By Michelle M. Tedford

Tedford is a masters student at the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism, Ohio University.

Late last year, Indonesia announced that it would begin talks regarding the possible independence of East Timor. This was a welcomed prospect for a country that has been dominated, colonized and neglected for 400 years. The struggle of the East Timorese was highlighted internationally when the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the 1996 Nobel Peace Prize to Bishop Carlos Ximenes Belo and Jose Ramos-Horta, two champions for peace and human rights in the islandÍs battles with Indonesia. A former Portuguese colony, East Timor was invaded by Indonesia after a military coup and civil war drove away the Portuguese government. Since 1976, Indonesia has claimed the Pacific island as its 27th providence, though the United Nations Security Council and many world governments never recognized the invading government (Nand 1996, B-07).

While the Nobel committee is known for recognizing the efforts of those who work for peace, it is also known for politicizing the prize and using it to bring attention to issues that would normally go unnoticed by the world. The Timorese prize was "an example of the Nobel committee trying to shine a light on a conflict, using the prize to focus world attention on a conflict that is often forgotten" (Goldfarb 1996). The awarding of the prize attempts, more specifically, to put the people and the issues acknowledged by the prize on the worldÍs agenda.

The Nobel Peace Prize

The Nobel Peace Prize was first awarded in 1901 from the estate Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite who wrote in his will that the prize should be awarded to the "person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses " (SchÄck et al. 1951, 12).

Nominations are submitted by past or current members of the committee, previous Peace Prize winners, university professors of political science, history and philosophy and certain government officials. The Norwegian Nobel Committee does not release the names of nominees, although the nominees are not prevented from doing so. Nominees have been known to take their cases to the Norwegian press, in an attempt to influence the committee, though the committee writes that such agenda-building on part of the nominees is counterproductive (Nor. Nobel Inst., "The nomination..."). Through the 1990s, announcement of the winners has been made in October and the prize is awarded on the anniversary of Mr. NobelÍs death, Dec. 10.

In addition to rewarding those who have made strides toward a more peaceful world, the prize highlights "forgotten struggles" and urges world citizens and leaders to act on these issues. As the committee itself wrote in its announcement of the 1996 winners, "The Nobel Committee hopes that this award will spur efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict in East Timor based on the people's right to self-determination" ("The Nobel Peace Prize winners for 1996"). In awarding peace prizes, the committee has encouraged world leaders to intensify efforts toward nuclear disarmament, invited greater participation in the elimination of land mines, expressed hope for increased efforts by grassroots organizations to secure peace, and championed peaceful solutions to religious, ethnic and national conflicts around the world.1

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to measure what impact the announcement of Nobel Peace Prize winners may have on the coverage of the winners and their issues in U.S. newsmagazines, to see if the recognition helps build the agenda of news magazines, a first step in the process of ultimately moving the winnersÍ issues onto the peopleÍs agenda.

Related Research

While no literature is available on the agenda-building influence of Nobel peace prizes, this annual event poses an opportunity to study international news coverage in U.S. newsmagazines. First, the prize has been awarded annually for over 90 years to people throughout the world, is highly regarded and follows a predictable time table. These factors could facilitate potential high profile coverage of this international news event. Second, agenda-building studies have identified the importance of issue salience thresholds, pointing to the need to study coverage of international issues that the Nobel committee often identify as "forgotten struggles." Finally, newsmagazines are often read by a public interested in getting a more complete picture of the world. While this may be the hope, it is important to determine the diet of news actually presented in newsmagazines.

Agenda Building

Agenda-building mass media studies are an outgrowth of the original agenda-setting studies. Agenda setting refers to the mediaÍs ability to raise the importance of an issue in the publicÍs mind. In the first empirical study of agenda setting, McCombs and Shaw (1972) determined a correlation between issues in the media surrounding the 1968 presidential election and what undecided voters regarded as salient and important election issues. Following this study, the focus of agenda-setting studies centered on public issues, including the exploration of contingent conditions, candidate image and political interest as alternative agendas (McCombs 1992). This study of Nobel winners helps build on the fourth stage of agenda-setting research, the one that asks "Who sets the news agenda?" The fourth stage can include research of news sources, journalistic routines or the rhetorical perspectives of news stories (McCombs 1992).

This fourth stage encompasses what is called agenda building, a concept used in political science studies and employed by Lang and Lang (1983) to explore the relationship between the press and public opinion during the Watergate crisis. Agenda building includes several steps, the ones most relevant to this research being:

• The events and activities in the focus of attention must be "framed," or given a field of meaning within which they can be understood;
• The media link the activities or events that have become the focus of attention to secondary symbols whose location on the political landscape is easily recognized; and
• Agenda building is accelerated when well- known and credible individuals begin to speak out on an issue (Severin and Tankard 1997, 265).

In the example of Nobel Peace Prize winners:

• Stories after the announcement of winners have the possibility of being framed based on the committeeÍs statements;
• The issues championed by the winners could become tied to the winners and their status as peace proponents; and
• The agenda-building process could be accelerated by subsequent speaking engagements accepted by prize winners.

In all of these cases, legitimate agenda-building outcomes could be viewed as news hooks by the media, and have the potential to spawn increased coverage of the winners and their issues.

Since the birth of this fourth stage of agenda-setting study in the 1980s, communications and political science studies have investigated its implications (Cassara 1998; Johnson and Wanta 1996; Ohl et al. 1995; and Shibuya 1996-97). Wanta (1991) continues research on the theme of the first agenda-setting studies „ politics „ with a look at how a president can interfere with the agenda relationship between the media and the public by presenting an agenda different from that of the press. In their look at local agenda building, Weaver and Elliott (1985, 94) find that the happenings in the city council and committee meetings do influence coverage in the local newspaper; they suggest "a prominent news source can have a major influence on the subsequent media agenda, but selective processes and news judgements of journalists also play a significant part in shaping this agenda." Both studies are important to the issue of the Nobel winners, since the peace prize is often politicized if not specifically political in nature, such as the 1990 award to Gorbachev. Weaver and Elliott (1985) hint at the uncertainty inherent in agenda building, that influences from outside the media organization (i.e. Nobel committee announcements) must compete with the other media content influences, including the influences of individual media workers, media routines, organizational influences and ideological influences (Shoemaker and Reese 1996).

Cobb, Keith-Ross and Ross (1976) offer three models to explain agenda building. The one most applicable here is the "Outside-initiative" model, where issues originate with citizen organizations who raise the issues to the public before the issues reach the government. Despite the fact that the Norwegian Nobel Committee has ties to the Norwegian parliament (to be discussed later), the process of outside nomination may put the committee more in the "public" realm. Also, the announcements are made publicly, not just for government leaders, and committee recommendations for further action on the highlighted issues extend both to citizens and governments. For the committee to be successful in the outside-initiative model of agenda building, then, public awareness becomes a crucial phase.

The amount of coverage given to the people and issues associated with the Nobel Peace Prizes is important to consider. Lang and Lang (1983) found that different issues have different "issue thresholds," demonstrating that more obscure Nobel winners or less salient peace issues may need more press coverage to penetrate the publicÍs agenda. Both Zucker (1978) and Eyal (1979) found that the less obtrusive the issue is, the more the public relies on the press for information, and the more similar are the public and press agendas. International issues of peace, by nature, are issues with which the U.S. public has little personal experience. These studies then reiterate the importance of coverage by the press of less salient international issues.

Newsmagazines

There is an underlying question of how much information on world events the readers of newsmagazines are receiving. First, it must be determined if the diet of international news provided by the main U.S. newsmagazines varies among publications. In a look at the coverage of terrorists in three U.S. newsmagazines, Simmons and Lowry (1990) recorded no distinctions among the three. Similarly, little difference was found between U.S. newsmagazines in a study of global election coverage. Buckman (1993) showed that U.S. newsmagazines covered significantly fewer international events than their foreign counterparts, and that Newsweek, Time and U.S. News & World Report scored closely in newshole space devoted to national and international news, as well as the amount of coverage they gave the foreign elections. As he found, "Subscribers to newsmagazines in the United States and other countries no doubt believe they are diversifying their sources, but as the data indicate, they still may not be getting the full picture" (Buckman 1993, 790).

Despite their large number of subscribers „ four million for Time and three million for Newsweek (Gale Research Co. 1999) „ relatively little research has been done exploring newsmagazines. Gerlach (1987) found that only 116 articles concerning newsmagazines were published in Journalism Quarterly from 1964 through 1983, or 6 percent of all articles published over 20 years. Therefore, more research on newsmagazines is needed.

Method

For this study, U.S. editions of Time and Newsweek were studied to determine coverage of Nobel Peace Prize winners and issues. These magazines were chosen because they are widely read. Differences among newsmagazines have been tested regarding domestic and international news coverage. Evarts and Stempel (1974) found that „ despite of the preconception that more liberal editorial content would be found in Newsweek, followed by Time and U.S. New & World Report „ Time carried the most liberal coverage of the 1972 campaign and that all newsmagazines had a rightward bias. A study by Gutierrez-Villalobos, Hertog and Rush (1994) found that Time and Newsweek displayed a similar deference to authority in foreign affairs coverage. In a study of newsmagazine coverage of Mao Tse-tung and Chaing Kai-shek, Yu and Riffe (1989) found that the individual newsmagazine and focus on either leader were not significantly related. Because such similarities between newsmagazines have been found, all figures in this study, unless otherwise noted, indicate a combined total from both periodicals.

Based on the need for research on magazine coverage of international issues, this study examined one reoccurring event „ the announcement of Nobel Peace Price winners „ and chronicle its coverage in U.S. newsmagazines since the end of the Cold War. By comparing coverage of the announcement of each prize through the 1990s, it may be discovered whether the Norwegian Nobel Committee regularly builds the agenda of the magazines by influencing the amount of coverage the winners and their issues receive (a first step toward making these international issues salient with the public).

Post-Cold War Laureates

Literature published by the Norwegian Nobel Committee shows that different models for choosing winners have been used throughout periods of world history (Nor. Nobel Inst., "Who has won..."). In an attempt to avoid the pitfall of comparing Nobel winners across different historical periods (and different selection processes), this study will look only at post-Cold War winners (Table 1). This definitive period begins with the 1990 award going to Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev, then president of the Soviet Union, for helping to end the Cold War (Rule 1990, A-01), and concludes with the 1997 prize, the last year for which there is complete data.

Table 1: Post-Cold War Nobel Peace Prize Laureates Included in the Study, and Their Achievements toward World Peace

1990 - Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev Awarded to the president of the Soviet Union for championing political change in Eastern Europe and helping to end the cold war. He brought greater openness to the Soviet society, helped slow the arms race and worked toward peaceful solutions to regional conflicts.

1991 - Aung San Suu Kyi Awarded for her non-violent struggle for democracy and human rights in Burma. At the time of the awarding, she had been under house arrest by the military government for two years.

1992 - Rigoberta Menchu Tum Awarded for her campaign for human rights, especially for indigenous peoples in Guatemala. A QuichÚ Indian, she works for ethno-cultural reconciliation amid the large-scale repression of Indian peoples in Guatemala.

1993 - Frederik Willem de Klerk, Nelson Mandela Awarded to president of the African National Congress and the president of the Republic of South Africa for their work at ending apartheid and moving the country toward peaceful, democratic elections.

1994 - Yasir Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin Awarded to the chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the foreign minister of Israel and the prime minister of Israel for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East.

1995 - Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, Joseph Rotblat Awarded for their efforts to diminish the part played by nuclear arms in international politics and in the longer run to eliminate such arms. Rotblat was one of 11 scientists behind the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, which formed the Conferences 40 years ago to recognize the responsibility of scientists for their inventions.

1996 - Bishop Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, Jose Ramos-Horta Awarded for their work toward a just and peaceful solution to the conflict in East Timor, ruled by Indonesia. Since 1975, the island providence has lost an estimated one-third of its population to starvation, epidemics, war and terror.

1997 - Jody Williams, International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) Awarded for their work in clearing anti-personnel land mines and making the international ban of land mines a feasible reality. The ICBL has created a grassroots network for the expression of popular commitment for the reduction of land mines.

For this analysis, two time spans were explored for each yearÍs winner. The first includes the year before the announcement of the winner. Because nominations are due by Feb. 1 (Nor. Nobel Inst., "The nomination..."), the issues and actions for which the winners are nominated should be as much "news" in the previous year as they are when the announcement is made eight months later in October. The second time span looks at the year beginning with the prize announcement and ending with the date of the announcement of the next yearÍs winner.

Study Sample

The sample for this study was gathered using Lexis-Nexis. A keyword search for each winner and time span included the winnersÍ names, countries and causes. Results were compared with the citations of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, to be sure the articles centered on the issues for which the prize was awarded. Articles were then coded as to whether the lauded issue was the focus of the story or a mention within a larger story. Two coders tested the reliability of the selection process with a 97% reliability. Any discrepancies were attributed to choosing between whether the article was a focus or mention story, not whether the article should or should not be included in the analysis. This study "sample" includes the entire pool of stories in Time and Newsweek that meet the above criteria. Therefore, findings below are based on real numbers, not statistical differences.

To address the first research question, the article is the unit of analysis. An article was counted as any news story, news brief, essay, letter-to-the-editor, editorial or other story brief (i.e. "Perspectives" or "Grapevine" pieces) regardless of length. Cover copy or extended table of contents notations that appeared in the results list were not counted. Letters were included because, like news stories, they are also chosen from a large pool of possible topics. Gatekeepers had to choose letters about the Nobel prize winners, and while letters do not illustrate the same commitment or resources needed for a news story, they are still indications of what the magazine recognizes as important.

To address the second research question, articles on the announcement of the winners were identified and the hard copies of the magazines pulled. The stories, photos and other graphics were measured by square inch. If the announcement information was a portion of a larger story, only the announcement information was measured. All measurements for each yearÍs winners were added to find the total space devoted to the winners each year. The covers and table of contents pages for each of the identified issues were looked at to see if the winner was teased on the cover, the focus of the cover, or highlighted by a photo on the contents page.

The research questions to be answered, then, are:

R1: Comparing coverage before and after the prize announcement, does the Nobel committeeÍs announcement increase the amount of coverage the winners and their issues receive in U.S. newsmagazines?

R2: Looking at announcement stories, what trends can be identified in the amount of space U.S. newsmagazines allot to winners and their issues?

Findings

1. Coverage before and after the announcement. Regarding the first research question, an analysis of coverage of each yearÍs winner across the two time spans indicates that the Nobel committeeÍs announcement does not lead to increased coverage of the winners and their issues (see Table 2). Any increases in coverage seem to be attributable to news events. For example, the 35 percent increase associated with the 1993 prize may be linked to coverage of the first democratic elections in South Africa. The increase in coverage of the 1991, 1992 and 1996 winners may be directly attributed to announcement stories, though a rise from two to four in the case of Burma, for example, is hard to quantify as enough to affect the salience of a foreign issue with the U.S. reader. In other cases, coverage actually decreased. The decrease in coverage of the land mine ban may be attributed to the death of Princess Diana (a champion against land mines) before the 1997 award. The decrease surrounding coverage of issues for which Gorbachev was cited may be due to the shift of power to Yeltsin and the breakdown of the Soviet system.

Table 2: Number of Stories on Nobel Peace Prize Winners and Their Issues the Year Before Versus the Year After Prize Announcement, in Two U.S. Newsmagazines, 1990-1997

	Year before October ann.				From October ann. through next year
	f	m	Total		f	m	Total
1990-Gorbachev	173	108	281		56	71	127
1993-S. Africa	19	16	35		38	16	54
1994-Middle East	2	7	34		21	7	28
1995-Nuclear	0	11	11		2	6	8
1996-Guatemala	0	0	0		6	1	7
1997-Land mines	9	2	11		2	2	4
1991-Burma	2	0	2		3	1	4
1996-East Timor	0	0	0		2	0	2

f=stories in which the winners and the issues are the focus.

m=stories in which the winners and their issues are mentioned as part of a larger story.

It is true that the Nobel committee acknowledged more areas of achievement for Gorbachev than Menchþ, for example, which may partially explain the wide variation in scores. Stories were counted if they dealt with GorbachevÍs actions in opening up Soviet society, ending the ban on religion, promoting nuclear disarmament and fostering the peaceful reconfiguration of Eastern Europe. MenchþÍs scope of acknowledgment was more narrow; her accomplishments dealt with human rights issues of Guatemalans and other indigenous peoples.

Despite this revelation, the trend in coverage is striking. Issues and people who received much attention before the announcement continued to be seen as newsmakers after, and those who received little attention before were still not news after the prize announcement was made. This finding questions the power of the Nobel Peace Prize as a media agenda builder.

And these numbers do not indicate the complete discrepancy between the lesser covered and more covered prize winners. For example, while the 1996 prize was given to a grassroots effort at nuclear disarmament, the only stories that dealt with non-governmental involvement were the two about the announcement of the prize. All other stories, except for one letter to the editor, focused on the U.S. governmentÍs attempt to control the nuclear threat from Korea or Russia, for example. Also, the increase in number of stories (zero to seven) after the announcement of Rigoberta Menchþ Tum as the 1992 laureate included four letters to the editor. One letter reads, "Now perhaps the world will pay some attention to the genocide taking place in Guatemala" (Letters 1992, 5). While it appears that there are members of the public already informed of MenchþÍs struggles, the newsmagazines recognized her issues through letters instead of expanded coverage.

2. Attention to prize winners. Regarding the second research question, the space devoted to stories announcing the Nobel Peace Prize winners varied greatly (see Table 3). The mean for total space is 119.54 inches, with the average deviation between individual years and the Post-Cold War mean being 64.80 inches. The announcement of prize winners occurred at the same time „ during the second week of October „ in each of the eight years. Therefore, newsmagazines had the ability to anticipate the announcement of the winners and work coverage into their news routines. Yet, despite this predictability, the variation displayed in Table 3 shows that the magazines gave almost five times the space to winners from the Middle East as to the four least covered laureates. Soviet Union and South Africa combined got more space than the combined total for East Timor, nuclear disarmament, Burma and Guatemala. The relatively large space devoted to the ban on land mines can be attributed to pictures of Diana, Princess of Wales, which accompanied all stories about Jody Williams and her effort. (Diana was involved in the movement before her death in 1997.) The scant attention devoted to the East Timorese winners can be partly explained by the fact that Newsweek printed no coverage of the winners. For all other years, both magazines included stories on the winners.

Table 3: Space in Square Inches Devoted to Announcement of Nobel Peace Prize W inners in Two U.S. Newsmagazines, 1990-1997

Article	Photo	Other	Graphic	Total
1994 - Middle East	124.56	124.66	63.14	312.36
1990 - Gorbachev	100.68	20.84	34.85	156.37
1993 - South Africa	93.74	43.97	11.38	149.09
1997 - Land mines	58.89	41.73	-.-	100.62
1992 - Guatemala	48.19	17.87	-.-	66.06
1991 - Burma	45.78	18.29	-.-	64.07
1995 - Nuclear disarm.	46.37	13.84	-.-	60.14
1996 - East Timor	27.05	6.19	14.34	47.58

Despite the fact that Rotblat (1995) and Menchþ (1992) received so little space for their announcement stories, and so few stories over the two years studied, these were the only two winners whose photos were included in the table of contents page. Yet the addition of these photos (2.625 inches and 0.75 inches, respectively) does not influence the standing they receive when looking at total space.

Discussion

Agenda Setting

Results show no positive effects of the Nobel Peace Prize announcements on the number of stories including information on the winners and their issues, or on the length of announcement stories. This would suggest that the Norwegian Nobel Committee does a poor job of building the agenda of newsmagazines. A case can be made for the fact that the committee does not actively solicit coverage of the winners. The committee simply makes its announcement and waits for the world to react. Committee members are prohibited from discussing the nominee evaluation process (Nor. Nobel Inst., "The Norwegian..."). While the prizeÍs status alone could be an influence on the mediaÍs agenda „ and while the committee hopes to initiate discussion of the issues it awards „ results here do not indicate that this is enough to change the agenda of U.S. newsmagazines.

Results indicate that the newsmagazine-reading public is not being touched by the committeeÍs intentions. But it does not mean that the world is not listening. Newsmagazines are only one source of the publicÍs information on Nobel Peace Prize winners and their issues, and newsmagazines only reach a portion of the public. Further research on this subject should look at the coverage of Nobel Peace Prize winners in other media to see if information is being more effectively conveyed in other ways.

It is also possible that the announcements skip the public and instead move to directly influence the international governmental agendas. Despite the earlier notion that the Nobel committeeÍs agenda-building process follows the outside-initiative model, it is possible that a third model presented by Cobb, Keith-Ross and Ross (1976) more accurately reflects the committeeÍs agenda-building function. In the "Inside Access" model, a governmental group or group with easy access to political decision makers forms an agenda. Because of its close proximity, the issue is automatically put on the political agenda. It does not require mobilization of the public, and expansion of the issue is instead aimed at particular influential groups. The Norwegian Nobel Committee is appointed by a political body, NorwayÍs Sorting (parliament), so it has easy access to the political process. A recent Nobel Peace Prize example that may illustrate the committeeÍs power inside this model is the case of East Timor. Despite poor media coverage of the laureates, the occupying government of Indonesia considered granting the island independence. The Indonesian government is known to react to pressure from other governments, as has been the case; "...Indonesia tends to respond positively to international pressure, and the prestige of the Nobel Prize tells Jakarta concern about East Timor is not limited to the United States and its liberal friends."2

Other Forces Larger forces such as international news flow and cultural proximity may be in charge. In his look at television coverage of natural disasters, Adams (1986, 122) found that the severity of the disaster accounted less for amount of coverage than did the finding that "the death of one Western European equaled three Eastern Europeans equaled 9 Latin Americans equaled 11 Middle Easterners equaled 12 Asians." A study of regional, non-elite newspapers further sheds light on international news criteria. Cassara (1992) suggests that factors of political power and conflict dominate news choices more than news selection because of economic or cultural ties. A closer evaluation of why Nobel winners such as Gorbachev were hot news, and East Timor barely made a blip, would add to this discussion.

Other more obvious news routines may be at work. For example, newsmagazines regularly have correspondents based in countries such as Russia, and Gorbachev is accessible to journalists through press conferences and interviews. Conversely, few correspondents are assigned to Burma, and even those who are would find it difficult to interview a Nobel laureate who is under house arrest. An evaluation of why correspondents are assigned to Russia instead of Burma, though, would also be telling in an examination of coverage of Nobel prize winners and their issues.

On a larger scale, the findings also indicate that news is not "new," that instead it is the same stories that have already attracted the mediaÍs attention. As Elliott and Golding (1979, 147) state, news is "essentially a topping-up mechanism, a means of adding to areas of defined interest and importance the latest incremental happenings." Since the struggles of the people of Burma or East Timor were not already defined areas of interest and importance, it was unlikely that a news "event" like the committee announcement would propel them to such a standing.

Future Research

A final area that may be interesting for future research is a look at rhetorical analysis, a technique used to evaluate agenda building. A rhetorical analysis of coverage before and after the announcement, based on the language of the committeeÍs citation, could indicate if the committee did have influence on the contents of news coverage, if not on the amount. A rhetorical analysis would indicate shifts in the news frame of the stories, and show if what has been labeled "business as usual" by a strict story count actually contains some deeper indications of agenda influence.

A key finding in this study is that all winners did get on the agenda, albeit some very sparingly. Research by Perry (1990) on international news shows that inclusion is important and omission is the ultimate negative. What needs to be determined, then, is the impact Nobel coverage has on reader salience. Through audience research, a salience threshold for these foreign, "peace" issues can be determined, to help support the case that some coverage is better than no coverage.

While the reader salience of Nobel Peace Prize issues has yet to be established, the reality is that, over two years, U.S. newsmagazines printed only two stories on East Timorese independence and six on BurmaÍs occupation. If this small amount of coverage does not attain the exposure level or the long-term accumulation needed to make the issue salient to the average reader, a lack of salience would likely negate any measurable change in rhetoric that could be attributed to the Nobel committeeÍs agenda-building influence. Instead of finding an agenda-building process, then, all this study can support is a legacy of poor coverage on poorly covered topics, and more coverage on more frequently covered topics.

Notes

1. For examples, see The Norwegian Nobel Institute, "The Nobel Peace Prize for 1995," "The Nobel Peace Prize for 1997," and "The Nobel Peace Prize 1998."

2. This belief is attributed to Sydney Jones, executive director of Human Rights Watch, and other human rights analysts, as reported by OÍHara 1996.

References

Adams, William C. 1986. Whose lives count? TV coverage

Buckman, Robert T. 1993. How eight weekly newsmagazines covered elections in six countries. Journalism Quarterly 70 (4): 780-792.

Cassara, Catherine. 1998. U.S. newspaper coverage of human rights in Latin America, 1975-1982. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 75 (3): 478-486.

„„„. 1992. "International news in American newspapers: Testing international news flow theories." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University.

Cobb, Roger, Jennie Keith-Ross and Marc H. Ross. 1976. Agenda building as a comparative political process. American Political Science Review 70 (1): 126-138.

Elliott, Philip and Peter Golding. 1979. Making the news. New York: Longman.

Evarts, Dru and Guido H. Stempel III. 1974. Coverage of the 1972 campaign by TV, newsmagazines and major newspapers. Journalism Quarterly 51: 645-648, 676.

Eyal, Chaim Hirschmann. 1979. "Time frame in agenda-setting research: A study of conceptual and methodological factors affecting the time frame context of the agenda-setting process." Ph.D. dissertation, Syracuse University.

Gale Research Co. 1999. Gale Directory of Publications. Detroit: Gale Research.

Gerlach, Peter. 1987. Research about magazines appearing in Journalism Quarterly. Journalism Quarterly 64 (1): 178-182.

Golfarb, Michael. 11 Oct. 1996. Nobel Peace Prize perhaps awarded to direct attention. Morning Edition.

Gutierrez-Villalobos, Sonia, James K. Hertog and Ramona R. Rush. 1994. Press support for the U.S. administration during the Panama invasion: Analyses of strategic and tactical critique in the domestic press. Journalism Quarterly 71 (3): 618-627.

Johnson, Thomas J. and Wayne Wanta. 1996. Influence Dealers: A path analysis of agenda building during Richard NixonÍs war on drugs. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 73 (1): 181-194

Lang, Gladys Engel and Kurt Lang. 1983. The battle for public opinion: The president, the press, and the polls during Watergate. New York: Columbia University Press.

Letters. 16 Nov. 1992. Nobel Prize for Menchþ. Time U.S. ed.: 5.

McCombs, Maxwell. 1992. Explorers and surveyors: Expanding strategies for agenda-setting research. Journalism Quarterly 69 (4): 813-823.

McCombs, Maxwell and Donald Shaw. 1972. The agenda setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly 36: 176-187.

Nand, Ved. 17 Oct. 1996. Nobel prize highlights repression. The Denver Post 2nd ed.

The Norwegian Nobel Institute.. "The Nobel Peace Prize 1998.". 16 Oct. 1998.

---. "The Nobel Peace Prize for 1995.".

----. "The Nobel Peace Prize for 1997.". 10 Oct. 1997.

---. "The Nobel Peace Prize winners for 1996.".

---. "The nomination and selection of Nobel prize laureates.".

---. "The Norwegian Nobel Committee.".

---. "Who has won the peace prize?".

OÍHara, Vicki. 11 Oct. 1996. Two win peace prizes for work on plight of East Timor. All Things Considered.

Ohl, Coral M., J. David Pincus, Tony Rimmer and Denise Harrison. 1995. Agenda building role of news releases in corporation takeovers. Public Relations Review 21 (2): 89-101.

Perry, David. 1990. News reading, knowledge about and attitudes toward foreign countries. Journalism Quarterly 67 (2): 353-358.

Rule, Sheila. 16 Oct. 1990. Evolution in Europe; Gorbachev gets Nobel Peace Prize for foreign policy achievements. The New York Times final ed.: A-01.

SchÄck, H., R. Sohlman, A. ·sterling, G. Liljestrand, A. Westgren, M. Siegbahn, A. Schou and N.K. StÔhle. 1951. Nobel: The man and his prizes. Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press.

Severin, Werner J. and James W. Tankard Jr. 1997. Communication theories: Origins, methods, and uses in the mass media 4th ed. New York: Longman.

Shibuya, Eric. 1996-1997. "Roaring mice against the tide": The South Pacific islands and agenda-building on global warming. Pacific Affairs 69: 541-555.

Shoemaker, Pamela J. and Stephen D. Reese 1996. Mediating the message: Theories of influence on mass media content 2nd ed. White Plains, N.Y.: Longman.

Simmons, Brian K. and David N. Lowry. 1990. Terrorists in the news, as reflected in three news magazines, 1980-88. Journalism Quarterly 67: 692-696.

Yu, Yang-Chou and Daniel Riffe. 1989. Chaing and Mao in U.S. news magazines. Journalism Quarterly 66: 913-919.

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

Weaver, David and Swanzy Nimley Elliott. 1985. Who sets the agenda for the media? A study of local agenda-building. Journalism Quarterly 62: 87-94.

Zucker, Harold Gene. 1978. "The variable nature of news media influence." In Communication Yearbook 2, edited by Brent D. Rubin, 225-240. Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.