Skip to Content View Previous Reports

Network Content Analysis

Content Analysis

What are Americans now getting from network news?

In recent years, five major trends have dominated the broadcast news divisions: shrinking audience, intensifying budget constraints, competition from 24-hour cable news, the fast growth and then decline of prime time news magazines, and the increased influence within news divisions of morning programs.

It seems logical to ask what impact they are having on what viewers see. Have the nightly newscasts retreated from their traditional role of resembling, in effect, the front-page of the daily newspaper, in favor of becoming more infotainment-oriented? Have the journalistic styles of the nightly newscasts and the morning programs converged to the extent that the first hour of the morning programs is now an alternative source for the same type of news? Has PBS’s “NewsHour” managed to stake out a separate journalistic terrain in which it not only covers stories differently but also covers altogether different stories than the three network news programs?

To get answers, this study conducted a content analysis of all three network evening and morning newscasts, as well as the “NewsHour” on PBS. The study encompassed a month of weekday newscasts (20 days), selected to include four of each weekday (see Methodology), 110 hours of news programming, an examination of nearly 2,000 separate stories.1 Earlier studies have offered some sense of the news agenda of prime time television news magazines.

The quick answers:

The Three Commercial Nightly Newscasts

The best evidence suggests there is something of a U-curve to the nightly news agenda over the last 20 years. Looking at studies from different researchers, there was a steady move after the Cold War toward subjects like entertainment, lifestyle and celebrity crimes, and away from subjects such as international events and public policy debates. That move toward a lighter agenda began to ease in the late 1990s and the news agenda has become even more serious again after September 11.

The Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) has tracked the news agenda — the topics of stories — on network nightly news off and on for 26 years. The Tyndall Report, using slightly different methodology, has tracked time devoted to different topics on network news every weeknight for 16 years. The Center for Media and Public Affairs, whose president is Robert Lichter, has published tracking of topics by story on network news every night (weekday and weekend) going back to 1990 using a methodology similar to that of the PEJ. All three approaches concur in revealing this gradual shifting of the news agenda on nightly news.2

The methodology of the Tyndall Report, whose publisher is Andrew Tyndall, counts specific story themes but not broader topic categories. The report shows that coverage of U.S. foreign policy has returned to levels found at the end of the Cold War, although coverage of international affairs not related to the U.S. has not. But Tyndall also notes that the war in Iraq is a singular event that makes projections into the future uncertain. The PEJ’s more episodic measurements of the full topic agenda of nightly newscasts, reinforces Tyndall’s findings about international coverage. It also finds, though, that the agenda is still less oriented to government and public policy than in the 1970’s and 80’s. Government coverage had declined to just 5% in 2001 and 2002, down from 32% in 1987. In the 2003 study, government topics climbed back to 16% of all stories, though still just half of where it was in 1987.

If coverage of foreign affairs and government were up, what was down? Generally crime and more lifestyle and entertainment-oriented news topics. Stories were half as likely to be about crime in 2003 than they were in 2002 (6 percent in 2003 versus 12 percent in 2002.) Entertainment and lifestyle coverage dropped to just 8 percent of stories; these topics had come to make up nearly 20 percent of stories studied in 2001. They declined after September 11 and rose back to 19 percent of stories in the first six months of 2002.

Science coverage appears to have declined somewhat over the last two years (to 2 percent of stories).

Almost certainly one reason for the more traditional agenda on nightly news is the foreign policy of the current administration. Given the Bush administration’s decision to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the networks have had little choice but to have government, military or foreign policy dominate their story selection, irrespective of cost.

Yet one interesting thing about the 2003 war in Iraq and the Gulf War 12 years ago, Tyndall says, is that the usual patterns of overseas coverage were not followed. Increased U.S. foreign policy coverage normally has the effect of increased international coverage unrelated to U.S. foreign policy as reporters try to put U.S. actions in a global context. That tended to happen during the Cold War, when coverage of the internal affairs of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe increased. It also happened immediately after the September 11 attacks, but it did not continue in 2003.

Tyndall also suggests words like hard and soft news may be misleading in describing the shift. In the 1970s, he reminds us, Walter Cronkite, who was then the CBS anchor, would often close with a four-or-five-minute human-interest piece by Charles Kuralt “On the Road.” Tyndall suggests that in the 1990s the networks added an array of family and lifestyle topics, covering such things as childrearing, sexuality, reproduction, tobacco, nutrition, obesity, eldercare and early education. He says that demographic calculations to target more women go into the decisions to cover these topics. But he suggests that it is unfair to consider these necessarily less serious issues.

While the domestic agenda has broadened and become a larger part of network news over the years, some topics are notably absent in the composite month of newscasts studied in 2003. The environment, for instance, made up just 1 percent of the stories on nightly news. The same was true of education, transportation and religion. Technology made up even less. Coverage of the healthcare system in the country made up 3 percent of the stories. By contrast, accidents and disasters (excluding weather) made up 6 percent of the stories on the nightly news.

Nightly News Topics Over Time
Percent of All Stories

1977 1987 1997 June 2001 Oct. 2001 2002 2003
Government 37% 32% 18% 5% 7% 5% 16%
Foreign/Military 21 19 15 17 10 21 25
Defense 1 1 3 6 29 16 3
Domestic 8 7 5 18 34 12 16
Crime 8 7 13 12 4 12 6
Business 6 11 7 14 5 11 12
Celebrity/Enter. 2 3 8 5 0 2 2
Lifestyle 4 11 14 13 1 17 6
Science 4 5 6 4 11 2 2
Accidents/Disasters 9 5 10 4 0 3 10
Other N.A. N.A. N.A. 3 0 N.A. 2

*Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.

Looked at another way, if you watched a commercial nightly newscast every weeknight for a month – some 10 hours of programming – you would have seen:3

How does this news agenda compare to Page A-1 of America’s newspapers?

The three network nightly newscasts remain the closest thing one can find to it on commercial television. While newspaper front pages are slightly more oriented to government and slightly less oriented to foreign affairs and the war, in the main they are quite similar. Neither focused heavily on crime, and both avoided celebrity and lifestyle coverage.

Topics in the News: Newspapers vs. Nightly News, 2003
Percent of All Stories

(Page A1 only)
Commercial Nightly News PBS “Newshour”
Government 16% 26% 24%
Foreign/Military 25 18 39
Defense 3 3 *
Domestic 16 22 11
Crime 6 7 2
Business 12 6 11
Celebrity/Enter. 2 1 1
Lifestyle 6 8 3
Science 2 3 3
Accidents/Disasters 10 4 4
Other 2 2 2

*Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.

The commercial nightly news was more likely to focus on always-graphic disasters (10 percent versus 4 percent of newspaper front pages). They were also twice as likely to carry business stories, though a portion of that is the nightly recitation of the advance or decline of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, and newspapers normally have a separate section devoted exclusively to business.

The “NewsHour” on the noncommercial PBS is closer to newspaper front pages in its orientation toward government. And, it focused more on foreign affairs than either newspaper front pages or commercial nightly news. Fully 63 percent of “NewsHour” stories studied were government and foreign affairs. The program, in turn, carried less other kinds of domestic news, including crime.

Morning News vs. Evening News Agenda

If nightly news is still the place where viewers can get the most comprehensive sense of the day’s events, morning news programs have become clearly more important to network news divisions (see Audience and Economics). They have held onto more of their audience and become more important economically to network fortunes.

What are Americans getting in the morning, and how does it compare to evening news? Here we can compare how nightly and morning news allocate their total time for news (rather than just story counts).

The morning news format is suited to flexibility. The programs will transform themselves into covering major breaking news in times of crisis. They revert back to a softer mix in more normal times. Recent times have seen a series of crises.

Yet even during major events, network morning programs offer a markedly different and softer news agenda than nightly news. The two types of newscasts, in other words, are hardly substitutes for each other. And that is not just a matter of approach, where the morning programs emphasize live interviews by the anchors and the evening programs feature edited pieces taped by correspondents.

Compared with the total time on nightly newscasts, the morning news programs:

And these differences are just looking at the first hour of morning news – the more hard-news-oriented hour. If the second hour (and the third in the case of the “Today” show on NBC) had been sampled as well, the differences would have almost certainly been even more pronounced.

Given that morning news ratings are stable or rising, while evening is shrinking, this has significant implications. Those who get their television news in the morning are learning about a different agenda of what matters and are far more likely to talk about the trial in the murder of Laci Peterson, Michael Jackson’s child-molestation case or Tom Cruise’s movie, even in the supposedly hard-news hour of the morning, than those who get their news in the evening. When they discuss the war in Iraq around the water cooler, it is personalized as human interest in Jessica Lynch rather than issues such as compliance with Security Council resolutions. It is a world where the economy is covered as household finance tips; where science is covered as innovations in personal health or consumer electronics; and where environmental stories such as global warming are covered as the latest weather disaster.

Topics in Network News, 2003
Percent of All Time

Topic Network Morning Network Nightly Comm. PBS Newshour
Government 8% 17% 33%
Foreign/Military 13 26 32
Defense 5 3 1
Domestic 11 18 13
Crime 19 5 1
Business 1 9 5
Celebrity/Enter. 14 2 *
Lifestyle 15 7 6
Science 1 2 3
Accidents/Disasters 9 9 2
Other 3 2 3

*Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.

On the other hand, it might be a mistake to imagine that these programs gained in ratings in 2003 because of a lighter news agenda. Indeed, some evidence suggests the morning news programs have moved more in the direction of traditional news about government and foreign affairs lately, thanks, perhaps, to several major events.

Research by the Tyndall Report finds that the 2000 Florida recount represented one such moment. Viewers waking up wanted to know who the next President was, and ratings rose. Eight months later, however, a study of one month of morning show content by the Project for Excellence in Journalism in 2001 saw little in the way of substantive coverage of major news events. That changed after September 11, when coverage became more serious again. Yet that, too, did not last. A PEJ study of the first six months of 2002 found a return to softer topics, though not as far back as in the summer of 2001.

In 2003, the content analysis finds, the war in Iraq represented another spike in coverage of major events in the morning television news and a move toward a more serious agenda.

In June 2001, for instance, only 4 percent of morning stories pertained to government, defense or foreign affairs. In the first half of 2002, that had risen to 14 percent of stories. In 2003, that had doubled again to 29 percent.

Morning News Topics Over Time
Percent of All Stories

June 2001 Oct. 2001 2002 2003
Government 1% 5% 2% 8%
Foreign/Military 3 9 7 17
Defense * 15 5 4
Domestic 3 29 8 10
Crime 12 2 13 18
Business 4 3 3 2
Celebrity/Enter. 25 12 20 11
Lifestyle 45 11 38 14
Science 5 14 2 2
Accidents/Disasters 2 1 1 11
Other 0 0 N.A. 3

* Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.

While celebrity and lifestyle make up a large percentage of morning news, that percentage is apparently down, from 70 percent of all stories in June 2001 and 58 percent in 2002 to 25 percent in 2003.

Still, to the extent that morning news is becoming the key newscast in any news division, this has significant implications in terms of the values of the news division, the expertise of its reporters and producers, and the knowledge and brand that it provides to the American public. Their prominence and popularity represent a change in the mission of the network news divisions to an emphasis of less serious policy-oriented fare. The fact that these divisions’ resources, promotional efforts, star anchors and profits are focused more than they were 15 years ago on the morning programs, and less on their evening newscasts, demonstrates a shift in the center of gravity of their news values.

The Lehrer News Menu

If the nightly news has become somewhat less important, and the morning programs more important, to what extent has that created a larger niche for public broadcasting’s “NewsHour” with Jim Lehrer? The Lehrer show by reputation certainly would be positioned as the most traditional, the most hard-news oriented, the most likely to report in depth on issues that others in television might shun. Is that borne out in the content analysis? Does the “NewsHour” cover a different agenda of topics?

The content study suggests that in some ways, Lehrer is indeed staking out a distinct journalistic terrain for itself, perhaps one carefully tailored to a PBS audience. With an hour-long newscast and feature interviews, it takes on more of the format of the morning shows. At the same time, though, its news agenda is more in line with the evening news: a commitment to foreign policy and government, and a disdain for entertainment, celebrity and pop culture – only more so. The “NewsHour” spends even less time than evening news on crime, accidents and disasters.

The program’s coverage of government and domestic issues, however, may be influenced by other considerations as well. For one, focusing on interviews with government newsmakers is an inexpensive way to do news, particularly for a broadcast based in Washington.

Beyond the question of topics, there are a host of other differences in the content of evening, morning and noncommercial news.

News Content Versus Ads and Teases

These differences begin with how much news content one gets inside each of these programs. For 30 minutes of programming, we examined the average number of news minutes versus advertisements and promotional announcements.

The nightly newscasts used to be described as 22 minutes of news in a 30-minute program.4 That is no longer the case. In the month of programs studied, the amount of news on the three commercial nightly newscasts, after teases, promotional announcements and commercials were removed, was closer to 18 minutes 48 seconds. This varied, somewhat noticeably, by network. NBC’s “Nightly News” had significantly more news content (an average of 19 minutes 45 seconds) than either ABC’s “World News Tonight” (18 minutes 30 seconds) or CBS’s “Evening News” (18 minutes 56 seconds).

The evening network news nevertheless had more content time than the morning news programs. In the mornings, only 15 minutes 6 seconds of every half-hour is content (based on the first hour of programming), once the commercials, promotional announcements and teases, and local news inserts are removed.

NBC’s news program again came out on top. In the New York market, where our sample of morning shows was videotaped, the local NBC station averaged 16 minutes 21 seconds per half-hour. The CBS station was second with 14 minutes 54 seconds and ABC was third with 14 minutes 6 seconds.

While local news inserts were not analyzed in this study, they are certainly an important part of the content for morning news shows. According to research by Andrew Tyndall, in the second quarter of 2003 the local New York stations averaged the following amount of time for local news: WABC averaged 6 minutes in the first hour, WCBS 5 averaged minutes 42 seconds, and WNBC averaged 3 minutes 6 seconds.

The “NewsHour” is “commercial-free,” of course, although it still contains teases of what is to come on the program and funding credits and the beginning and end of the program. Still, once those are taken out, there is a good deal more news packed in. In 30 minutes of the “NewsHour,” 26 minutes were news content, more than 7 minutes more than on the commercial networks’ nightly news and 11 minutes more than on the network morning programs.

Nightly News Beyond Topic

Beyond time, what is the structure of the three commercial nightly newscasts in 2004?

They remain the showcase for the work of correspondents, their editors and producers. That is because these programs are made up largely of taped, edited packages. By comparison, the “NewsHour” and the morning programs, with their emphasis on extended interviews, are an anchor’s medium.

Almost the entire news hole on the three commercial nightly newscasts is devoted to edited packages (84 percent of the time on these programs versus the “NewsHour’s” 31 percent and the morning programs’ 36 percent).5

The three networks average 6.8 such packages each evening, at an average length of 138 seconds, including the anchor’s introduction.

Story Origination on Evening News
Percent of All Time

Commercial “NewsHour”
Packages 84% 31%
External Interviews 1 56
Correspondent Interviews 1 0
Stand-ups 2 2
Anchor Reads 12 8
External Sources 0 4
Banter 0 0

*Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.

Sourcing on Nightly News

This reliance on taped packages and correspondents has consequences beyond style. The time involved in writing, editing and checking a story translates into more time to verify facts and more sources than can be found in other story forms, including live interviews. The power to check and to edit is important.

This is quantifiable in the sourcing measurements.

Unlike the live stand-ups, which are the staple format for cable news correspondents, these taped packages are more comprehensively sourced, with named and identified institutions and individuals, often in the form of direct quotations, soundbites from people whose inflection, mood, tone and sincerity viewers can assess directly.

To isolate this, the study examined how many sources a story cited, and whether those sources were named and their level of expertise and potential biases were described so that audiences could determine more for themselves how to evaluate the information.

The less transparency there was, the more audiences would have to accept the word of the news program that these sources were believable. At the bottom of the sourcing scale would be a story based on a lone anonymous source. At the top would be a story with at least four named and fully described sources.

Overall, the three commercial nightly newscasts had higher levels of sourcing on average than did other kinds of news programs. Nearly half of all stories (48 percent) had two or more fully named and described sources, and 18 percent cited four or more of these sources.

What about anonymous sourcing? Overall, less than a third (29%) of nightly news stories contained anonymous sources. Usually the networks made some attempt to describe these anonymous sources so that viewers could have some basis to judge their credibility. Only 14 percent of the stories had at least one anonymous source without any explanation of why the source was credible, such as “CBS has learned” or “sources tell ABC.”

Story Length

For all that people complain about brevity on television news, network nightly newscasts tended to rely either on fairly long stories by modern standards or very short ones.

About half of all stories on the three commercial nightly newscasts, 52 percent, were more than 90 seconds while 42 percent were less than 40 seconds. Very few stories, just 6 percent, fell anywhere in between (41 seconds to 90 seconds), the type of truncated package that is a staple of some local television newscasts. The biggest difference between the commercial network news and the “NewsHour” was that the “NewsHour,” following the format of the morning news, tended to do more very long stories. A third, 33 percent, of its stories were longer than three minutes. The bulk of these long stories, however, were interviews or panel discussion, which often provide in-depth discussions with a limited range of people. The downside is that these often replace edited packages, which are more densely sourced and written and are less vulnerable to an interview subject’s filibustering.

Some in network news say that modern television news stories are probably more densely packed with information than were stories of similar lengths in earlier years. The new technology – satellites, video feeds, computer-generated graphics and more sophisticated editing equipment – allows producers and editors to more easily add more information from more sources. The technology also allows journalists to include more, pithier and shorter soundbites in stories rather than longer but perhaps longwinded ones. Modern audiences are also presumed to process information more quickly. In the period of film in television news, in the mid-1970s and earlier, there was less content available and what was available was more difficult to pack into pieces. As a result, television professionals argue, stories sometimes grew to fill the space.

Bush as Protagonist

For years critics also have argued that television has personalized news, causing journalists to build their stories more around people or institutions, and less around events. This was supposedly especially true of coverage of the presidency. The White House became a backdrop for the president. But even elsewhere, government stories became focused around a single personality, perhaps the mayor in a town, taking on the special interests. Politics became more personal. Television was a character-driven medium.

Does the 2003 content bear this out? To a large degree, no. In all, only 23 percent of evening news stories focused at least half of their content around a single personality, even less than newspapers (32 percent and 28% on newspaper front pages).

Morning Shows

If the nightly news is still built around correspondents and taped, edited packages, morning news is not.

Instead, the majority of time on morning news is spent in live interviews (55 percent), usually conducted by anchors. Only about a third of the time on morning news is taped, edited packages (36 percent).

Reading of the news by people on these programs accounts for 5 percent of the time (but 31 percent of the stories), usually in the news summary at the top of the hour, read not by the main anchor but a separate “news” anchor or reader.

Story and Segment Length

Time is also spent differently in the mornings than on evening news. The shows produce fewer very short stories, 40 seconds or less, (29 percent versus 42 percent on commercial evening news). They also air fewer stories between 90 seconds and three minutes (30 percent versus 48 percent on commercial evening). Instead morning news relies more on long segments, over three minutes. Nearly a third of morning segments go that long, (31 percent versus 4 percent at night). This may be part of the morning news’ appeal. But these are usually interviews, not stories. And that has consequences.


Since morning news relies so heavily on interviews as the story-telling medium, audiences are getting their information from fewer sources, usually just one or two people being interviewed by the anchor. The ability to double-check what these people are saying against the facts, or balance that with not only opposing views but also with independent or neutral experts, is more limited. It is by no means impossible, but it is more difficult, and, we found, not often done.

Only 8 percent of stories or segments on morning news had the highest level of sourcing and transparency – four named sources whose expertise and potential biases were explained so that audiences could judge their credibility. (That compares to 18 percent on commercial nightly news).

Format alone is not the whole explanation, though it is a significant part. The “NewsHour,” with a similar format, was more likely to have the highest level of sourcing (13 percent of stories, compared to 8 percent for morning).

What about anonymous sourcing? In all, 27 percent of morning stories included at least one anonymous source with some attempt to describe for audiences why the source was credible. This was about the same as nightly network news. And 7 percent of stories included at least one blind anonymous source, about half that of nightly news.


Morning news also stood out for focusing its segments and stories more around people as central protagonists. Nearly half (48 percent) of all stories or interviews primarily concerned how something affected a central protagonist in the action: How do you feel about your son coming home from Iraq? Or how will this affect the president? Or did Kobe Bryant rape that woman? That was a good deal more than commercial nightly news (23 percent) or newspapers (32 percent) and markedly more than on the “NewsHour”(20 percent).

Prime Time News Magazines

This year’s study did not include a separate content analysis of prime time news magazines. But two previous studies of those programs, in 1997 and 1999, showed a clear pattern. With the exception of “60 Minutes,” the magazines in no way could be said to cover major news of the day.6 Instead, these programs, up against prime time entertainment shows, specialize in lifestyle and behavior stories, consumer news-you-can-use pieces and celebrity entertainment. In the 1997 study, 55 percent of their stories concerned these issues. In addition, 23 percent concerned crime.

Only 8 percent of stories concerned the combined areas of education, economics, foreign affairs, the military, national security, politics, government or social welfare issues. A similar audit of the magazine programs two years later by the journalist Marc Gunther published in Nieman Reports found similar results.

The CBS “60 Minutes” program stands out as an exception, more likely to touch on issues or topics that involved major events of the day. At the mid-way point in the 2003 – 2004 season, the program aired 12 foreign segments out of 50, about 22 percent, according to an audit compiled for a yet-to-be-published paper by Elizabeth Weinreb, Director of Special Projects at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and a former journalist at “60 Minutes.”7 That percentage is about what the show averages in a regular season, according to “60 Minutes” staff calculations. The other exception is “Nightline,” the ABC news program that differs from the magazines not only in content but also in time slot and in format. It remains probably the most serious and distinctive news magazine program on television.

Why have the magazines other than “60 Minutes” and “Nightline” moved so far away from major news events? It wasn’t always this way. Over the past 20 years, the main mission of prime time news magazines has changed. When “60 Minutes” began in 1968, it was largely seen by CBS as a way to fulfill Federal Communications Commission requirements for public affairs broadcasting. While the network would have liked the show to make money, the other needs it helped meet sustained the show through seven years of poor ratings when it aired irregularly in the Tuesday night 10 pm time slot. It was not until 1975, when CBS moved the show to the dead hour between 7 and 8 p.m. on Sunday that it became noticed. By 1978 it was among the top 10 rated programs on the air and it has been a big success and moneymaker for CBS ever since.8

Seeing that news magazines could be moneymakers – and, more important, moneymakers that could be produced relatively cheaply compared with most entertainment programs – the networks went on a news magazine binge in the 1980s and particularly the 1990s. But as revenues and ratings became the new bottom-line, that brought changes in how segments were put together and how they were selected. These programs were competing with entertainment shows and that affected content.

Topics that scored viewers on one program began appearing on different shows within weeks or even days of each other. Tom Yellin, the executive producer of “Peter Jennings Reporting” on ABC summed up the problem this way: “Deciding you want to do a story because you think it’s interesting is a risk. If it doesn’t work you will be called to account.”9

To determine a segment’s success, according to Weinreb, many executives turn to research, including minute-by-minute ratings, to determine what kinds of stories hold viewers. And some networks tested story concepts to determine whether segments were winning the “right” (i.e., young) viewers.

The result is that most programs are largely not the home of heavy investigative pieces anymore. And the long-term trend here may be troubling for news professionals when one looks at what is drawing desirable demographics. President Bush’s first interview about the war in Iraq after the capture of Saddam Hussein on ABC did not win the ratings battle for younger viewers. More were tuned into Paris Hilton’s turn on Fox’s reality program “The Simple Life.”

Click here for metholodogy information.

Click here to view content summary tables.


1. The full programs were studied for the network evening news programs and the PBS “NewsHour.” The first hour of the network morning news programs was studied. The 110 hours of programming encompassed more than 66 hours of editorial matter.

2. Lichter’s research, for instance, finds that international coverage dropped from half the stories on nightly news in the early 1990s to as little as 20 percent of the stories in 1997. Environmental coverage dropped by 65 percent from 1990 to 1999. Entertainment coverage was up 28 percent from 1990 to 1999. Crime news was up 37.5 percent from 1990 to 1995, and, after declining at the end of the decade, again was still 45 percent higher in 2000 than a decade earlier.

3. These breakdowns were calculated by taking the total number of seconds devoted to each topic overall, dividing by 60 (seconds), and then dividing by 3 (thee commercial networks). This results in an average number of minutes on a commercial network over the course of 28 days.

4. Before 1963, network evening newscasts were 15 minutes long, not 30.

5. This difference also holds up if one looks at the percent of all stories as opposed to all time. More than half, 52 percent of all commercial network stories are edited packages, compared with 17% of stories on the “NewsHour.”

6. See “Changing Definitions of News,” Project for Excellence in Journalism, March 6, 1998; and Marc Gunther, “The Transformation of Network News,” Nieman Reports, Summer 1999, p. 26.

7. Elizabeth Weinreb, “The News About News Magazines.”

8. Elizabeth Weinreb, “The News About News Magazines.”

9. Interview with Tom Yellin, February 2004.