are encouraging in that local news stations do alter their content according to changing demographic trends (whatever the causal mechanism may be, a number of which are outlined above). Stations in competitive, diverse markets are open to airing content that reflects the market’s demographics.

However, there is also evidence that Latino media are starting to resemble more and more the corporate model of mainstream English-language media. For example, Moran (2006) found this to be the case in a comparison of a Univision affiliate and an ABC affiliate in San Diego County, California. The content analysis revealed some differences in regards to frequency of coverage across topics, and also in the focus on Latino issues. However, the author argued that the similarities in terms of news values are due to journalistic training and a market-driven approach. Similarly, a recent study comparing the coverage of Latino collective action between Latino newspapers and elite U.S. newspapers found no significant differences (Okamoto, Ebert, & Violet, 2011). The researchers suggested that U.S. media are broadening their scope in part due to demographic changes in the country. The study reported that Latino media tend to focus on issues about immigration, politics, and health, and that they tend to portray Latinos in a good way and to cater favorably to local news. Those results are consistent with those reported by Vargas and De Pyssler (1999), who reported that health stories dominated the coverage in 17 Latino newspapers (both weeklies and dailies) during a six-month period, followed by crime, immigration, and education stories. Conversely, the coverage in TV is dominated by crime-related stories, while health stories were not as prominent.” (Subervi-Vélez, 1999). In contrast, Piñón and Rojas (2011) discussed the creation of new cultural hybrids of Latinidad that include the creation of a pan-Latino identity to be exported from Miami to Latin America and other world markets by U.S. mainstream English-language media.

Finally, while much research has examined environmental news in U.S. and U.K. English-language media (Anderson, 2009) and despite the increase in efforts to study the coverage of various issues in U.S. Spanish-language media, there are no studies attempting to explain the way the issues are covered. Given that language is the defining variable for Spanish-language news in the U.S., we use a cultural and ideological lens from within the newsroom to understand the process of reporting environmental news.

Cultural Processes, Environmental Ideologies, and News

Cultural variables, ideological foundations, and news values impact how environmental or scientific issues are reported by the

media and understood by audiences. Certainly, relevance, impact, novelty, and controversy are important determinants for what makes the news, and this applies to environmental issues as much as to any other thematic area (Friedman, Dunwoody, & Rogers, 1986; Hansen, 1994; Lester, 2010). As Guzmán (2006, p. 282) noted:

The circulation of cultural meaning through the news media contributes to the social construction of knowledge and performs a central ideological function in the reproduction of social and political inequality . . . . Consequently, news stories . . . are what Stuart Allan defines as an “ideological construction of reality.”

Scholars have increasingly noted how media, science, and ideological discourse interface in interesting ways. As Carvalho (2007, p. 225), has discussed, ideologies are value-laden, normative, and political, and therefore media discourse and ideology are “mutually constitutive.” Media can validate scientific claims, make truth claims, or use values to evaluate science and scientists (ibid.). How receptive audiences are to environmental information also has an ideological dimension. Corbett (2006) wrote, “All environmental messages have ideological roots that are deep and influenced by individual experience, geography, history, and culture.” Corbett (2006, p. 26) summarizes environmental ideologies as “fully formed belief systems concerning the natural world,” and denotes the nuances along a scale from anthropocentric to ecocentric. She argues that most U.S. communication is anthropocentric, with a limited and one-sided ideological expression regarding the natural world.

Other research has examined the role of culture in explaining environmental concern. This is important to the study of the news because it provides some basic notions about the different ways in which Hispanic audiences understand and perceive environmental issues. For example, the dynamics of public opinion in immigrant communities over time are not static. Schultz, Unipan, and Gamba (2000) discussed that foreign-born Latinos in the U.S. show higher levels of environmentalism than U.S. citizens (both Anglo and Latino). They suggested that this is explained partially by cultural differences, where Latinos live in more close-knit societies while the dominant U.S. culture is a more individualistic society. However, their study suggested that level of acculturation is negatively related to environmentalism. In other words, the longer a foreign-born Latino lives in the U.S., the more he/she becomes acculturated and therefore the levels of environmental concern become similar to those of the dominant U.S. culture. More recent work with Latino populations using community-based participatory research also suggests that Latino environmental discourses differ significantly from traditional Anglo-Western dualistic perspectives that place human and nature apart (Subervi-Vélez, 1999). Lynch (1993, p. 118) suggested, “What differentiates U.S. Latino environmental perspectives from those of the Anglo-American mainstream is an un-willingness to sever people from the


landscape, the technological from the political, or the environment from cultural identity.”

However, the higher levels of concern about environmental issues of Hispanics as compared to non-Hispanic whites appears to be more prevalent on issues of proximate concern to these populations and not on more abstract environmental issues (Whittaker, Segura, & Bowler, 2005). Studies examining the white male effect suggest important significant differences in risk perceptions between whites and other racial groups, where whites tend to see the world as less risky than any other group (Finucane et al., 2000; Flynn, Slovic, & Mertz, 1994). Some minorities, including Hispanics, may dismiss certain health or environmental risks because they are already living with many highly visible risks (Mays & Cochran, 1988). Other studies suggest that Hispanics perceive higher risk to them than to whites, as found in a study of the risk heat waves pose to the public (Palmer, 2003). These studies highlight differences but do not examine the ways in which Hispanics process information about environmental and health risks, which could explain such differences. Moreover, there is limited evidence about the sources of information used by Hispanics that may explain the formation of these risk perceptions. If the process of acculturation described above is indeed in place, what is the role of the media in promoting or preventing it? Moreover, in what ways are these dynamics reflected in media coverage of environmental issues?

Also, the process of acculturation can be modifying the environmental perceptions brought from the immigrants’ countries of origin so that they now resemble the environmental discourses of the dominant culture. However, environmental information from a Hispanic perspective is critical as the U.S. Hispanic population continues to increase; so, the contributions of Hispanic ecological discourses to the broader discourse on sustainable development may very well become more influential. Specifically, Peña (2003, p. 72) suggested: “Emergent Latino/a political ecologies must make reference to and explore strategies and projects of resistance generated by the submerged networks of displaced and re-localized cultures in an increasingly transnational civil society.”

Newsroom Decision Making and Diversity Models

Given the complexity of making and receiving environmental messages in the news, we choose to focus on how decisions are made about environmental news within the newsroom, an underexplored area of research, particularly in Spanish-language news. In order to explain news decision making about environmental issues, we turn to Shoemaker and Reese (1996), who developed a hierarchy-of-influences model to explain influences on media practice. In this model, they suggest that journalism content may be influenced by factors at various levels: the individual level (journalistic practices), the organizational level, factors external to the news organization (“extra media”

factors, such as sources, economy, technology, money, or others), and the ideological level. This model has since been the subject of much research (e.g. Hanitzsch, 2006; Hanitzsch, 2007; Hanitzsch et al., 2010; Kim, 2010; Reese, 2001; Shoemaker and Vos, 2009; Voakes, 1997; Weaver et al., 2007), including international cross-comparison, that found that organizational, professional, and procedural factors influenced coverage more than structural ones (Hanitzsch et al., 2010); and also that routine forces (e.g. journalistic norms) have a stronger influence in determining what becomes news than individual forces (e.g. journalists’ beliefs) (Shoemaker, Eichholz, Kim, & Wrigley, 2001).

Indeed, journalistic role conceptions (Weaver, Beam, Brownlee, Voakes, & Wilhoit, 2007) and norms may also influence output and perspectives. In terms of covering the environment, although some environmental journalists do practice forms of “advocacy journalism on behalf of the environment,” (see e.g. Frome, 1998), adherence to U.S. journalism values and norms such as objectivity and neutrality are standard tenets that journalists in U.S. newsrooms value (Hansen, 1994; Palen, 1999; Sachsman, Simon, & Valenti, 2006). However, as environmental issues such as climate change became highly politicized in recent decades, accusations of bias or advocacy on behalf of political leanings or ideological slant have ramped up (Sachsman, Simon, & Valenti, 2010), as have issues relating to tenets of balance and others in terms of voices and perspectives given weight as “expert” (Boykoff & Boykoff, 2004). Prioritization of news values emphasizing conflict, drama, and institutional actors has also affected coverage, as observed in another study examining U.S. coverage of climate change: When personalization, dramatization (through sharp political contention), and authority-order bias norms (primarily consulting authority sources) took effect, the newspaper and television media had news (Boykoff & Boykoff, 2007).

In this paper we argue that these same influences are present in ethnic media, although the level of influence of the factors will show unique characteristics based on the media functions (i.e. acculturation) described in the previous sections.

Research Questions

As mentioned above, despite the increase in scholarly activity on scientific and environmental affairs, most have focused on U.S. English-language media or its Western counterparts (i.e. European countries), particularly in the realm of climate change (e.g., Boykoff & Boykoff, 2007; McComas & Shanahan, 1999; Nissani, 1999; Wilkins, 1993; Zehr, 2000). Only one research project examined media coverage of climate change in U.S. Spanish-language press (Villar & Pinto, 2013), finding little attention paid to the topic nationally for Hispanic audiences. No studies have discussed environmental coverage from a perspective within the newsroom.


To bridge these gaps, this study is guided by the following research questions: To what degree are environmental issues covered in U.S. Spanish-language print and television news? What factors influence the coverage of environmental issues in Spanish-language television in the U.S.?

More specifically, we can guide the study with the following specific research questions based on hierarchy of influences and role conception literature:

RQ1. What are the professional journalistic factors influencing the coverage of environmental issues in the Spanish-language news media in the U.S.?

RQ2. In what ways have media organizational structures and editorial decision-making processes influenced the coverage of environmental issues in the Spanish-language news media in the U.S.?

RQ3. In what ways do individual journalists’ perspectives influence the coverage of environmental issues in the Spanish-language news media in the U.S.?

RQ4. In what ways do journalists believe their audiences’ preferences influence the extent and type of coverage of environmental affairs in the Spanish-language news media in the U.S.?

Methodology

In order to answer these questions, we first conducted an exploratory content analysis of major Spanish-language news outlets about major environmental issues. We selected 80 RSS (Real Simple Syndication) feeds from different U.S. Spanish-language news media, based on the Pew Research Center’s 2011 “State of the News Media” report of Hispanic media.3 These feeds represented the following television news outlets: Univision, Telemundo, CNN en Español national and also in the markets of New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Dallas, Houston, and Chicago. In terms of the print media, we obtained feeds from El Sentinel, La Opinión, El Diario, Rumbo, El Mensajero, Hoy Los Ángeles, La Raza, Vívelo Hoy, Diario las Américas, Al Día (Texas), Diario de México USA, and El Nuevo Herald.

We collected all articles and transcripts published in RSS feeds every 24 hours between October 5th and November 8th 2012, the month before the presidential election. RSS feeds, sent daily to the subscribers, consist of a selection of the most important stories according to the editorial team of each media). Although this is a relatively short period of analysis, the presidential election context heightens the coverage of policy discussions, and therefore we would argue this is one of the contexts where environmental coverage could receive considerable attention. In addition, the goal of the content analysis is not to examine trends in the coverage of environmental issues across time, but to illustrate the typical coverage at any given point in time.

HDD (Herramienta de documentalista) software was used to gather the articles and conduct the analysis. This allowed us to gather large numbers of online articles (13,276) and then to sort, filter, and analyze them (Diago, 2011, 2013). We predefined “materias” (topics) of major environmental and natural-disaster issues that could result in national or regional coverage: “calentamiento global, huracán, inundación, medio ambiente, Sandy, sequía,” (global warming, hurricane, floods, environment, Sandy, drought) or their synonyms, keywords that were used to search for the stories. We recognize the challenge of collecting all environmental stories, and that the keywords only capture a subset of them. With this in mind, in this study we only report the frequencies of issues to provide an overview of the overall environmental coverage in the aforementioned time period.

Then, in order to understand the trends found in the content analysis, we conducted in-depth interviews with 12 news professionals at various Spanish-language news organizations (see Appendix 1 for the list of interviewees). We used a convenience sampling approach and employed several criteria to select the individuals: their leadership position among some of the largest Spanish-language media outlets in the country, their accessibility based on personal connections; and the individuals’ availability and willingness to participate. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted in person and via Skype, and the interview responses were analyzed qualitatively for emerging themes and compared against the existing literature discussed above. The thematic analysis allowed us to identify common themes within and across the interviews and confirm saturation, which means no new themes emerged with every additional interview conducted. All of the interviewees agree that global warming and environmental issues were important to them and key for the future of our planet. Still, none of them considered the issues a coverage priority. They were also in agreement on the justification for this apparent contradiction, as interviewees explained they had to balance more immediate priorities in regard to coverage (journalistic practices at an individual level), and a lack of resources (external factors at an organizational level).

We gave the respondents the option of remaining anonymous, with nine opting to be quoted with name and title. Nevertheless, we used only their initials to report the results to maintain consistency with those who wanted to remain anonymous. The interviews focused on the professional, structural, and personal factors that can influence the decision to cover environmental affairs, or not.

Results

Environmental themes, according to the respondents and the content analysis, are not being covered in Spanish-language media in a comprehensive or adequate manner. Although the total number of stories collected in the RSS feeds was 13,276, very few of these dealt with environmental issues (see Table 1).


Table 1. Environmental Stories from RSS Feeds of Spanish- Language Media

Percent of the coverage

Number of Stories

Duplicates

Sandy 7.07% 500 176

Hurricane* 5.08% 343 111

Drought 0.20% 14 10

Flood 0.20% 14 8

Environment 0.16% 11 11

Global warming 0.04% 3 0

Note: * HDD software calculation (a classic of indexation and automatic classification) allowed us to differentiate between hurricane and flooding when assigning a “materia” (or topic) to a document, based on the number of words that appeared and were repeated during the text.

Hurricane Sandy, as an event, garnered somewhat more coverage, but other topics, such as climate change, barely registered at all, which is surprising considering the episodic but significant coverage the issue receives in the mainstream media.4 These findings are in line with other studies of Hispanic and Latin American media (Villar & Pinto, 2013; Zamith, Pinto, & Villar, 2013).

When asked why, broad themes emerged that encompassed structural, organizational and professional dimensions that resounded with previous studies of environmental information in U.S. mainstream English-language news (Archibald, 1999; Smith, 2005), and added new dimensions to the discussion. All respondents mentioned a lack of resources affecting journalistic output and focus, particularly in terms of possibilities for investigation and enterprise or proactive journalism, with one calling such reporting a “luxury” that the organization could not afford. The effects of ratings wars and a shrinking news hole on environmental news have been well represented in other studies of environmental journalism and its paucity in mainstream news (Friedman, 2004; Hansen, 2011; Sachsman, Simon, & Valenti, 2006), as well as in Spanish-language press (Villar & Pinto, 2013).

‘Important to Me, but Not to My Organization or My Audience’

Hispanic media have to begin to create awareness about environmental issues, to create a little pressure. It’s a challenge… but it’s important that the people read it and understand it, and that they create a little bit of pressure... Maybe [environmental news] doesn’t directly make day-to-day life better, but it’s going to make life better in the future. (VC)

All respondents noted that they, personally, were interested in environmental issues and thought they were important topics to cover. As one respondent said in discussing his coverage of the Chevron contamination case in Ecuador:

I get a close look, I have touched, I have been present at this type of debate, I have developed a degree of commitment and of conscience regarding environmental themes. (DR)

However, when asked to rank topics such as the economy, politics, immigration, health, sports, education, violence, or corruption in terms of importance, almost all respondents consistently listed environmental themes last, or toward the bottom (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Average Rankings of Topics by Respondents in Terms of Importance to Audience (n=10)

When asked why, organizational challenges were enumerated. They included lack of resources to take on investigative enterprise topics as well as lack of interest on the part of news managers seeking ratings and circulation numbers: “When you are in a big company, well, the themes have to pass more filters.” (ES) Another respondent who worked in Spanish-language television noted the fierce pressure of ratings on newscasts:

[In television journalism, we have a newscast each night]. But your news director never asks you, how was the newscast? He asks you, how was the show? It’s a show on television, one that has to have attractive things and bring ratings. (VC)

The responses also revealed journalistic principles favoring news values. Most responded that environmental issues get covered when the news pegs of immediacy and impact are met, what Revkin (2006, p. 224) has called “the tyranny of the news peg.”

Spanish language media is one that reacts to what is happening; it is not proactive. [The environment] gets covered when there’s a natural disaster, and we cover how to find services and public assistance afterward, but not why these disasters are bigger and more frequent each year. (MS)

012345678


One respondent (DC) noted that, in his view, environmental issues impacted his audiences “in a thousand distinct ways”:

They affect them by the negative labor conditions… contamination in poor urban zones that are in general where Hispanics may live, by contaminated food, or oil stories…. It’s necessary that we have coverage of these aspects…. But obviously, the focus is on what is affecting you; that is news.

As others noted, even journalistic enterprise, experience, and interest in covering environmental themes may not be enough to overcome the obstacles and gatekeepers from within news organizations:

When I covered environmental themes at the global level or the U.N., I saw it as a form of assigning myself.… But I saw that these themes were not being welcomed.… It wasn’t a priority for the media. (DR)

Various respondents attributed these contradictions to a lack of “awareness,” both within the media as well as among their audiences. The functions of a journalist, beyond informing and explaining, is also to create awareness of the important issues of the day, they often said:

Personally, I believe that what’s missing is that journalists alsocreate more awareness… just like we do when covering health… but I think that journalists personally do not understand that [these] stories are important, and so we don’t pressure the managers so that they take them as serious themes…. I believe journalists and reporters need to become more aware themselves that it is important to cover these themes and put it out into the Hispanic community in termsof how it affects or doesn’t affect them. (MA)

As long as this awareness doesn’t exist, the media won’t take on their responsibility and journalists won’t look for training. There won’t be change; there will always be superficial coverage, or an irrelevant theme, or not in-depth reporting. (DR)

In addition, part of this lack of interest and awareness from news decision makers appears to be a function of the perception of the attributes of the issues. Environmental issues were described as “complicated,” and neither “sexy” nor “audience drivers,” and therefore remained off the editorial agendas. As one participant said:

Hispanic media is more concerned with segmenting… or monetizing… than [with] offering public service to the community. There is a clash of principles. (MS)

Another respondent said:

I think the other problem in environmental coverage is that it isn’t as sexy as covering the deaths on the border, or the immigration policies, and since one can’t sell it equally, we leave it. (MA)

Audience Functionality

Related to this, most respondents also shared a perception that the audience was not interested in environmental information. The majority saw their audiences as immigrants seeking information about employment, housing, and how to better understand U.S. culture. They saw their roles as journalists to inform and explain, but also they understood that their audiences used their content to educate and acculturate themselves––immigrants living day to day, working to find employment and housing, to get ahead in their daily lives, finding, as one put it, the “Hispanic angle.” (MS)

[We cover] themes important to the audience. It depends on the market. Our market . . . many of them are immigrants. So everything has to do with how they can improve their lives: job searches, education, security. (Anon.)

In the United States, Hispanic journalism has a very clear theme, which is coverage of immigration, for example, themes that concern the search for well-being of the Hispanic community of immigrants: health, education, labor themes. (DR)

Hispanic media create a sense of belonging, that they are educational media. The Hispanic still watches Spanish-language television as a window toward the U.S., its culture. They want to know what’s happening, but they also want to know how to live in this country… Hispanic media still are the media used by people to acculturate themselves. (VC)

Another respondent differentiated among the Hispanic population to discuss nuances in terms of generation and education. The significant differences between Latino generations based on their levels of assimilation and acculturation (Smith, 2003) are important when considering their information needs. One respondent said:

I believe there is more awareness of environmental themes in the segment of the Hispanic population that only speaks English or the segment that is bilingual but searches for content in English because Spanish-language content doesn’t satisfy them. (ES)

Comparisons with Other Media

When asked to contrast environmental coverage by Spanish-language media to that of other (U.S. English-language, or


country-of-origin media), responses differed slightly. Several said they believed U.S. English-language media fared better, with more comprehensive coverage, but for different reasons: more resources than Spanish-language media, translation services, better access to information than in Latin America. One cited acculturation functions of media that bring audience numbers:

The American media cover it better than Hispanic media. They pay more attention…. American media do not have to worry about [creating a sense] of belonging. (VC)

Other responses included that Spanish media covered it better (MS), that Latin American media did not cover it as well (MS and RV), and also that media in Puerto Rico covered it more often that U.S. media did (PR).

In one interview, the question of comparison with English-language media took on new dimensions when discussing differences between El Nuevo Herald, one of Miami’s Spanish-language newspapers, and The Miami Herald, the English-language daily. While most of the other respondents characterized their audiences as immigrants seeking information for day-to-day life, using public transportation, working in agrarian sectors, El Nuevo’s then-executive editor (MG), saw his newspaper’s public differently, “We have readers from the worker to the multi-millionaire living on Key Biscayne.” El Nuevo also had additional opportunities to publish environmental news, MG said, noting that they are able to translate stories from The Miami Herald’s environmental reporter, Curtis Morgan. He noted several stories that have been important to their audiences, such as those on anticipated huge upgrades to Miami-Dade County’s water and sewer system, and on tropical storms, among others. A story regarding oil exploration off the coast of Cuba published the year prior was one of the most read stories, according to MG. However, he did note differences among English- and Spanish-language audiences:

Environmental themes are key for English language audiences.… It’s not true that they are not also key for us, but here there are priorities. In The Miami Herald, it’s very important what is happening in the Everglades and if they are going to move the Urban Development Boundary…. But it’s not a black-and-white thing. It’s not as if we don’t also think this is important…. We do think it’s important. But Cuba, Venezuela, and other themes are a little higher. But this depends story to story.

Challenging Content to Cover Adequately?

The interviews also focused on the perceptions of environmental issues’ attributes, and the presumed difficulty of covering science-based issues. Only two interviewees responded that environmental news was challenging because of its complexity and scientific dimensions, with the others responding that it was not. Some noted that environmental or scientific topics were necessarily

difficult for the journalist to translate and explain; the difficulty was in convincing executives and news directors that such topics were important for the communities. One called it a “myth” that environmental themes were difficult for journalists to cover:

I don’t believe [environmental] coverage is difficult or complex…. Like any other theme, you have to educate yourself, you have to understand it so you can explain it. (MA)

I have a team of reporters with a lot of experience. They educate themselves and don’t publish anything if they don’t understand the topic. They speak with a lot of experts…. It can be a complex topic, but we speak with experts who guide us. (MG)

When asked to explain their perceptions of the content of environmental stories, respondents described distinct interpretations of what “environmental” themes encompassed, with examples that ranged from recycling batteries to climate change, the Everglades, the Galapagos, hurricanes, the BP oil spill, mining, the weather, or pesticides. Respondents gave wide-ranging examples when discussing environmental news coverage: developments and actions that impacted health or the economy, such as the BP oil spill or pesticides on food production, events such as Earth Day, and also the growing visibility of extreme weather events in the news.

The theme of weather and weather events, discussed peripherally by three and in depth by one respondent, presents an interesting avenue to explore how climate change and other environmental issues may become inserted more frequently into newscasts, as they change from being abstractions to issues with impact that act as audience drivers. As one participant noted, Hurricane Sandy evolved into a political story as the 2012 presidential election was affected by changes in candidate support from governors of key states, and that such effects on traditional news beats could be expected with continuing climate change:

Everybody is realizing that the environment is something that each day, plays a more central role. It’s going to force us to cover the environment more…. Our challenge is to find a way to present environmental issues in a more entertaining, informative… way, because it’s an important topic. (VC)

This process, as the weather or weather events become “pura actualidad” (relevant) when they turn into natural disasters, could have transnational dimensions, as ES noted. His organizations covered “all types of disasters” in Latin America as well as the United States, as environmental themes became news in this way.

Another interviewee explained that weather as environment is an important day-to-day news peg for their audience––who needed to be outside, heading to work, living their lives. They compared it to


covering local transportation in terms of the day-to-day necessity, as well as how an environmental item could become a top news priority:

[B]ecause weather is environment. The fact of changing weather… a few weeks ago, there was flooding here. We went out into the streets, and we put a 12-minute first segment that no one else had.… For three days, we reported mainly on weather. Environment can become the most important theme. (Anon.)

Recent research focusing on the role of meteorologists in communicating climate change through their weather forecasts validates the increasing importance of making this issue relevant to individuals in their daily life (Wilson, 2008, 2009).

Discussion and Conclusion

This study offers relevant insights into how Spanish-language media in the U.S. make news decisions concerning environmental issues. In this section we discuss such findings, and provide recommendations for future areas and directions of research that could help us better understand news decision making in ethnic media.

First, in regards to RQs 1, 2, and 3, the results show that within the hierarchy of influences model (Shoemaker and Reese, 1996), organizational, extramedia, and professional influences appear to have strong impact on the ability to report on environmental news. More specifically, revenue streams (extramedia), the perception of editors/executives that environmental news is not important (organizational), and the perception that environmental stories lack immediacy/impact (professional) are the main reasons cited by the respondents. Such findings reflect other research examining news production of environmental affairs in English-language mainstream media (e.g. Friedman, 2004; Lester, 2010; Shanahan & McComas, 1997).

Indeed, responses indicated there is confusion, or perhaps simply broad interpretation, in terms of what environmental news actually is, something that has implications for understanding news gatekeeping. From this initial study, it would seem that there are differences within Spanish-language newsrooms, so that audiences’ environmental value systems and beliefs are viewed in drastically different ways. For the most part, these organizational, professional, and extramedia influences were at odds with the respondents’ perceptions that environmental issues were important and should be on the media agenda. Further, respondents argued that environmental stories are not challenging to cover (so do not present a professional obstacle). This contradicts previous research on environmental journalism and the difficulties journalists face in translating environmental and scientific information (Archibald, 1999; Yang, 2004). This self-assurance is surprising. Previous research on environmental journalists in the

U.S. reports conflicting results in regards to the role of scientific knowledge (Yang, 2004) and science training (Archibald, 1999) on environmental reporting. Nuances in levels of perceived knowledge (Sundblad, Biel, & Garling, 2009) can affect the way accuracy with which journalists report on these issues (Wilson, 2000). More research will be needed to confirm whether this is a widespread perception of news decision makers in Hispanic and other ethnic media, and whether it has an effect on the way the issues are covered.

Second, from a role-conception perspective (RQ 3), the results did not reveal the tension between objectivity and advocacy sometimes discussed in the literature on environmental journalism (Palen, 1999). Several of the respondents mentioned that their role was to raise awareness for some of these environmental issues (something consistent with the advocacy role; see Tandoc and Takahashi, 2014), something similar to what they have done with health issues. In addition, the respondents discussed lack of specialization, which includes the non-existence of an environmental beat, a feature more commonly found in English-language media. This limitation can help explain why this tension is not as prevalent Spanish-language media as it has been reported elsewhere. However, respondents expressed a desire that agencies, nonprofits, organizations with prestige, or professional organizations such as the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) or the National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ) would “pressure” or remind journalists and their editors about the importance of more coverage. All respondents noted they, as individuals, found environmental news important to cover. Again, this suggested multi-directional processes at work in terms of public and media agendas, as well as within the hierarchical structure.

Third, as regards RQ 4 and related to the point above, respondents overwhelmingly suggested that the lack of coverage of environmental news is a response to audiences’ needs. Cultural processes played an important role, from the perspectives articulated here. One consistent emergent theme from our study indicated that most of the content producers for Spanish-language media we interviewed perceived their audiences’ use of media as predominantly oriented toward acculturating into U.S. culture, viewing it as a largely “utilitarian” usage (Ríos & Gaines, 1998, p. 755). There is a sense that audiences aren’t interested in environmental news to the degree that they are in “day-to-day” affairs, and that most people use Hispanic media to aid them in the acculturation process, to solve day-to-day problems and get ahead with their lives. Cultural processes associated with media uses have provided many avenues of research on Spanish-language media and their audiences (e.g. Guzmán, 2006; Subervi-Vélez, 1986, 1999; Ríos & Gaines, 1998). Others have noted the prioritization of needs such as health, immigration, justice, place, and culture (Santiago-Irizarry, 2003), and the lack of other important information, such as environmental topics or policy issues. This cultural function is also consistent with the arguments


articulated by Carvalho (2007) and Corbett (2006) in the context of dominant anthropocentric ideologies in the communication of environmental issues. The individual experiences of newsmakers and audiences, geographical characteristics, history, and overall culture (Corbett, 2006), played a role in the ways that environmental issues were, or were not, reported by Spanish-language media.

However, nuances were also articulated. For example, as RP noted, “South Florida is a world apart.” As a diverse region, with a majority (69% as of the 2010 Census) immigrant population in Miami-Dade County, the unique relationship between the two main newspapers allows for more efficient use of resources. Although MD clarified that El Nuevo Herald and The Miami Herald have two distinct editorial lines, they may decide to “interchange” stories, depending on audience interest. And rather than a focus on immigration, which he ranked lower than did other respondents, MD’s perceptions of audience interests involved home countries, particularly Cuba and Venezuela. Interestingly, he noted that one of the most read stories of the previous year involved potential oil exploration off the coast of Cuba by Venezuelan companies, which had implications for Florida coastlines. This nexus of conflict, countries of origin, politics, and environment evolved into an important story. Several respondents mentioned region-specific nuances in terms of how broadly defined “environmental news” had more immediacy for news audiences. These include, for example, health issues related to pollution in Los Angeles, and weather events in Chicago.

Another respondent (ES) also noted the importance of generational shifts and organizational orientations. His outlet, VOXXI, catered to English-speaking or bilingual Hispanics, therefore, second- and third-generation residents, who in his view, care more about environmental issues than most first-generation or recently arrived immigrants do. In addition, in a smaller organization such as his, there was more room for enterprise journalism, since content wasn’t already necessarily earmarked for specific sections, such as politics, the economy, or immigration.

The results of this study provide a first look into why environmental issues in Spanish-language media have been largely ignored by researchers. This exploratory study has several limitations, so we consider the results preliminary, a first step in an area of study that has received very little attention. The limitations include the sample size of the content analysis and interviews, which as we discussed in the methods sections, we expect to expand.

Therefore, more work is needed to understand the dynamic nature of audience interests, and how these interests are reflected in, and influence (or don’t) media agendas. Our results show that Spanish-language media do not create a sense of consciousness about the environment among Hispanics, something that Kerevel (2011) aregues is a main functions of these media. Future studies

should explore how coverage of environmental issues, both in English- and Spanish-language media, influence the process of acculturation, and how ideology manifests itself in the processes of news media production. In other words, are Hispanics in the U.S. conforming to dominant environmental discourses and behaviors, or do they retain and reinforce their own cultural perceptions about nature and environmental issues? Also, how are those processes being understood by news content producers? As Guzmán (2006, p. 293) wrote:

[I]mmigrants continue to serve a symbolic and political utility for the ideological tensions between immigrant host and home country… [T]he ideological relationship between ethnic and general-market press will play an increasingly vital function in defining the public discourse of citizenship, community, and culture.

As the Hispanic population continues to grow in size and power in the U.S., the ways in which the public agenda and media agenda interface regarding coverage of environmental issues such as climate change will remain important avenues of research for scholars in various disciplines. For example, the research examining a shared culture between scientists and journalists, as well as the need for scientifically based training of environmental journalists, suggest that journalists, in Spanish-language media as well as in other ethnic media, will face considerable challenges in their reporting. This will be especially important when coverage moves beyond the day-to-day needs of audiences, and requires more in-depth examination of the science and the policy implications behind environmental issues.

References

Abrajano, M., & Singh, S. (2009). Examining the link between issue attitudes and news source: The case of Latinos and immigration reform. Political Behavior, 31(1), 1-30.

Anderson, A. (2009). Media, politics and climate change: Towards a new research agenda. Sociology Compass, 3(2), 166-182.

Archibald, E. (1999). Problems with environmental reporting: Perspectives of daily newspaper reporters. Journal of Environmental Education, 30(4), 27-32.

Boykoff, M., & Boykoff, J. (2004). Balance as bias: Global warming and the U.S. prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 15(2), 125–136.

Boykoff, M., & Boykoff, J. (2007). Climate change and journalistic norms: A case study of U.S. mass-media coverage. Geoforum, 38(6), 1190-1204.

Branton, R., & Dunaway, J. (2008). English- and Spanish-language media coverage of immigration: A comparative analysis. Social Science Quarterly, 89(4), 1006-1022.

Carvalho, A. (2007). Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge: Re-reading news on climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 223-243.


Corbett, J. (2006). Communicating nature: How we create and understand environmental messages. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Diago, F. J. (2011). Procedimiento de cálculo de la materia probable de un documento de texto y su uso en el programa informático “Herramienta de Documentalista.” Retrieved from http://eprints.rclis.org/15375/1 como%20se%20calcula%20la%20materia%20probable2.pdf

Diago, F. J. (2013). APIs to improve the information aggregation system: The uses of HDD software and other applications. Boletín ANABAD, 63(3), 523-537.

Ennis, S., Ríos-Vargas, M., & Albert, N. (May, 2011). The Hispanic population: 2010. 2010 Census Briefs. United States Census Bureau. C2010BR-04.

Finucane, M. L., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Flynn, J., & Satterfield, T. A. (2000). Gender, race, and perceived risk: The ‘white male’ effect. Health, Risk & Society, 2(2), 159-172.

Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1994). Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 1101-1108.

Fowler, E., Hale, M., & Olsen, T. (2009). Spanish- and English-language local television coverage of politics and the tendency to cater to Latino audiences. International Journal of Press/Politics, 14(2), 232-256.

Friedman, M., Dunwoody, S., & Rogers, C. L. (1986). Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news. New York: Free Press.

Friedman, S. ( 2004). And the beat goes on: The third decade of environmental journalism. In S. Senecah, S. Depoe, M. Neuzil, & G. Walker (Eds.) Environmental communication yearbook, Vol. 1 (pp. 175-187). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Frome, M. (1998). Green ink: An introduction to environmental journalism. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Guzmán, I. (2006). Competing discourses of community: Ideological tensions between local general-market and Latino news media. Journalism, 7(3), 281-298.

Hale, M., Olsen, T., & Fowler, E. (2009). A matter of language or culture: Coverage of the 2004 U.S. elections on Spanish- and English-language television. Mass Communication and Society, 12(1), 26-51.

Hanitzsch, T. (2006). Mapping journalism culture: A theoretical taxonomy and case studies from Indonesia. Asian Journal of Communication, 16(2), 169-86.

Hanitzsch, T. (2007). Deconstructing journalism culture: Toward a universal theory. Communication Theory, 17(40), 367-385.

Hanitzsch, T., Anikina, M., Berganza, R., Cangoz, I., Coman, M., Hamada, B., . . . Yuen, K. W. (2010). Modeling perceived influences on journalism: Evidence from a cross-national survey of journalists. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 87(1), 5-22.

Hansen, A. (1994). Journalistic practices and science reporting in the British press. Public Understanding of Science, 3(2), 111-134.

Hansen, A. (2011). Communication, media and environment: Towards reconnecting research on the production, content and social implications of environmental communication. International Communication Gazette, 73(1-2), 7-25.

Kerevel, Y. (2011). The influence of Spanish-language media on Latino public opinion and group consciousness. Social Science Quarterly, 92(2), 509-534.

Kim, H. (2010). Forces of gatekeeping and journalists’ perceptions of physical danger in post-Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 87(4), 484-500.

Lester, L. (2010). Media and environment: Conflict, politics and the news. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Lozano, J. C. (1989). Issues and sources in Spanish-language TV: A comparison of Noticiero Univision and NBC Evening News. Frontera Norte, 1(1), 151-173.

Lynch, B. (1993). The garden and the sea: U.S. Latino environmental discourses and mainstream environmentalism. Social Problems, 40(1), 108-124.

Mays, V. M., & Cochran, S. D. (1988). Issues in the perception of AIDS risk and risk reduction activities by Black and Hispanic/Latina women. American Psychologist, 43(11), 949-957.

McComas, K., & Shanahan, J. (1999). Telling stories about global climate change: Measuring the impact of narratives on issue cycles. Communication Research, 26(1), 30-57.

Moran, K. C. (2006). Is changing the language enough? The Spanish-language ‘alternative’ in the USA. Journalism, 7(3), 389-405.

Nissani, M. (1999). Media coverage of the greenhouse effect. Population & Environment, 21(1), 27-43.

NOAA. (2012). United States flood loss report: Water year 2012. Retrieved from http://www.nws.noaa.gov/hic/summaries/WY2012.pdf.

Okamoto, D., Ebert, K., & Violet, C. (2011). ¿El campeón de los hispanos? Comparing the coverage of Latino/a collective action in Spanish- and English-language newspapers. Latino Studies, 9(2), 219-241.

Palen, John. (1999). Objectivity as independence. Science Communication, 21(2), 156-171.

Palmer, C. (2003). Risk perception: Another look at the ‘white male’ effect. Health, Risk & Society, 5(1), 71-83.

Peña, D. G. (2003). The scope of Latino/a environmental studies. Latino Studies, 1(1), 47-78.

Piñón, J., & Rojas, V. (2011). Language and cultural identity in the new configuration of the U.S. Latino TV industry. Global Media and Communication, 7(2), 129-147.

Reese, S. (2001). Understanding the global journalist: A hierarchy of influences approach. Journalism Studies, 2(2), 173-187.

Revkin, A. C., (2006). The daily planet: Why the media stumble over the environment. In D. Blum, M. Knudson, & R. M. Henig (Eds.), A field guide for science writers. (pp. 222-228). New York: Oxford University Press.

Ríos, D. I., & Gaines, S. O. (1998). Latino media use for cultural maintenance. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75(4), 746-761.

Sachsman, D. B., Simon, J., & Valenti, J. M. (2006). Regional issues, national norms: A four-region analysis of U.S. environment reporters. Science Communication, 28(1), 93-121.

Sachsman, D., Simon, J., & Valenti, J. M. (2010). Environment reporters in the 21st century. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.


Santiago-Irizarry, V. (2003). Environmentalism, identity politics and the nature of ‘nature.’ Latino Studies, 1(1), 79-89.

Schultz, W., Unipan, J., & Gamba, R. (2000). Acculturation and ecological worldview among Latino Americans. Journal of Environmental Education, 31(2), 22-27.

Shanahan, J., & McComas, K. (1997). Television’s portrayal of the environment: 1991-1995. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74(1), 147-159.

Shoemaker, P., Eichholz, M., Kim, E., & Wrigley, B. (2001). Individual and routine forces in gatekeeping. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(2), 233-246.

Shoemaker, P., & Reese, S. (1996). Mediating the message. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Shoemaker, P., & Vos, T. (2009). Gatekeeping theory. New York: Routledge.

Smith, J. (2003). Assimilation across the Latino generations. American Economic Review, 93(2), 315-319.

Smith, J. (2005). Dangerous news: Media decision making about climate change risk. Risk Analysis, 25(6), 1471-1482.

Soruco, G. (1996). Cubans and the mass media in South Florida. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Subervi-Vélez, F. (1986). The mass media and ethnic assimilation and pluralism: A review and research proposal with special focus on Hispanics. Communication Research, 13(1), 71-96.

Subervi-Vélez, F. (1999). Spanish-language television coverage of health news. Howard Journal of Communications, 10(3), 207-228.

Subervi-Vélez, F. (2008). Latinos’ use of media and the media’s influence on political knowledge and participation: Findings from the 1989 Latino political survey. In F. A. Subervi-Vélez (Ed.), The mass media and Latino politics (pp. 323-349). New York: Routledge.

Sundblad, E., Biel, A., & Garling, T. (2009). Knowledge and confidence in knowledge about climate change among experts, journalists, politicians, and laypersons. Environment and Behavior, 41(2), 281-302.

Tandoc, E., & Takahashi, B. (2014). Playing a crusader role or just playing by the rules? Role conceptions and role inconsistencies among environmental journalists. Journalism: Theory, Practice, and Criticism, 15(7), 889-907.

Thorson, E. (2006). Print news and health psychology: Some observations. Journal of Health Psychology, 11(2), 175-182.

Vargas, L. (2000). Genderizing Latino news: An analysis of a local newspaper’s coverage of Latino current affairs. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 17(3), 261-293.

Vargas, L., & De Pyssler, B. J. (1999). U.S. Latino newspapers as health communication resources: A content analysis. Howard Journal of Communication, 10(3), 189-205.

Veciana-Suárez, A. (1990). Hispanic media. Impact and influence. Washington, D.C.: The Media Institute.

Vigón, M. (2010). Covering the news for Spanish-speaking USA. Journal of Spanish Language Media, 3, 24-40.

Villar, M. E., & Bueno, Y. (2013). Disparate health news frames in English- and Spanish-language newspapers in two U.S. Cities. Howard Journal of Communications, 24(1), 57-70.

Villar, M. E. & Pinto, J. (2013). Coverage of climate change in leading U.S. Spanish-language newspapers. Journal of Spanish Language Media, 6, 42-60.

Voakes, P. (1997). Social influences on journalists’ decision making in ethical situations. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 12(1), 18-35.

Weaver, D., Beam, R., Brownlee, B., Voakes, P., & Wilhoit, C. (2007). The American journalist in the 21st Century: U.S. news people at the dawn of a new millennium. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Whittaker, M., Segura, G., & Bowler, S. (2005). Racial/ethnic group attitudes toward environmental protection in California: Is “environmentalism” still a white phenomenon? Political Research Quarterly, 58(3), 435-447.

Wilkins, L. (1993). Between facts and values: Print media coverage of the greenhouse effect, 1987-1990. Public Understanding of Science, 2(1), 71-84.

Wilson, K. (2000). Drought, debate, and uncertainty: Measuring reporters’ knowledge and ignorance about climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 9(1), 1-13.

Wilson, K. (2008). Television weathercasters as potentially prominent science communicators. Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 73-87.

Wilson, K. (2009). Opportunities and obstacles for television weathercasters to report on climate change. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 90(10), 1457-1465.

Yang, J. (2004). Constraints on environmental news production in the U.S.: Interviews with American journalists. Journal of International and Area Studies, 11(2), 89-105.

Zamith, R., Pinto, J., & Villar, M. E. (2013). Constructing climate change in the Americas: An analysis of news coverage in U.S. and South American newspapers. Science Communication, 35(3), 334–357.

Zehr, S. (2000). Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 9(2), 85-103.


Appendix 1. Interviewees5

1. MA, a former reporter for the Arizona Daily Star, the Orlando Sentinel and online business editor at a Grupo Reforma newspaper in Guadalajara, Mexico.

2. DC, vice president of news for Univision in the United States; former editor in chief of the Colombian national newscasts Noticias Uno, NTC Noticias, and Noticias RCN.

3. MG, former executive editor and general manager, El Nuevo Herald in Miami, Florida.

4. RP, editorial director of the weekly Qué Pasa-Mi Gente in Charlotte, N.C., with 30 years’ experience working for various outlets, including the Spanish news service EFE, Univision, CBS Telenoticias, ECO-Televisa, Telemundo, Canal de Noticias NBC, and La Opinión.

5. DR, writer/columnist at HuffPost Voces, and former ex-ecutive news editor at El Diario/La Prensa.

6. PR, retired executive editor of La Opinión in Los Angeles; former executive editor at El Diario/La Prensa.

7. ES, president and editor-in-chief of VOXXI and former U.S. Hispanic editor for EFE News Agency.

8. MS, former managing editor of El Diario/La Prensa in New York, and former AP Spanish online supervisor.

9. RV, former news director of WSCV-TV (Channel 51, owned and operated by Telemundo) in Miami and as-sistant news director of WLII-TV (owned and operated by Univision) in Puerto Rico.

10. Anonymous respondent11. Anonymous respondent12. LG, Executive News Management & Coaching

NOTES

1 For the purposes of this study, we use the terms “Latino” and “Hispanic” inter-changeably. 2 See http://vault.sierraclub.org/ecocentro/survey/2012%20Latinos%20and%20the%20Environment%20Survey_Exec%20Summary_English.pdf 3 Available http://stateofthemedia.org/2011/hispanic-media-fairing-better-than-the-mainstream-media/ (last accessed, May 28, 2013). 4 See http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/media_coverage/ 5 Note that the jobs listed in the appendix were those held at the time of the inter-view. Some interviewees have moved to different positions since then.


Who Owns Spanish Media in the United States?

Alan B. Albarran, Ph.D.The University of North Texas


Terry Moellinger, Ph.D.The University of North Texas


AbstractThis paper examines the current state of ownership of Spanish-language media in the United States by focusing on several media sectors: television stations, television networks, cable networks, radio stations, newspapers, and magazines. Across media sec-tors, the analysis reveals that most Spanish-language individual properties are not owned by Latinos/Hispanics, but by larger cor-porations that reside in the general market. Factors behind this pattern of ownership are discussed, along with recent policy de-cisions to try to improve the percentage of minority ownership across the United States, especially for Hispanics/Latinos.

Keywords: Hispanics, Latinos, Spanish-language, media, owner-ship, television, radio, newspapers, cable, magazines


Introduction

The number of Hispanics living in the United States is estimated to be somewhere around 54 million people, or approximately 17.1% of the total population, according to the latest government figures (State and Country Quick Facts, 2014). This number does not take into account the undocumented Hispanic population that may have been living in the United States for years (Passel, 2005). That figure, at best an educated estimate, is somewhere around 8-12 million people. In terms of raw numbers, the Hispanic population is the fastest growing ethnic group in the United States.

The rise of the Hispanic population, along with the growing economic clout of Hispanic households, long ago caught the interests of major corporations wanting to invest in this expansive market. This was especially true for the broadcast media, their marketers, and advertisers, all desiring to expand their market share and generate revenues from a growing ethnic segment. Owners across the non-Hispanic “general market” began to acquire Spanish-language companies and to change/convert formats to Spanish to reach Hispanic eyes and ears. The growth of Spanish-language broadcasting in the United States has been quite remarkable (e.g., Castañeda Paredes, 2003; Wilkinson, 2009; 2016).

Yet, despite the rapid growth of the Hispanic population and the rise in the number of Spanish-language TV networks, broadcast stations, and print publications, how much of what we know as Spanish-language media is actually owned by Hispanics? This paper takes a contemporary look at the subject of Spanish-language media ownership in the United States by focusing on the major media sectors. In order to provide a proper context for this study, we first examine the concept of media ownership in the United States, and the key concepts that drive ownership policy.

Background

Media ownership is an area of study that encompasses several theories and concepts (Harcourt & Picard, 2009). Ownership of the media in the United States (and many developed nations) was initially driven by the theory of scarcity—early on there were few channels available to license (e.g., the case of broadcasting) and therefore licenses were awarded to those owners who would best operate in the public interest (Hazlett, 1990). The scarcity paradigm dominated the regulatory view of media ownership in the U.S. until the 1980s, when a marketplace view of regulation emerged (Fowler & Brenner, 1982), recognizing how technology had created numerous channels (largely through the development of cable television) and eliminating concerns related to scarcity.

Marketplace theory influenced policymakers to liberalize broadcast ownership limits in 1984. This marketplace view continued to expand with the introduction of the Internet and the World Wide Web in the 1990s, leading to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which further relaxed ownership restrictions and allowed for

cross-media ownership (networks owning more than one network; publishers owning TV stations, etc.). One outcome of marketplace theory was a concern over the growing concentration of media ownership, the idea that large media conglomerates only offered homogeneous products, limited diversity of opinion, and strongly influenced public opinion (Doyle, 2002).

One critic of media consolidation was Bagdikian (2004), who argued that control of most of the news media in the United States was vested in just seven companies, down from nearly 50 in 1983. Consolidation can occur via horizontal and vertical integration, two other concepts key to any discussion of media ownership (Albarran, 2009). In horizontal integration, a media company may hold interests in creating content for television and film; publishing in various forms; and digital media via websites, applications, and social media. Vertical integration occurs when a company has the ability to control the various aspects of production, distribution and exhibition of media content. Horizontal integration or cross-media ownership is what has led many legacy companies to enter Spanish-language media. For example, NBC had a long history in network television before acquiring Telemundo in 2002.

Conversely, the theory of pluralism runs counter to the notion of concentrated media. The pluralist theory of media ownership suggests that owners are for the most part responsible in the way that they manage information, because media content is ultimately shaped by consumer demand, and thus provide content that the public wants and desires (Bennett, Curran, & Wollacott, 1982). Pluralists argue that large media conglomerates are complex systems, and that owners lack the ability to interfere in the day-to-day operations and influence the creation of content.

Mobile media and social media debuted during the 2000s, creating new “platforms” that led to widespread fragmentation of the audience. In particular, mobile/social media made possible all types of audience-created content that could be shared easily and quickly. Streaming media content has nearly eliminated the watching of live television in many households, with a growing number of companies offering original content to audiences for a subscription fee (Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu being the most prominent). These technological advances began to raise many questions for policymakers over how to address issues like security, privacy, and ethics regarding content.

This brief overview of media ownership illustrates the challenges policymakers face in determining ownership requirements. One aspect not yet discussed—but germane to this study—concerns itself with the actual owner, and the role of minority ownership of the media in the United States. The ethnic makeup of the United States is diverse, represented by Anglos, African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and other ethnic groups. It is generally expected—although empirically challenging to assess—that minority ownership of the media would tend to be better oriented and more sensitive towards the needs of the ethnic


audiences they serve. Regretfully, minority ownership of the media in the United States has a bleak history despite several policy initiatives to spur greater minority ownership1 (Albarran & Fender, 2006; Honig, 1984).

In the case of broadcasting, the Federal Communications Commission conducts a quadrennial review of broadcast ownership as required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Federal Communications Commission, 2014). Based on the latest information in the report, the current state of Hispanic-owned broadcast media is woeful. Quoting directly from the commission’s report (p. 3):

Broadcast ownership and ethnicity. Hispanic/Latino persons collectively or individually held a majority of the voting interests in 571 broadcast stations, comprised of 42 full-power commercial television stations (3.0%) of 1,386 stations; 155 low-power television stations, including Class A stations (9.4%) of 1,651 stations; 194 commercial AM radio stations (5.2%) of 3,737 stations; and 180 commercial FM radio stations (3.2%) of 5,714 stations.

There are numerous reasons for these dismal numbers. One is the long-term failure of regulatory policies in the United States to provide for greater minority ownership. Another widely cited reason is the lack of capital for minority owners, and the inability to raise funding for acquisitions among lenders. But what is striking is the disparity between the nation’s largest ethnic group—Hispanics at approximately 17% of the population—and media ownership that, in the highest category (low-power TV stations), only reaches 9.4% based on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 2014 report. Further, is it a surprise that low-power television stations are typically the poorest stations in terms of generating advertising revenues in the United States?

The Spanish-language newspaper sector in the U.S. also illustrates the disparity of small versus large owners and minority ownership. Alphabetically, the first Spanish-language newspaper, Ahora of New Jersey, demonstrates the concern that Hispanic media has for the population it serves. Ahora’s website notes that the owner, the nonprofit Puerto Rican Congress of New Jersey, helped found the paper in 1970 because the Spanish-speaking members of the community needed information in a language they could understand. The paper’s mission is “to report, guide, educate, and entertain the Hispanic community” (Ahora News, 2014, para. 2).

According to Eddie García, the publisher of the first Spanish-language publication in Southwest Arkansas, the privately held

1 Albarran and Fender (2006) detail many of the early Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decisions that impacted minority ownership. These include the Mid-Florida decision by the D.C. Court of Appeals in 1974; the FCC minority owner-ship task force in 1977 resulting in a new FCC policy statement in 1978 support-ing minority ownership; the Metro Broadcasting and Bechtel decisions supporting minority ownership; and the effort to establish tax certificates to help minorities in the acquisition of broadcast properties—later repealed by Congress in 1995.

weekly Amigo, the newspaper still maintains its core mission: “to support the Hispanic community by providing information about religion, education, culture, tradition, family, and community” (personal communication, March 13, 2016). Contrast these two papers to Al Día, in Dallas-Fort Worth, the number five media market (Al Día, 2014). Al Día serves the Hispanic population in the DFW market, but is owned by the A. H. Belo Corporation, a publicly held company that has no minority ownership representation.

Given this introduction, our goal in this study is to explore the following research questions related to ownership of Spanish-language media properties:

RQ1. Who are the top companies targeting ethnic audiences in the United States?

RQ2. Across individual media segments, how many of the top companies are Hispanic-controlled?

RQ3. Based on the findings of these research questions, what can be said about the broader question of “Who owns Spanish media in the United States”?

Methodology and Analysis

This study utilized a combination of historical, financial, and legal analysis to address its three research questions. Finding financial data on media companies can be challenging due to differences in corporate accounting methods, which can vary considerably; whether or not the company is public or privately held; and any discrepancies reported on financial statements that can affect the interpretation of the data. Thus, while this may appear to be a descriptive study, the actual data analysis was quite demanding and required considerable investigation and assessment.

Specific sources included corporate annual reports, financial websites and other Internet sources, research from non-profit entities, and government documents, all of which are detailed in the reference list and/or the tables presented below. In the case of annual reports, we used the most recent reports available, with the understanding that corporations are allowed to establish their own fiscal years, which resulted in some company information based on 2014 rather than 2015.

To present a broad overview of Spanish-language media ownership, we limited our focus to the top five companies across different segments of the media as ranked by either revenue or other variables, recognizing that the top five would represent the dominant companies in each sector. Our interest was to see how many of these companies in each sector were owned by Hispanics.

The Top Five Ethnic Media Companies

The first research question guiding this study looks at who are the top companies targeting ethnic media in the United States. We wanted to identify the top five media companies targeting ethnic


(non-Anglo) audiences, and what types of media were being delivered by each firm. Data for this first question was obtained from Columbia University’s Project for Excellence in Journalism (2014). These companies are detailed in Table 1, followed by brief descriptions of the three companies that are targeting Hispanics.

Table 1. Top Media Companies Targeting Ethnic Audiences by Rank (2015)

Rank Company Ethnicity Targeted

Cable Network Website Magazine Radio LocalTV Newspaper

1 Comcast Hispanic 3 7 0 0 26 0

2 Time Warner

African-American

3 2 10 0 0 0

3 Univision Hispanic 11 1 0 74 52 0

4 Viacom African American

1 0 0 0 0 0

5 McClatchy Hispanic 0 0 0 0 0 29

Note: Adapted from Project for Excellence in Journalism (2012) and NBC Universal Annual Report (2015).

In terms of the three companies targeting Hispanics, Comcast is a publicly held corporation, trading on the NASDAQ and headquartered in Philadelphia. According to its 2015 annual report, the corporation produced revenues exceeding $65.6 billion with total assets of over $158.8 billion (Comcast, 2016). Comcast holdings include the second-largest Spanish-language broadcast television network, Telemundo, the cable channel NBC Universo, and 15 local Telemundo TV stations.

Telemundo programming includes telenovelas, sports, reality programs, news, and feature films. In addition, Telemundo maintains a robust Internet and mobile presence through its Telemundo Digital Media division. Telemundo International also distributes programs worldwide and ranks as the second-largest international provider of Spanish-language content behind Univision.

Univision began as a private company, known as the Spanish International Network, in 1962. In 1996 it traded on the New York Stock Exchange as Univision, and in 2007 it became a subsidiary of Broadcast Media Partners, Inc., a group of private equity firms that have no Hispanic ownership (Univision, 2014). Univision Corporation’s revenue in 2014 was $2.9 billion, up from $2.6 billion in 2013 (Marvasti, 2015). The company operates the Univision and UniMás networks, a number of cable/digital networks, the largest group of Spanish-language radio stations in the United States, mobile apps, and digital properties. The company has production facilities in Miami, New York, and Los Angeles (Univision, 2014). Univision delayed plans to conduct an initial public offering in December 2015, but expected to do so in the near future (Marvasti, 2015).

McClatchy is a publicly held company trading on the New York

Stock Exchange. The company reported net income of $1.30 billion in 2015, including an increased reliance on digital revenue (McClatchy Company, 2015). Its corporate website notes: “The McClatchy Company is a leading news and information provider dedicated to the values of quality journalism, free-expression and community service” (McClatchy Company, 2013, para. 1). The company has a proud history dating from California’s Gold Rush when James McClatchy began publishing the Daily Bee (now The Sacramento Bee). In more recent times, it followed a plan of expansion in both the traditional and digital publishing areas, and information gathering in the national and international arenas (McClatchy Company, 2013).

The most significant Spanish-language newspaper in the McClatchy chain is El Nuevo Herald, serving the nation’s third-largest Hispanic market, located in Miami and southeast Florida (El Nuevo Herald, 2014). The daily circulation for El Nuevo Herald is approximately 54,000, making it the second-largest Spanish-language daily in the nation, and almost 69,000 on Sundays, the largest circulation for a Sunday paper (El Nuevo Herald, 2014).

In addition to the five largest corporations operating ethnic media segments, there are many other smaller organizations operating across the Spanish-language media space. These companies are detailed below, listed in alphabetical order.

Other Hispanic Media Companies

EC Hispanic Media is a private company founded by Martha de la Torre and Joe Badame with the purpose of “connect[ing] sellers of various products and services within the Hispanic community, while also providing Latinos with educational resources and how-to lifestyle improvement” (EC Hispanic Media, 2014a, para.1). Its El Clasificado began as a direct mail publication and moved to a bulk drop in high-traffic areas, increasing the circulation from 10,000 copies to over a half-million (EC Hispanic Media, 2014a). Founder de la Torre claims that EC Hispanic Media is “the most widely distributed free weekly Spanish-language classified publication in the United States” (EC Hispanic Media, 2014b, para. 1). The company has also been active establishing digital platforms (EC Hispanic Media, 2014a).

Entravision Communications is a public company trading on the NYSE (Entravision, 2014). Approximately 12% of the stock is owned by Walter Ulloa, the chairman and chief executive officer; another 10% is owned by Univision Communications (Entravision Ownership Report, 2015). The company reported 2015 revenues of $254 million (Entravision 2014 Annual Report, 2016). The company’s website notes it is a “Spanish-language media company” owning or operating 58 television stations that form “the largest affiliate group of both the top-ranked Univision network and Univision’s UniMás network” (Entravision, 2014). In addition, Entravision either owns or operates 49 radio stations with a strong digital presence. It primarily operates in Texas, Florida, and several


Southwestern states (Entravision, 2014).

ImpreMedia was a privately held company controlled by founders John Paton (currently chief executive officer of Digital First Media) and Ignacio E. Lozano Jr., and later by Lozano’s son José I. Lozano and finally by his granddaughter, Monica Cecilia Lozano, the current CEO (ImpreMedia, 2014). In 2012 the company became a subsidiary of Argentina-based La Nación S.A. (Argentina’s La Nación takes over, 2012). The company owns newspapers located in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Orlando, and Houston (ImpreMedia, 2014). ImpreMedia’s most important newspaper is La Opinión, based in Los Angeles. According to its website, La Opinión is “the leading” Spanish-language newspaper in America” (ImpreMedia, 2014, para. 1).

Liberman Broadcasting Inc. is privately held, with founder José Liberman (CEO) and son Lenard D. Liberman (president) as the principal owners. The company is located in Burbank, California. Liberman calls itself the “largest privately held minority-owned Spanish-language broadcaster in the United States” (Liberman Broadcasting, 2014, para. 1). It owns nine television stations in Illinois, Texas, Colorado, California, Arizona, New York, and Utah, as well as the Estrella network. It also owns 16 radio stations in Texas and California (Liberman Broadcasting, 2014).

Spanish Broadcasting System’s website claims SBS “is the largest publicly traded Hispanic-controlled media and entertainment company in the United States” (Spanish Broadcasting System, 2014a). The company’s stock is traded on the NASDAQ and in 2014 had gross revenues of $146.28 million (Spanish Broadcasting System, 2014b). The company owns 20 radio stations in New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago, San Francisco, and San Juan, Puerto Rico. The television stations are located in Miami, Las Vegas, and Guaynabo, Puerto Rico. The company also produces concerts and operates LaMusica.com (Spanish Broadcasting System, 2014c).

SBS is controlled by the Alarcón family. Raúl Alarcón Sr. founded the company and encouraged Hispanic employment, a policy that continued when the company went public and his son assumed leadership (Spanish Broadcasting System, 2014a). Alarcón Sr. was also a force in the music industry receiving a posthumous induction into Billboard’s Latin Music Hall of Fame (Santana, Daddy Yankee to be honored, 2009).

Tribune Publishing Company became publicly traded in August 2014 when it separated from the Tribune Company; it is not minority-controlled. The company operates several newspapers throughout the United States, as well as three commuter tabloids, three magazines, and the Tribune Content Agency. Titles in the newspaper group include the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, the Orlando Sentinel, the Sun-Sentinel, and the Baltimore Sun. In terms of the Hispanic market, the Tribune Publishing Company operates El Sentinel del Sur de la Florida in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and El Sentinel in Orlando, Florida, both

managed through the larger English-language papers in their respective communities. The company also publishes Spanish-language commuter tabloids—Hoy in Chicago and Los Angeles, as well as El Sentinel in Miami (Tribune Media Company, 2014).

To summarize, this review of the nine leading companies operating in the Spanish-language marketplace found that of the five publicly traded companies, only Spanish Broadcasting Systems is Hispanic-controlled. Of the three privately held companies, Liberman and EC Media are Hispanic-controlled, while La Nación S.A. is foreign-controlled. Given these broad findings, we now turn our attention to the ownership across individual media markets.

A Segment by Segment Evaluation of the Hispanic Market

To address the second research question, we analyzed the top five Spanish-language television networks and station groups, cable networks, radio groups, newspapers, and magazine publishers serving the Hispanic market. In each sector we detail key metrics and identify the owners and how many of the top five are Hispanic-controlled.

Table 2. Top 5 Spanish-Language Television Networks by TV Households Reached

Rank Network TV HH Reached Owner

1 UniMás 62% Univision

2 Univision 55% Univision

3 Telemundo 54% Comcast

4 MundoMax 54% RCN (Colombia)

5 LATV 50% LATV LLCNote: Information obtained from Top 25 Digital Broadcast Networks (2014) and other sources compiled by the authors.

Of the top five broadcast networks targeting Hispanics, only LATV could be considered minority controlled. Walter Ulloa, CEO of Entravision, has controlling interest in LATV with 54% ownership, according to FCC reports. However, LATV is the smallest of the five broadcast networks listed in Table 2, and is only available as a digital sub-channel in many markets. MundoMax—formerly MundoFox—is now controlled by Colombian-based RCN after 21st Century Fox sold its interests in the fledgling network in 2015.

Table 3 reports similar information, but here the rankings are listed according to actual station affiliates. Again, only LATV can be considered Hispanic-controlled. One should also note that combining its two networks, Univision’s total affiliates would actually rank them first (104) if we were only looking at the company ownership level.


Table 3. Top 5 Hispanic Station Groups (Full- and Low-Power Affiliates)

Rank Network Owner Number of Affiliates

1 Telemundo Comcast 74

2 MundoMax RCN 64

3 Univision Univision 59

4 UniMás Univision 45

5 LATV LATV LLC 43Note: Information gathered from Top 25 Digital Broadcast Networks (2014) and other sources compiled by the authors.

In terms of the highest-rated Hispanic cable television networks, none of the top five are minority-controlled. Univision Holdings has two of the top five cable channels on the list, and sports dominates the content of all the top five cable networks.

Table 4. Top 5 Spanish-Language Cable Networks

Rank Cable Network Owner Share as % of Hispanic TVHH

1 Galavision Univision 86.2

2 NBC Universo Comcast 62.4

3 Univision Deportes Univision 58.7

4 Fox Deportes 21st Century Fox 51.3

5 ESPN Deportes Walt Disney Company 48

Note: Adapted from Advertising Age’s Hispanic Fact Pack (2015).

The top five radio owners are listed in Table 5. Liberman and SBS are Hispanic-controlled. iHeartRadio (formerly Clear Channel), which ranks fourth with 21 Spanish-language stations, is the largest radio company in the United States. The company recognized Hispanic market growth and has changed formats at several of its stations over the years in order to target Hispanic listeners (iHeartRadio, 2016).

Table 5. Top 5 Spanish-Language Radio Groups

Rank Radio Group Owner Number of Stations

1 Univision 74

2 Entravision 48

3 Liberman 23

4 iHeart Media 21

5 Spanish Broadcasting System 13Note: Information obtained from Wilkinson (2009), Liberman Broadcasting (2014), iHeart Radio (2016), and Spanish Broadcasting System (2014a).

Turning to Spanish-language newspapers, the Pew Research Center points out that all of the major daily publications are experiencing

a drop in daily circulation, a trend that is also reflected in overall newspaper circulation within the United States (Matsa, 2015). The largest Spanish-language newspaper in the United States, Los Angeles based La Opinion, has fallen 10% since 2014, while New York’s El Diario La Prensa, the third-largest Spanish-language newspaper dropped 9%. McClatchy’s El Nuevo Herald has shown the smallest decline, losing 7% of its circulation (Matsa, 2015).

The top three Spanish-language newspapers by circulation are controlled by Hispanics. Grupo Ferre-Rangel Media is based in Puerto Rico, while ImpreMedia is controlled by a private equity firm owned by the Lozano family. Table 6 lists the top five Spanish-language newspapers in the United States.

Table 6. Top 5 Spanish-Language Newspapers Ranked by Circulation

Newspaper Owner Daily Circulation

El Nuevo Día Grupo Ferré-Rangel Media 200,000

Primera Hora Grupo Ferré-Rangel Media 129,700

La Opinión ImpreMedia 116,256

El Nuevo Herald McClatchy 74,318

Hoy Tribune 62,000Note: Information obtained from Guskin and Mitchell (2011) and other sources compiled by the authors.

The top five Spanish-language magazines by advertising revenue are presented in Table 7. Time, Latina Media Ventures LLC, and Meredith are not Hispanic-controlled, while Grupo Televisa is a Mexico-based company.

Table 7. Top Five Spanish-Language Magazines by Advertising Revenue (2015)

Rank Title Owner Ad Revenue (in millions)

1 People en Español Time Inc. $78.6

2 Latina Latina Media Ventures LLC 31.4

3 Vanidades Grupo Televisa 25.4

4 Ser Padres Meredith 24.3

5 TV y Novelas Grupo Televisa 19.7Note: Source: Adapted from Advertising Age (2015).

Discussion

Several observations can be drawn from examining the third research question, “Who owns Spanish media in the United States?” First, based on the segment analysis, it is clear that the


majority of the top-performing firms offering Spanish-language content are, in fact, owned by non-Hispanics. In many cases, the owners are large corporations primarily engaged in the general media market that over time began to transition into the Spanish-language market. There are a few exceptions to this trend, with companies like SBS, Liberman, and ImpreMedia reflecting Hispanic ownership. But these are the exception, not the rule. Further, these are small companies compared to giants like Comcast and Univision, which dominate the broadcast and cable segments with their holdings.

This analysis also supports the observation that potential minority owners have likely experienced long-term challenges to acquire the investment capital to purchase available media properties and finance new startups (Christiano, Eichenbaum, & Trabandt, 2014; Coleman, 2004). This disparity in Hispanic ownership can, in part, be attributed to a lack of available capital, as well as to stringent capital requirements for lending. We note this disparity even as the Hispanic population in the United States continues to grow. The difficulty in obtaining capital is a barrier to overcome in the private sector, in part heightened by increasing regulatory burdens placed on financial institutions as part of reforming the banking sector following the 2008 great recession (Cetorelli & Goldberg, 2012).

A third observation regarding the lack of minority ownership lies in the failure of regulators and the government to provide a meaningful set of policies to promote minority ownership across all ethnic groups. There have been numerous policy efforts to try to improve ownership in the broadcast sector (Albarran & Fender, 2006; Honig, 1984), yet the overall results have demonstrated only minimal progress. This is a long-term policy failure by regulators that anyone examining minority ownership of the media quickly recognizes. Ownership simply does not reflect the representation of the ethnic population in the United States.

The FCC is taking another small step towards trying to improve minority ownership. On March 30, 2014, the FCC announced that, moving forward, television joint sales agreements (JSAs), which allow a broadcaster to sell advertising time for another broadcaster in its geographic area, must come into compliance with the same rules governing radio JSAs.

In the radio market, if one broadcaster sells more than 15% of another station’s time, it is deemed to have “attributable ownership interest” for purposes of the FCC’s media ownership limit. This attribution rule now applies to television broadcasters across the country. The National Hispanic Media Coalition hailed the decision as “a step towards ensuring fair media ownership rules that increase competition, as it will push some broadcast conglomerates over media ownership limits, requiring that they abandon or minimize the use of JSAs” (NHMC statement, 2014).

Optimistically, we can hope that this latest action may help open the door for additional Hispanic owners in the broadcast television

market. Will it be enough to increase the percentage of Hispanic owners for media properties across the United States? Sadly, our guess is that it will not create much in the way of change. It will take several years of observation to determine the success or failure of this latest effort to improve minority ownership.

Conclusion

The study of media ownership, especially for minority media, is an important area of research that needs to be continued by media scholars on an annual basis. Media ownership is complicated, and there are many ways to assess ownership regulation. Harcourt and Picard (2009, p. 15) claim ownership regulation is a tool “employed to ensure optimal outcomes in terms of social, cultural, political, and economic effects with regards to media structure and performance.” In a country as large and diverse as the United States, these are formidable goals to attempt to reach, given so many conflicting views and approaches, along with a federal government that has proven time and again to be dysfunctional and gridlocked. Yet, this study does indicate a willingness on the part of Hispanic owners, and their business operations, to provide social and cultural direction to their audiences. Further, there appears to be a desire to provide relevant political news on both the national and local levels.

Despite the small number of true Hispanic owners across the media sectors, Spanish-language media continues to grow and prosper across all sectors except print. One can only wonder how greater Hispanic ownership would affect the long-term viability of the overall industry.

While this analysis hopes to clarify the question of who really owns Spanish-language media in the United States, additional work needs to be done on this complicated and frustrating topic. Future research is warranted to address any changes in ownership patterns across the media sectors. This study was limited by its focus on traditional media segments, and limiting the analysis in each sector to just the top five entities. Future studies could address the ownership patterns found in the new/emerging media environment involving mobile and social media, and the extent to which these areas feature any minority ownership.

References

Ahora News. (2014). Facts about us. Retrieved from http://www.ahoranews.net/acerca-de-nosotros/

Advertising Age. (2015). Hispanic fact pack. Chicago: Author.Albarran, A. B. (2009). The media economy. New York: Routledge.Albarran, A. B., & Fender, D. (2006). Behind the numbers: The

impact of government preferences and non-preference on minority broadcast ownership. In A. Tait & G. Meiss (Eds.). Ethnic media in America. Book 1: Building a system of their own (pp. 219-238). Dubuque: Kendall Hunt Publishing.


Al Día: Dallas/Fort Worth. (2014). Facts about us. Retrieved from http://www.aldiadallas.com/periodico-al-dia/

Argentina’s La Nación takes over ImpreMedia. (2012). Media moves: Covering Latinos in the media industry. Retrieved from: http://www.mediamoves.com/2012/03/argentinas-la-nacion-takes-over-impremedia.html/

Bagdikian, B. H. (2004). The new media monopoly. Boston: Beacon Press.

Bennett, T., Curran, J., & Wollacott, J. (Eds.). (1982). Culture, society and the media (pp. 56-90). London: Methuen.

Castañeda Paredes, M. (2003). The transformation of Spanish-language radio in the U.S. Journal of Radio Studies, 10(1), 5-16.

Cetorelli, N., & Goldberg, L. S. (2012). Liquidity management of U.S. global banks: Internal capital markets in the great recession. Journal of International Economics, 88(2), 299-311.

Christiano, L. J., Eichenbaum, M. S., & Trabandt, M. (2014). Understanding the great recession (No. w20040). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Cision. (2014). Media data base. Retrieved from http://www.cision.com/us/?gclid=CNTW35yjssICFfPm7AodOhEAOg

Coleman, S. (2004). Access to debt capital for women- and minority-owned small firms: Does educational attainment have an impact? Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 9(2), 127-143.

Comcast. (2016, February 5). 10-K annual report 2015. Retrieved from http://cmcsa.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-16-452423

Doyle, G. (2002). Media ownership: The economics and politics of convergence and concentration in the UK and European media. London: Sage.

EC Hispanic Media. (2014 a). About us. Retrieved from http://www.echispanicmedia.com/about-ec-hispanic-media/

EC Hispanic Media. (2014b). Meet the team. Retrieved from http://www.echispanicmedia.com/meet-the-team/

El Nuevo Herald. (2014). About El Nuevo Herald. Retrieved from http://www.elnuevoherald.com/servicios/quienes-somos/

Entravision. (2014). About us. Retrieved from http://www.entravision.com/about-us/

Entravision 2014 Annual Report. (2016). Financial information. Retrieved from http://www.entravision.com/investor-info/

Entravision Ownership Report. (2015). Financial information. Retrieved from http://www.entravision.com/investor-info

Federal Communications Commission. (2014, June 27). Report on ownership of commercial broadcast stations. Retrieved from: http://www.fcc.gov/document/2014-quadrennial-regulatory-review

Fowler, M. S., & Brenner, D. L. (1982). Marketplace approach to broadcast regulation. Texas Law Review, 60(2), 207-257.

Guskin. E., & Mitchell, A. (2011). Hispanic media: Faring better than the mainstream media. Pew Research Center: The state of the news media. Retrieved from http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2011/hispanic-media-fairing-better-than-the-mainstream-media

Harcourt, A., & Picard, R. G. (2009). Policy, economic, and business challenges of media ownership regulation. Journal of Media Business Studies 6(3), 1-17.

Hazlett, T. W. (1990). The rationality of U.S. regulation of the broadcast spectrum. Journal of Law & Economics, 33(1), 133-175.

Honig, D. (1984). FCC and its fluctuating commitment to minority ownership of broadcast facilities. Howard Law Journal, 27, 859-181.

iHeart Radio (2016). About us. Retrieved from http://iHeartRadio.com/articles/about-iheartradio/

ImpreMedia. (2014). About us. Retrieved from http://www.impremedia.com/

Liberman Broadcasting. (2014). About us. Retrieved from http://www.lbimedia.com/about.html

Marvasti, M. (2015, July 5). Univision’s IPO: Everything you need to know. Retrieved from http://www.profitconfidential.com/ipo/univision-ipo-everything-you-need-to-know/

Matsa, K. (2015, April 29). Hispanic media: Fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/files/2015/04/FINAL-STATE-OF-THE-NEWS-MEDIA1.pdf

McClatchy Company. (2013). About us. Retrieved from http://www.mcclatchy.com/about_us/

McClatchy Company. (2015). Annual Report. Retrieved from http://www.mcclatchy.com/annual_report/

NBC Universal Annual Report (2015). Retrieved from www.cmcsa.com/annuals.cfm

NHMC statement on FCC’s media ownership announcements. (2014, April 1). Retrieved from: http://www.nhmc.org/nhmc-statement-on-fccs-media-ownership-announcements/

Passel, J. S. (2005, March 21). Estimates of the size and characteristics of the undocumented population. Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/2005/03/21/estimates-of-the-size-and-characteristics-of-the-undocumented-population/

Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2012). Who owns the media? Retrieved from http://www.stateofthemedia.org/media-ownership

Santana, Daddy Yankee to be honored at Billboard Latin Music Awards. (2009). Billboard. Retrieved from http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/269216/santana-daddy=yankee-to-be-honored/

Spanish Broadcasting System. (2014a). About us. Retrieved from http://www.spanishbroadcasting.com/aboutus.html

Spanish Broadcasting System. (2014b). Investor information. Retrieved from http://www.spanishbroadcasting.com/sec_filings.html

Spanish Broadcasting System (2014c). Station directory. Spanish Broadcasting System. Retrieved from http://www.spanishbroadcasting.com/station_directory.html

State and County Quick Facts. (2014). United States Census Bureau. Retrieved from: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

Top 25 Digital Broadcast Networks. (2015).TVNewsCheck.com. Retrieved from http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/77094/the-top-25-digital-broadcast-networks

Tribune Media Company. (2014). About. Retrieved from http://www.tribunemedia.com/about/


Univision. (2014). About us. Retrieved from http://www.univision.com

Wilkinson, K. T. (2009). Spanish-language media in the United States. In A.B. Albarran (Ed.), Handbook of Spanish language media (pp. 3-16). New York: Routledge.

Wilkinson, K. T. (2016). Spanish-language television in the United States: Fifty years of development. New York: Routledge.


Contenidos y Audiencias de los Magacines Matinales de Radio en

Argentina y EspañaContent and Audience of Morning

‘Magazine’ Radio Programs in Argentina and Spain

María del Pilar Martínez-Costa, Ph.D. Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, España


María José Müller, Ph.D.Universidad Austral, Buenos Aires, Argentina


Resumen1 Este trabajo compara el comportamiento de las audiencias de los programas líderes del prime time de la radio generalista en Argentina y España con el fin de identificar las similitudes y diferencias entre dos mercados de referencia en el mundo hispano. Se describen primero las peculiaridades formales y narrativas de cada magacín, para luego caracterizar la audiencia de cada uno de los programas y obtener conclusiones de dicha observación. El análisis realizado confirma que el magacín de actualidad es un tipo de programa muy homogéneo en cuanto a contenidos y recursos de producción en todas las emisoras estudiadas. Con algunas diferencias en la identificación del prime time––de 8 a.m. a 9 a.m. en España y de 10 a.m. 11 a.m. en Argentina––el magacín mantiene su vigencia entre el target adulto sin atraer a la audiencia joven, que no elige la radio para consumir información. Asimismo, a la oferta de contenidos basada en la información y la opinión incorpora el entretenimiento temático, la conversación con colaboradores y la interacción con la audiencia para conseguir y mantener oyentes.

Palabras clave: programas de radio, audiencias de radio, radio prime time

1 Este trabajo se ha realizado en el marco del proyecto Innovación y desarrollo de los cibermedios en España: Modelos de negocio y coordinación multiplataforma (2013-2015), financiado por el Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad del Gobierno de España (CSO2012-38467-C03-02).

Abstract1

This paper compares the behavior of leading prime-time radio programs in Argentina and Spain in order to identify the similarities and differences between two important radio markets in the Hispanic world. First, it describes the formal and narrative characteristics of each radio magazine program, and then it describes the audiences for the programs in order to draw conclusions from the observations. The analysis confirms that the radio magazine is a homogeneous program genre in terms of content and production resources in all of the stations studied. With some differences in the identification of prime time––8 a.m. to 9 a.m. in Spain and 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. in Argentina––the radio magazine remains popular among adult listeners without attracting young audiences, who seldom use radio to consume information. Furthermore, the information- and opinion-based content incorporates entertainment elements, conversations among hosts, and interactions with the audience in order to keep listeners tuned in.

Keywords: radio programs, radio audience, radio prime time


Introducción

A lo largo de las últimas cuatro décadas, el programa magacín se ha constituido como la columna vertebral de la oferta de la radio generalista, alcanzando las mayores cuotas de audiencia y convirtiéndose en el programa de más larga duración en el esquema de franjas horarias de la programación. El magacín es un programa maratón que ocupa entre tres y seis horas de la emisión por término medio de minutado. Se le conoce con frecuencia como un programa de contenidos variados pero de estructura reiterativa y coherente, convenientemente construida por un presentador con grandes capacidades comunicativas.

El magacín se ha convertido en el programa-tractor para la captura, suma y arrastre de audiencias millonarias en bloques horarios prolongados (Martínez-Costa & Díez Unzueta, 2005). Todas las emisoras––del tipo de cobertura (nacional, regional o local) y de la titularidad que sean (públicas, privadas o comunitarias)––han hecho del magacín el producto que define la programación, tanto de lunes a viernes como los fines de semana. Su presencia se ha hecho indispensable para estructurar los paquetes de programación y dotar de personalidad y estilo diferencial a las emisoras. En cuatro décadas, ha pasado de ocupar un lugar secundario en la programación a ser “el programa” por excelencia, producto de referencia y de prime time de las empresas de radiodifusión, para las que la programación se orienta “a la conquista y mantenimiento de la audiencia y la rentabilidad económica o de servicios” (Cebrián Herreros, 2004, p. 54).

Sin embargo, los datos que ofrecen los estudios de audiencia comienzan a mostrar un cambio de tendencia, cuestionando un tipo de programa hasta ahora de éxito narrativo y comercial. En concreto, el desplazamiento del prime time de los tramos de entretenimiento de 10 a.m. al mediodía a los tramos más informativos de 7 a.m. a 9 a.m. ha llevado a algunas emisoras a fragmentar los tradicionales magacines en dos bloques bien diferenciados entre las 6 a.m. y 9 a.m. y las 9 a.m. y el mediodía, con voces, registros y marcas diferentes, cuestionando su supervivencia narrativa.

Mediante el análisis de los datos de audiencia de la radio generalista en Argentina y España, este trabajo compara el comportamiento de las audiencias de los programas líderes del prime time para descubrir las similitudes y diferencias entre dos mercados radiofónicos de referencia en el mundo hispano. Para ello, primero se describirán las características formales y narrativas de cada magacín, para luego comparar la audiencia de cada uno de los programas.

Los programas analizados son los que, según los estudios realizados por IBOPE Argentina y EGM España (Estudios General de Medios), acumularon la mayor audiencia en 2013, de lunes a

viernes, de 6 a.m. a 1 p.m. A saber: en Argentina Cada mañana y Lanata sin filtro (Radio Mitre), Hola Chiche y El oro y el moro (Radio 10), Magdalena tempranísimo y La mañana (Continental), Empezando el día y Ciudad Goti K (La Red); y en España Hoy por hoy (Cadena Ser), Herrera en la onda (Onda Cero), La mañana (Cadena Cope) y Las mañanas de RNE (Radio Nacional de España).

Con todo ello se propone describir el momento de cambio en la forma de contar de la radio generalista en el que ha sido hasta ahora su programa estrella, el magacín, con el fin de vislumbrar tendencias que luego puedan aplicarse en otros mercados de la radio.

Marco teórico

En la era de la abundancia de medios resulta sorprendente, como señala Fleming (2010), que la radio––el medio de radiodifusión más antiguo––siga aglutinando audiencias superiores al 90% de la población de muchos países. Fernández (2012), por su parte, señala que la radio “es el único de los medios considerados viejos que crece sin modificar demasiado todavía sus formatos” y que “la convergencia no genera crisis en los medios de sonido sino que por el contrario convive con su antigua expansión” (p. 15). La apar-ición de internet obligó nuevamente a la radio a repensarse, como cuando buscó la diferenciación por la llegada de la televisión, y en lugar de competir con ella, se concentró en ser el medio que les permitía a las audiencias compartir la escucha con otras activi-dades (MacFarland, 1997). Aprovechando su ubicuidad, hoy la radio saca ventaja de los nuevos soportes y plataformas que multi-plican una vez más las posibilidades de la comunicación sonora.

Buena parte de la aceptación del medio a través del tiempo se debe al programa magacín, que ha sido la estrella de la program-ación en la radio generalista de los últimos cuarenta años, tanto en el mercado de la radio española como en el de la latinoamericana (López Vigil, 1997; Cuní, 1999; Martí, 2000). Popularizados con el nombre de talk shows, también son uno de los ejes de la program-ación radiofónica norteamericana y europea (Turow, 1974; Arm-strong & Rubin, 1989; Rodda, 1995; Hutchby, 1996; Smith,1998; Dauncey & Hare, 1999). A lo largo de estas décadas, este tipo de programa se ha erigido en la columna vertebral de la oferta ra-diofónica, concentrando audiencias masivas, prolongadas franjas horarias e intensos esfuerzos de producción.

El magacín nace como un tipo de programa que persigue la captu-ra de grandes audiencias y se transforma rápidamente en el motor de su oferta de contenidos, por esto algunos autores le denominan programa-tractor:

El magacín es un programa de larga duración, em-plazado en las franjas horarias importantes para la captación masiva de audiencia, dirigido por un/a conductor/a “estrella”, con contenidos de actualidad,


dotado de importantes equipos profesionales para la redacción, locución y producción, contando con una amplia presencia de colaboradores y expertos que enriquecen los contenidos del programa (Martínez-Costa & Díez Unzueta, 2005, p. 186).

El magacín ofrece una estructura que combina información, opinión, entretenimiento y espectáculo, con un cambio de ritmo constante que le permite adaptarse a la audiencia. Se trata de un tipo de programa que responde a las necesidades de la radio de hoy: cambios de ritmo para atender los comportamientos sociológicos de la audiencia y adaptar los contenidos a sus necesidades y situaciones laborales y de ocio; un conductor con fuerte personalidad que facilite la identificación y fidelice a la audiencia; y la combinación de componentes fijos (conductor, columnistas, secciones, tratamiento musical) y variables (entrevistados, agenda de temas y contenidos) para aportar al mismo tiempo continuidad y novedad. El magacín ofrece ritmo y variedad a través de tiempos cortos y heterogeneidad de contenidos y voces. Su dinamismo y su variedad de contenidos y registros lo transforman en el tipo de programa más adecuado a la radio de nuestros días y, en consecuencia, en el de mayor éxito.

Magacín es un término que caracteriza a las revistas de contenidos variados que buscan el entretenimiento del lector (Martínez-Costa & Díez Unzueta, 2005). Se desplaza de la prensa escrita a la radio hacia la década 1950, primero en Estados Unidos, donde nace con un sentido más informativo y no tan asociado al entretenimiento como se muestra actualmente. El magacín es, a su vez, protagonista del paso de una radio de noticias a una radio de comunicación, que busca mayor contextualización, análisis y comentario (Cebrián Herreros, 1994).

Es también un programa de variedades, se sostiene en la heterogeneidad de contenidos y es justamente en la variedad donde encuentra su verdadero atractivo, tanto para la audiencia como para los anunciantes. Algunos autores lo consideran un “programa de programas”, en tanto incluye unidades pequeñas (secciones) en una unidad superior (programa). Por lo tanto, como asegura Cebrián Herreros, “su mayor desafío es ofrecer bajo el manto de la unidad la mayor variedad posible de temas, voces y situaciones” (1994, p. 481).

La radio encontró en el magacín la mejor manera de conseguir audiencias masivas y estables, más atractivas para los anunciantes, en parte porque se ha construido a partir de una radio de estrel-las (Legorburu, 2004). El conductor del magacín, bastonero que enlaza heterogeneidad de voces y contenidos, es la voz determi-nante en la definición de la identidad y el estilo del programa, en consecuencia, puede decirse que es el artífice del éxito o del fracaso de un programa. La mayoría de las veces se eligen figuras o personajes conocidos (a veces por su labor en la prensa o en la televisión) con el objetivo de facilitar la identificación con el oy-

ente. El conductor da una impronta personal y única al programa, que se mimetiza con su estilo y provoca una fuerte dependencia en su figura. El oyente elige escucharlo a él y, por lo tanto, la may-oría de las veces la emisora resulta un marco indispensable pero no único para conseguir el éxito de un programa. La conversación casual y la interacción moderada––o “semi-institucional”, al decir de Ilie––se instalan como uno de los rasgos distintivos del discurso de los presentadores del magacín (2001, p. 209). Por esto, algu-nos autores señalan que el magacín ayudó a consolidar la radio de estrellas frente a la radio de emisora o de contenido (Cebrián Her-reros, 1994). Sin embargo, más recientemente otros autores, como Starkey (2015), identifican y señalan las limitaciones de la interac-ción y devuelven al presentador el papel de mero moderador.

Los colaboradores también son piezas fundamentales en el entra-mado narrativo del magacín. Los columnistas aportan sus cono-cimientos e interpretaciones sobre temáticas específicas en las que son expertos. Muchas veces, a fuerza de un estilo definido y atractivo, se convierten en personajes centrales del programa, casi tan importantes como el conductor. Cronistas, locutores, producto-res, operadores técnicos y editores son parte de un equipo humano indispensable para completar la propuesta de cualquier magacín. Entre ellos, destacan los humoristas, artífices de la lectura cómica e irónica de la actualidad, que cosechan cada vez mayor protago-nismo a través de sus intervenciones, imitaciones y relatos.

La audiencia es determinante para la existencia de cualquier pro-grama radiofónico, más aún si cabe en el magacín, en donde el oyente es un integrante más, a quien se interpela de las formas más variadas para conseguir su participación. El oyente ayuda a construir el relato y condimenta el mensaje de los profesionales con sus opiniones y aportaciones. No obstante, autores como Starkey (2004, p. 3) y Pinseler (2015, p. 69) son algo más críticos con respecto al uso de la participación “altamente gestionada” o deliberadamente provocada y filtrada de la audiencia, y llegan a calificarla como “audiencias estimadas” o “voces domesticadas”, respectivamente.

El magacín distribuye el tiempo total en unidades narrativas meno-res, con autonomía pero dependientes del conjunto: las secciones. Se considera sección a todo segmento del programa con una deter-minada periodicidad (diaria, semanal, etc.), con un horario estab-lecido, enmarcado por piezas artísticas, música o por la referencia del conductor, identificable para el oyente, que puede incluir o no un género específico (noticia, crónica, comentario, etc.).

Para construir la personalidad y la unidad de los segmentos que se integran para crear el magacín, se hace uso de la música y de las piezas artísticas. La música se utiliza como contenido a través de temas musicales, y como elemento de realización, es decir, como recurso para crear separadores formales. La artística de un magacín comprende todas las piezas que combinan música y palabra para identificar el programa y sus secciones, enlazar


contenidos, establecer transiciones y narrar historias. El magacín encuentra en la música y en la artística dos recursos que ayudan a entretejer las partes para conseguir variedad, unidad y coherencia en el todo.

Quienes forman parte de un programa son, de un modo u otro, responsables de su contenido. Sin embargo, los magacines cuentan con un equipo de producción encargado de pensar los contenidos de modo integral, considerando todas las variables: el estilo y los intereses del presentador, los colaboradores con los que cuenta, los recursos técnicos, las peculiaridades de la emisora. La producción trabaja tanto en la idea general del programa como en las decisio-nes inmediatas que exige un programa en directo. Busca integrarse en el todo que supone la programación en su conjunto y, al mismo tiempo, diferenciarse, generando una propuesta con identidad propia.

Aunque estas características esenciales de todo programa magacín se mantienen en los últimos años, y son más o menos homogéneas tanto en la radio argentina como la española, la fórmula de éxito se ha ido adaptando tímidamente a las nuevas formas y necesi-dades de la escucha. Más ligado a la información de actualidad en un principio, el entretenimiento ha ganado terreno en los ma-gacines de la radio. Los tratamientos narrativos de la información del día, producidos a partir del ritmo de la actualidad, se mezclan ahora con el relato en continuidad y con una producción más cre-ativa y cuidada. El presentador sigue siendo el pilar sobre el que se construye el programa, pero ganan terreno las voces de los exper-tos y, con ellos, los géneros de autor y de opinión. El magacín ha sido el programa estrella de la radio generalista, y ahora comienza a formar parte de la programación de los tramos de mañana de la radio especializada musical, que busca entretener y ganar audi-encia con los denominados morning shows. Los magacines nacen como apuesta de la radio comercial y, con el tiempo, la radio públi-ca también ha replicado este tipo de programas.

Estos cambios percibidos en la ideación y puesta en antena del magacín radiofónico hacen interesante el estudio de sus audiencias, puesto que su duración, estructura y contenidos han ido evolucionando ligado a los comportamientos de las audiencias.

Metodología

El objetivo de este trabajo es describir los cambios que experimenta el magacín al hilo del comportamiento de las audiencias de los programas líderes del prime time para descubrir las similitudes y diferencias entre dos mercados radiofónicos de referencia en el mundo hispano, con el fin de vislumbrar tendencias que luego puedan aplicarse al estudio de otros mercados de la radio.2

2 En futuros trabajos se podrá aplicar este mismo procedimiento de investigación para comparar los datos con otros mercados radiofónicos relevantes en América Latina, como México, Perú y Colombia.

El enfoque de este estudio se formula de la siguiente manera: los programas magacines––que han sido hasta ahora la columna vertebral de la programación generalista en los mercados de la radio argentina y española––no incrementan audiencia a pesar de los cambios de contenido introducidos y a pesar de que su audiencia envejece.

Las siguientes son las preguntas de investigación: ¿Qué elementos comunes y qué aspectos diferenciales tienen los magacines analizados? ¿Qué hora del día es la más escuchada de lunes a viernes? ¿Qué contenido predomina en los tramos de programas de máxima audiencia? ¿El entretenimiento y la radio desenfadada incrementan la audiencia del radio? ¿Qué papel juega la información en los programas magacines? ¿Los presentadores siguen siendo el elemento diferenciador de los programas magacines? ¿Contribuyen los magacines a mantener el índice de audiencia de la radio generalista frente a la radio especializada o temática? ¿Los magacines consiguen rejuvenecer la audiencia de radio?

Para ello y tras esta revisión teórica del concepto y las características del magacín, se presenta brevemente el contexto del mercado de la radio en Argentina y España (su estructura de emisión, la identificación de los principales grupos, la inversión publicitaria y la distribución de la audiencia), para luego describir las características formales y narrativas de cada uno de los programas objeto de análisis y confrontarlos con el comportamiento de la audiencia.

Para la descripción de los programas se elaboró una ficha de análisis de contenido en la que las autoras registraron los datos del último trimestre de 2013 correspondientes a la emisora (tipo, titularidad, ranking, perfil de audiencia) y a cada uno de los programas (cuota de audiencia, horas y día de emisión, presentador, distribución de contenidos por horas de emisión) a partir de los datos proporcionados por las emisoras y confrontados con la escucha de los programas cuando fue necesario.

Para la presentación de los datos correspondientes al comportamiento de la audiencia se tuvieron en cuenta los informes anuales correspondientes al año 2013 de IBOPE Media Argentina y del Estudio General de Medios de AIMC (Asociación para la Investigación de los Medios de Comunicación) España, de amplio reconocimiento en el sector3. Como se ha mencionado en la introducción, los programas analizados son los que, según estos estudios, acumularon la mayor audiencia ese año, de lunes a viernes, de 6 a.m. a 1 p.m.

3 Para las mediciones de radio es habitual consignar los valores de audiencia en térmi-nos de share, que representa el porcentaje de receptores sintonizados en una frecuencia con respecto al total de receptores encendidos. En el caso de Argentina, desde 1992 IBOPE es la empresa de servicios dedicada a las mediciones de audiencia. En España, los datos de audiencia se publican en el Estudio General de Medios (EGM), un estu-dio multimedia que incluye audiencia televisiva, lectores de prensa diaria y revistas, oyentes de radio y espectadores en las salas de cine. Desde 1996, también realiza mediciones de consumos de medios en internet.


El mercado de la radio en Argentina y España

La radio, como parte del ecosistema de medios, integra una industria muy consolidada en Argentina y en España, tanto por su tamaño como por el grado de acceso de la población a los productos informativos y de entretenimiento. Argentina

En Argentina, se trata de un mercado amplio, integrado por diversas empresas de medios y particulares que generan una oferta informativa abundante y variada. Según las cifras de inversión publicitaria que recoge la Asociación de Agencias Argentinas de Publicidad (AAAP), Argentina es el tercer mercado de medios en Latinoamérica, detrás de Brasil y México, con cerca de 2.000 millones de dólares de inversión anual. La radio concentra una cuota del 8% de dicha inversión.

La industria de la radio se ve afectada por la alta densidad de población en la capital federal y el Gran Buenos Aires, donde hay más empresas de medios, más productos, más anunciantes y, por lo tanto, más inversión publicitaria. Si bien el mercado ofrece variedad informativa, es cierto que la audiencia y los anunciantes se concentran en pocas emisoras, la mayoría de ellas en Buenos Aires.

Según las mediciones publicadas en 2014 por la empresa IBOPE, en Buenos Aires, considerando las 24 horas, de lunes a domingo, todas las edades y niveles socioeconómicos, y ambos sexos, la radio líder en audiencia es Mitre AM 790, con 40,9% de share. Bastante detrás se ubican Radio 10 y La Red, con 17,6% y 13,3% respectivamente. Entre las FM, las más escuchadas son Pop Radio, con un share de 12.5%, FM 100, con 11,2% y FM Metro, con 9%.

El mercado de la radio en Argentina está volcado fundamentalmente a la actividad privada y, regido por una lógica comercial, se financia a través de la publicidad. Aunque la presencia del Estado es menos representativa que en otros países, cuenta con un Servicio Oficial de Radiodifusión (SOR), conformado por un conjunto de emisoras públicas, sostenidas por el Estado. Por lo tanto, hay un grupo mayoritario de radios comerciales y dos grupos más pequeños, uno integrado por emisoras públicas, y otro por emisoras comunitarias, entre las que hay religiosas, rurales, de frontera y universitarias. España

Por su parte, España tiene un mercado radiofónico mixto en el que conviven desde sus orígenes la radio comercial y la radio pública, tanto en el ámbito local y regional como nacional. Las emisoras de cobertura nacional se constituyen como cadenas de emisión y aglutinan la principal oferta de radio, tanto generalista como especializada, así como la mayor audiencia.

Según los datos publicados en 2014 en el EGM, la radio española tiene una audiencia acumulada de 24.194.000 oyentes, que

implica una penetración del 61% de la población. Es el segundo medio más extendido después de la televisión, y sobrepasa levemente a internet, que incrementa su penetración hasta el 60,7% en 2013. El ranking de audiencia de las emisoras generalistas con cobertura nacional está liderado por la Cadena SER con un 35,4% de share, seguida de Onda Cero (20,4%), Cope (12,3%) y Radio Nacional de España (8,3%). Las emisoras especializadas más escuchadas son las musicales Cadena 40 con un 16,5% de share de audiencia, Dial (13,1%), Cadena 100 (10,7%) y Europa FM (10,1%). La franja de concentración de mayor escucha se extiende entre las 8 a.m. y las 11 a.m., donde se acumula algo más del 30% de la audiencia diaria.

Descripción de los magacines de máxima audiencia

A continuación, se describirán las características formales y los contenidos de los programas magacines de máxima audiencia en Argentina y España en 2013.

Argentina

Los magacines de la radio argentina que se analizan en este trabajo se emiten en AM/OM, que sigue siendo la banda de emisión de la radio generalista, y cuyo eje es la información, la opinión, el entretenimiento y el humor. Según los estudios de IBOPE, en la franja horaria de 6 a.m. a 1 p.m. la audiencia acumulada es de 8.222.836 oyentes. La programación de mañana se reparte en dos programas diferentes, con presentadores y equipos propios, y con registros y contenidos que se adecúan a las horas del día: la primera mañana, de 6 a.m. a 9 a.m. es más informativa; y la segunda mañana, de 9 a.m. a 1 p.m. persigue el entretenimiento. Teniendo en cuenta esta peculiaridad, se describen aquí los ocho programas más escuchados en 2013 en ese tramo horario: Cada mañana y Lanata sin filtro (Radio Mitre), Hola Chiche y El oro y el moro (Radio 10), Magdalena tempranísimo y La mañana (Continental), Empezando el día y Ciudad Goti K (La Red).

Cada mañana es uno de los programas más escuchados del prime time de la radio argentina desde sus primeras emisiones en el año 2000. Durante 2013 y 2014 ha ocupado la primera mañana de Radio Mitre y se ha convertido en el programa con mayor índice de audiencia.

Tabla 1a. El programa Cada mañanaEmisora Radio Mitre

Tipo de emisora Comercial, privada

Titularidad Grupo Clarín

Ranking de la emisora 1º

Perfil de audiencia de la emisora Adulto, clase media y media/alta

Audiencia acumulada del programa 3.774.281

Cuota de mercado del programa 45,9%

Horas y días de emisión 6 a.m. a 10 a.m., lunes a viernes

Nombre del presentador Marcelo Longobardi


En este programa destacan dos secciones: “El editorial” del conductor, Marcelo Longobardi, que dada su mirada crítica de la actualidad consigue gran repercusión pública cada día; y “El pase”, que realizan junto con el conductor del programa siguiente, en la transición entre programas, y en el que predomina el humor, la ironía y nuevamente la crítica al gobierno. Por horas, la información y la opinión predominan de 6 a.m. a 7 a.m., a lo que se añaden entrevistas, entretenimiento y humor de 7 a.m. a 10 a.m.

Tabla 1b. Los contenidos de Cada mañana, por hora6 a.m. a 7 a.m. información/opinión

7 a.m. a 8 a.m. opinión/entrevistas/entretenimiento/humor



Lanata sin filtro nace en 2012 tras la incorporación del periodista de televisión Jorge Lanata al Grupo Clarín. Su éxito televisivo se complementó con su ciclo radiofónico. El programa creció en duración, equipo y rating entre 2012 y 2013, y puso a Radio Mitre líder de audiencia en las mañanas.

Tabla 2a. El programa Lanata sin filtroEmisora Radio Mitre


Titularidad Grupo Clarín


Perfil de audiencia de la emisora Adulto, clase media y media/alta



Horas y días de emisión 10 a.m. a 2 p.m., lunes a viernes

Nombre del presentador Jorge Lanata

Las secciones más destacadas son: “El pase” con el programa anterior, que en formato tertulia combina diálogo irónico y crítico con momentos de humor, y “Dr. Amor”, presentada por el periodista Jorge Fernández Díaz, despertando el debate y la tertulia sobre las relaciones humanas.

Tabla 2b. Los contenidos de Lanata sin filtro, por hora10 a.m. a 11 a.m. Información/opinión

11 a.m. a 12 p.m. Opinión/entrevistas/tertulia

12 p.m. a 1 p.m. Opinión/entretenimiento/tertulia

1 p.m. a 2 p.m. Tertulia/entretenimiento/humor

Hola Chiche es un magacín generalista que integra una variedad de contenidos con una alta presencia de su conductor, Chiche

Gelblung. El programa inicia sus emisiones en marzo de 2009 en la segunda mañana de Radio Mitre y en 2013 vuelve a Radio 10, año en que deja de emitirse. El relato de este programa se construía alrededor del presentador, que hilaba los contenidos con un gran sentido de la improvisación en la continuidad narrativa, combinado con una importante producción periodística y un amplio equipo de colaboradores.

Tabla 3a. El programa Hola ChicheEmisora Radio 10


Titularidad Grupo Indalo


Perfil de audiencia de la emisora Adulto, clase media




Nombre del presentador Chiche Gelblung

Hola Chiche no tenía una estructura rígida de secciones predefinidas; el programa se iba articulando a la medida del conductor y su instinto periodístico. Así, los momentos más importantes del programa eran: “La apertura”, por su comienzo con una sintonía y un saludo provocativo a los oyentes; “El pase” con González Oro, el presentador del siguiente programa al final de cada edición, en un diálogo atractivo entre dos referentes de la radio y de la opinión; las intervenciones de los cronistas; y su producción en vivo, con entrevistas a la gente en la calle y cobertura de hechos.

Tabla 3b. Los contenidos de Hola Chiche, por hora6 a.m. a 7 a.m. Información/entrevistas/opinión

7 a.m. a 8 a.m. Opinión/entrevistas/humor

8 a.m. a 9 a.m. Opinión/entretenimiento/tertulia/humor

El oro y el moro inició sus emisiones el 4 de enero de 1999 con Oscar González Oro como conductor. En muy poco tiempo se posicionó en el primer lugar en audiencia, dejando atrás a Radio Mitre, que llevaba el liderazgo de la mañana desde hacía muchos años. El programa lideró la segunda mañana de la radio argentina durante más de una década, hasta que dejó de emitirse a finales de 2013. González Oro sorprendió con un estilo acelerado en la distribución de contenidos, con entradas breves pero intermitentes de los colaboradores, entrevistas, conexiones y crónicas en la calle, y mensajes de oyentes. El humor y la música, interpretada por el presentador en algunas ocasiones, eran sus principales técnicas de entretenimiento.


Tabla 4a. El programa El oro y el moroEmisora Radio 10


Titularidad Grupo Indalo




Cuota de mercado del programa 20%


Nombre del presentador Oscar González Oro

Como en los anteriores programas descritos, el momento más característico de El oro y el moro era “El pase”, o la transición entre programas, con predominio del humor y la conversación improvisada entre los presentadores, y que hoy es una práctica extendida en muchas emisoras. También destacaban las intervenciones del periodista político Eduardo Feinman, acompañando al conductor en varios momentos del programa. Como indica la Tabla 4b, en cada una de sus horas, el programa se construía con una fuerte dosis de entretenimiento.

Tabla 4b. Los contenidos de El oro y el moro, por hora9 a.m. a 10 a.m. Humor/información/comentario

10 a.m. a 11 a.m. Entrevistas/información/comentario/humor

11 a.m. a 12 p.m. Entrevistas/humor/comentario

12 p.m. a 1 p.m. Tertulia/humor/comentario

Magdalena tempranísimo es un programa clásico de la radio argentina, dirigido y presentado por Magdalena Ruiz Guiñazú, periodista y locutora de gran trayectoria en la radio. El programa arrancó en 1987 y estuvo en antena de modo ininterrumpido hasta 2013. Siempre ocupó la primera mañana, marcando la agenda informativa y abriendo el debate diario con los protagonistas de la noticia. Durante 26 años, el programa se emitió alternativamente entre Radio Mitre y Continental. En 2013 se emitía en Radio Continental.

Tabla 5a. El programa Magdalena tempranísimoEmisora Radio Continental


Titularidad Grupo Prisa


Perfil de audiencia de la emisora Adulto clase media, media alta

Audiencia acumulada del programa 830.506



Nombre de la presentadora Magdalena Ruiz Guiñazú

La sección principal del programa era “El editorial” sobre el tema de actualidad del día, realizado por Magdalena Ruiz Guiñazú que, con una retórica cuidada y crítica argumentada, tenía gran repercusión en la opinión de la audiencia. También destacaron las intervenciones humorísticas de Enrique Pinti, actor, escritor y guionista que encontró en la presentadora un buen contrapunto para hacer reír hablando de la actualidad. El programa duraba tres horas.

Tabla 5b. Los contenidos de Magdalena tempranísimo, por horas6 a.m. a 7 a.m. información/comentario/entrevistas

7 a.m. a 8 a.m. entrevistas/opinión/comentarios

8 a.m. a 9 a.m. entrevistas/opinión/comentarios

La mañana nace en 2007 en Radio Continental como magacín generalista y con un presentador que hasta entonces había liderado los magacines deportivos. Con La mañana, Víctor Hugo Morales se consolidó como un periodista “todo terreno”, que opina y genera debate sobre temas de actualidad, y que se situó ideológicamente como defensor del gobierno actual.

Tabla 6a. El programa La mañanaEmisora Radio Continental




Perfil de audiencia de la emisora Adulto, clase media, media alta




Nombre del presentador Víctor Hugo Morales

“El editorial” del programa y los monólogos sobre política del presentador le han valido adeptos y detractores. Asimismo, dada la trayectoria del presentador, en el programa destacan sus comentarios deportivos.

Tabla 6b. Los contenidos de La mañana, por hora9 a.m. a 10 a.m. Opinión/comentarios/entrevistas

10 a.m. a 11 a.m. Entrevistas/opinión/tertulia/comentario

11 a.m. a 12 p.m. Entrevistas/opinión/comentario/humor

12 p.m. a 1 p.m. Tertulia/opinión/entrevistas/humor

Empezando el día ocupa la primera mañana de La Red desde 2013. En un año logró duplicar la cuota de mercado de la emisora que, en esa franja horaria, nunca había superado el 4%. Aunque es un programa joven, logró hacerse rápidamente un lugar en el dial,


tanto por la audiencia como por la repercusión de las entrevistas y los comentarios de su conductor.

Tabla 7a. El programa Empezando el día Emisora La Red


Titularidad Grupo UNO





Horas y días de emisión 6 a.m. a 9 a.m., lunes a viernes.

Nombre del presentador Luis Novaresio

Entre sus contenidos, destaca el editorial del presentador, que se incluye como cierre del programa. El programa cuenta además con espacios de humor que anima el propio conductor con su equipo. “El momento gorila”, “Preguntas a Coki” o “Momento bizarro” son algunas de las secciones en las que predomina el humor. Es un programa que cuenta también con una importante participación de la audiencia, que suma sus opiniones en diferentes momentos del programa.

Tabla 7b. Los contenidos de Empezando el día, por hora6 a.m. a 7 a.m. Información/comentario/humor

7 a.m. a 8 a.m. Entrevistas/opinión/humor/comentario

8 a.m. a 9 a.m. Entrevistas/opinión/humor/comentario/tertulia

Ciudad Goti K. En 2010, la emisora La Red recurrió al periodista más conocido de la crónica del espectáculo, Jorge Rial, para ocupar la segunda mañana con Ciudad Goti K, un magacín generalista, con comentaristas económicos y políticos, y con entrevistas de gran impacto. En poco tiempo ha conseguido situarse como tercer magacín de este tramo horario, superando a Radio Continental.

Tabla 8a. El programa Ciudad Goti KEmisora La Red


Titularidad Grupo UNO






Nombre del presentador Jorge Rial

Jorge Rial tiene un estilo improvisado y no cuenta con una estructura de programa fija ni con secciones diarias. Construye el programa sobre la improvisación y con la ayuda de un buen equipo de producción, dando entrada a cada uno de sus colaboradores de modo intermitente. Los espacios de humor a cargo de Claudio Rico también son característicos y aportan dinamismo. Estos ingredientes se combinan a lo largo de todo el programa.

Tabla 8b. Los contenidos de Ciudad Goti K, por hora9 a.m. a 10 a.m. Tertulia/entrevistas/comentario/humor

10 a.m. a 11 a.m. Entrevistas/opinión/humor/comentario

11 a.m. a 12 p.m. Entrevistas/opinión/humor/comentario/tertulia

España

Los magacines de la radio española que se analizan en este trabajo se emiten simultáneamente en OM y FM, siendo ésta última la banda de emisión que acumula más audiencia. En la franja horaria de 6 a.m. a 1 p.m., la audiencia acumulada es de 9.455.394 oyentes. El público objetivo predominante de estos programas es adulto, mayor de 45 años. Desde el punto de vista de la programación, la mañana forma parte de un bloque continuo de emisión, con algunas diferencias entre emisoras. No obstante, desde hace tres temporadas, algunos de estos magacines identifican dos momentos diferentes y, aunque mantienen la marca del programa, cambian de presentadores, de equipos y de estilo a partir de las 10 a.m. Es decir, distinguen también la primera mañana, más informativa; y la segunda mañana, más lúdica, temática y participativa. Teniendo en cuenta estas peculiaridades, se describen aquí los programas más escuchados en 2013 en el tramo horario objeto de estudio: Hoy por hoy (Cadena SER), Herrera en la onda (Onda Cero), La mañana (Cadena COPE) y Las mañanas de RNE (Radio Nacional de España).

Hoy por hoy es el emblemático magacín de la Cadena SER, la más escuchada en la radio generalista española. Su primera emisión fue el 22 de septiembre de 1986, dirigida y presentada por el periodista Iñaki Gabilondo, que estuvo al mando 19 temporadas. De 2005 a 2012, el programa fue presentado por Carles Francino. En la temporada 2012-2013, Hoy por hoy mantiene el título y el estilo, pero cambia la estructura y divide la mañana en dos tramos diferenciados en la presentación y los contenidos: más informativo de 6 a.m. a 10 a.m. con Pepa Bueno, y más social y de entretenimiento de 10 a.m. a 12:20 p.m. con Gemma Nierga.


Tabla 9a. El programa Hoy por hoyEmisora Cadena SER

Tipo de emisora Comercial, privada.



Perfil de audiencia de la emisora Adulto, clase media/media y media/alta



Horas y días de emisión 6 a.m. a 12:20 p.m., lunes a viernes

Nombre de las presentadoras Pepa Bueno y Gemma Nierga

El programa, de marcado carácter informativo y con numerosos colaboradores, dedica las primeras horas a repasar la actualidad española e internacional de todos los ámbitos, con entrevistas a los personajes del día y con espacio para la tertulia radiofónica con importantes profesionales del periodismo y la cultura. Destacan también los comentarios de opinión “La voz de Iñaki Gabilondo”, “El ojo izquierdo”, “La mirada de Soledad Gallego-Díaz”, “El comentario deportivo de José Ramón de la Morena” y “El editorial” de Pepa Bueno. “El diario de hoy por hoy” recoge la opinión de los oyentes, que también participan en directo en otras secciones del programa. El humor también tiene cabida, con secciones periódicas como “Punto y Pérez”, “La hora negra” y el cierre surrealista del programa, a cargo de Juan Carlos Ortega. Las secciones temáticas sobre gastronomía, deporte, cine y literatura completan la oferta de la segunda parte del programa.

Tabla 9b. Los contenidos de Hoy por hoy, por hora6 a.m. a 7 a.m. Información/ opinión

7 a.m. a 8 a.m. Información/deporte/revista prensa

8 a.m. a 9 a.m. Entrevistas/opinión/tertulia

9 a.m. a 10 a.m. Entrevistas/opinión/tertulia

10 a.m. a 11 a.m. Social/temática

11 a.m. a 12 p.m. Entretenimiento/temática

12 p.m. a 12:20 p.m. Entretenimiento/transición a programas locales

Herrera en la onda es un magacín presentado y dirigido por Carlos Herrera desde septiembre de 2004 en Onda Cero. Está dedicado a la actualidad, el debate político y el humor. Inició su andadura como programa vespertino y en la actualidad es el segundo programa más escuchado de la radio generalista en España. Su presentador domina los diferentes cambios de estilo y ritmo narrativo que necesita un programa de larga duración.

Tabla 10a. El programa Herrera en la ondaEmisora Onda Cero


Titularidad Atresmedia





Horas y días de emisión 6 a.m. a 12:30 p.m., lunes a viernes

Nombre del presentador Carlos Herrera

Destaca la calidad de las entrevistas de actualidad y de las tertulias políticas, en las que colaboran importantes profesionales del periodismo. Entre las secciones de humor sobresalen “Los cursos de buenos modales de Josemi” y “La hora de los fósforos”, construida con los oyentes que aportan sus opiniones sobre temas de la vida cotidiana.

Tabla 10b. Los contenidos de Herrera en la onda, por hora6 a.m. a 7 a.m. información/entrevistas/opinión

7 a.m. a 8 a.m. información/entrevistas/opinión

8 a.m. a 9 a.m. información/local/tertulia

9 a.m. a 10 a.m. participación audiencia

10 a.m. a 11 a.m. humor/entretenimiento

11 a.m. a 12:30 p.m. temática/humor

La mañana es el programa matinal de Cadena Cope. Desde su origen en 1992 ha estado dirigido por importantes profesionales de la radio y el periodismo, como Antonio Herrero y Federico Jiménez los Santos, entre otros. Hasta junio de 2014 estuvo presentado y dirigido por Ernesto Sáenz de Buruaga en el tramo informativo hasta las 10 a.m. Desde entonces, esta parte del programa está dirigida por Ángel Expósito. La segunda mañana, más temática, sigue a cargo de Javier Nieves, un profesional de la misma empresa forjado en la radio especializada.

Tabla 11a. El programa La mañanaEmisora Cadena Cope


Titularidad Cope-Radio Popular






Nombre de los presentadoresErnesto Sáenz de Buruaga/Ángel Expósito y Javier Nieves


Como en los casos anteriores, La mañana es un programa que cuenta con importantes colaboradores en las diferentes secciones. Destacan la tertulia política, los comentarios deportivos y la particular revista de prensa de Luis del Val, así como el humor del grupo Risa y las secciones especializadas en cine, televisión, ciencia y economía.

Tabla 11b. Los contenidos de La mañana, por hora6 a.m. a 7 a.m. Información/deporte

7 a.m. a 8 a.m. Información/deporte

8 a.m. a 9 a.m. Información/local/tertulia

9 a.m. a 10 a.m. Tertulia/humor

10 a.m. a 11 a.m. Entretenimiento/temática/información

11 a.m. a 12 p.m. Entretenimiento/temática/información

Las mañanas de Radio Nacional es el programa magacín de las mañanas de la radio pública. Desde septiembre de 2013 está dirigido y presentado por Alfredo Menéndez. Con la nueva dirección de la emisora pública y con el objetivo de mejorar la audiencia, Menéndez sustituyó a Manolo Hernández Hurtado, que presentaba el programa El día menos pensando.

Tabla 12a. El programa Las mañanas de Radio NacionalEmisora Radio Nacional

Tipo de emisora Pública, nacional

Titularidad RTVE






Nombre del presentador Alfredo Menéndez

En el programa se distinguen dos partes bien diferenciadas. El tramo de actualidad y entrevistas hasta las 10 a.m., y el tramo cultural hasta el final de la mañana. Destaca la tertulia con la colaboración de profesionales de otros medios de reconocido prestigio, y cuenta con el equipo de informativos de la casa para la producción de contenidos.

Tabla 12b. Los contenidos de Las mañanas de Radio Nacional, por hora6 a.m. a 7 a.m. Información

7 a.m. a 8 a.m. Información/local

8 a.m. a 9 a.m. Información/análisis

9 a.m. a 10 a.m. Información/entrevistas

10 a.m. a 11 a.m. Temática/cultural

11 a.m. a 12 p.m. Temática/cultural

El comportamiento de la audiencia de los magacines

Las radios argentina y española tienen algunas características comunes en relación al mercado radiofónico. Una de ellas es el porcentaje de penetración de la radio en el sector de los medios, como puede verse en el Gráfico 1.

Gráfico 1. Penetración de medios en España y la Argentina

Fuente: Ibope Media Argentina y Estudio General de Medios de la AIMC, España.

A excepción del mercado de revistas, ambos países muestran importantes similitudes en la penetración de todos los medios. Argentina sólo supera levemente a España en el porcentaje de penetración de la televisión, con 94% y 89% respectivamente, y en el de los diarios, donde con 37% sobresale un 7%. España, en cambio, tiene más alta penetración radiofónica (64% a 60%), en internet (61% a 58%) y en el mercado de revistas (41% a 16%), donde la diferencia es más importante.

Como se explica en el Gráfico 1, la radio generalista se comporta de forma similar en ambos mercados. Sin embargo, la radio temática tiene mayores diferencias como se aprecia en el Gráfico 2. Esto se debe a que hay muy pocos ejemplos de radio temática “pura” en Argentina, donde los diferentes formatos mutaron hacia modelos de programación mixtos o híbridos al no obtener buenos índices de audiencia. Los gráficos 2 y 3 muestran el comportamiento de la audiencia en los diferentes modelos de radio en relación con el encendido total4.

4 Si bien los datos que se ofrecen ambos mercados para el análisis no son iguales (el Gráfico 2 se expresa en puntos de rating y el Gráfico 3 en cantidad de oyentes), nos permiten realizar una comparación preliminar en cuanto al comportamiento de la au-diencia en las diferentes horas.


Gráfico 2. Audiencia por hora de la radio generalista y temática en Argentina

Fuente: Ibope Media Argentina.

En el Gráfico 2 se evidencia que, en Argentina, la radio temática supera ampliamente a la generalista en casi todas las franjas horarias. Se acercan entre las 6 a.m. y las 9 a.m. y en los horarios nocturnos. El pico de audiencia de ambas se da alrededor de las 10 a.m., horario donde el encendido supera los 40 puntos. En el Gráfico 3 se puede ver que la radio española muestra un comportamiento parecido, aunque con algunas diferencias, según las horas del día.

Gráfico 3. Audiencia por hora de la radio generalista y temática en España, 2013 por miles

Fuente: Estudio General de Medios de la AIMC, España.

Con respecto al prime time, en España se localiza antes que en Argentina, sobre las 8 a.m. En el caso de la radio temática, el mayor índice de audiencia se obtiene a las 11 a.m. Otra diferencia es que la radio generalista española iguala o supera a la radio temática en dos momentos del día: a las 8 a.m. ambos modelos alcanzan los mismos niveles de audiencia y, a partir de las 10 p.m., la radio generalista supera a la temática.

Si observamos los datos de España, veremos que hay cuatro emisoras líderes en el mercado generalista: Cadena Ser, Onda Cero, Cope y Radio Nacional de España. El Gráfico 4 muestra los datos de audiencia de 2013, período de referencia del análisis. Ese

año, Cadena Ser continúa siendo líder y “despega” del resto de las emisoras en términos de audiencia, mientras que las tres restantes tienen entre sí menos diferencias.

Gráfico 4. Cuota de audiencia de la radio generalista en España, 2013

Como puede verse en el Gráfico 5, en el caso de Argentina también hay una emisora comercial que saca ventaja del resto: Radio Mitre, que obtiene aún más distancia de sus competidores que Cadena Ser con el resto de las emisoras españolas. Tiene más del doble de oyentes que Radio 10, su seguidora inmediata. Radio Continental y La Red compiten muy de cerca por el tercer y cuarto puesto.

Gráfico 5. Cuota de audiencia de la radio generalista en Argentina, 2013


En este gráfico se muestra claramente que en 2013 Radio Mitre se despegó definitivamente de Radio 10, sacándole amplia ventaja. Hasta los primeros meses de 2013, estas emisoras competían por el primer puesto. Desde entonces, Mitre es líder con gran ventaja sobre el resto. Tanto Cada mañana como Lanata sin filtro encabezan los índices de audiencia de la primera y segunda mañana de la radio. También a partir de ese año, La Red logró ubicarse en el tercer puesto después de ser cuarta detrás de Radio Continental durante varios años.


Si observamos los datos de audiencia del prime time, veremos que la distancia de Radio Mitre respecto del resto es aún más notoria en esa franja, como lo muestra el Gráfico 6.

Gráfico 6. Cuota de audiencia del prime time de la radio generalista en Argentina, 2013


Gráfico 7. Cuota de audiencia de los programas del prime time de la radio generalista en España, 2013

Fuente: Estudio General de Medios de la AIMC, España

También en el prime time Radio Continental logra sacar más ventaja a La Red y consigue ubicarse en el tercer puesto.

En España, el liderazgo del prime time es del programa Hoy por hoy, de Cadena Ser. Sin embargo, en esta franja, se acerca más que en el resto del día Onda Cero, con Herrera en la onda. Más lejos, y compitiendo por el tercer y cuarto puesto, están La mañana y Las mañanas de RNE.

En síntesis, puede decirse que el mercado radiofónico argentino y el español se parecen, sobre todo, en la propuesta generalista de las emisoras comerciales que lideran el mercado. Ambos países suman más audiencia acumulada en la radio temática, pero la

radio generalista alcanza la mayor audiencia en la mañana, que es cuando más se acerca en oyentes a la oferta temática. Sin embargo, en España el prime time se localiza en torno a las 8 a.m., mientras que en Argentina se sitúa dos horas más tarde, a las 10. Un dato curioso de la radio generalista española es que supera en audiencia a la radio temática por la noche, a partir de las 10, con las tertulias que tanto atrapan a la audiencia. En el caso de la radio argentina, en 2013 el prime time está liderado, y con amplia ventaja, por Radio Mitre. En España, aunque hay diferencias entre emisoras, Cadena Ser (Hoy por hoy) y Onda Cero (Herrera en la onda) suman más del 50% de audiencia de la radio generalista del prime time.

Conclusiones

Los programas magacines del prime time que han sido hasta ahora la columna vertebral de la programación generalista en los mercados de la radio argentina y española experimentan cambios caracterizados por el desplazamiento del horario, el predominio del contenido informativo y la presencia de las voces autorizadas del periodismo, en detrimento del contenido de entretenimiento y de los presentadores estrella.

El magacín como programa contenedor que pivota sobre la actualidad del día y con una importante producción periodística sigue teniendo vigencia y las mejores audiencias en las mañanas de la radio de Argentina y España. En ambos países sigue siendo un tipo de programa con variedad de temas y de voces, administrado por un conductor protagónico que alterna constantemente una oferta muy variada para aportar ritmo, en un contexto en que el oyente-usuario elige, programa y participa. No obstante, se aprecian algunos cambios en el comportamiento de la audiencia, que adelanta la escucha y se estanca a pesar de los intentos de hacer una radio más desenfadada en algunos tramos horarios.

Una de las notas distintivas de los magacines del prime time de Argentina y España es la construcción de una identidad fuerte y coherente de los programas. Se administran contenidos heterogéneos y voces variadas que entran y salen del aire de modo intermitente, buscando continuidad narrativa y coherencia en la diversidad. Se prefieren como presentadores a profesionales del periodismo de reconocido prestigio que generan opinión y aglutinan grandes audiencias, en detrimento de voces que sólo hacen de enlace entre las partes del programa y los contenidos comerciales.

El ritmo programático de las mañanas de la radio generalista tiene dos momentos claramente definidos: la primera mañana, más informativa; y la segunda mañana, más lúdica, temática y participativa. En Argentina, se programan dos espacios diferentes, pero con una transición que les da continuidad (“el pase”). En España, las emisoras mantienen un único programa y marca informativa, de seis horas de duración, pero al menos en dos casos, con presentadores diferentes a partir de las 10 a.m. para marcar ese cambio de ritmo y contenidos. Teniendo en cuenta


esta peculiaridad, se hace necesario estudiar las audiencias de forma discriminada, atendiendo a estos dos momentos claramente diferentes en la escucha.

La distribución de los contenidos es bastante homogénea en todas las emisoras; se juega con los mismos ingredientes en las mismas horas del día. Los programas arrancan con una alta presencia de la información y la opinión en las tres primeras horas, y se abren hacia el entretenimiento temático, la conversación y la interacción con la audiencia a partir de las 9 a.m. y las 10 a.m. La oferta de contenidos es, por tanto, muy similar y las diferencias tienen que ver más con el estilo de la presentación y los recursos de producción de cada programa. Además, los magacines de las emisoras argentinas se caracterizan porque suman el humor desde la primera mañana como un ingrediente más del relato de la información del día.

Tanto en España como en Argentina, la mañana de la radio ha ido ganando en entretenimiento a través de los años. Los magacines se centran en la información de actualidad sin perder de vista una de sus funciones principales: entretener. Los presentadores, sobre todo, y los colaboradores del programa resultan piezas fundamentales de una narración que integra permanentemente información y entretenimiento, humor y distensión.

En la actualidad, el prime time, que durante décadas estaba entre las 11 a.m. y el mediodía, se adelanta en la radio generalista. En España, es más informativo y se encuentra en la primera mañana, a las 8; en Argentina se mantiene en la segunda mañana pero se adelanta a las 10.

En ambos mercados, y atendiendo a la audiencia acumulada, se escucha más la radio temática. La tendencia cambia si se analizan los tramos horarios de mañana durante la emisión de los magacines, en donde las audiencias son similares o bien lideran levemente la radio generalista. Esto ha llevado a programar magacines despertadores o morning shows en las principales cadenas especializadas en el caso de España, y a adoptar formas mixtas de programar durante las mañanas de la radio temática en Argentina, que se acercó en los últimos años a la propuesta generalista del prime time (conductores-estrella, magacines con información de actualidad y diversidad de temas y de voces).

Finalmente, la audiencia de los magacines es mayoritariamente adulta, con más de un 55% de oyentes mayores de 45 años, de clase media y alta en ambos mercados. Se confirma la tendencia de que la audiencia joven no elige la radio tradicional para consumir información y prefiere las nuevas plataformas que incrementan su cuota de mercado, sobre todo en dichas franjas de edad. Por todo lo dicho, el estudio confirma que los programas magacines siguen funcionado como fórmula radiofónica en la radio generalista, pero su audiencia se estanca. Por ello, deberían apostar por investigar e innovar en la oferta informativa de la primera mañana, de buscar otras formas de comunicarse con la audiencia joven y de

comercializar mejor su producto. Así conseguirían adaptarse mejor a los cambios de consumo radiofónico de la audiencia.

Referencias bibliográficas

AIMC, Asociación para la Investigación de los Medios de Comunicación (2014). Estudio General de Medios, Resumen general, febrero-noviembre 2013. Retrieved from http://www.aimc.es/-Datos-EGM-Resumen-General-.html

Armstrong, C., & Rubin, A. (1989). Talk radio as interpersonal communication. Journal of Communication, 39(2), 84-94.

Cebrián Herreros, M. (1994). Información radiofónica: Mediación técnica, tratamiento y programación. Madrid: Síntesis.

Cebrián Herreros, M. (2004). Innovación radiofónica: La creatividad en el contexto de la radio actual. Telos, 60, 53-60.

Cuní, J. (1999). La ràdio que triomfa. Barcelona: Portic.Dauncey, H., & Hare, J. (1999). French youth talk radio: The free

market and free speech. Media, Culture & Society, 21(1), 93-108.

Fernández, J. L. (2012). La captura de la audiencia radiofónica. Buenos Aires: Liber.

Fleming, C. (2010). The radio handbook. London: Routledge.Hutchby, I. (1996). Power in discourse: The case of arguments on

a British talk radio show. Discourse & Society, 7(4), 481-497.Ilie, C. (2001). Semi-institutional discourse: The case of talk

shows. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(2), 209-254. Kantar IBOPE Media Argentina (2014). Retrieved from http://

www.kantaribopemedia.com.ar/ibope/wp/radioLegorburu, J. M. (2004). La radio generalista: Las técnicas de

programación. En M. P. Martínez-Costa & E. Moreno (Coord.). Programación radiofónica (pp. 47-69). Barcelona: Ariel.

Lewis, P. M., & Booth, J. (1992). El medio invisible: Radio pública, privada, comercial y comunitaria. Barcelona: Paidós.

López Vigil, J. L. (1997). Manual urgente para radialistas apasionados. Quito: Silva.

MacFarland, D. (1997). Future radio programming strategies: Cultivating listenership in the digital age. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Martí, Josep M. (2000). De la idea a l’antena: Tècniques de programació radiofònica. Barcelona: Portic.

Martínez-Costa, M. P., & Díez Unzueta, J. R. (2005). Lenguaje, géneros y programas de radio: Introducción a la narrativa radiofónica. Pamplona: Eunsa.

Pinseler, J. (2015). Domesticated voices: Listener “participation” in everyday radio shows. En T. Bonnini & B. Monclús (Coord.). Radio audiences and participation in the age of network society (pp. 56-71). London: Routledge.

Rodda, A. (1995). Talk radio: The phenomenon and some of its leading personalities. Radio Quarterly, 35(1), 19-26.

Smith, R. (1998). Absolute talk on the radio. Media Studies Jour-nal, 12(2), 72-79.

Starkey, G. (2004). Estimating audiences: Sampling in television and radio audiences research. Cultural Trends, 49, 3-25.


Starkey, G. (2015). When speech was “meaningful” and presenters were just a phone call away. In T. Bonini & B. Monclús, (Eds.) Radio audiences and participation in the age of network society (pp. 39-55). London: Routledge.

Turow, J. (1974). Talk show radio as interpersonal communica-tion. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 18(2), 171-180.


An Unimaginable Combination:Journalists React to the Jorge

Ramos-Donald Trump Confrontation

Ronald Bishop, Ph.D.Drexel University


AbstractDuring an August 2015 press conference in Iowa, Univision anchor Jorge Ramos attempted to ask the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, Donald Trump, a question about Trump’s proposal to deport undocumented immigrants from the United States. Trump accused Ramos of asking his question out of turn, then told him to “sit down” and “go back to Univision.” Ramos was removed from the room by a member of Trump’s security team but later was invited back to the press conference after Ramos’ colleagues questioned Trump’s actions. This narrative analysis of the coverage of the Ramos-Trump clash reveals that where a journalist who confronts an evasive official might have earned praise once, he now receives a lecture on press conference decorum. Even if Ramos had only faked being adversarial, the narrative condemned him for flouting a relatively new journalistic tradition of impartiality that does not anger advertisers or alienate audience. The field may have reached the point where reporting aggressively is a troublesome anachronism. Keywords: Jorge Ramos, Donald Trump, press conference, 2016 U.S. election, immigration, objectivity, advocacy, narrative analysis


“This is a press conference – the last thing I want to do is answer a lot of questions.” - Gen. Maynard M. Mitchell, M*A*S*H, “The Incubator” (TV episode)

Introduction

On August 25, 2015, during a press conference in Dubuque, Iowa, the veteran journalist and popular Univision anchor Jorge Ramos attempted to ask Donald Trump, then the frontrunner in the race for the 2016 Republican nomination for president, a question about Trump’s proposal to deport all of the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants. Trump accused Ramos of asking his question out of turn, and then told him to “sit down” and “go back to Univision.” Ramos was removed from the room by a member of Trump’s security team but later was invited back to the press conference after MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt and Tom Llamas of ABC News questioned Trump’s actions (Gross, 2015; Stelter, 2015). Trump claimed in a subsequent interview that he would have “very quickly” (Lauer, 2015) moved through the other reporters’ questions to call on Ramos, but that suddenly “this man gets up and starts ranting and raving and screaming” (Lauer, 2015).

Expelled to an adjacent hallway, Ramos heard a Trump supporter tell him to “get out of my country” (Rolly, 2015); Ramos asserted that he was a U.S. citizen––to which the Trump supporter responded, “Well, whatever. No, Univision, no. It’s not about you” (Newton, 2015; Terkel, 2015). Ramos challenged Trump’s account of what occurred, claiming that he had, in fact, raised his hand in order to ask his question (Glenza, 2015; Gross, 2015). Trump’s brusque and dismissive treatment of Ramos in the ensuing months generated a pocket of intense publicity.

Two months prior to the press conference, Ramos had written a letter to Trump in which he asked for an interview. Trump rejected Ramos’ request. Ramos traveled to Iowa to continue his pursuit of an interview. Ramos’ employer, Univision, had recently severed its business relationship with Trump, citing Trump’s bigoted comments about undocumented immigrants from Mexico. Trump subsequently put up a photo of Ramos’ letter—which included his cell phone number—on his Instagram account (Finnegan, 2015). A week before the press conference, Ramos tweeted that while Trump’s ideas on immigration were similar to those developed by other GOP candidates, Trump “just expresses them in an extreme way” (“Univision Anchor,” 2015). Two days before the press conference, Trump continued his pointed criticism of Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly—begun after Kelly, in Trump’s estimation, asked unfair questions during the first GOP debate about his tendency to disparage women—by retweeting a characterization of Kelly as a “bimbo,” reiterating his opinion of her as unprofessional and, most infamously, referencing Kelly’s menstrual cycle in comments about the controversy.

Trump’s ejection of Ramos from the Dubuque press conference further antagonized the Latino community. When he announced

in June 2015 his plans to run for president, Trump, as referenced earlier, notoriously asserted that undocumented immigrants from Mexico with “lots of problems” were flooding into the United States. He later proposed building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border to keep undocumented immigrants from entering the U.S. Trump also announced his mass deportation plans and said that he would deny birthright citizenship, guaranteed under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to children of undocumented immigrants born here (García-Ríos, 2015). Univision responded to Trump’s comments by refusing to air the Miss Universe pageant. Trump, who is part owner of the pageant (Katz, 2015, p. 11), subsequently sued the network for $500 million. In late October 2015, he tried to deny Univision reporters access to a campaign rally in Florida, citing the lawsuit (Jerde, 2015). Trump has also instructed his employees to deny service to Univision employees at his golf courses in South Florida (Scherer, 2015).

This article reports a narrative analysis of news media coverage, not of Trump, his candidacy, or of his hateful view of undocumented immigrants, but of Ramos’ attempt to ask Trump about his immigration policy. The article attempts to answer these research questions: How did Ramos’ colleagues evaluate and explain his conduct in the clash with Trump? Was he lauded for his persistence—for acting in true “watchdog” fashion—or was he criticized for being too confrontational for violating the field’s and the audience’s expectations of how roles are played during a press conference?

Theoretical Terrain

The “watchdog” function of the press has its roots in the democratic elite theory of the media, which suggests that a democracy functions efficaciously if led by “highly educated elites and specialized technicians” (Benson, 2008, p. 2,594). The theory sits ideologically between social responsibility theory, under which journalists embrace a duty to report objectively and accurately while maintaining their neutrality—all to promote robust debate—and democratic participatory theory, in which journalists are enlisted to persuade citizens to become more politically involved, even if that sometimes means adopting distasteful reporting practices to do it (pp. 2,593-2,594).

The journalist’s primary tasks under the democratic elite theory are to present the perspectives offered up by dominant social institutions and to keep tabs on their behavior for signs of ineffectiveness and corruption—by acting as society’s “watchdog.” Bennett and Serrin (2005) define watchdog journalism as “(1) independent scrutiny by the press of the activities of the government, business, and other public institutions, with an aim toward (2) documenting, questioning, and investigating those activities, in order to (3) provide publics and officials with timely information on issues of public concern” (p. 169). The “guard dog” theory of journalism, developed in the mid-1990s by Donahue, Tichenor, and Olien (1995), rejects the watchdog function;


instead, the authors contend, reporters act as “sentry” for powerful institutions that are quite capable of playing that role without assistance. The news media, they claim, are not autonomous. They are not subservient “lapdogs” (p. 120), obliviously defending those in power. Instead, they operate as part of the power structure, although they lack both the “inclination” and the “power to challenge those dominant groups, unless they are already under challenge by other forces” (p. 119). They slip into the “guard dog” role “when external forces present a threat to local leadership” (p. 116), and then report on the conflict. Their dependence on officials for information has in effect trained them to be on the lookout for potential intruders; they may “sound the alarm” (p. 116) for reasons that leaders initially do not understand.

Bennett and Serrin (2005) lay out something of a theoretical middle ground. Convinced of their own celebrity, “drawn to the glitter of the Georgetown social circuit and the White House,” and focused on burnishing their “brands,” today’s journalists have reinvented the watchdog role; it is now “overly stylized and ritualized” (p. 179), Bennett and Serrin contend. Journalists adopt the investigative reporter pose and fail to gird their stories with evidence or offer solutions to society’s problems. If in an initial round of reporting a journalist describes significant official misconduct, colleagues typically do not follow up (p. 179). It certainly does not help, the authors argue, that a growing number of journalists were raised in middle- and upper-class families. “They belong to the culture for which the American political system works exceedingly well,” wrote the famed columnist Russell Baker in 2003 (quoted in Bennett & Serrin, 2005, p. 181).

Not that the inclination for the theatrical and contrived is a new development in journalism. In his classic work The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America, Daniel Boorstin (1962) asserted that it was the public’s burgeoning demand for a steady stream of timely and compelling news that led journalists to rely more often on “pseudo-events” in the coverage of their beats. “If there is no news visible to the naked eye, or to the average citizen,” he wrote, “we still expect it to be there for the enterprising newsman” (p. 8). The public began to demand more “news” of the world than the world could provide. “We require that something be fabricated to make up for the world’s deficiency,” (p. 8) Boorstin noted. Journalists responded by presenting their growing readership with more stories based on events concocted solely to attract coverage and only dubiously connected to what actually was transpiring.

Thus, journalists have long had an unquenchable “thirst for a readily available, reliable flow of information” (Schudson, 2003, p. 134). They seek stories “that offer the greatest dramatic potential and hold the greatest promise of continuing plot development” (Bennett & Serrin, 2005, p. 174). Often these stories “end up being manufactured out of little more than spin, staging, and the efforts of the press pack to inject life to the political routine” (p. 174). As a result, as Baym (2005) explains, “the discourses of news, politics, entertainment, and marketing

have grown deeply inseparable; the languages and practices of each have lost their distinctiveness and are being melded into previously unimaginable combinations” (p. 262).

A press conference is an event staged by an individual, a corporate executive, or public official—with the help of public relations professionals—to manage the flow of information about their actions made available to journalists and to the public. It has long been a tool of political expediency. They are typically held to develop, sustain, or restore an individual’s or an institution’s public image. Officials and executives extensively prepare for them, rehearsing their answers to potential questions (Graber, 2010, pp. 240-241). While the possibility always exists that an official or executive might misstate facts, go “off script,” engage in self-aggrandizing behavior, or become unable to respond coherently, the goal remains to control the release of news.

Allen (1993) explains that while president, Woodrow Wilson used private Oval Office gatherings of reporters “as a sounding board for U.S. intervention in the Mexican Revolution” (p. 15), while Harry Truman moved the events to a larger space to accommodate the growing White House press corps (p. 15). Dwight Eisenhower, frustrated with criticism by reporters and by their “superficial analysis” (p. 17) of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s actions, and unable to recreate the “warm and non-confrontational relations” (p. 16) he had enjoyed with the press during World War II, came to see the press conference as an effective means to disseminate his ideas. Eisenhower’s press secretary, James Hagerty, a former journalist, heartily endorsed communicating “directly with the people who can hear exactly what [the] president said without reading warped and slanted stories” (p. 20). For their part, television networks took advantage of the fact that press conferences were cheaper to produce than FDR’s “fireside chats” and did not trigger the FCC’s “equal time” provision. Hagerty diffused criticism by reporters that news conference footage was heavily edited prior to broadcast by pointing out that White House officials had edited material for some time, and noting the financial advantages to be gained by accepting that news conferences were “inevitable” (p. 23).

By the late 1960s, journalists were more aggressive in their interactions with the president, becoming “testy” and “more likely to challenge official claims and push politicians off message” (Bennett, 2009, p. 132). As Heritage and Clayman (2013) explain, questions from journalists had “become more opinionated or assertive, more adversarial in content, and more apt to hold the president accountable for his policies” (p. 482). Today, exercising “an increasingly prominent and independent voice” in coverage of politics, journalists are “more interpretive, more negative, and more preoccupied with political strategy over policy substance,” Heritage and Clayman claim (p. 482).

Nevertheless, the journalist who endures long stretches in these “controlled institutional settings” (Bennett & Livingston, 2003, p. 361) does so to satisfy our “demand for illusions” (Boorstin, 1962,


p. 9). They do so as their ranks shrink and the number of public relations professionals grows; PR professionals now outnumber journalists three to one (Sullivan, 2011). Even though they are staged to facilitate interaction (Tuchman, 1978, p. 114), press conferences “are routinely treated as news” (Jamieson & Campbell, 1997, p. 136). Most of the news we consume now originates in “planned, intentional events, press releases, press conferences, and scheduled interviews” (Schudson, 2003, p. 6). Press conferences provide “the dramatic, visual, concise characteristics” that journalists desire and to which their readers respond (Jamieson & Campbell, 1997, p. 136). The reporter trades context for convenience; he or she “minimizes the amount of background information needed and the amount of time it takes to assemble a story” (p. 136). The press conference is a stage-managed distraction. As one veteran reporter told Schudson (2003), “there’s always something going on that deprives one of the time to dig underneath” (p. 137). Instead of providing context or reporting aggressively, a reporter covers what is in front of him or her, and, having been enticed by “proximity to power” (Schudson, 2003, p. 142), typically “accepts the assumptions of those managing the event” (Jamieson & Campbell, 1997, p. 136).

These choices have given rise to the criticism that journalists too often act theatrically––and goad the person holding the press conference to do the same—as opposed to asking thoughtful questions. Colleagues and the audience expect journalists to follow this part of the sourcing “protocol” (Boorstin, 1962, p. 32). Journalists seemingly have lost the inclination felt during the Watergate era to expose official prevarication—and to do the reporting necessary to produce that exposure (Schudson, 1978, pp. 171-176). Having ceded their cultural authority to everything from car advertisements (Bishop, 2012/13) to Entertainment Tonight, journalists are now prone to lauding the “watchdog” ideal “without having a firm sense of how to put into practice” (Bennett & Serrin, 2005, p. 173). Motivated perhaps by their field’s precarious financial state, they enthusiastically “substitute the spectacle or the posture of adversarialism for the sort of journalism that might better the public interest” (p. 173). As Meltzer (2009) explains, even though print journalists still consider themselves “the arbiters of professional decency and standards” (p. 64) and their broadcast colleagues still occupy a less favorable position in the “journalistic hierarchy of credibility and prestige,” they tolerate the celebrity that attaches to anchors like Jorge Ramos because it so visibly affirms the field’s authority. But if a colleague’s conduct severely breaches the field’s ideals, paradigm repair (Hindman, 2005) will be undertaken—although as will be discussed, barriers erected as part of that repair in Ramos’ case protected a model of journalism vigorously criticized in segments of journalism’s interpretive community (Zelizer, 1993).

But even if Jorge Ramos was posturing when he tried to ask Trump about his immigration policies, their exchange provides a compelling opportunity to explore how journalists explain to the public the conduct of a colleague who has for whatever reason

embraced the “watchdog” role and rejected the oft-criticized “he said-she said” approach to reporting that critics claim allows false equivalencies to germinate and public officials—and top-tier political candidates—to escape scrutiny.

Method

Searches of the Lexis-Nexis and Google News databases were conducted in October 2015 to obtain, for analysis, news articles and commentary about the Ramos-Trump confrontation. Articles were included if they were published between August 25 (the date of the press conference) and September 8, 2015, by which point coverage of the confrontation had significantly diminished. Accumulation of articles continued until enough evidence was obtained to formulate “a sufficient number of arguments of sufficient quality,” as Wood and Kroger (2000, p. 81) advise. Gathering of texts was then discontinued. The searches produced 96 texts for analysis. Ramos’ report for the Fusion television network about his journey to Iowa, as well as his appearances subsequent to the confrontation with Trump on morning network news shows and Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, were also analyzed since they accompanied many of the texts.

The author performed a careful narrative analysis on the texts. A “long preliminary soak” (Hall, 1975, p. 15) was followed by numerous subsequent readings conducted to unpack key narrative elements—plot, settings, characters, narration, temporal relations, causal relations, audience (Foss, 2009, pp. 312-315) —and to identify and refine the primary narrative themes. Extensive notes were taken as the analysis unfolded; they were carefully reviewed as the narrative elements were identified and themes emerged.

Walter Fisher’s (1989) seminal work on the centrality of narrative drove the analysis. Fisher asserts that narrative “is the basic and essential genre for the characterization of human action” (p. 58). Communication does not have to be “argumentative in form” (p. 58) in order to have impact. In fact, rationality is sustained by the narratives we develop to explain our lives to others and to ourselves. “By creating stories out of the raw material of our lives,” explains Klapproth (2004), “we manage not only to establish coherence for ourselves, but also to create meaningful discursive structures that can be communicated and shared” (p. 3). Narrative is thus a tool of organization; it helps us “make sense of the people, places, events, and actions of our lives” (Foss, 2009, p. 307). Telling and retelling stories enables us to determine “what a particular experience is about and how the various elements of our experience are connected” (p. 307).

We strive as much for coherence as for accuracy in compiling and revising the stories that Fisher believes empower us to meaningfully take part in our lives. As Walter Benjamin (1982) argued, a narrative “preserves and concentrates its strength and is capable of releasing it even after a long time” (p. 90). In fact, as Bruner (1991) asserts, an expert storyteller is able to persuade


an audience that only one interpretation of a story is possible (p. 9). By exploring the “linguistic and cultural resources” from which coverage of the Ramos-Trump disagreement was built, we can assess how journalists attempted to convince their readers that the event was “something that can be told about” (Manoff, 1987, p. 226), and that their reading of it is the only valid one.

Journalists craft narratives to explain events to readers, finding “in the unfamiliar…that which is familiar, a story type made available by culture,” as Eason (1981) explains. Journalists have freedom to select the materials with which they assemble their stories, but the assembly typically takes place on an existing—and well-known—narrative framework. As they hone their craft, journalists learn that narratives “bring order to events by making them something that can be told about; they have power because they make the world make sense,” as Manoff (1987, pp. 228-229) contends. A journalist comes to depend on “a mental catalogue of news story themes, including how the ‘plot’ will actually unravel and who the key actors are likely to be” (Berkowitz, 1997, p. 363). They have little, if any, choice in the matter, since their editors—and readers—expect they will explain events using familiar narratives. In the end, a successful news story is one in which “events seem to tell themselves” (Kitch, 2002, p. 296).

The Ramos-Trump Narrative

The narrators’ primary objective in explaining Ramos’ conduct was to affirm the legitimacy of how journalism is now practiced. Even if Ramos had, as Bennett and Serrin (2005) claim, substituted “the spectacle or the posture of adversarialism for the sort of journalism that might better serve the public interest” (p. 173), his colleagues seized an opportunity to inform the audience that even a dramatized invocation of journalism’s “watchdog” function would not be tolerated. One cannot even play a crusading journalist and escape criticism from colleagues so heavily invested in a model of reporting that among its many flaws, favors infotainment and promoting false equivalencies. Journalistic ethics, paradigm repair, the significance of the First Amendment—all were deployed by journalists across these texts to sustain an election drama built on their decision to report Trump’s every vacuous, boorish, and bigoted statement largely without challenge. To meet their objective, they positioned Ramos as an outlier––primarily for the threat he posed to the Trump drama, not to journalism.

Trump and Ramos, the narrative’s primary characters, were portrayed as foes locked in the latest battle between Trump and reporters, whom Trump repeatedly accused of not treating him fairly. A Los Angeles Times reporter called the confrontation Trump’s “latest showdown” (Mai-Duc, 2015a) with the news media. The two men “sparred” (Cornish, 2015; Garbe, 2015); their exchange, although brief, was contentious—“heated,” noted one reporter (Garbe, 2015). Even after Ramos was allowed back into the press conference, “the crossfire continued” (Garbe, 2015). It was “a testy back and forth exchange” (Peyronnin, 2015) that

“dominated the rest of the event” (Ross, 2015). Trump, whose bravado is a key element of his appeal to voters (Przybyla, 2015) is, according to this narrative, a master at managing the press despite his several “high-profile tiffs” with reporters. He would not, The Washington Post asserted, “be tamed” (Rucker & Costa, 2015). Trump “has found yet another journalist to bully on the playground,” wrote The Huffington Post’s Gabriel Arana (2015a). He showed no signs of “ceding any ground” in his feuds with Megyn Kelly and with Ramos—his “new media nemesis” (Battaglio, 2015). The disagreement was just the “latest media mayhem” created by Trump (Nichols, 2015). His comments about undocumented immigrants “brought him head-to-head” with Ramos, suggested NPR’s Audie Cornish (2015). The two men then “engaged in a public tangle” (Ross, 2015). The mood in the room was “electric” (Miller, 2015).

Ramos was characterized as persistent and dogged, but also as rude and pugnacious. He had “a history of combativeness” (Kurtz, 2015) when it came to confronting elected leaders, as though this was an erratic or even criminal act. Ramos “came loaded to press Trump,” said a National Public Radio reporter (Inskeep, 2015). In his lead-up to a question about Trump, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos (2015) asserted that Ramos “pressed hard with those questions and…had tough things to say” about Trump. Journalists portrayed the disagreement as “simmering for a while” (Cornish, 2015).

Ramos was criticized for interrupting (e.g. Schultz, 2015) or trying to “buttonhole” the candidate (Guthrie, 2015). While Ramos “didn’t back down” (Mai-Duc, 2015a) and may have flustered Trump, some journalists suggested he was misguided if he thought he could somehow defeat Trump. “The idea that you can out-maneuver/out-yell/out-talk Trump,” asserted a Newsweek reporter, “is wrong-headed when taking the candidate’s previous behavior into account” (Martínez, 2015). More than once, Ramos was positioned as having to defend his “aggressive approach” (Schultz, 2015) to questioning. In fact, for some the attempt to hold Trump accountable was a journalistic aberration—“bizarre,” wrote one (Schultz, 2015). Reporters also gave Trump time and space to boast about his practice of seeking revenge on those who wrong him. Today’s Matt Lauer (2015) reminded Trump during a television interview the morning after the confrontation that he had once said, “When people treat me unfairly, I don’t let them forget me.”

Ramos did not shrink from confrontation, however. “With little blood on the floor, both combatants actually prevailed,” explained one columnist (Hill, 2015, p. A7). The noted columnist Clarence Page (2015) concluded, “both men got something out of this face-off. Both looked tough and uncompromising to his fan base” (p. A7). For media companies, the “mano-a-mano media showdown made for gripping entertainment” (Miller, 2015) that would carry over into the campaign. The conflict “isn’t going away anytime soon,” one reporter predicted (Miller, 2015). Furthermore,


facing off against Ramos was not without risk for Trump, as will be discussed. Ramos’ stature as a trusted expert in the Latino community should have caused Trump not to just “chalk up his scuffle” with the anchor “as yet another win in taking on the media” (García-Ríos, 2015). Still, readers were left with the distinct impression that Trump relishes his “feuds” with reporters. “He loves to brawl with people and journalists in particular,” asserted the USA Today’s Rem Rieder (2015, p. 2B).

The Ramos-Trump narrative included a minor subplot in which some reporters took their colleagues to task for so eagerly covering Trump. “They have to stop showing up for, and lapping up, every ridiculous, insulting statement that he makes,” wrote a guest columnist for The Huffington Post, continuing, “these so-called legitimate media people are providing Trump with unwarranted credibility by covering him” (Phillips, 2015). The New York Times’ Mark Leibovich (2015) discounted the likelihood that such a moratorium could ever take place. Gaining access to Trump, he wrote, is “nothing like the teeth-pulling exercise that it can be to get any meaningful exposure to a candidate like, say, Hillary Clinton.” Trump’s bellicosity “is a seductive departure” for journalists “accustomed to being ignored, patronized, and offered sound bites to a point of lobotomy by typical politicians and the human straitjackets that surround them,” Leibovich claimed. But instead of seizing an opportunity for paradigm repair or to meaningfully debate the First Amendment issues at stake, reporters who covered the Ramos-Trump confrontation were content to chide Ramos—and to congratulate Trump for gaming the system. “[H]e’s not just scoring points by beating up the media,” said David Folkenflik, “he’s getting the media to cover him” (Inskeep, 2015). In “reinforcing his antics,” reporters enabled Trump to blur the “lines among politics, news, and entertainment” (Guthrie, 2015).

Several journalists, including Megyn Kelly, played less important roles in the Ramos-Trump narrative. Following Trump’s insults, then-Fox News president Roger Ailes demanded an apology from the candidate, claiming that Kelly represented “the very best of American journalism” (Schultz, 2015). Trump relented, telling the New York Daily News in late August he was “no longer interested in crushing” Kelly (Wagner & Katz, 2015). Moreover, in July 2015, Trump was “very dismissive of a certain line of questioning” from Telemundo anchor José Díaz-Balart during an appearance in Laredo, Texas, “that also honed in on gaps in what Trump had to offer” (Cornish, 2015). Díaz-Balart had begun to lay out a question challenging Trump’s bigoted characterization of undocumented immigrants when the candidate cut him off and accused him, and the rest of the news media, of “misinterpretation” (Campbell, 2015). When Díaz-Balart asked for the chance to finish his question, Trump shot back, “you’re finished” (Campbell, 2015). Also included were journalists from The Des Moines Register, who endured harsh criticism from Trump and were banned from a Trump event after the paper ran an editorial in which it urged Trump to suspend his campaign (Lemieux, 2015, p. 9A). Kasie

Hunt and Tom Llamas, the journalists who according to Ramos “confronted” (Berg, 2015) Trump about the ejection, played minor roles, as did their colleagues, who according to one account (Cuomo, 2015) were angry at Ramos. The late, legendary CBS anchor Walter Cronkite was repeatedly referenced (Arana, 2015; Rieder, 2015), but only to affirm Ramos’ popularity with the Univision audience, not his skill as an anchor and reporter.

Other critical voices were also heard. Univision CEO Randy Falco said that Trump’s treatment of Ramos was “beneath contempt” (Sherman, 2015). The National Association of Hispanic Journalists weighed in, announcing that it stood “with journalists everywhere who are simply working to pursue the truth and hold people in power accountable” (Nichols, 2015). The singer Ricky Martin (Lawler, 2015) criticized Trump for his treatment of Ramos in a “scathing op-ed.” The former GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush claimed Ramos should have been “treated with a little more respect and dignity” (Mazzei, 2015).

Primary Narrative Themes

We now turn our attention to the prevailing narrative themes in reports that discuss Jorge Ramos’ actions.

Ramos the Activist

Ramos was characterized in numerous texts as a longtime “unabashed” (Rieder, 2015) and self-righteous activist—a “crusader” (Inskeep, 2015) for the rights of undocumented immigrants who has no compunction flouting journalistic conventions like maintaining objectivity if the cause demands he do so. He conflated the roles of anchor and advocate. Ramos “seems to think activism and advocacy are not incompatible with journalism” (Wright, 2015). Moreover, he has for some time been an “outspoken detractor” of Trump (Barbaro, 2015, p. A11). The conservative National Review (Tuttle, 2015) called him a “professional partisan.” He wields the freedom of expression he earned by becoming a U.S. citizen as a cudgel as he “interrogates” (Martínez, 2015; Miller, 2015; Tuttle, 2015) the subjects of his interviews. During an appearance on Fox News, “fellow Trump nemesis” (Earle, 2015) Megyn Kelly asked Ramos if his “combative approach” had led to the “spat” (Carroll, 2015).

Ramos admitted that the issue of immigration was “personal” (e.g. Miller, 2015). NBC News explained that to Trump’s supporters, Ramos is “an agenda-driving activist” (Dann & Rafferty, 2015). Ramos decided “to use his platform as an advocate for immigration reform, which separates him from traditional TV news anchors,” two Los Angeles Times reporters explained (Battaglio & Linthicum, 2015, p. E1). Characterizing criticism of Ramos from the Republican National Committee strategist Sean Spicer (Miller, 2015), George Stephanopoulos (2015) of ABC News suggested Ramos was “more advocate than journalist.” To a communication consultant (Hill, 2015) writing for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “it


became clear pretty quickly that Mr. Ramos was on a mission” (p. A7). A Politico reporter quoted in The Huffington Post said firmly, “[T]his is bias: taking the news personally, explicitly advocating an agenda” (Arana, 2015b). Ramos had recast himself, according to Bill O’Reilly (2015) as “an advocate for people who enter the U.S.A. illegally. And that has superseded his job as a journalist.”

Ramos’ activism was not a recent development. He is well known for a “confrontational interview style,” (Page, 2015, p. A7) and “has a history of holding presidential candidates very close to the fire on issues he believes to be of deep concern to Latinos” (Ross, 2015). The Washington Post’s Michael Miller (2015) clarified the history, noting that it was “only in the past dozen years that Ramos has allowed himself to become an advocate” on immigration—to the point, said a conservative lobbyist quoted by Miller (2015), that “he reports like a lobbyist for the National Council of La Raza or a democratic pundit.” In the days after the confrontation and his ejection, Ramos was “on the defensive,” wrote a Los Angeles Times reporter (Mai-Duc, 2015b). He spent a great deal of time “trying to explain how his self-proclaimed position as an advocate for immigration reform does not undercut his role as a journalist” (Mai-Duc, 2015b).

The emergence of this theme is not surprising in light of how journalists typically treat activism—even if it originates in one of their own. Gitlin (1980) claimed that the media “process” (p. 5) activism by carefully controlling the activist’s image. Reporters “absorb what can be absorbed into the dominant structure and push the rest to the margins of social life” (p. 5). They tend to focus on easily addressable “single grievances” that in no way threaten the “fundamental social relations” (p. 122) at work. Missing is a systemic examination of what compelled the activists to protest. Journalists cover “the event, not the condition, not the consensus; the fact that ‘advances the story,’ not the one that explains it” (p. 122). Stories revolve around information provided by officials and suggest that activists constantly struggle to disseminate their message. Activists appear in stories only if they match the journalist’s “prefabricated images of what an oppositional leader should look and sound like: theatrical, bombastic, and inventive in the ways of packaging messages” (p. 154). More recent research reveals that activists for unpopular causes are treated as bothersome nuisances (DiCicco, 2010) who must be able to stage dramatic events of professional caliber (Bishop, 2012/13) that draw the journalist’s attention and reach a distracted public. Activists must offer to reporters a steady diet of “novelty, polemic, confrontation, and controversy” (Jha, 2008). But despite the more professional approach, reporters continue to marginalize groups that espouse unpopular causes or that challenge hallowed values and ideas. “Don’t try to hijack a press conference unless you’re wearing a ‘Code Pink’ or ‘Black Lives Matter’ t-shirt,” admonished a Georgia newspaper (“Facts,” 2015). By confronting Trump, Ramos challenged a newly-hallowed idea: infotainment.

Ramos the Journalist

While some colleagues lauded Ramos for his persistence, a central narrative theme of his confrontation with Trump suggested he had clearly breached the field’s ethics. “He was editorializing the entire time,” argued MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, “write an editorial, all right?” News anchors, claimed the USA Today’s Rieder (2015), “are supposed to be down the middle,” and should keep “their personal opinions and ideologies to themselves.” According to a Providence Journal columnist, Ramos’ “unnecessary theatrics stole the oxygen from everyone else’s efforts to challenge Trump” (Patinkin, 2015, p. B9). He “found himself at the center of the story” (Mazzei, 2015). The “form of journalism” practiced by Ramos “that day was neither hard-hitting nor responsible” (Patinkin, 2015, p. B9). By “pretending he was bullied and pretending he was thrown out of the room? He’s making himself the story,” asserted Morning Joe’s Mika Brzezinski (Mai-Duc, 2015b), apparently forgetting that many of her colleagues routinely commit the same ethical violation.

Journalists also gave readers a refresher course in press conference protocol. “At an orderly news conference,” opined the Providence Journal’s Patinkin (2015), “it’s simple-minded to think shouting chaotically is hard-hitting. Or responsible. It’s neither” (p. B9). The media critic Howard Kurtz (2015) scolded Ramos, whom he claimed “wanted to force a confrontation.” About Ramos’ alleged failure to wait to be called on, he said “I’m sorry—that’s not some polite society rule.” Even one of Ramos’ defenders, the attorney Raúl Reyes (2015), acknowledged that it was “Trump’s news conference, and he had the right to run it as he pleased.”

The popular conservative talk show host Bill O’Reilly (2015) asserted that candidates have the right to “regulate” press conferences—“and if they don’t, chaos will ensue,” he said. O’Reilly also contended that Ramos was too close to the story. “You should excuse yourself from it…or become like me, a commentator,” he said during Ramos’ appearance on The O’Reilly Factor (Mai-Duc, 2015b). USA Today’s Rem Rieder (2015) contended that it was “hard to imagine a prominent network anchor—Tom Brokaw say—use such outspoken and opinionated language.”

Some colleagues did defend Ramos, saying that “the best journalism happens when you take a stand” (e.g. Peralta, 2015) and that his “only weapon is a question” (e.g. Tuttle, 2015), but at times their defense was framed in order to make his approach seem outdated, even anachronistic. Ramos “did something that’s not totally uncommon for reporters to do, which is to stand up and keep asking a question, even if the person you’re asking doesn’t really want to answer it,” said CNN’s Sara Murray (Hartmann, 2015). “Think of him as a combination of Peter Jennings, Anderson Cooper, CNN, with a little bit of an edge to him, and maybe something like Mother Jones,” opined NPR’s David Folkenflik (Inskeep, 2015). Yet even some of those defenders criticized Ramos for being rude. Trump “wasn’t dodging anyone that day,” wrote one journalist. “It was a news


conference, for goodness sake;” an impatient Ramos “chose to butt in line…and ambush when there was no need to” (Patinkin, 2015).

Ramos the Kingmaker

While the Ramos-Trump narrative generally praised Trump’s ability to manage the press, several journalists noted that he tangled with Ramos at his peril, given the high esteem with which Ramos is held by the Latino community. Trusted, credible—even “venerated” (Glenza, 2015) by “millions of Hispanic Americans” (Reyes, 2015), Ramos is “[r]egularly included on lists of the most influential Latino American politicians, pundits, and journalists” (Glenza, 2015). Several journalists (e.g. Sherman, 2015) labeled it “the Jorge Ramos effect.” Writing in USA Today, Raúl Reyes (2015) noted it is “difficult to understate the importance of Ramos in the Hispanic community.” The clash, claimed a Fortune reporter, could have “more lasting repercussions for [Trump’s] presidential aspirations,” (Sherman, 2015) thanks to the reverence felt for Ramos by his television audience. “The problem” for Trump was Ramos’ “enormous pulpit,” argued one journalist (Tuttle, 2015).

The discussion of Ramos’ celebrity mitigated his impact as an anchor and reporter, even as he was called the “most powerful journalist in Spanish-language television” (Battaglio, 2015) and, as mentioned above, the “Walter Cronkite” of Latino journalists (e.g. Przybyla, 2015). The narrative suggests Ramos was well aware of his role, even arrogant. He expected “a certain degree of respect and, if not, deference” (Cornish, 2015) because of his influence on Latino voters.

Ramos the Other

Texts devalued Ramos’ approach to reporting by subtly and unsubtly othering him. Kurtz (2015), for example, reminded readers that Ramos was a “legal Mexican immigrant.” Several of his colleagues noted Ramos’ dual citizenship. “Every four years, the English-speaking world discovers Jorge Ramos,” wrote reporters for the Los Angeles Times (Battaglio & Linthicum, 2015). The clash gave many white readers their first exposure to Ramos, one reporter (Miller, 2015) explained. Few of the journalists (e.g. Glenza, 2015) whose work was analyzed for this article noted the racist tone of Trump’s call for Ramos to “go back to Univision.” Yet Ramos was seen to represent a Latino media, which to that point had covered Trump “more aggressively than their mainstream counterparts” (Parker, 2015). Ramos, said NPR’s David Folkenflik, “comes out of a slightly different tradition” (Inskeep, 2015) of reporting. Ramos’ oft-criticized advocacy “has been much more common in the ethnic media,” according to USA Today’s ombudsperson Rem Rieder (2015). Even claiming, as one columnist did, that Trump “unleashed a shot that would echo through the media—particularly Hispanic media” (Page, 2015, p. A7) suggests that Ramos reaches only part of the broader audience.

Right-wing news sources delivered the kind of bigoted assertions their critics have come to expect. Fox News commentator Jesse Watters said Ramos “acted like an illegal alien and got treated like one” (Wemple, 2015). A New York Daily News story published the day after the confrontation was headlined “TV Reporter Gets Adios-ed in Iowa” (Katz, 2015). “Trump just found his new best amigo” as a result of the dispute, wrote a Denver Post columnist (Navarrette, 2015a, p. Z2). In fact, one cited the opinion held by “many folks” that “an anchor, reporter, or columnist named ‘Sánchez,’ ‘Rodríguez,’ or ‘Navarrette’ is Hispanic first, journalist second” (Navarrette, 2015a, p. Z2). Writing in September for The Daily Beast, Navarrette (2015b), asserted Ramos actually played “into every negative stereotype that Americans subscribe to about Mexicans” who illegally enter the U.S. Those who believe undocumented immigrants are “pushy rule breakers who don’t wait their turn” would have that belief confirmed by Ramos’ “filibuster.” Crusading for immigration reform but not advocating how individuals should vote struck one journalist (Tuttle, 2015) as disingenuous: “That level of fraud takes cojones [reporter’s italics],” he wrote, Ramos’ “daily crusade” is “a sort of made-for-television La Raza protest” (Tuttle, 2015).

One reporter suggested that Ramos might have a violent personality. After holding Obama’s feet to the fire in an earlier interview about the failure to pass an immigration reform bill, Ramos had said, “Now is the turn of Republicans.” The clash with Trump showed Ramos is “now living up to his threat” (Miller, 2015). Othering was evident even when articles were critical of Trump; a Salon writer summarized the confrontation in the hallway after Ramos’ ejection: “We have a white American telling a brown American to get out of his (author’s italics) country.” To the Trump supporter, Ramos was “an outsider, an alien” (Illing, 2015).

Ramos the Publicity Hound

Some reports suggested that Ramos was anything but genuine in his attempt to put his view of immigration reform on the nation’s agenda, that the confrontation with Trump was little more than play-acting. “Isn’t he just about the biggest name of that network?” asked NPR’s Steve Inskeep (2015), referring to Univision. Newsweek (Martínez, 2015) noted that “hogging the microphone isn’t free speech.” The National Review noted that Ramos was “not above a good publicity stunt,” (Wright, 2015) referring to Ramos swimming across the Rio Grande in July 2014 to dramatize the dangers faced by undocumented immigrants as they try to enter the United States. The post-clash exchange with Trump was “the kind of interview that would be a TV ratings boon for a celebrity anchor” (Mazzei, 2015).

Ramos’ persistent questioning at Trump’s press conference was “a stunt, one that virtually guaranteed” that he “would be making the TV rounds,” asserted Howard Kurtz (2015). After the confrontation, Ramos “went into heavy rotation” on the following day’s news programs (Battaglio & Linthicum, 2015). Bill O’Reilly


(2015) said Ramos clearly “grandstanded the situation,” in the hope of improving his own public image, something “frowned upon” (Martínez, 2015) by journalists. Ramos’ appearances on talk shows after the clash were framed as opportunities to generate publicity for his cause, not as chances for Ramos to explain his side of what took place in Dubuque. He was an opportunist, just another made-for-TV personality shilling for his causes.

Ramos the Trump Clone

Perhaps the most unexpected theme to emerge from the texts revolved around the idea that Ramos and Trump are in fact a great deal alike, that they share personality attributes. The two men are “notoriously adversarial by nature…and view argument as a form of public combat” (Miller, 2015). They had developed a “creepy co-dependent relationship” (Navarrette, 2015a, p. Z2). An official with a conservative group that reaches out to Latino voters observed that “the collision of the two no-holds-barred styles made for a ‘surreal’ political spectacle”; neither Ramos nor Trump, he said, “do things in a normal way” (McLaughlin, 2015).

Through his actions, Ramos “wanted to achieve the same kind of grandstanding effect Trump is sometimes accused of” (Patinkin, 2015, p. B9). A Denver Post columnist concluded that Ramos is an “egomaniac who loves the sound of his own voice as much as Trump adores his,” and that both men “simply wanted to attract attention to themselves” (Navarrette, 2015a, p. Z2). Indeed, both Trump and Ramos “came out winners” (Navarrette, 2015b) in this “clash of conflict junkies” (Miller, 2015) —Trump affirmed his toughness with the press, while Ramos generated awareness for his cause.

Conclusions

A key limitation of this study is the fact that the Ramos-Trump clash took place when reporters were particularly fascinated with Trump––with “the absence of anything resembling a conventional political filter” on him (Barbaro, 2015). One admitted that she “no longer pretend to cover” Trump in a balanced and objective fashion (Parker, 2015). By late fall 2015, after the tragic terrorist attacks in Paris and in San Bernardino, California, journalists more frequently called out Trump for his bigotry, particularly after he advocated a ban on Muslims entering the United States and failed to disavow an endorsement from former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. Yet despite increased scrutiny, Trump’s poll numbers improved, much to the chagrin of many in the Republican Party. Trump then amassed a string of impressive primary victories. Journalists were again content to make the most of the “ratings bonanza in the form of a bombastic reality television star” (Parker, 2015). Only a few, like Charles Blow (2015) of The New York Times, acknowledged the field’s “complicity in the shallow farce.” Most of Blow’s colleagues continued to be mesmerized by the “irresistible spectacle” (Barbaro, 2015) of Trump’s campaign, despite the concern expressed in several texts that the clash might derail Trump’s presidential aspirations.

Only Ramos fully knows his motivations for pursuing Trump with such vigor. But it is telling that where a journalist who “assertively ambushes” (Miller, 2015) a reluctant or evasive official might have once earned praise—from colleagues, if not from the public—Ramos, determined to have Trump justify his immigration policy, became the catalyst for a round of ersatz paradigm repair. The texts analyzed here coalesce into a collective overreaction, a lecture on proper press-conference decorum from self-appointed arbiters of journalistic practice done—ironically—to reaffirm today’s much maligned model of false equivalency-based journalism. Ramos’ colleagues put rhetorical distance between themselves and him. His “aggressive style” (Scherer, 2015) was recast as the behavior of a self-important, zealous, possibly violent, activist. Even if Ramos had assumed only “the posture of adversarialism” (Meltzer, 2009, p. 73) as he grappled with Trump (and his security detail), this narrative asserts that he had flouted the new journalistic tradition of “he said-she said” impartiality that does not anger advertisers or alienate even a single audience member. Ramos’ reversion to the watchdog role “makes the traditionalists uneasy,” argued Rieder (2015). Ramos refused to aimlessly heighten the drama that has swirled around Trump since he announced his candidacy. He wanted actual answers. Thus, the field may now have reached the point where a “stylized and ritualized” (Bennett & Serrin, 2005, p. 179) take on “pulling no punches” (Rieder, 2015) is a troublesome anachronism, where even the appearance of dogged reporting is a “rupture” (Zelizer, 1993, p. 224), and its practitioners rude and overzealous nuisances.

References

Allen, C. (1993). News conferences on TV: Ike-age politics revisited. Journalism Quarterly, 70, 13-25.

Arana, G. (2015a, August 26). Trump doubles down, tells Lauer that Ramos ‘was totally out of line.’ The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com.

Arana, G. (2015b, August 27). Jorge Ramos producer speaks out about press conference incident. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com.

Arana, G. (2015c, September 3). Jorge Ramos schools Bill O’Reilly: On human rights, ‘you have to take a stand.’ The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com.

Barbaro, M. (2015, August 27). Testy news conference exchange puts Trump quirks on display. The New York Times, p. A11.

Battaglio, S. (2015, August 27). Trump unapologetic in scraps with media; Republican boots Univision reporter from event, keeps aiming barbs at Fox anchor. Providence Journal, p. A9.

Battaglio, S., & Linthicum, K. (2015, August 27). Trump tangles with Jorge Ramos; Univision anchor has pushed the issue of immigration before. Los Angeles Times, p. E1.

Baym, G. (2005). The Daily Show: Discursive imagination and the reinvention of political journalism. Political Communication, 22, 259-276.


Benjamin, W. (1982). Unpacking my library. In H. Arendt (Ed.), Illuminations: Essays and reflections. New York: Schocken.

Bennett, W. L. (2009). News: The politics of illusion. New York: Pearson.

Bennett, W. L., & Livingston, S. (2003). A semi-independent press: Government control of journalistic autonomy in the political construction of news. Political Communication, 20, 359-362.

Bennett, W. L., & Serrin, W. (2005). The watchdog role. In G. Overholser & K. H. Jamieson (Eds.), The Press (pp. 169-188). New York: Oxford University Press.

Benson, R. (2008). Journalism: Normative theories. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication (pp. 2,591-2,597). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Berg, K. (2015, August 26). Donald Trump, Jorge Ramos feud heats up on ‘Today,’ ‘GMA.’ The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com.

Berkowitz, D. (1997). Non-routine news and newswork: Exploring a what-a-story. In D. Berkowitz (Ed.), Social meanings of news (pp. 362-375). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bishop, R. (2012/13). A textual analysis of Ford’s “Drive One” campaign: Introduction of the domesticated journalist. The Image of the Journalist in Popular Culture Journal, 4, 1-31.

Blow, C. (2015, August 27). Enough is enough. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com.

Boorstin, D. (1962). The Image: A guide to pseudo-events in America. New York: Vintage.

Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18, 1-21.

Brzezinski, M., & Scarborough, J. (Hosts). (2015, August 26). Morning Joe [Television broadcast]. Secaucus, N.J.: MSNBC.

Campbell, C. (2015, July 23). ‘You’re finished’: Watch Donald Trump tell a reporter he should be ashamed of his question. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com.

Campbell, M. (2015, August 26). The question Jorge Ramos tried to ask—and why more reporters should ask it, too. The World. Minneapolis: Public Radio International. Retrieved from http://www.pri.org.

Carroll, R. (2015, August 26). Jorge Ramos tells Megyn Kelly: Trump a would-be dictator with dangerous ideas. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com.

Christians, C., Glasser, T., McQuail, D., Nordenstreng, K., & White, R. (2009). Normative theories of the media. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Cooper, A. (Host). (2015, August 27). Trump: Ramos is an ‘advocate,’ not a journalist. [Television broadcast]. Atlanta: Cable News Network. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com.

Cooper, B. (2015, September 1). ‘Presser’ tempest: It’s protocol, not politics. Dubuque Telegraph-Herald, p. A4.

Cornish, A. (Host). (2015, August 27). Univision anchor Jorge Ramos removed from Trump press conference. All Things Considered. Washington, D.C.: National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org.

Cuomo, C. (Host). (2015, August 27). Ramos reacts to Trump clash. New Day [Television broadcast]. Atlanta: Cable News Network. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com.

Dann, C., & Rafferty, A. (2015, August 25). The Lid: You’re outta here. NBCNews.com. Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com.

Diamond, H. (2015, August 27). Donald Trump: Jorge Ramos ‘like a madman.’ CNN.com. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com.

DiCicco, D. (2010). The public nuisance paradigm: Changes in mass media coverage of political protest since the 1960s. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 87, 135-153.

Donahue, G., Tichenor, P., & Olien, C. (1995). A guard dog perspective on the role of the media. Journal of Communication, 45, 115-132.

Earle, G. (2015, August 27). Donald Trump booted Univision anchor for ‘raving like a madman.’ New York Post. Retrieved from http://www.nypost.com.

Eason, D. (1981). Telling stories and making sense. Journal of Popular Culture, 1, 125-129.

Facts, not accuracy: Reporter’s immigration harangue against Trump backfired. (2015, August 27). The Augusta Chronicle, p. A4.

Finnegan, W. (2015, October 5). The man who wouldn’t sit down. The New Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com.

Fisher, W. (1989). Human communication as action: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

Foley, E. (2015, August 25). Donald Trump kicks Jorge Ramos out of press conference. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com.

Foss, S. (2009). Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Garbe, W. (2015, August 26). Trump: U.S. needs strength. Dubuque Telegraph-Herald, p. A1.

García-Ríos, S. (2015, August 28). The ‘Jorge Ramos effect’ could hurt Donald Trump. Time. Retrieved from http://www.time.com.

Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and the unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Glenza, J. (2015, August 26). Spanish language media condemn Donald Trump over reporter’s ejection. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com.

Graber, D. (2010). Mass media and American politics (8th ed.). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Gross, T. (Host). (2015, October 5). Univision’s Jorge Ramos discusses journalism and that Donald Trump news conference. Fresh Air [radio broadcast]. Philadelphia: WHYY-FM.

Guthrie, M. (2015, August 26). Donald Trump vs. the media: Who’s winning the war of words? The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com.

Hall, S. (1975). Introduction. In A. C. H. Smith (Ed.), Paper voices: The popular press and social change (pp. 11-24). London: Chatto and Windus.

Hannity, S. (Host). (2015, August 26). The Sean Hannity Show. [Television broadcast]. New York: Fox News Network.


Hartmann, E. (2015, August 26). ‘Go back to Univision’: Trump boots journalist Jorge Ramos from press conference. New York. Retrieved from http://www.nymag.com.

Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2013). The changing tenor of questioning over time: Tracking a question form across U.S. presidential press conferences, 1953-2000. Journalism Practice, 7, 481-501.

Hill, R. (2015, August 31). Media mash-up; both Trump and Ramos prevailed in a battle for the floor. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, p. A7.

Hindman, E. (2005). Jayson Blair, it>The New York Times, and paradigm repair. Journal of Communication, 55, 225-241.

Illing, S. (2015, August 28). Donald Trump plays a dangerous game: The dark side of making America great again. Salon. Retrieved from http://www.salon.com.

Inskeep, S. (Host). (2015, August 26). Donald Trump escalates his fight with the media. Morning Edition [Radio broadcast]. Washington, D.C.: National Public Radio.

Jacobs, B. (2015, August 26). Donald Trump ejects Latino anchor as Iowa campaign gains ground. The Guardian (U.S. Edition). Retrieved from

http://www.theguardian.com. Jamieson, K. H., & Campbell, K. K. (1997). The interplay of

influence: News, advertising, politics, and the mass media. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Jerde, S. (2015, October 26). Trump camp tries to justify barring Univision reporters from Florida rally. Talking Points Memo. Retrieved from http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com.

Jha, S. (2008). Why they wouldn’t cite from sites: A study of journalists’ perceptions of social movement websites and their impact on their coverage of social protest. Journalism, 9, 711-732.

Katz, C. (2015, August 26). TV reporter gets adios-ed in Iowa. New York Daily News, p. 11.

Kaufman, S. (2015, September 3). Jorge Ramos puts Bill O’Reilly in his place: You’re not the right person to lecture me on advocacy and journalism. Retrieved from http://www.salon.com.

Kitch, C. (2002). A death in the American family: Myth, memory, and national values in the media mourning of John F. Kennedy Jr. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79, 294-309.

Klapproth, D. (2004). Narrative as social practice: Anglo-Western and Australian aboriginal oral traditions. New York: Morton de Gruyer.

Kurtz, H. (2015, August 27). Why Jorge Ramos crossed the line in confronting Donald Trump. Fox News. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com.

Lauer, M. (Host). (2015, August 26). Donald Trump speaks out. Today [Television broadcast]. New York: National Broadcasting Company.

Lawler, K. (2015, August 28). Ricky Martin slams Trump’s treatment of Latinos. USA Today, p. 11B.

Lee, K. (2015, August 26). News anchor evicted from Trump event. Los Angeles Times, p. A10. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com.

Leibovich, M. (2015, September 29). Donald Trump is not going anywhere. The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com.

Lemieux, G. (2015, September 2). Recognizing Trump before it’s too late. Tampa Bay Times, p. 9A.

Lewis, H. (2015, August 27). Jimmy Kimmel, Conan O’Brien mock Donald Trump-Jorge Ramos tiff. The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com.

Mai-Duc, C. (2015a, August 26). In taking on Jorge Ramos, Donald Trump may have tussled with the wrong media star. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com.

Mai-Duc, C. (2015b, September 3). Jorge Ramos is on the defensive over his role as journalist and immigrant advocate. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com.

Manoff, R. (1987). Writing the news (by ‘telling’ the story). In R. Manoff & M. Schudson (Eds.), Reading the news (pp. 197-229). New York: Pantheon.

Martínez, J. (2015, August 26). Donald Trump and Jorge Ramos: Who was right? Newsweek. Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com.

Mazzei, P. (2015, August 26). Donald Trump and Jorge Ramos, redux. The Miami Herald. Retrieved from http://www.miamiherald.com.

McLaughlin, S. (2015, August 26). Activist anchor Jorge Ramos uses influence to push immigration agenda. The Washington Times. Retrieved from http://www.washingtontimes.com.

Meltzer, K. (2009). The hierarchy of journalistic cultural authority: Journalists’ perspectives according to news medium. Journalism Practice, 3, 59-74.

Miller, M. (2015, August 26). Jorge Ramos is a conflict junkie just like his latest target: Donald Trump. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com.

Navarrette, R. (2015a, August 31). Trump and Ramos are meant for each other. The Denver Post, p. Z2.

Navarrette, R. (2015b, September 4). The Jorge Ramos Rorschach test. The Daily Beast. Retrieved from http://www.thedailybeast.com.

Newton, K. (2015, August 30). Ken Newton column. St. Joseph News-Press. Retrieved from http://www.newspressnow.com.

Nichols, J. (2015, August 26). Jorge Ramos challenged both Trump and an increasingly absurd debate. The Nation. Retrieved from http://www.thenation.org.

O’Reilly, B. (Host). (2015, August 27). Bill O’Reilly: Donald Trump vs. Jorge Ramos. The O’Reilly Factor [Television broadcast]. New York: Fox News Network.

Page, C. (2015, September 2). Trump, Ramos square off in clash of 2 major icons; from the left. Dayton Daily News, p. A7.

Parker, A. (2015, August 27). Trump gets earful in Spanish as Latino outlets air disdain. The New York Times, p. A1.

Patinkin, M. (2015, September 2). In challenging Trump, Ramos blew it. Providence Journal, p. B9.

Peralta, E. (2015, August 26). Univision’s Jorge Ramos: Journalists must ‘denounce’ Trump’s ‘dangerous words.’ The Two-Way. Washington, D.C.: National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org.

Peyronnin, J. (2015, August 26). Trump v. Ramos. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com.


Phillips, C. (2015, September 1). The mainstream media should stop covering Donald Trump. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com.

Przybyla, H. (2015, August 27). You shouldn’t lump Trump as a bully—technically speaking. USA Today, p. 1A.

Reyes, R. (2015, August 27). Trump’s endless summer of bigotry; candidate digs hole for GOP. USA Today, p. 7A.

Rieder, R. (2015, August 27). Univision’s Ramos not afraid to stand his ground. USA Today, p. 2B.

Rolly, P. (2015, August 28). Trump’s treatment of reporter reflects horrors of the past. The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.sltrib.com.

Ross, J. (2015, August 25). Donald Trump kicked TV’s most influential Latino newsman out of a press conference. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix.

Rucker, P. (2015, August 25). First, Trump booted Univision anchor Jorge Ramos out of his press conference. Then things got interesting. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com.

Rucker, P., & Costa, R. (2015, August 26). Trump kicks Latino reporter out of news conference. The Washington Post, p. A5.

Scherer, M. (2015, August 27). Univision’s Jorge Ramos: Reporters need to get tougher on Donald Trump. Time. Retrieved from http://www.time.com.

Schleifer, M. (2015, August 25). Trump ejects Univision anchor from press conference. CNN.com. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com.

Schudson, M. (1978). Discovering the news: A social history of American newspapers. New York: Basic Books.

Schudson, M. (2003). The sociology of news. New York: W.W. Norton. Schultz, M. (2015, August 26). Trump hit for latest Megyn diss. New

York Post, p. 6. Sherman, E. (2015, August 27). The Donald Trump-Jorge Ramos

clash is a full-fledged media fight now. Fortune. Retrieved from http://www.fortune.com. Stelter, B. (2015, August 31). What really happened between Jorge

Ramos and Donald Trump. CNNMoney. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com.

Stephanopoulos, G. (Host). (2015, August 26). Jorge Ramos addresses his confrontation with Donald Trump. Good Morning America [Television broadcast]. New York: American Broadcasting Company.

Sullivan, J. (2011, May/June). True enough. Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved from http://www.cjr.org.

Terkel, A. (2015, August 26). Donald Trump supporter tells U.S. citizen Jorge Ramos to ‘get out of my country.’ The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com.

Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York: Free Press.

Tuttle, I. (2015, August 26). Jorge Ramos is an immigration activist posing as a reporter. National Review. Retrieved from http://www.nationalreview.com.

Univision anchor kicked out of Donald Trump event. (2015, August 25). The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com.

Univision CEO blasts Donald Trump over Jorge Ramos flap: ‘Beneath contempt.’ (2015, August 26). The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com.

Wagner, M., & Katz, C. (2015, August 27). He does a Kelly flop; now Trump likes Megyn. New York Daily News, p. 12.

Wemple, E. (2015, August 26). Fox News’ Jesse Watters says that Jorge Ramos ‘acted like an illegal alien and got treated like one.’ The Washington Post. Retrieved from http:www.washingtonpost.com.

Wood, L., & Kroger, R. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wright, M. (2015, August 26). Jorge Ramos has a long history of activist ‘reporting.’ National Review. Retrieved from http://www.nationalreview.com.

Zelizer, B. (1993). Journalists as interpretive communities. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 10, 219-237.

Documents

The International Journal of Hispanic Media · global Hispanic population continues to grow, and as technology changes how people communicate, there ... that the Latino/Hispanic1