Professional Documents
Culture Documents
To cite this article: Hsiang Iris Chyi & Angela M. Lee (2017): Commercialization of Technology
News, Journalism Practice, DOI: 10.1080/17512786.2017.1333447
Article views: 37
While technology news has become a major news genre, the coverage of high-tech products has
raised concerns regarding the commercialization of journalism. Drawing on salience transfer
and exemplication theory, this study explores how The New York Times and USA Today
covered Apple products along quantity and quality dimensions. A content analysis documented
a landslide in the amount of coverage on Apple products in both newspapers. Both iPhones and
iPads were disproportionately over-covered in relation to their market share. Over one-third of
the headlines about the iPhone covered the product favorably. The New York Times published
more stories about these gadgets than USA Today did, while USA Today was twice as likely to
portray iPhones in a positive light. These ndings have raised questions about the commercializa-
tion of technology news and its impact on journalism.
KEYWORDS Apple products; content analysis; exemplication theory; media ethics; object
salience; technology news
Introduction
With the proliferation of Web, social media, and mobile technologies, the publics
desire for technology news is greater than ever before, and technology news has thus
gained importance as a major news genre. However, some trends are indicative of potential
problems underlying the reporting of technology in the news.
First, the church and state tenet in journalismi.e., the separation of news and pro-
motional contentdoes not seem to hold in the coverage of technology. When major IT
manufacturers such as Apple Inc. introduce new products and services, some journalists
tend to transmit information provided by these corporations without independently asses-
sing the information and thus become marketing vehicles for high-tech companies
(Holiday 2012). With stories such as New iPhone 4 Adds a Camera for Video Chats (The
New York Times), All That Glitters Could Soon Be an iPhone; is a Golden Gadget
Coming? (USA Today) and So in Love with New iPad Mini; with its Retina Display, its
the Best Tablet Out There (USA Today), the boundary between news and promotional
content is tenuous at best.
Second, when it comes to technology news, Apple Inc. and its products seem to
receive disproportionately more coverage than others. This necessitates an empirical exam-
ination for a number of reasons. First, agenda-setting theory suggests that the public often
assumes what is salient on the media agenda to be more important than what is not
(McCombs 2014). Thus, should a company or product be covered more often than its com-
petitor, the public may get the impression that the company or product is more popular or
Journalism Practice, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2017.1333447
2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 HSIANG IRIS CHYI AND ANGELA M. LEE
widely accepted in the market; and how the news media portray a company or product
may also inuence the ways in which the public perceives the company or product.
Taken together, prevalent, favorable narratives about a company or product may inuence
consumer perception by creating a false sense of a products popularity or the rms market
dominance, which, in turn, may affect consumer demand and contribute to unfair
competition.
These trends raise concerns regarding the commercialization of technology news. As
Ryan Holiday, a media critic, puts it:
The media and the public are supposed to be on the same side. The media, when its func-
tioning properly, should protect the public from marketers and their ceaseless attempts to
trick people into buying things But thats not true today Whats worse is that most
readers hardly even know whats going on because the content they get has been
dressed up and fed to them as news. (Holiday 2012)
In a broader context, news credibilitythe publics perception of a news outlets being fair,
unbiased, trustworthy, reliable, and believableis also at stake. However, to date, little
scholarly research has evaluated the degree of commercialization in technology news
and its impact on journalism. To ll this gap, this study seeks to empirically examine
news coverage of Apple products in relation to their competition in two major newspapers
in the United StatesThe New York Times and USA Todayalong both quantity and quality
dimensions.
Literature Review
Technology News
Research nds that online users like consuming technology news (Wu and Bechtel
2002). With the growing popularity and penetration of new media devices such as smart-
phones and tablets in contemporary society (Thomas 2014), technology news has gained
growing presence in major American newspapers. For example, USA Today, The Wall
Street Journal, and The New York Times all have specic sections dedicated to technology
news, and all three newspapers technology sections highlight personal technology.
Specically, USA Todays technology and electronics reviews section entails personal
tech, science and technology, and technology live, among other tech-centric coverage;
The Wall Street Journals Technology News & Analysis section includes stories on tech
companies and personal technology; and The New York Times Technology section encom-
passes personal technology, feature stories, latest news, and a technology blog.
Just as questions such as What is news? (Harcup and ONeill 2016) have long been
discussed and debated among journalism scholars, technology news also necessitates an
explicit, albeit evolving, denition. Consistent with content often found in the above-men-
tioned technology-related sections on mainstream newspapers, this study denes technol-
ogy news as content produced by professional journalists at mainstream organizations that
seeks to inform their readers on technologies. This working denition precludes baseless
speculations or rumors. In addition, just as news differs from columns, technology news
also differs from technology columns in that, drawing on Kovach and Rosenstiels (2014)
nine elements of journalism, news prioritizes truthiness, accuracy, independence, and trans-
parency, among other things, whereas columns could include the authors personal take on
COMMERCIALIZATION OF TECHNOLOGY NEWS 3
issues. In other words, news is meant to inform, and columns may have more latitude to
focus on opinions.
Technology news as a news genre deserves an examination on its own. Ideally, tech-
nology news, like business or economic news (Welles 1991), requires that journalists have
specialized knowledge and training in order to not only report on an innovation but also
help audiences make sense of the innovation being reported. In reality, reporting technol-
ogy as a consumer product poses challenges to journalistic principles such as the separ-
ation of advertising and editorial content. In the case of Apple coverage, the press has
been accused of dress[ing] up the companys product messages and present[ing] them
to the public as news (Holiday 2012).
With the proliferation of news about personal technology, the question that ought
to be asked is: in what way can, or should technology news inform the public? To address
this question, this study will rst review principles of quality journalism, with an emphasis
on the distinction between news and promotional content.
which is unsurprising given press releases and news reports serve different purposes
(Pander Maat 2008; Sissons 2012).
In their examination of 38 product launch press releases in the Dutch consumer
market and 49 corresponding news articles based on these press releases, Pander Maat
and de Jong (2013) found that news reports tend to provide less product or company infor-
mation and more contextual information, and less positive and more negative evaluations.
In addition, less than half of the information in the news articles originates from the press
releases. Such differences signify some important distinctions between news and pro-
motional content, but the extent to which US journalists play out such distinctions when
covering technology products remains a question.
to the public agenda. The process is what the agenda-setting research refers to as salience
transfer (McCombs 2014).
Object salience is a key concept in agenda-setting research, dened as the relative
importance of an object (a public issue, public gure, or any other topic) in the media or
among the public. Empirically, object salience on the media agenda is measured by the
amount of media coverage. Once an object appears on the media agenda, the volume
of cumulative news coverage increases its salience over time, which in turn will transfer
to salience on the public agenda (Chyi and McCombs 2004). This process has been con-
rmed by numerous agenda-setting studies since the 1968 Chapel Hill study (McCombs
2014).
In the case of technology reporting, object salience is important because of its inu-
ence on consumer perception. To measure the salience of Apple products in relation to
competitors on the media agenda, this study addresses the following research question:
RQ1: How much coverage did major US newspapers devote to Apple products and
competitors?
In addition to the sheer amount of coverage, whether news media disproportionately
emphasize certain products over others also carries important social implications because
exemplication theory posits that people often neglect base-rate informationwhich is
the probability of an event or occurrenceand base their assessments on exemplars
(e.g., examples of single events or individuals that are meant to represent a trend or
larger social group) that are more specic and concrete, yet less reliable (Zillmann 1999;
Zillmann and Brosius 2000). In other words, when each technology news story is interpreted
as an exemplar, the consequence is that news consumers are likely to overestimate the
popularity and social importance of a product that receives an excessive amount of
coverage.
In the context of news, research suggests that human perception can be altered by
how information is presented in the news (Iyengar 1991). Particularly, the distribution of
exemplars and counter-exemplars matter in inuencing peoples perception of public
opinion (Zillmann and Brosius 2000). For example, an experimental study found that par-
ticipants who saw 10, as opposed to two, exemplars supporting a social issue (eviction
of violent immigrants in Germany) were more likely to estimate a signicantly higher
percentage of the German public supporting the same issuewith about 20 percent
difference between the two groups in perceived public opinion (Zerback and Fawzi 2016).
With regards to Apple coverage, this suggests that the publics perception of how
popular Apple products are may be inuenced by the amount of coverage devoted to
Apple products regardless of actual market share. In other words, if the majority of technol-
ogy stories focus on Apple products, news consumers may assume that Apple products
dominate the market even if that is not the case. This is known as base-rate fallacy (Bar-Hillel
1980), which posits that human beings implicitly devalue base-rate information in the face
of exemplars.
Given the consequences suggested by agenda-setting and exemplication theories,
this study seeks to examine whether the salience of certain technology products on the
media agenda (measured by the amount of coverage) is disproportionate to their actual
real-world salience (measured by market share), addressing the following research
question:
6 HSIANG IRIS CHYI AND ANGELA M. LEE
RQ2: To what extent did the amount of coverage reect Apple products market share?
Method
To examine the amount of news coverage on Apple products, this study chooses to
focus on two of Apples signature products generating the most publicity for the rmthe
iPhone and iPad. Major competitors in these two product categories (i.e., smartphones and
tablets) were identied by US market share information gathered from industry reports. In
the smartphone market, the two market leaders are iPhone and Samsung phones, followed
by other brands such as LG, Motorola, HTC, and Google phones (Chitika 2014; comScore
2014). In the tablet market, Apple (iPad), Samsung, and Amazon (Kindle Fire) are three
major players in the United States (Chitika 2014).
This study analyzes news coverage in two major national newspapers: The New York
Times and USA Today. The New York Times is included because of its reputation as a news-
paper of record and an intermedia agenda-setter (Golan 2007; Reese and Danielian 1989);
USA Today is included because it is the most circulated newspaper in the country (Malcolm
2014) and appeals to a wider range of readers. The inclusion of these two national news-
papers offers a juxtaposing view of how an elite newspaper and a popular newspaper
covered Apple products.
To determine the quantity of news coverage on Apple products and competitors
(RQ1), keyword searches were performed through the LexisNexis database, using time
frames and syntaxes optimized for each product. Since news media often cover new
COMMERCIALIZATION OF TECHNOLOGY NEWS 7
TABLE 1
Time frames and search syntaxes
Time frame
HLEAD refers to Headline or Lead. For Samsung products, product names (e.g., Galaxy) were not
used as search terms because many articles on Samsung products did not include product names
but used generic terms such as phones or tablets instead.
electronic products during their development phase,1 the designated time frame starts 12
months before the ofcial launch of a product, which ensures a comprehensive examin-
ation of its coverage, and ends in January 2014. Each LexisNexis search syntax consists
of two attributes: the company name (e.g., Apple) and the product (e.g., iPhone). Table 1
lists all search terms.
To compare the amount of coverage on Apple products against their market share
(RQ2), this study analyzed iPhones market share data retrieved from comScores US
mobile subscriber market share press releases from October 2010 to November 2012
(e.g., comScore 2011) as well as comScores US smartphone subscriber market share press
releases from September 2012 to January 2014 (e.g., comScore 2013); iPads 20102016
global market share data were provided by International Data Corporation (IDC).
To examine how The New York Times and USA Today covered Apple products (RQ3
and RQ4), a content analysis on the coverage of iPhones was conducted. To make sure
the analysis focuses on news articles that center on the product as opposed to news articles
that mentioned it in passing, this portion of the analysis includes news articles that have the
name of the product (i.e., iPhone) in the headlines, as journalism practice suggests that
headlines encompass central components of a news story. The sample consists of 434
news headlines215 from the New York Times and 219 from USA Todaywith the
product name (iPhone) in each headline.
The content analysis examines the following variables: whether the product is por-
trayed in positive, neutral, or negative light (coders were instructed to evaluate the
image of the product from a potential consumers perspective); reference to forecast of
future product release or press conferences; reference to product features (e.g., touch
screen, retina display, voice assistant); reference to price information; reference to problems
of the product (e.g., antenna reception issues); speculations about future product specica-
tions; reference to sales/revenue/prot data; reference to Apples competitors (e.g.,
Samsung); reference to Apples industry partners (e.g., AT&T).
8 HSIANG IRIS CHYI AND ANGELA M. LEE
The unit of analysis is the headline of the news article, which is the most salient
component of a news story (Manjoo 2013; Wauters 2010). Two coders, both undergraduate
students in Journalism, performed the coding after a training session. Two rounds of pret-
ests were conducted on 5 percent of the sample via random selection. This study adopted
the percent agreement approach,2 a standard reliability measure, when calculating inter-
coder reliability (Poindexter and McCombs 2000). The analysis achieved inter-coder
reliability between 85 and 100 percent for all variables.
Results
RQ1 asked about the amount of coverage the two national newspapers devoted to
Apple products and competitors. The analysis revealed that the amount of coverage was
very unevenly distributed. Within the time frame specied for each product (Table 1),
The New York Times published 579 articles about iPhones, 109 articles about Samsung
phones, and only 28 articles about Google Nexus. The same pattern characterizes USA
Todays smartphone coveragewith 386 articles on iPhones, 51 on Samsung phones,
and 26 on Google phones. For tablets, iPads also garnered far more attention than
Samsung tablets and Kindle Fire. Figure 1 illustrates the total amount of coverage each
newspaper devoted to these products.
Taking into consideration that some products have a longer history than others (and
thus may have accumulated more coverage over time), further analysis examined the
FIGURE 1
Amount of coverage: total number of articles since product launch
COMMERCIALIZATION OF TECHNOLOGY NEWS 9
FIGURE 2
Frequency of coverage: average number of articles per month since product launch
TABLE 2
Amount and frequency of coverage: smartphones and tablets
157 stories on iPhones, while only 9 articles were about Samsung phones. In 2013, when the
gap was the least prominent, still 123 stories focused on iPhones and only 63 on Samsung
phones (Figure 3).
Figure 4 presents iPhones market share in the US mobile subscriber market from
October 2010 to November 2012. During this period, smartphone penetration was below
50 percent. Samsung was the market leader, while Apple penetrated no more than 20
percent of the overall mobile market. However, the overwhelming amount of coverage
was devoted to iPhones as presented in Figure 3.
Starting toward the end of 2012, comScore surveyed smartphone subscribers only
thus Figures 4 and 5 are presented separately. In this more narrowly dened market, Apple
was the leading brand. Figure 5 presents iPhones market share in the US smartphone
market from September 2012 to January 2014. Apples market share was 5683 percent
more than Samsungs. Still, compared with the difference in the amount of coverage pre-
sented in Figure 3, iPhones received disproportionate coverage during these years.
On the tablet side, the analysis rst documented the amount of coverage on iPads
and Samsung tablets year by year (20102013). For each of these years, iPhones received
more coverage than Samsung tablets by a wide margin. For example, in 2012, The New York
Times and USA Today together published 123 stories on iPads and only 17 articles on
Samsung tablets. In 2013, when the gap was the least prominent, still 56 stories focused
on iPads and only 15 on Samsung tablets (Figure 6).
In terms of market share, Apples iPad as the rst tablet in the world enjoyed high
market share in 2010 when it was rst launched, which has since been characterized by
a downward trend (Figure 7). The amount of coverage as illustrated in Figure 6,
however, increased substantially from 2010 to 2012, suggesting a disconnect between
market share and the amount of coverage. In contrast, Samsung tablets gained substantial
market share by 2013 and 2014 (Figure 7), but they did not receive a proportionate amount
of coverage, as Figure 6 indicates.
Overall, iPhones and iPads were both disproportionately over-covered in relation to
their market share.
RQ3 asked what types of information these two newspapers emphasized when cov-
ering Apple products. Results of the content analysis showed that more than one-third (36.2
COMMERCIALIZATION OF TECHNOLOGY NEWS 11
FIGURE 3
Amount of coverage of smartphones by year: total number of articles published in The
New York Times and USA Today
FIGURE 4
Share of iPhones versus Samsung phones in the US mobile market. Market share data
were retrieved from comScore US mobile subscriber market share reports (October
2010 to November 2012)
12 HSIANG IRIS CHYI AND ANGELA M. LEE
FIGURE 5
Share of iPhones versus Samsung phones in the US smartphone market. Market share
data were retrieved from comScore US smartphone subscriber market share reports
(September 2012 to January 2014). Unlike in Figure 4, market share data were based
on smartphone subscribers only
percent) of the headlines (N = 434) portrayed the iPhone in a positive light,3 with 46.3
percent portraying it neutrally,4 and 17.4 percent casting a negative light.5
Regarding the substance of the content, about 6.7 percent of the headlines focused
on product features,6 another 6.7 percent focused on the performance of the product in the
market in terms of sales, revenue, or prot (of which 60 percent reported better-than-
expected performance, and 31 percent reported worse-than-expected expectations),7 5.3
percent forecast product release or press conferences,8 3.7 percent speculated the speci-
cations of future products,9 and 2.5 percent mentioned price information.10 All these poten-
tially serve advertising purposes or resemble press releases because they emphasize
positive attributes of the product. But also 6.5 percent of the headlines featured problems
of the iPhone.11
In addition, 11 percent of the headlines introduced the iPhone in a competitive
context by naming a competitor, and 15.4 percent mentioned Apples industry partnership.
RQ4 asked whether these two publications covered Apple products differently. In
terms of quantity, The New York Times devoted much more attention to these products
COMMERCIALIZATION OF TECHNOLOGY NEWS 13
FIGURE 6
Amount of coverage of tablets by year: total number of articles published in The
New York Times and USA Today
than USA Today did. For all the products under study, the former published more articles
than the latter (Table 2).
Along the quality dimension, cross-tab analyses revealed a major difference in the
tone of the headlines. Specically, 48.8 percent of USA Todays headlines portrayed the
iPhone in a positive light; only 23.7 percent of The New York Times headlines did so. In
other words, USA Today was twice as likely to portray the iPhone favorably as The
New York Times (2 = 31.9, df = 2, p < 0.001). No other signicant differences between
these two newspapers were found, such as forecast of future product release or press con-
ferences, reference to product features, price information, problems of the product, specu-
lations about future product specications, reference to sales/revenue/prot data, and
reference to Apples competitors or industry partners.
Discussion
As the rst empirical examination on US newspapers coverage of Apple products,
this study generated a number of ndings worthy of discussion. Along the quantity
dimension, both newspapers devoted a great amount of coverage on iPhones and iPads
in relation to their competition, leading to both products high salience on the media
agenda. Not only that, both iPhones and iPads were disproportionately over-covered in
relation to their market share, compared to their competitors. It should be noted that
The New York Times also frequently published articles on gadgets such as iPhones and
iPads in its technology blogs (e.g., Bits). While we did not include articles from those
blogs in this study because they were online-only, if we were to consider the amount of
coverage on Apple products available on all platforms, the disparity between market
14 HSIANG IRIS CHYI AND ANGELA M. LEE
FIGURE 7
Share of iPads versus Samsung tablets in the global tablet market. Market share data were
provided by IDC Personal Computing Devices Tracker
share and disproportionate over-coverage of Apple products in The New York Times is even
greater.
These ndings raise several questions: Why did Apple products receive so much cov-
erage? Should they? Some suggested that Apple gets more media attention because of pre-
dictable product cycles and excellent PR practicefor example, offering journalists
attending their press events access to both the new product and sources (Slabbert
2014). On the demand side, Apple means trafc (Wright 2015). Given todays metrics-
driven practice in most newsrooms (Groves and Brown-Smith 2011; Lee, Lewis, and
Powers 2014; MacGregor 2007), it is increasingly difcult for journalists to resist the tempta-
tion to prioritize eyeballs.
Granted, technological innovation is important and deserves news coverage, and
Apple, because of its invention of the iPhone and iPad, is (or was) denitely an innovator
in mobile technology. Still, that does not justify the observed landslide in the amount of
coverage, because not all reincarnations of the iPhone and iPad represent revolutionary
technological advancements that warrant so much media attention (e.g., when the
newer models featured bigger screens or faster processors). Competition exists, and
market share is an indicator of the relative importance of a product in societythe more
people using a product, the more relevant that product is to the general public. This is
not to say that market share should drive news coverage, but if the amount of coverage
COMMERCIALIZATION OF TECHNOLOGY NEWS 15
does not generally reect a products relevance in society, it is likely that unbalanced cover-
age prompts demand that otherwise may not exist (e.g., by promoting news consumers
intention to purchase Apple products). While news media are supposed to serve the
public, it is not uncommon that they are accused of serving corporate interests instead
(Bettig and Hall 2012). Given the plausible impact of exemplars on base-rate fallacy, the
over-coverage of Apple products deserves further investigation through critical lens.
In addition to analyzing the amount of Apple news, this study also examined quali-
tative aspects of such coverage. Given that over one-third of the iPhone stories in The
New York Times and USA Today portrayed the product favorably and 17.4 percent cast a
negative light, the suspicion about the blurred boundary between news and promotion
in technology news is at least partially conrmed. In fact, USA Todays propensity (nearly
50 percent) to portray iPhones favorably is daunting. From the media ethics perspective,
one must ask: To what extent are such news stories different from promotional content,
or even native advertisements? Are they violating codes of ethics and hurting news credi-
bility? Since an independent press is sine qua non to ethical journalism, any form of conict
of interestreal or perceivedis unacceptable because it undermines news credibility and
decreases news consumption, which inadvertently harms democracy.
From consumers perspective, how do such stories provide value in a manner that is
unbiased and informative amidst countless online sources offering similar information?
While reframing PR information is a relatively easy, inexpensive way to produce news,
such reports generally are of little value to readers (Pander Maat and de Jong 2013).
While some readers may want all they can know about the next Apple gadget,
empirical ndings from this study suggest that news coverage about Apple products is pro-
blematic along both quantity and quality dimensions. Technology news should quantitat-
ively reect an innovations social importance and qualitatively deliver unique value to
news consumers.
2013). Nonetheless, since news headlines are often a lot shorter than news articles, they
offer an opportunity to examine the kinds of information that is prioritized given space con-
straints. In other words, compared to a 500-word news article, editors use of a dozen words
in the headlines offers clues as to what they think are the essence of the news articles, or
what they think will effectively grab news readers attention (Lake 2011). After all, the per-
ceived newsworthiness of a story hinges on the journalists ability to synthesize key infor-
mation in the headline and the lead paragraph (Thomson, White, and Kitley 2008).
Finally, it should be noted that Apples biggest competitor, Samsung, is a Korea-
based company. Since cross-cultural differences (in PR strategies or managerial styles, for
example) may play a part in how technology products are marketed to US consumers,
future studies may explore cross-cultural factors and assess how they inuence media cov-
erage, if at all.
In sum, this exploratory analysis has raised questions regarding the commercializa-
tion of technology news along quantity and quality dimensions. Ultimately, the purpose
of news is to inform the public (Kovach and Rosenstiel 2014), not to cultivate or promote
consumerism; and technology news should be no exception.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Dylan Baddour and Ren Castro for their contribution
during the research process. We also thank Jitesh Ubrani and Mike Shirer for their assistance
with IDC Personal Computing Devices Tracker data.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conict of interest was reported by the authors.
FUNDING
This project was supported by the Student Enrichment Fund offered by the School of Jour-
nalism at the University of Texas at Austin.
NOTES
1. For example, the rst iPhone was ofcially launched on June 29, 2007, but Apple made
the announcement on January 9, 2007, several months before the ofcial launch.
2. Percent agreement is the number of agreements divided by the total number of
measures.
3. Headlines that suggest the product is innovative, popular, or successful are considered
positive. For example, After iPhone Sales Bonanza in China, Apples Prot Nearly
Doubles (The New York Times); Finding Home for Old iPhone; Early Adopters Look
Forward to New Version (USA Today).
4. Headlines that are descriptive in nature or present a balanced view about the product are
considered neutral. For example, Clues in an iPhone Autopsy (The New York Times);
Latest iPhone Apps Bring New Featuresand Costs; Search, Cut and Paste Functions
in Next Wave (USA Today).
COMMERCIALIZATION OF TECHNOLOGY NEWS 17
5. Headlines that suggest disappointment or faults with the product are considered nega-
tive. For example, Verizon Deal May Expose iPhone Flaws (The New York Times); Static
Continues for iPhone Debut; Software Hitches, Demand Shortfalls Frustrate Buyers (USA
Today).
6. For example, Apple Packs All Kinds of High-tech Goodies into iPhone; In Addition to
iPod, Theres E-mail, Camera (USA Today).
7. For example, Apple Prot Doubles in its First Quarter; Sales of iPhones, iPads Soared
During Holidays (USA Today); Apple Prot Soars Stunning 125%; Worldwide Sales of
iPhone Get the Credit (USA Today); Apple Misses iPhone Forecasts; Shares Plunge
10% After Hours (USA Today).
8. For example, Worry Over Sales Spurs Talk of Cheaper iPhones (The New York Times);
Verizon Finally to Get iPhone? Announcement Planned for Tuesday (USA Today).
9. For example, Anticipation for iPhone 5 (The New York Times); Apple Tells F.C.C. it is Still
Pondering Google Voice Application for the iPhone (The New York Times); For Apples
Next Trick ; After iPhone Comes What? (USA Today).
10. For example, Let the iPhone Hype Begin Again; New Versions Faster, Only $199, and
Arrives July 11 (USA Today); Early iPhone Buyers to Get $100 Credit; Many Angry
About Quick $200 Price Reduction (USA Today).
11. For example, Dropped Calls Plague iPhone 3G; Apple and AT& T Working Together on a
Software Fix (USA Today); iPhone 5 Woes Go Beyond Maps; Customers Gripe About
Battery Life, Wi-Fi Issues (USA Today).
REFERENCES
Associated Press. 2014. AP News Values & Principles. Accessed October 27. http://www.ap.org/
company/news-values.
Bar-Hillel, Maya. 1980. The Base-Rate Fallacy in Probability Judgments. Acta Psychologica 44 (3):
21133. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(80)90046-3.
Bettig, Ronald V., and Jeanne Lynn Hall. 2012. The News and Advertising Industries: All the News
That Fits. In Big Media, Big Money: Cultural Texts and Political Economics. 2nd ed., 157191.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleeld.
Bhatia, Vijay. 2014. Worlds of Written Discourse: A Genre-Based View. Reprint edition. Advances in
Applied Linguistics. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic.
Catenaccio, Paola. 2008. Press Releases as a Hybrid Genre: Addressing the Informative/Pro-
motional Conundrum. Pragmatics 18 (1): 932.
Chitika. 2014. Holiday Mobile Progress Report: iPhone, Kindle, Surface Biggest Winners of
Holiday Season. Online Advertising Network. January 2. http://chitika.com/insights/2014/
holiday-mobile-update.
Chyi, Hsiang Iris, and Maxwell E. McCombs. 2004. Media Salience and the Process of Framing:
Coverage of the Columbine School Shootings. Journalism and Mass Communication Quar-
terly 81 (1): 2235.
Commission on Freedom of the Press. 1947. A Free and Responsible Press. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
comScore. 2011. comScore Reports January 2011 U.S. Mobile Subscriber Market Share. March
7. http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press-Releases/2011/3/comScore-Reports-January-
2011-US-Mobile-Subscriber-Market-Share.
18 HSIANG IRIS CHYI AND ANGELA M. LEE
comScore. 2013. comScore Reports January 2013 U.S. Smartphone Subscriber Market Share.
March 6. http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press-Releases/2013/3/comScore-Reports-
January-2013-U.S.-Smartphone-Subscriber-Market-Share.
comScore. 2014. comScore Reports January 2014 U.S. Smartphone Subscriber Market Share.
comScore, Inc. March 7. http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press-Releases/2014/3/
comScore-Reports-January-2014-US-Smartphone-Subscriber-Market-Share.
Curtin, Patricia A. 1998. Reevaluating Public Relations Information Subsidies: Market-Driven
Journalism and Agenda-Building Theory and Practice. Journal of Public Relations Research
11 (1): 5390. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr1101_03.
Davies, Nick. 2009. Flat Earth News: An Award-Winning Reporter Exposes Falsehood, Distortion and
Propaganda in the Global Media. London: Random House UK.
Golan, Guy. 2007. Inter-Media Agenda Setting and Global News Coverage: Assessing the Inu-
ence of the New York Times on Three Network Television Evening News Programs. Jour-
nalism Studies 7 (2): 323333.
Groves, Jonathan, and Carrie Brown-Smith. 2011. Stopping the Presses: A Longitudinal Case
Study of the Christian Science Monitor Transition From Print Daily to Web Always.
#ISOJ The Ofcial Research Journal of the International Symposium on Online Journalism
1 (2): 86128.
Harcup, Tony, and Deirdre ONeill. 2016. What Is News? Journalism Studies, March, 119. doi:10.
1080/1461670X.2016.1150193.
Holiday, Ryan. 2012. Apples Free Ride: Why Journalists Treat Product Launches like News.
Observer. September 21. http://observer.com/2012/09/apples-free-ride-why-journalists-
treat-product-launches-like-news/.
Hong, Soon Yeon. 2008. The Relationship Between Newsworthiness and Publication of News
Releases in the Media. Public Relations Review 34 (3): 29799. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.
03.033.
Iyengar, Shanto. 1991. Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Jacobs, Geert. 1999. Preformulating the News: An Analysis of the Metapragmatics of Press Releases.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kovach, Bill, and Tom Rosenstiel. 2014. The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know
and the Public Should Expect. 3rd ed. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Lake, Chris. 2011. How to Optimise Headlines Using the 65 Character Rule. Econsultancy: Achieve
Digital Excellence. October 27. http://econsultancy.com/blog/8196-how-to-optimise-
headlines-using-the-65-character-rule?utm_campaign=bloglikes&utm_medium=social
network&utm_source=facebook.
Lee, Angela M. 2015. Social Media and Speed-Driven Journalism: Expectations and Practices.
International Journal on Media Management 17 (4): 21739. doi:10.1080/14241277.2015.
1107566.
Lee, Angela M., Seth C. Lewis, and Matthew Powers. 2014. Audience Clicks and News Placement:
A Study of Time-Lagged Inuence in Online Journalism. Communication Research 41 (4):
50530. doi:10.1177/0093650212467031.
MacGregor, Phil. 2007. Tracking the Online Audience: Metric Data Start a Subtle Revolution.
Journalism Studies 8 (2): 28098. doi:10.1080/14616700601148879.
Malcolm, Hadley. 2014. USA TODAY No. 1 Newspaper in Daily Circulation. USA Today.
May 1. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/05/01/usa-today-daily-
circulation/8573269/.
COMMERCIALIZATION OF TECHNOLOGY NEWS 19
Manjoo, Farhad. 2013. You Wont Finish This Article. Slate, June 6. http://www.slate.com/
articles/technology/technology/2013/06/how_people_read_online_why_you_won_t_
nish_this_article.html.
McCombs, Maxwell. 2014. Setting the Agenda: Mass Media and Public Opinion. 2 edition. Cam-
bridge, UK: Polity Press.
McLaren, Yvonne, and Calin Gurau. 2005. Characterising the Genre of the Corporate Press
Release. LSP and Professional Communication (2001-2008) 5 (1): 1030.
Morton, Linda P., and John Warren. 1992a. Acceptance Characteristics of Hometown Press
Releases. Public Relations Review 18 (4): 38590. doi:10.1016/0363-8111(92)90030-3.
Morton, Linda P., and John Warren. 1992b. News Elements and Editors Choices. Public Relations
Review 18 (1): 4752. doi:10.1016/0363-8111(92)90020-Y.
Pander Maat, Henk. 2007. How Promotional Language in Press Releases Is Dealt with by Journal-
ists: Genre Mixing or Genre Conict? Journal of Business Communication 44 (1): 5995.
doi:10.1177/0021943606295780.
Pander Maat, Henk. 2008. Editing and Genre Conict: How Newspaper Journalists Clarify and
Neutralize Press Release Copy. Pragmatics 18 (1): 85111.
Pander Maat, Henk, and C. de Jong. 2013. How Newspaper Journalists Reframe Product Press
Release Information. Journalism 14 (3): 34871. doi:10.1177/1464884912448914.
Picard, Robert. 2008. Shifts in Newspaper Advertising Expenditures and Their Implications for
the Future of Newspapers. Journalism Studies 9 (5): 70416. doi:10.1080/
14616700802207649.
Poindexter, Paula M., and Maxwell E. McCombs. 2000. Research in Mass Communication: A Prac-
tical Guide. 1st ed. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins.
Reese, Stephen D., and Lucig H. Danielian. 1989. Intermedia Inuence and the Drug Issue: Con-
verging on Cocaine. In Communication Campaigns About Drugs: Government, Media, and
the Public, edited by Pamela J. Shoemaker, 2945. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sissons, Helen. 2012. Journalism and Public Relations: A Tale of Two Discourses. Discourse &
Communication 6 (3): 273294.
Slabbert, Blayne. 2014. Why Does Apple Get so Much Coverage? Stuff.co.nz. October 1. http://
www.stuff.co.nz/technology/gadgets/61608816/why-does-apple-get-so-much-coverage.
Society of Professional Journalists. 2012. Society of Professional Journalists: SPJ Code of Ethics.
SPJ Code of Ethics. http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp.
The New York Times Company. 2005. The New York Times Company Policy on Ethics in Journal-
ism. October. http://www.nytco.com/press/ethics.html.
The Washington Post. 2003. The Washington Posts Code of Ethics. The American Society of
Newspaper Editors. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/teachers/lessonplans/media/
mediaethics_handout4.pdf.
Thomas, Daniel. 2014. Smartphone Makers Look to Other Products as Saturation Looms. Finan-
cial Times, June 16. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ed881b3a-f487-11e3-a143-00144feabdc0.
html#axzz3X9NefbSr.
Thomson, Elizabeth A., Peter R. R. White, and Philip Kitley. 2008. Objectivity and Hard News
Reporting Across Cultures. Journalism Studies 9 (2): 21228. doi:10.1080/
14616700701848261.
Turk, Judy VanSlyke. 1985. Information Subsidies and Inuence. Public Relations Review 11 (3):
1025. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(85)80078-3.
Van Hout, Tom, Henk Pander Maat, and Wim De Preter. 2011. Writing From News Sources: The
Case of Apple TV. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (7): 18761889.
20 HSIANG IRIS CHYI AND ANGELA M. LEE
Walters, Lynne Masel, and Timothy N. Walters. 1992. Environment of Condence: Daily Newspa-
per Use of Press Releases. Public Relations Review 18 (1): 3146. doi:10.1016/0363-8111
(92)90019-U.
Wauters, Robin. 2010. Report: 44% of Google News Visitors Scan Headlines, Dont Click through.
TechCrunch. January 19. http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/19/outsell-google-news/.
Welles, Chris. 1991. Economics and Business Reporting. In The Columbia Knight-Bagehot Guide
to Economics and Business Journalism, edited by Pamela Hollie Kluge, xiiixxi. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Wright, Mic. 2015. Heres What Will Happen after the New iPhone Is Announced. The Next Web.
August 28. http://thenextweb.com/apple/2015/08/28/one-more-thing-give-us-your-
money-punks/.
Wu, H. Denis, and Arati Bechtel. 2002. Web Site Use and News Topic and Type. Journalism &
Mass Communication Quarterly 79 (1): 7386. doi:10.1177/107769900207900106.
Zerback, T., and N. Fawzi. 2016. Can Online Exemplars Trigger a Spiral of Silence? Examining the
Effects of Exemplar Opinions on Perceptions of Public Opinion and Speaking out. New
Media & Society January, doi:10.1177/1461444815625942.
Zillmann, Dolf. 1999. Exemplication Theory: Judging the Whole by Some of Its Parts. Media
Psychology 1 (1): 6994. doi:10.1207/s1532785xmep0101_5.
Zillmann, Dolf, and Hans-Bernd Brosius. 2000. Exemplication in Communication: The Inuence of
Case Reports on the Perception of Issues. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
Hsiang Iris Chyi (author to whom correspondence should be addressed), School of Jour-
nalism, The University of Texas at Austin, USA. E-mail: chyi@mail.utexas.edu. Web:
irischyi.com
Angela M. Lee, School of Arts, Technology, and Emerging Communication, The University
of Texas at Dallas, USA. E-mail: angela.lee@utdallas.edu. Web: http://www.utdallas.
edu/atec/lee/