CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 186News Media Framing and Political CommunicationCommunication and COVID-19 ImpactJournalism and Media Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Media, Terrorism, and Emotionality: Emotional Differences in Media Content and Public Reactions to the September 11th Terrorist Attacks

Cho, Jaeho, Boyle, Michael P., Keum, Heejo, Shevy, Mark D., McLeod, Douglas M., Shah, Dhavan V., Pan, Zhongdang·2003·Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media
DOI 10.1207/s15506878jobem4703_1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Research on print and broadcast media shows differences in cognitive and affective responses. We extend that research by combining content analysis and survey methods to examine medium differences in the emotional tone of coverage concerning the September 11th terrorist attacks, and audience differences in emotional reactions to the attacks. A computer- aided content analysis of national television and newspaper transcripts demonstrates that television news was consistently more emotional than print news. Further, a panel survey found use of television news was more

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15506878jobem4703_1

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 33 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Becker K., 1995, Culture & Society, 17, 629
  2. Lanzetta, J. T., Sullivan, D. G., Masters, R. D. & McHugo, C. J. (1985). Emotional and cognitive responses to televised images of political leaders. In S. Kraus & R. M. Perloff (Eds.), Mass media and political thought: An information-processing approach (pp. 85-1 16). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  3. Meyrowitz, J. (1985). No sense ofplace. New York Oxford University Press.
  4. Paletz, D., Ayanian, J. & Fozzard, P. (1 982). Terrorism on television news: The IRA, the FALN, and the Red Brigades. In W. Adams (Ed.), Television coverage of international affairs (pp. 143-1 65). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  5. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (1999). The lnternet news audience goes ordinary: january 14 Survey Report Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
  6. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2001). American psyche reeling from terror attacks: September 79 Survey Report Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
  7. Schudson M., 1982, Daedalus, 3, 97

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–184 of 184

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Cho, J., Boyle, M. P., Keum, H., Shevy, M. D., McLeod, D. M., Shah, D. V., & Pan, Z.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2003-09
Volume
47
Issue
3
Pages
309-327
ISSN
  • 0883-8151 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-6878
DOI
10.1207/s15506878jobem4703_1
OpenAlex
W2019829209
Cited by
186
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 13
FWCI
19.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › News Media Framing and Political Communication
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Journalism and Media Studies
Keywords
September 11 attacks, terrorism, media coverage, emotional tone, television news, emotional responses, news framing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review