Eg bidst afsokunar a tessu herna fyrir nedan - malid er ad eg tarf ad skila inn tessari greinar-gagnryni a morgun og er ekki med disk til ad geyma hana a. Eg er buin ad e-maili tetta til min, en til ad vera ALVEG viss um tetta verdi tilbuid til prentunar i fyrramalid (er ekki med prentara her) ta aetla eg ad birta tetta a blogginu, eg mun svo eyda tessu ut tegar eg er buin ad nota tetta! Ef einhver hefur obilandi ahuga a ad lesa gagnryni um tessa grein, gjordu svo vel ad lesa! Hehehe...
Media Research – Article Evaluation
Dr. Hardin
April 10, 2003
Newhagen, John (1999). The micro- and macrodrama of politics on television: Effects of media format on candidate evaluations. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, (43), 2, 193-210.
In this article, the author is attempting to answer the question if social context and production features affect the way viewers evaluate political candidates on television. The study conducted specifically examined if a close-up interview brought an effective communicator (Bill Clinton) closer to the viewer that other media formats such as a mixture of different camera shots, televised town meetings, and political spots.
The author first had a team of trained graduate students gather material to be used in the study. He then showed that material to four focus groups and had moderator-guided discussions about the subject. The discussions were then transcribed for content analysis.
The method section was not quite adequate, although it had most of the information needed. It explained how the focus groups were chosen, where they came from, and the emphasis on keeping the groups homogeneous. The size of the groups ranged from 4-7 people, and the author says the optimal size would be 4-12 participants. The method sections then explains the clips showed to the focus groups, the first question asked in the following discussions, and an exit questionnaire for demographic and political items. That concludes the method section, but a discourse analysis follows. The method section did not mention the sampling frame, the sampling error, method of coding, if it was computer processed or how the data was analyzed. The study could be replicated from the information given, even though the data on sampling error was emitted, especially because the method of coding is explained later.
The statistics presented were Krippendorff’s alpha intercoder reliability, but it had no statistic about the sampling or its reliability. The results section had statistics for F, M and SD and Tukey post-hoc comparisons. The author assumes that the reader is familiar with those abbreviations and according to websites SD stands for “standard deviation,” M for “mean” but I could not find what F referred to. The results section offers those statistics for a variety of items and responses.
The results section addressed each of the four hypotheses, detailed the statistics and then offered an explanation of the findings. The explanations that came after the statistics were easy to read and understand. Each hypotheses was addressed separately and the reasons for why it was either supported or not were given.
The conclusions in the discussion section referred back to the results and repeated the findings. They were in sync with the outcomes and therefore made sense.
Media Research – Article Evaluation
Dr. Hardin
April 10, 2003
Newhagen, John (1999). The micro- and macrodrama of politics on television: Effects of media format on candidate evaluations. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, (43), 2, 193-210.
In this article, the author is attempting to answer the question if social context and production features affect the way viewers evaluate political candidates on television. The study conducted specifically examined if a close-up interview brought an effective communicator (Bill Clinton) closer to the viewer that other media formats such as a mixture of different camera shots, televised town meetings, and political spots.
The author first had a team of trained graduate students gather material to be used in the study. He then showed that material to four focus groups and had moderator-guided discussions about the subject. The discussions were then transcribed for content analysis.
The method section was not quite adequate, although it had most of the information needed. It explained how the focus groups were chosen, where they came from, and the emphasis on keeping the groups homogeneous. The size of the groups ranged from 4-7 people, and the author says the optimal size would be 4-12 participants. The method sections then explains the clips showed to the focus groups, the first question asked in the following discussions, and an exit questionnaire for demographic and political items. That concludes the method section, but a discourse analysis follows. The method section did not mention the sampling frame, the sampling error, method of coding, if it was computer processed or how the data was analyzed. The study could be replicated from the information given, even though the data on sampling error was emitted, especially because the method of coding is explained later.
The statistics presented were Krippendorff’s alpha intercoder reliability, but it had no statistic about the sampling or its reliability. The results section had statistics for F, M and SD and Tukey post-hoc comparisons. The author assumes that the reader is familiar with those abbreviations and according to websites SD stands for “standard deviation,” M for “mean” but I could not find what F referred to. The results section offers those statistics for a variety of items and responses.
The results section addressed each of the four hypotheses, detailed the statistics and then offered an explanation of the findings. The explanations that came after the statistics were easy to read and understand. Each hypotheses was addressed separately and the reasons for why it was either supported or not were given.
The conclusions in the discussion section referred back to the results and repeated the findings. They were in sync with the outcomes and therefore made sense.
