An earlier version of this paper was named a top three (student) paper in the RTVJ division of AEJMC at their 1996 annual meeting in Atlanta, GA.

      A four week case study of a radio newsroom's source delivered material, herein referred to as information subsidies, found only 19% of all items collected were used to make up part of a newscast. Twenty percent of all information subsidies, more than were used in a newscast, were never opened. This suggests news directors follow a two-step decision process when deciding what subsidies to use. The first step, whether or not to open the subsidy, is made using information printed on the envelope. The second step is then deciding whether to use the subsidy on the air. This two-step process would mean that news directors place more emphasis on source credibility and power perception than what information is actually included in the information subsidy.

      McCombs' and Shaw's original agenda setting study focused on the relationship between the content of the mass media and what topics an audience reported as important issues (McCombs & Shaw, 1972). Studies testing this relationship make up the majority of agenda-setting research (Iorio & Huxman, 1992; Roberts, 1992; Salween, 1988; Shaw & Martin, 1992; Wanta, 1991).

     Gladys and Kurt Lang (1983) expanded the scope of agenda setting in their study of Watergate to include the sources that provide information to newsrooms. What the Langs termed "agenda building" has since come to represent the relationship between a newsroom and its sources (Berkowitz, 1992). The purpose of this paper is to investigate a radio newsroom's gatekeeping procedures in order to describe what factors are involved in the decision to use one source's material over another.

      Agenda building argues that the media agenda is not created within the newsroom as much as it is shaped by the sources that provide information to the newsroom (Salwen, 1995).

      Gans (1979) offers an externally-centered theory that news is shaped by the sources on which a newsroom relies. Gandy (1982) expands this view by describing the relationship between a newsroom and its sources as one of mutual need.

      On the source side of the relationship, VanSlyke Turk (1985) writes that sources become involved with the media because newsrooms offer a vehicle to an audience or policy-maker that could have his or her opinion swayed due to a newscast including a source's information (Sigal, 1986). Kanervo and Kanervo (1989) write that when a source succeeds in a newsroom using its information in a newscast it is more than a victory for the source, it is a loss for others as time or space has been taken away from a competitive viewpoint.

      From the media's point of view, newsrooms enjoy a steady flow of information from their sources on a regular and timely basis (Reese, 1991). Sources not only provide newsrooms with information, they make the job of delivering a daily news product attainable. Covering world, state, and local news from one location is not possible without credible sources.

      Gans refers to this relationship between the media and their sources as a dance, but more often than not, "the sources do the leading" (Gans, 1979, p. 116).

      Gandy terms source information provided to a newsroom an "information subsidy" (Gandy, 1982). Berkowitz (1990) further defines a subsidy as any item provided to the media in order to gain time or space.

      A key concept to understand is that a newsroom's costs and time constraints have forced the use of these information subsidies. But now the practice has become so routine that many journalists take it for granted that newscasts should be created by sifting through the day's information subsidies (Berkowitz, 1991; Brown, Bybee, Wearden, & Straughn, 1987).

      While the practice of relying on subsidies makes running a newsroom manageable, it also tends to limit the amount of sources relied upon. Newsrooms begin to use only a small group of sources they know have provided credible information in the past (Berkowitz, 1991). This reliance on few sources limits the media from providing a variety of viewpoints (Brown, Bybee, Wearden, & Straughn, 1987).

      When a newsroom relies on a small group of sources, the sources themselves tend to be larger organizations. These larger organizations may not offer better information, but simply have more ability to provide a consistent flow of information than the smaller source with fewer staff (Berkowitz, 1987).

      The reasons why one source succeeds in getting its information on air where another does not stems not only from their organization size, but also from how the source performs on four different factors outlined by Gans (1979): the ability to provide a steady, useable flow of information, source incentives, source reputation and power, and source geographic location.

      All factors are important but the ability to produce a consistent, useable flow of information is crucial. Sources that get their subsidies into the media on a regular basis are meeting the newsroom's requirements of availability and suitability (Gans, 1979). To produce a great number of information subsidies is not enough. A successful source will provide information at the correct time and in a format geared to the medium (Morton, 1993).

      The second factor is source incentive. If a source is eager to provide information, that source increases its chances for air time or space. The source that might not be so free with information will not be used as often.

      A source can greatly increase the media's incentive to use its subsidy by providing more than just information. Creating news events to cover rather than simply sending a press release helps to get source information on air or in print (Fishman, 1980).

      Source credibility is a major incentive. Sources that have provided incorrect or useless information in the past might be purposely overlooked (Weaver & Elliot, 1986).

      The third factor is perceived source power. Sources that are perceived as being powerful and having influence in a community have a better chance at getting their information into a newscast (Shoemaker, 1991). Sources that are perceived as possessing this power are not used because they exert influence on newsrooms, but rather they use their power, and most probably large size, to create their consistent, useable flow of information (Drew, 1972; Smith, 1993).

      Academic research has found that one source, government, is quite successful using its size and power perception. Even the earliest study into gatekeeping showed government sources were given a great deal of attention (White, 1950).

      Geographic location of a source is the fourth factor. Academic research has widely upheld that the proximity of a news source or event will have a marked effect on the number of sources quoted and sources used (Stocking, 1985). Public relations studies regarding press releases stress location. Sending out a "home-towner", can increase the chances of having your information subsidy selected (Martin, 1988).

      When a source meets the above criteria and is successful in getting its information on air or in print, more is being changed than just that day's newscast. The sources that help to shape the news, help to shape what the audience hears or reads (Schrum & O'Guinn, 1993). In this agenda dynamic view of the media, source agendas are passed along as media agendas that in turn help to create the audience agenda (Donohue, Tichenor, & Olien, 1970; Carter, Stamm, and Heintz-Knowles, 1992; Weaver & Elliot, 1986).

      The preceding literature review provides support for three hypothesis and one research question:

      H1: The news setting for successful subsidies will be most commonly within the local range of the station.

     H2: Subsidies concerning event-related news will be used more than items presenting informational material.

     H3: The originating organizations most successful with subsidies used by journalists will be government related.

     RQ: What factors are most important to a news director in deciding to open an information subsidy?

      This case study is a partial replication of the Berkowitz and Adams study (1990) of a television newsroom. This study was undertaken using a radio newsroom. The reason for the replication was that the dynamics of the radio newsroom allowed for the study of what information subsidies actually made it to air. Berkowitz and Adams were only able to study the subsidies that made the first cut after arriving at the station.

      Radio newsrooms are most often smaller operations than television newsrooms. The newsroom in the Berkowitz and Adams study decided on information subsidies through a committee system. Radio newsrooms differ in that they are mostly a one or two person operations where information subsidy decisions are made quickly by the news reader.

      Because of the committee system, and the time involved, Berkowitz and Adams were only able to study the information subsidies that made it through the first round of committee meetings. This replication was able to study what subsidies actually made it to air. The choices in the radio newsroom were immediate and data was easily gathered due to only one person making the decisions.

      The radio newsroom chosen for this study was in the number-one rated FM music station in the 75th radio market. The format was Country music catering to an even mix of male and female listeners. The station broadcast local news mainly in the morning. There was also a local noon newscast. Afternoon news was mostly satellite-delivered national reports. Local news was reported in the afternoon only if there was a major story to cover. There were no newscasts in the evening or overnight hours. The morning broadcasts were the most listened to newscasts in the market.

      The newsroom was a one person operation. The news director, who was also the news anchor, was female and 35 at the time of the study. She was unmarried and claimed to have no biases towards any specific type of news story, claiming to run any story if she deemed it newsworthy. It was her decision alone what information made it to air.

      The radio newswsroom was supplied with two boxes, one marked "aired" and the other marked "not aired". The news director was instructed that anything that came into the newsroom aimed at providing information for a newscast was to be placed in one of the boxes. A subsidy was to be placed in the "aired" box if its text, information, or the event announced in the subsidy was used to help create any part of a newscast. All other subsidies were placed in the "not aired" box. All subsidies were coded over four areas:

     1. News setting: local, state, or national. News was considered local if it fell inside the station's primary coverage area.

     2. Story Type: preplanned or informational. If an information subsidy announced any event, it was coded "preplanned". Subsidies that offered no event were coded "information".

     3. Originating Organization: business, education, government/political, special interest groups, or non-profit organizations. Subsidies were coded as to their originating organization, not on the content of the subsidy.

      4. Opened Status: opened or not opened. After two weeks, coders noticed many of the subsidies were unopened. All materials were revisited and given this code.

      After all subsidies were collected and coded, each was revisited and a code was kept of the subsidy's form: public service announcement, press release, magazine or newsletter, brochure or press kit.

      An intercoder reliability factor of 98% was achieved between two coders over all material (Holsti, 1969).

      Press releases and public service announcements made up the majority, 91%, of the 348 information subsidies collected. The remaining 9% broke down into 4% brochures or press kits, 3% magazines or newsletters, and 2% miscellaneous.

      Sixty-five, or 19% of all subsidies collected were used in a newscast. Those 65 subsidies were press releases (86%) and public service announcements (14%) alone. Table 1 is a crosstabulation of a subsidy's news setting and whether the newsroom decided to use the subsidy. The greatest percentage of subsidies used and kept falls under the local category.

      Table 2 is a crosstabulation of the subsidy's story type and whether the newsroom decided to use the subsidy. Results show that information subsidies offering a preplanned event were used twice as often as subsidies offering just information. Table 3 is a crosstabulations of a subsidy's originating organization and whether the newsroom decided to use the subsidies. Educational organization subsidies were used most frequently. Government and business organization subsidies were used least frequently. The results were not significant.

      Table 4 is a crosstabulation of a subsidy's news settings and originating organization. Those subsidies received from local sources were the subsidies used on air most often. The two least used sources, government and business, sent a larger percentage of their subsidies from outside the local range of the station.

      Tables 5 and 6 are crosstabulations of whether a subsidy had been opened or not. Twenty percent of all subsidies collected, more than made it to air, were never taken out of their envelopes or packages. Tables 5 and 6 are in addition to the crosstabulations performed by Berkowitz and Adams (1990)

      Table 5 is a crosstabulation of a subsidy's news setting and whether it had been opened or not. Local subsidies were opened most frequently. State subsidies were opened less frequently while national subsidies were left unopened a third of the time.

      Table 6 is a crosstabulation of a subsidy's originating organization and whether it had been opened. Education, the most used subsidies, were opened most frequently. Business and government subsidies were left unopened almost a fifth of the time. Special interest group and non profit subsidies were opened the least. The results were not statistically significant.

      This case study of agenda building in local radio news yielded results supporting two of the three hypotheses and providing insight into the research question.

      H1: The news setting for successful subsidies will be most commonly within the local range of the station.

      This hypothesis was supported. Table 1 shows 30% of all local subsidies being used in a newscast. Those sources closest to the station were given the most airtime. Just over one out of every ten state subsidies were used and only one national subsidy was given time in a newscast.

      H2: Subsidies concerning event related news will be used more often than items presenting informational material.

      This hypothesis was also supported. Table 2 showed preplanned event subsidies being used in a newscast more often than informational subsidies.

      H3: The originating organizations most successful with subsidies used by journalists will be government related.

      The hypothesis was not supported. Table 3 shows that government agencies were the least used subsidy source. Education sources were the most successful. However, this correlation was not significant and results could have been swayed due to the news climate during the month the subsidies were collected. A different time frame may have yielded different results. In addition, the news director that collected the information subsidies in this study noted afterward that she was preferential to stories dealing with education and the local schools.

     RQ) What factors are most important to a news director in deciding to open a subsidy or package?

      More information subsidies were left unopened than were used on air, 20% to 19% respectively. This suggests that more than the subsidy itself is involved in the decision to use the information.

      The return address on the envelope allowed the news director to be fairly certain what location the content dealt with. This would explain why local subsidies were opened more than state or national subsidies. The originating organization listed on the envelope had something to do with the decision to open the subsidy or not. The subsidy that remained unopened in the radio newsroom could have come from sources whom the news director knows have offered useless or bad information in the past. This is a question of source credibility. The number of unopened envelopes suggests that each subsidy that entered the radio newsroom was decided on twice, once on whether it should be opened and then again on whether it should go into the newscast.

      If this is the case, it would seem that the concepts of source credibility and perception in a newsroom is a stronger variable than what is actually contained in the subsidy. Providing a constant flow of information subsidies is useless if the information is never taken out of the envelope.

      If the source's perception in the newsroom is poor or it is seen as unwanted, then what is contained in the subsidy may never be considered as the envelope may be discarded without even being opened.

      Results of this study show that just because an information subsidy is sent to a newsroom does not ensure that it will be opened. One fifth of the information subsidies in this study were not taken out of their envelopes.

      This suggests that the content of the subsidy is a secondary factor to the new director's perception of the submitting source. To begin the process of sorting the day's subsidies, what is inside appears to not be as important as who, or what organization, sent it.

      This suggests that two levels of decision making are used regarding information subsidies. The first is when the subsidy is still in the envelope. The second is the process the newsroom, or newsperson, uses to choose which opened subsidy will make up part of a newscast. It appears as if the first level, concerned with source perception, is the most crucial. If the subsidy is not opened, what is inside is immaterial.

      Studies of gatekeeping need to take these results into consideration when studying the results of a gatekeeper's decisions. Collecting information regarding what is used on the air or in print is studying only the second step in the process. What is discarded may be a better indication of the gatekeeper thought process than what is used.

   Berkowitz, D. (1987). TV news sources and news channels: A study in agenda building. Journalism Quarterly, 64, 508-513. Berkowitz, D. (1990). Refining the gatekeeping metaphor for local television news. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 34, 55-68.

    Berkowitz, D. (1991). Assessing forces in the selection of local television news. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 35, 245-251.

    Berkowitz, D. (1992). Who sets the media agenda? The ability of policymakers to determine news decisions. In J. D. Kennamer (Ed.), Public opinion, the press, and public policy (pp. 81-102). Westport, CT:Praeger.

    Berkowitz, D., & Adams, D. B. (1990). Information subsidy and agenda building in local television news. Journalism Quarterly, 67, 723-731.

    Brown, J. D., Bybee, C. R., Wearden, S. T., & Straughan, D. M. (1987). Invisible power: Newspaper news sources and the limits of diversity. Journalism Quarterly, 64, 45-54.

    Carter, R. F., Stamm, K. R., & Heintz-Knowles, K. (1992). Agenda setting and consequentiality. Journalism Quarterly, 69, 868-877.

    Donohue, G. A., Tichenor, P. J., & Olien, C. N. (1970). Mass media functions, knowledge and social control. Journalism Quarterly, 50, 652-659.

    Drew, D. G. (1972). Roles and decision making of three television beat reporters. Journal of Broadcasting, 16, 165-174.

    Fishman, M. (1980). Manufacturing the news. Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Gandy, O. H. (1982). Beyond agenda setting: Information subsidies and public policy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Gans, H. J. (1979). Deciding what's news. New York: Pantheon.

    Holsti, O. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanites. Reading, MA: Addison-Westley.

    Iorio, S. H., & Huxman, S. S. (1992). At the edge of agenda setting: A qualitative study of personal concerns and political issues development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communications (AEJMC), Kansas City, MO.

    Kanervo, E. W., & Kanervo D. W. (1989). How town administrator's view relates to agenda building in community press. Journalism Quarterly, 66, 308-315.

    Lang, G. E., & Lang, K. (1983). The battle for public opinion; The President, the press, and public opinion. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Martin, S. R. (1988). Proximity of event as factor in selection of news sources. Journalism Quarterly, 65, 986-989.

    McLeod, J. M., Becker, L. B., & Byrnes, J. E. (1974). Another look at the agenda setting function of the press. Communication Research 1 (pp. 131-165) Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972) The agenda setting function of the mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.

    Morton, L. P. (1993). Producing publishable press releases. A research perspective. Public Relations Quarterly, 37, 9-11.

    Reese, S. D. (1991). Setting the media's agenda: A power balance perspective. In J. A. Anderson (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 14, (pp. 309-340). Newbury Park CA: Sage.

    Roberts, M. S. (1992). Predicting voting behavior via the agenda setting tradition. Journalism Quarterly, 69, 878-892.

    Salwen, M. B. (1988). Effect of accumulation of coverage on issue salience in agenda setting. Journalism Quarterly, 65, 100-106.

    Salwen, M. B. (1995). News of Hurricane Andrew: The agenda sources and the sources' agendas. Journalism Quarterly, 72, 826-840.

    Schrum, L. J., & O'Guinn, T. C. (1993). Processes and effects in the construction of social reality. Communication Research, 11, 323-340.

    Shaw, D. L., & Martin, S. E. (1992). The function of mass media agenda setting. Journalism Quarterly, 69, 902-920.

    Shaw, D. L., & McCombs, M. E. (1977). The emergence of American political issues: The agenda setting function of the press. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.

    Showmaker, P. J. (1991). Communication concepts 3: Gatekeeping. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Signal, L. V. (1986). Sources make the news. In R. K. Manoff & M. Schudson (Eds.), Reading the News (pp. 9-37). New York: Pantheon.

    Smith, C. (1993). News coverage and power elites in news coverage of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Journalism Quarterly, 70, 393-403.

    Soloski, J. (1989). Sources and channels of local news. Journalism Quarterly, 66, 864-870.

    Stocking, S. H. (1985). Effects of public relations efforts on media visibility of organizations. Journalism Quarterly, 62, 358-366.

    VanSlyke-Turk, J. (1985). Information subsidies and influence. Public Relations Review, 7, 10-25.

    Wanta, W. (1991). Presidential approval ratings as a variable in the agenda building process. Journalism Quarterly, 68, 672-679.

    Weaver, D., & Elliott, S. N. (1986). Who sets the agenda for the media? A study of local agenda building. Journalism Quarterly, 62, 87-94.

    White, D. M. (1950). The gatekeeper: A case study in the selection of news. Journalism Quarterly, 27, 383-390.