From headline to lifeline: does news set agenda for policy?
| Date | 10 June 2019 |
| Published date | 10 June 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-02-2019-0012 |
| Pages | 352-368 |
| Author | Jenna Grzeslo,Yang Bai,Ryan Yang Wang,Bumgi Min,Krishna Jayakar |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information policy |
From headline to lifeline: does news set
agenda for policy?
Jenna Grzeslo, Yang Bai, Ryan Yang Wang, Bumgi Min and Krishna Jayakar
Abstract
Purpose –This paper is an investigationof the volume, nature and tone of news media coverage of the
federal Lifeline Programfrom its inception to 2018. It aims to examine whether news media coverageis
correlatedwith significant episodes of reformin the program.
Design/methodology/approach –Using the ProQuest Major Dailies database, articles covering the
‘‘Lifeline Program’’ were analyzed. Specifically, a quantitative codebook was developed, based on
the literature, and four coderswere trained to systematically analyze the 124 articlesthat discussed the
programbetween 1985 and 2018.
Findings –The findings suggest that reforms in the program were preceded by significantly higher
volumesof media coverage; however, the analysis is unable to confirmthat negative media coverage has
a stronger agenda setting effect.In addition, no significant difference was found between positiveand
negativenews stories in their use of research-based information.
Originality/value –This studyis interdisciplinary in its ability to combine policyand journalism studies as
a mechanismto understand the relationshipbetween the two forces.
Keywords Public policy, Content analysis, Internet access, Lifeline program
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
As of 2018, 89 per cent of American adults used the internet, while 65 per cent owned
broadband internet service at home (Pew Research Center, 2018a). Meanwhile, 95 per
cent of Americans now own a cell phone of some kind, and 75 per cent own a smart
phone (Pew Research Center, 2018b). The internet and related telecommunications
access have embedded themselves in Americans’ daily life, from households to the
workplace and from business to public service. Yet today, there are around 11 per cent
of Americans who are unconnected to the digital age, according to a Pew Research
Center survey (Anderson et al., 2018).
These unconnected Americans have been a persistent concern of American
telecommunications and broadband policy. Starting from 1985 during the Reagan
administration,the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), the US agency charged with
regulating communications services, launched the Lifeline Program, which initially aimed at
“providing discount on phone service for qualifying low-income consumers” to bridge the
gap in telecommunications access (Federal Communications Commission, 2012, para. 1).
The existence of a digital divide is a problem, not just in the USA. By exploring the US
Lifeline Program, this paper may provide diverse aspects of the right to information and
digital access to thosein the USA and beyond.
In 1996, Lifeline became part of a suite of universal service programs supported by the
new Universal Service Fund. In 2005, the Bush administration expanded the Lifeline
Program to support wireless services (FCC, 2005;Mariani, 2016). Recently, in the context
Jenna Grzeslo is based at
the Department of Digital
Media and Journalism,
SUNY New Paltz, New
Paltz, New York, USA.
Yang Bai,
Ryan Yang Wang,
Bumgi Min and
Krishna Jayakar are all
based at the Donald P.
Bellisario College of
Communications,
Pennsylvania State
University, University Park,
Pennsylvania, USA.
Received 10 February 2019
Revised 17 April 2019
Accepted 22 April 2019
PAGE 352 jDIGITAL POLICY, REGULATION AND GOVERNANCE jVOL. 21 NO. 4 2019, pp. 352-368, ©EmeraldPublishing Limited, ISSN 2398-5038 DOI 10.1108/DPRG-02-2019-0012
of growth in broadband technology and in response to growing demands among the
unconnected community, the FCC modernized the Lifeline Program to include
broadband as a supported service (FCC, 2016). However, the Lifeline Program has also
seen its share of controversies. In 2012, in the background of persistent media reports of
waste, fraud and abuse, the FCC introduced a verification system and the National
Lifeline Accountability Database to weed out duplicated accounts and ineligible
subscribers from the program. In 2013, the FCC’s Lifeline Eligibility Verification Order
required carriers verify the eligibility of Lifeline subscribers before activating their
services. In 2016, the FCC created the Federal Lifeline Broadband Provider (LBP)
process for the designation of Eligible Telecommunications Carriers (ETCs), and, after
the move, it attracted criticism largely along party lines, reversed itself in March 2017.
A persistent mark of each of these events in the Lifeline Program has been media
coverage, both in the trade press and the mainstream media. News media are the
gatekeepers and agenda setters in the process of public affairs (White, 1964;McCombs
and Shaw, 1976). Various studies have pointed out that news media have a strong
impact on changing public opinion and altering political discourse, while contributing to
the policy itself and also the process of policy-making (Abroms and Maibach, 2008;Tan
and Weaver, 2009). For instance, Yanovitsky (2002) identified that greater media
attention to the issue of drunk driving leads to pressure on policymakers. In the case of
the Lifeline Program, the news media have emphasized some positive outcomes, for
instance, bridging the homework gap for schoolchildren (Kang, 2017), even as they
highlighted the waste, fraud and abuse issues of the Lifeline Program (Ante, 2013;
Blinder, 2013). Also, while the FCC was considering scaling back the Lifeline Program
under the current chairman Ajit Pai (FCC, 2017), news media also brought up negative
impacts on tribal lands, low-income households and other marginalized communities
(Brodkin, 2017;Kastrenakes, 201 8).
The potential role that news coverage played in the history of the Lifeline Program cannot
be minimized. As Williams and Schoonvelde (2018) argue, media coverage can strongly
influence the policy preferences of key actors in policy debates and can therefore
influence policy outcomes. Through an examination of data derived from the Policy
Agenda Project, Williams and Schoonvelde (2018) conclude that if media coverage on
policy is absent, the public attention to policy outcomes is significantly reduced.
However, a thorough review of the scholarly literature showed that there was no
systematic study of the role of news media coverage on the evolution of the Lifeline
Program. In fact, most articles in the agenda setting literature (surveyed below) focus on
the interactions of the media, public and policy agendas in discrete and time-bound
policy actions. There are few precedents in the literature for a study that addresses a
policy or program over years and decades.
Accordingly, this study examines news media coverage of the Lifeline Program via the
volume, type and nature of the news media coverage, across different episodes of reforms
and modernization by the FCC from the inception of the program in 1985 to the present. In
doing so, this study asks whether there is a possible connection between the volume and
nature of newspaper coverage and the timing of policy initiatives. This long-term analysis
affords us the lens to unpack the relationship between media coverage and policymaking.
To examine the news coverage on Lifeline Program, this study adopts content analysis as
the method using the full population of news stories on Lifeline in the ProQuestMajor Dailies
database, from the program’s beginning.
The next section reviews literature on the Lifeline Program as well as agenda setting, to
identify the parameters for the study. We conclude this section with our research questions.
In the next section, we introduce our content analysis methodology. Results, and the
conclusions and discussionfollow.
VOL. 21 NO. 4 2019 jDIGITAL POLICY, REGULATION AND GOVERNANCE jPAGE 353
To continue reading
Request your trial