Factors Influencing Journalism Performance in Developing and Transitional Countries

C. Ann HollifieldDowden Professor of Media Research, University of Georgia

Lee B. BeckerProfessor & Director of the Cox Center for International Mass Communication Training and Research

University of Georgia

Adam JacobssonAssistant Professor

Dept. of Economics, University of Stockholm, Sweden

Eva-Marie JacobssonLecturer

Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden

Tudor VladResearch Scientist

Associate Director, Cox Center for International Mass Communication Training and Research, University of Georgia

Paper presented to the World Media Economics Conference

New York, N.Y., May 5, 2016

1

Abstract In the past quarter century, governments, foundations, and nongovernmental organizations

(NGOs) have poured vast sums of money into emerging and transitional countries with the goal of developing sustainable, high-quality news media. The goal has been to encourage journalism that meets generally accepted international standards for professional journalism that supports transparent, democratic, non-corrupt government, and economic and civil development.

Results of nearly three decades of investment in media development have been mixed, however.

This study examines the economic, organizational, legal, and political factors in the ecology of news organizations that are related to the production of quality journalism in developing and transitional countries. The study uses data generated by the International Research and Exchange Board (IREX) and ZenithOptimedia to examine the research question. Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) is used to test the hypotheses and identify the models of conjunctural causation that help explain the structural conditions that are related to higher levels of journalism performance in the developing countries in the dataset.

The research finds no necessary or sufficient conditions for higher-quality journalism – not even a legal regime supporting freedom of expression. The study finds, however, that there are several combinations of structural conditions that are related to improved journalism performance across cases, and several market and political variables that are more important than others in media development.

2

That media play a crucial role in democracy, human rights, and economic development has long

been recognized (Compaine, 1985; World Bank, 2002). As a result, over the past quarter century, media

assistance has become a key element in international efforts to stabilize underdeveloped and transitional

countries, encourage their economic development, and support their development of democratic

institutions and civil society. A primary goal of media assistance programs has been to encourage an

independent and pluralistic media sector that can challenge the narratives presented by government-

controlled media. To that end, over the past quarter century, Western governments, non-governmental

organizations (NGOs) and other institutions have helped launch, subsidize, or otherwise support the

creation and maintenance of independent news media organizations in emerging countries around the

world.

Despite the enormous amounts of money that have been poured into media development

(Carrington & Nelson, 2002; Global Forum for Media Development, 2007, Kumar, 2006; Norris, 2010;

UNESCO, 2008), evaluations by media NGOs such as Freedom House, UNESCO, and the International

Research and Exchange Board (IREX) show that the results of all the effort have been mixed (IREX,

FREEDOM HOUSE). Although there clearly have been some advances, in some countries, the problems

formerly caused by government control have been replaced by media that are controlled or circumvented

by criminal elements and oligarchs (Freedom House, 2015; Personal Communication, UNESCO

conference on Media Sustainability, December 2014). In other countries, poverty, conflict, or political

authoritarianism have undermined media independence. And even as large-scale media-development

efforts got under way in late 1980s with the end of the Cold War, the simultaneous emergence of digital

media and the Internet fragmented media audiences and advertisers in both developing and developed

countries, undercutting the financial strength of journalism organizations around the world and raising

questions about the very survival of quality, independent journalism.

Given the enormous investments in and mixed outcomes from the large scale international media

development efforts of the past quarter century, the question remains: What factors, or combinations of

factors, in a society are necessary or sufficient for the development of quality journalism as generally

defined internationally? This study addresses that question by using a sample of national media markets

3

to examine the relationship between various social, political and economic conditions and the overall level

of journalistic quality.

Previous Research

The central, but contested questions that underlie much research on journalism today is this:

What is “quality journalism,” and What social, political, and economic conditions make it possible for

journalists to produce it?

As Lacy and Rosenstiel (2015) and McQuail (1992) noted, defining journalism quality is a

complex problem. Even where there is agreement about the specific variables that should be included in

measures of journalism quality, the actual measurement can vary depending on the sampling frame and

unit of analysis the researcher chooses (story, newspaper/newscast/web page, news organization, news

market, society), the length of the unit of time studied, (a single story or newscast, a day, a week, a

month, a year), whether quality is defined by the standards of professional journalists or through the lens

of audience members’ individual reception and evaluation, etc.

Historically, the media development community has used what Lacy and Rosenstiel (2015) called

the “supply-side approach,” evaluating media quality based on what the media produce compared against

generally accepted standards agreed upon by professional journalists. Unlike most efforts to define

journalism quality in Western developed countries outlined in Lacy and Rosenstiel’s white paper,

however, the media development community evaluates not only the quality of the content produced but

also the overall national media ecology that shapes and constrains its production.

IREX, for example, defines “professional journalism quality” at the national level through the

standards of 1) fair, objective, and well sourced reporting; 2) use of recognized and accepted ethical

standards by journalists; 3) lack of self-censorship; 4) focus on key events and issues; 5) pay levels for

journalists sufficient to discourage corruption and retain qualified personnel; 6) focus on news and

information rather than entertainment; 7) adequate technical facilities for news production; and 8) quality

niche reporting such as investigative, economics/business, local, and political (IREX, 2014). However,

the final score IREX gives media in a country also incorporates evaluations of the media ecology –

including the strength of the legal protections for freedom of speech; the number and diversity of sources

4

of information readily available to citizens in the country; the quality of the business management media in

the country have, and the strength of national social institutions necessary to a functioning democracy.

Freedom House, an NGO that focuses on measuring the free flow of news and information in

countries, uses multiple indicators to score the legal environment, political environment, and economic

environment in which media operate (Freedom House, 2015). UNESCO’s Media Development Index

uses multiple measures to evaluate each of its five development categories: 1) a system of regulation

conducive to freedom of expression and media diversity and plurality; 2) a level economic playing field

that results in media plurality and diversity and transparency of ownership; 3) media that actually support

democratic discourse; 4) a media sector supported by professional and civic institutions that provide

journalists and other media workers with education, training, and professional development throughout

their careers; and 5) infrastructural capacity sufficient to support a diverse and pluralistic media that

serves all groups in society (UNESCO, 2008).

Despite these differences and the general complexity of measuring journalism quality, studies of

the reliability of the estimates across NGOs, measures, and in comparison with the audiences’

estimations of their own national media show significant reliability (Authors, 2007,2013).

In the past few years, concern among the global media professional, academic and policy

communities has been growing about not only the quality of journalism but also its sustainability (Personal

Communication, UNESCO Conference on Media Sustainability, Montevideo, Uruguay, 2014).

Researchers have found that, as a result of the digital revolution, the number of media outlets worldwide

continues to expand even as audience-size-per-outlet stagnates or declines (Coffey, 2007; European

Federation of Journalists, 2004; South East Europe Media Organization (SEEMO), 2005; UNESCO,

2012). High-levels of competition for audiences and advertisers as the number of media outlets increase

erode the financial strength of media organizations, encouraging media to produce low-cost, lowest-

common denominator content such as crime, celebrity, sports, and sensationalism and other cheap-to-

produce news (Authors, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2015; van der Wurff & van Cuilenberg, 2001).

Additionally, hypercompetition1 and market fragmentation have been associated with efforts to reduce

1 Hypercompetition is defined as a market in which supply of a product – in this case, news -- substantially

exceeds demand so that a large percentage of the producers in the market operate at a financial loss and

5

overhead costs through staff layoffs, reduced salaries, and the hiring of less experienced and less

professionally prepared staff members. In developing or transitional countries, this can result in journalists

having little professional education or training, which, combined with low wages, may make them

susceptible to bribery or other forms of outside influence and less likely to oppose their employers when

the media organization succumbs to influence peddling ” (Authors, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009; World

Association of Newspapers, 2014).

Competition affects journalism quality through what has been called the “financial commitment

model,” which suggests low-to-moderate competition improves journalism quality by encouraging media

organizations to increase their financial investment in content quality as a competitive strategy (Lacy,

1989, 1992, 2000; Litman & Bridges, 1986). That, in turn, can improve circulation and ratings and,

therefore, financial performance (Cho, Thorson, & Lacy, 2004; Chen, Thorson, & Lacy, 2005; Just, 1999;

Lacy & Fico, 1991; Powers, 1993; Rosenstiel, Gottlieb, & Brady, 1999; St. Cyr, Lacy, & Guzman-Ortega,

2005). But media organizations’ financial commitment to content quality depend on positive financial

returns from the investment and, ultimately, the availability of the money and other resources required to

increase the commitment to the production of quality journalism (Lacy & Riffe, 1994; Lacy & Blanchard,

2003; Russi, Siegert, Gerth, & Krebs, 2014; Waterman, 1989/90; Wildman & Siwek, 1988). Recent

research has suggested that in highly competitive markets, news media reach a tipping point where, as

profits decline, so, too, do investments in news production, and, therefore, journalism quality (Authors

2006, 2009, 2015). Other studies have suggested that increasing competition in news markets from the

Internet will lead to a glut of advertising space, lower advertising prices, and fewer resources with which

to produce news (Anderson & Coate, 2005; Anderson et al, 2012).

are dependent upon subsidies from external sources to stay in business. This definition of

hypercompetition differs from D’Aveni’s earlier definition, which was “an environment characterized by

intense and rapid competitive moves, in which competitors must move quickly to build advantage and

erode the advantages of their rivals…the process of continuously generating new competitive advantage”

(1994, pp. 217-218).  Under D’Aveni’s definition, hypercompetition results from the strategic behavior of

companies operating in a dynamic market. Under the definition used in this study, hypercompetition

reflects problems in market structure.

6

SEEMO (2005) concluded that nearly 20 years after press liberalization in Southeast Europe,

levels of competition in many countries continued to exceed “any market economy reasoning” (p. 5),

demonstrating that hypercompetition is not necessarily a short-term irregularity in media markets.

Hypercompetition continues in defiance of the Laws of Supply and Demand because the social, political,

and economic value of media ownership make it worthwhile for owners to subsidize unprofitable media

organizations. As SEEMO noted, “some print media outlets are run as propaganda outlets for the special

interests of their owners and do not even pretend to practice professional journalism (p. 61).2 By some

estimates, at times in the first decade of the 21st century, one-third of total media-industry operating costs

in some developing countries came from external subsidies rather than operating revenues (Personal

Communication, East-West Sarajevo Conference, 2008).

There is evidence, however, that the relationship between market competition and journalism

performance is more complex than the research on the financial commitment model suggests (Authors,

2009, Russi, et al., 2014). Russi, et al., (2014) found that resources were key to news quality but that the

availability of resources could be impacted by factors other than competition. In comparative multinational

journalism research, additional complexity results from the fact that news organizations’ dependence on

advertising varies across national media systems. By some estimates, at times in the first decade of the

21st century, one-third of total media-industry operating costs in some developing countries came from

external subsidies rather than operating revenues (Personal Communication, East-West Sarajevo

Conference, 2008). Similarly, the authors (2009) found that financial resources alone were insufficient to

explain variations in journalism performance across different developing countries and media systems,

and suggested that sociopolitical factors needed to be included as variables in comparative multinational

journalism research. They also found that the existence of a legal regime supporting press freedom was

more strongly associated with the development of positive international trade balances in copyright

2 Developed nations also are vulnerable to this effect of media hypercompetition. Between 2012 and

2013, there were at least three instances in the United States where wealthy individuals bought, or tried to

buy, financially troubled major daily newspapers for the specific purpose of promoting the buyers’ political

or ideological agendas (Carr, 2012, Chozick, 2013; Chozick & Carr, 2012; Authors, 2012).

7

products – an indication of quality -- than the existence and enforcement of copyright laws (Authors,

2014).

This study addresses the challenge of identifying the conditions in a national media ecology that

support the development of quality journalism in developing and transitional countries by testing the

following research questions and hypotheses:

RQ1: What factors, or combinations of factors, influence the performance of journalism that

meets normative professional standards in developing and transitional countries?

Previous research has suggested that factors related to the degree of authoritarianism and

government control of the press may have more impact on journalism performance than the amount of

financial resources available to media organizations (Authors, 2009). Research also has found that a

strong press freedom regime is more effective than a strong copyright regime in developing national

copyright industries of sufficient quality to have value in international trade (Authors, 2014). Therefore:

H1: The degree of Freedom of Speech in a developing country will be more strongly related to

quality journalism performance than the financial resources available to media organizations.

H2: The strength of Social Institutions that support democratic and transparent government in a

developing country will be more strongly related to quality journalism performance than the financial

resources available to media organizations.

Previous research has suggested that hypercompetition may be eroding the ability of media

organizations to produce high-quality journalism by reducing the financial resources available to produce

quality journalism and prevent the cooption of journalists and media organizations. Therefore:

H3: A high number of news sources, combined with low advertising revenue per media outlet,

will be related to lower journalism performance.

Methodology

To test these hypotheses, this project used a comparative case study design, drawing upon

secondary data and with individual developing and transitional countries as the unit of analysis. The

study then applied fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) to identify factors in national

8

journalism ecologies most likely to have a positive impact on the overall quality of journalism in each

nation in the study.

fsQCA is an analytical approach that utilizes Boolean algebra, set theory and fuzzy mathematics,

rather than statistics, to analyze small samples of case study data. The technique -- originally developed

in 1987 by sociologist Charles Ragin -- has been widely used in international relations, political science,

and public policy research, and similar fields where research often faces the problem of small Ns (Rihoux

& Ragin, 2009; Thiem & Dusa, 2013).

fsQCA allows case study data to be analyzed to identify “conjunctural causation” across multiple

cases – that is, the different interactions among variables that can lead to the same outcome (Rihoux &

Ragin, 2009). Instead of generating one causal model that fits the data, fsQCA can generate multiple

models of interactions among the variables that produced similar outcomes in individual cases or groups

of cases within the dataset.

In fsQCA, the first step in the process is to scale each case relative to its membership or non-

membership in the set represented by each variable. For example, if the outcome of interest in a study is

“professional journalism performance,” each country (aka, case) in the sample would be individually

scored according to whether that country was A) “fully a member of the set of countries that exhibit high

levels of professional journalism performance;” or B) “more of a member than a nonmember” – in the set

of high journalism-performance countries; or C) “more of a nonmember than a member” in the set of high

professional journalism- performance countries; or D) “fully a nonmember” in the set of high journalism-

performance countries. Of critical importance to the fsQCA analysis is to identify a firm point, based upon

theoretically grounded rationales, marking the cross-over point between cases that would be scored as

“more member than nonmember” and those that are “more nonmember than member” in a given variable.

The scoring process is then repeated for each variable, based upon the theory relating to that variable.

fsQCA allows gradations in the scoring of cases even within the four larger member/nonmember subsets

of each variable, with all original scales recalibrated to range between 0 and 1 before analysis.

The first step in fsQCA analysis generates a “Truth Table” that lists all possible combinations of

membership/nonmembership across all variables in the model, whether or not all of the possible

combinations were actually observed in the data. The analysis also identifies those cases in the study

9

with the same combinations of membership/nonmemberships in variables and identifies whether those

combinations produced the same or contradictory outcomes in the different cases.

The second step in the analysis produces three solutions. The complex solution identifies all

possible interactions among the variables that produced the outcome of interest in the observed cases.

The intermediate solution, considers all possible combinations of variable conditions that make sense

within the theoretical parameters specified in the analysis. The parsimonious solution provides the most

mathematically reduced model possible given the variables, but generates that using all possible

combinations of variables, whether or not they are plausible within the theoretical parameters of the study

or in reality (Rihoux & Ragin, 2009).

The fsQCA analysis also generates three key measures for evaluating the quality of the solutions

provided (Ragin, 2006). Solution Consistency measures the strength of the relationship between

membership in the solution and membership in the outcome. Solution coverage shows the proportion of

memberships in the outcome that is explained by the solution. Raw coverage measures the proportion of

memberships in the outcome that is related to each term in the solution. Finally, Unique coverage

measures the proportion of memberships in the outcome that is explained only by each specific term in

the solution and not by any other terms in the solution.

The data used in this project were drawn from the International Research and Exchanges

Board’s (IREX) Media Sustainability Index and ZenithOptimedia. IREX is a non-profit organization based

in Washington, D.C., that, among other activities, systematically evaluates the journalism ecology in

developing and transitional nations. ZenithOptimedia is a global media services network (Austin, Barnard,

& Hutcheon, 2014) that buys media campaigns for clients in countries around the world.

IREX assesses countries’ journalism ecology using five objectives: 1) legal and social norms that

protect and promote free speech and access to public information; 2) journalism that meets professional

standards of quality; 3) multiple news sources that provide citizens with reliable and objective information;

4) media that are well-managed businesses, allowing editorial independence; and 5) supporting

institutions that function in the professional interests of independent media. The countries’ media systems

are assessed based on up to nine indicators for each of the five objectives.

10

IREX organizes a panel in each country comprised of local media representatives, members of

NGOs and professional associations, and academic institutions to score each country’s journalism

environment. The panel in each country scores the national journalism ecology using standardized

objectives and indicators. The indicators are used to develop the final score for each objective. Panelists

review the information individually, then assemble to discuss the indicators and objectives. IREX staff in-

country and in Washington, D.C., also score each indicator and objective in each country independently.

The final score for each indicator, each objective, and for the country is an average of the panel score and

the IREX staff score.

Earlier analysis (Authors, 2007) shows the measures of journalistic performance correlate with

the other four components of the sustainability index. At the same time, it does not appear to be identical

to them.

ZenithOptimedia operates in every country covered by the report, with advertising expenditure

figures gathered from the sources in each country deemed most reliable, such as independent groups

that survey advertisers, advertising agencies and media owners. The figures take into account the

discounts negotiated between agency and media owner and exclude agency commissions and production

costs, where possible.

Figures that are in constant prices are adjusted for consumer price inflation (Austin, Barnard, &

Hutcheon, 2014). In those markets where advertising expenditures were supplied in U.S. dollars rather

than in local currency, ZenithOptimedia used the U.S. inflation index to adjust the figures into constant

price data. Local-currency data were converted into U.S. dollars using the average exchange rate for

2012. ZenithOptimedia said it does not apply different exchange rates to different years because

currency fluctuations can obscure the underlying trends in ad expenditures.

To create the sample for the study, countries were examined to determine if data were available

for each of the variables measured. In the end, 21 countries were found that had data for three

consecutive years from IREX and for the same years from ZenithOptimedia. The countries are shown in

Table 1. Where possible, the most recent years where data from all sources were available were used.

Those years were 2011-2013. The countries for which all data were available for those years were

Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Moldova,

11

Romania, Russia, Ukraine, and Serbia. For eight cases – Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman,

Qatar, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE)--the data were available from all sources only

for the three years 2007-2009. Because fsQCA focuses on within-case analysis of the relationship

between variables and cross-case comparisons of the discovered relationships, the difference in years for

which data are available should not be an important issue in the analysis so long as the data on each

variable in the model are complete, reliable, and valid for each case.

The independent variables3 used in this study included IREX’s measures of the objectives: 1)

legal and social norms promoting free speech and information access; 2) the number of independent,

reliable and objective news sources available; 3) competent business management that provides

adequate resources and editorial independence; 4) and social institutions that support the existence of

independent, professional media. A fifth independent variable, the amount of advertising revenue

available to each journalism organization, was created by calculating the total advertising revenue

captured by print media, radio, and television in a country averaged across three years and divided by the

total number of print media outlets and radio and television stations in the country. The data on

advertising revenue were drawn from ZenithOptimedia, while the number of media in the market came

from IREX.

The dependent variable for the study was IREX’s measure of the objective of professional media

performance. The measure is based on eight indicators: 1) Reporting is fair, objective, and well sourced;

2) journalists follow recognized and accepted ethical standards; 3) journalists and editors do not practice

self-censorship; 4) journalists cover key events and issues; 5) pay levels for journalists and other media

professionals are sufficiently high to discourage corruption and retain qualified personnel within the media

profession; 6) entertainment programming does not eclipse news and information programming; 7)

technical facilities and equipment for gathering, producing, and distributing news are modern and efficient;

and 8) quality niche reporting and programming exists (investigative, economics/business, local, political)

(IREX, 2014).

The range of scores IREX uses to measure each indicator for each objective is from 0 to 4. The

scores for all the indicators for each objective are averaged to obtain a single score for that objective.

3 Rihoux & Ragin (2009) argus that use of the term “independent variable” is misleading in QCA analysis because, unlike statistical analysis, QCA neither assumes nor requires independence among variables.

12

IREX deems scores on each of the indicators from 0-1 to indicate an “anti-free press” condition; scores

from 1.01-2 to indicate an “unsustainable mixed system;” scores from 2.01-3 to indicate a “near

sustainability” condition for media; and scores from 3.01-4 to indicate a condition that supports “media

sustainability.” This structure conforms perfectly with the requirement in fsQCA that the researcher

designate for each variable the specific measure at which a case is deemed 1) to be fully a non-member

in that variable condition; 2) the cross-over point at which a case moves from being more of a non-

member to being more of a member in that variable condition; and 3) the point at which a case is

considered to be fully a member in that variable condition. Thus, in this study, the authors designated

IREX’s score of 1 to be the point of full non-membership; 2 to be the cross-over point between more non-

membership and more membership; and 3 to be the point of full membership in a variable condition.

For the independent variable advertising revenue per media (adrevpermed), based on

recommendations by Rihoux and Ragin (2009) to use naturally occurring groupings in the data and

theoretically based reasons for establishing set-membership benchmarks, the point of full nonmembership

in the group of countries where media have sustainable levels of average annual advertising revenue per

media outlet was set at an average of U.S. $500,000. The cross-over point between more

nonmembership than membership and more membership than nonmembership was set at U.S. $2 million

in annual ad revenue per medium, and full membership in the set of countries with sustainable levels of

ad revenue was set at U.S. $10 million dollars in average annual advertising revenue per media outlet.

These benchmarks were set after examining ZenithOptimedia’s reports for average annual

advertising revenue for media in countries generally considered to have sustainable media that produce

high-quality journalism relative to international standards, such as the United States, France, Germany,

and the United Kingdom. Two countries in the dataset for this study – Bahrain and the UAE – were full

members in the set of countries with sustaining levels of annual advertising revenue per media outlet.

Although the ZenithOptimedia data on annual national advertising turnover are the best available

data on the availability of non-governmental sources of revenue for media, there are several problems

with using annual advertising revenue per media outlet as a measure of financial independence that must

be acknowledged. We want to acknowledge these at the outset. First, average annual advertising

revenue per medium does not account for the actual distribution of those revenues across media outlets.

13

Distribution of advertising market share is usually unequal based on media market size, medium type, and

organizational market share. But in countries with poor records for sustainable independent media, the

distribution of advertising is often directly or indirectly influenced by government, which uses access to

advertising revenue as a tool for securing media compliance (Personal Communication, UNESCO

Conference on Media Sustainability, Montevideo, Uruguay, December 2014).

Secondly, advertising revenue as the sole measure of the media’s financial strength does not

account for revenue obtained from other sources, such as government subsidies or user fees. Although

in many of the cases in this dataset, government subsidies are identified by IREX as a tool of government

control that undermines the quality of journalism in the country, that does not have to be the case as can

be seen in Western Europe’s and Japan’s public service media (PSM).

Given the lack of other data, we have decided to use the data available.

In summary, then, fsQCA is used to test the theoretical model:

irexpj = f(irexfs, irexns,irexbm, irexsi, adrevpermed)

Findings

Table 1 shows that of the 21 cases, only eight were found to be “more of a member than a

nonmember” in the set of countries that IREX’S experts deemed to produce journalism that meets

generally accepted international professional norms over the three years studied. In other words, eight

countries had a composite average score on professional quality journalism of 2.1 of higher over the three

years when the panel of experts evaluated the media’s general performance. Only one country in the data

set, South Africa was found to be “more of a member than a nonmember” in each of the variables in the

model. Conversely, two countries, Belarus and Russia were scored to be “more of a nonmember than a

member” in each of the variables.

It should be noted that while the simplified version of the dataset helps to quickly visualize the

comparative positions of cases on each variable and relative to one another, fsQCA actually uses the

gradations in the standardized scoring when calculating solutions. For this study, the Consistency level for

a model to be included in the analysis was set as indicating model fit was .796 (Rihoux & Ragin, 2009).

14

The complex solution of the fsQCA analysis generated five models of conjunctural conditions

sufficient to contribute to the development of professional quality of journalism in developing and

transitional countries (Table 2 & 3). Taken together, the models cover 19 of the 21, or 96 percent of the

cases in the dataset and show consistency across the countries of .74.

The two countries eliminated from the study in the creation of the models were Russia and

Belarus, which the fsQCA process found to be so lacking in the conditions and outcomes measured in the

study that any variability in the measures was mathematically irrelevant. Given that the data for Russia

and Belarus were drawn from the 2012-2014 period and given the rapidly deteriorating democratic and

journalistic conditions in Russia and Belarus during those years, the elimination of the two countries from

the models is consistent with both the theoretical precepts of this study and the known external realities.

The analysis shows that in 10 cases in the dataset, their relative placement as members or

nonmembers in the set of countries deemed to produce journalism closer than not to international

professional standards was best explained by their combination of relative levels of freedom of speech

protections, numbers of competing news sources available to audiences, and the relative strength of the

social institutions supporting democracy in those countries. However it is important to note that although

in all 10 cases, the media in these countries were operating under similar conditions relative to the

Table 1: Simplified and standardized fsQCA case scores on each variable where 1 indicates a standardized score > .5, the cross-over point for set membership

Case Freedom of Speech

Number of Media Sources

Quality of Media Business Management

Social Institutions

Ad Revenue per Media

Outlet

Professional Journalism

Armenia 1 1 0 1 1 0.72 .66 .34 .64 .5 .39

Azerbaijan 0 1 0 0 0 00.35 0.51 0.14 0.45 0.1 0.37

Bahrain 0 0 0 0 1 00.33 0.27 0.44 0.33 1 0.28

Belarus 0 0 0 0 0 00.02 0.09 0.04 0.1 0.04 0.09

Bosnia & 1 1 0 1 1 0

15

Herzegovina0.8 0.72 0.28 0.64 0.61 0.3

Bulgaria 1 1 0 1 1 00.81 0.82 0.47 0.66 0.58 0.39

Croatia 1 1 1 1 0 10.88 0.91 0.63 0.89 0.06 0.57

Egypt 0 1 1 1 1 10.42 0.79 0.74 0.72 0.81 0.6

Georgia 1 1 0 1 0 00.61 0.58 0.19 0.58 0.07 0.44

Kazakhstan 0 0 0 0 0 00.26 0.31 0.23 0.45 0.12 0.31

Kuwait 1 1 1 0 1 10.57 0.72 0.78 0.2 0.96 0.66

Lebanon 1 1 1 1 1 10.6 0.86 0.62 0.61 0.65 0.69

Moldova 1 1 0 1 0 10.76 0.81 0.31 0.77 0.04 0.7

Oman 0 0 0 0 1 00.4 0.39 0.45 0.21 0.57 0.49

Qatar 1 1 1 0 1 10.77 0.6 0.56 0.21 0.99 0.67

Romania 1 1 0 1 0 00.87 0.84 0.43 0.72 0.1 0.44

Russia 0 0 0 0 0 00.23 0.3 0.17 0.36 0.05 0.14

South Africa 1 1 1 1 1 10.98 0.9 0.95 0.96 0.87 0.91

Ukraine 0 0 0 1 0 00.35 0.41 0.31 0.57 0.04 0.27

United Arab Emirates (UAE)

0 1 1 0 1 1

0.49 0.56 0.83 0.4 1 0.72Serbia 1 1 0 1 0 0

0.54 0.53 0.3 0.69 0.06 0.3

Table 2: Truth Table for the analysis of sufficiency

Cases Freedom of Speech

(fs)

Number of

Media Sources

(ns)

Quality of Business

Management(bm)

Social Institutions

(si)

Ad Revenue per Media

Outlet(adpermed)

Professional Journalism

(pj)

South Africa, Croatia,

Moldova,Lebanon,Romania, Bulgaria,

1 1 1 1

0

16

Armenia, Bosnia &

Herzegovina, Georgia, Serbia

South Africa, Egypt, Kuwait,

Lebanon, Qatar, UAE

1 1 1 1

Azerbaijan 0 1 0 0 0 0Ukraine 0 0 0 1 0 0BahrainOman

0 0 0 0 1 0

independent variables, the outcome of journalism quality was inconsistent (Table 2). In four of the cases

– South Africa, Croatia, Moldova and Lebanon – the media were judged to be more members than

nonmembers in the set of countries where media produce journalism that meets international standards

for quality, whereas the remaining six cases had the opposite outcome.

According to Rihoux and Ragin (2009), the most likely explanation for an inconsistent outcome is

omitted variable bias, although measurement error is another possibility. They recommend that the first

step in addressing such an inconsistency is to reopen the dialogue with the cases, digging deeply into

contextual information to identify possible additional factors influencing the outcome. The authors of this

study currently are engaged in that process and hope to have a more complete solution by May.

Also interesting about the first model was that it represented the best fit for most of the

countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Lebanon and South Africa were the only cases from outside of

that region that were found to fit well with the model, whereas other models were found to better fit

most non Central-European cases.

In six countries, again including South Africa, the outcome of some membership in the set of

countries producing quality journalism was best explained by a combination of the number of available

sources, stronger business management in media companies, and higher levels of advertising revenue

per media outlet.

17

The fourth model, which described only Azerbaijan, suggests that having a comparatively large

number of news sources available to audiences is not sufficient to produce higher quality journalism in

the absence of other supporting factors such as freedom of speech protections, competent media

management, functioning social institutions that support democracy, and sufficient advertising revenue

per media company.

The fifth model, which described only Ukraine from the dataset, suggests that having

democratically supportive social institutions that are more effective than not also is not sufficient to

produce quality journalism in the absence of membership in the other variables.

The final model, which applied to two Middle Eastern Countries – Bahrain and Oman – suggests

that even levels of financial resources comparable to those of media in Western developed countries is

insufficient to produce quality journalism in the absence of supportive social and political structures and

competent media managers.

The Intermediate solution generated by the fsQCA analysis is shown in Table 4. Rihoux & Ragin

(2009, pp. 115-118) argue that the Intermediate Solution is preferable to either the Complex Solution

(Table 3) or the Parsimonious Solution (not shown) because it uses only the actual combinations of

Table 3: Complex Solution

Solution RawCoverage

UniqueCoverage

Consistency Cases Covereda

irexfs*irexns*irexsi .79. .14 .796 South Africa,b Croatia,b Moldova,b

Romania,c Bulgaria,c Armenia,c Bosnia &

18

Herzegovina,c

Lebanon,b Georgia,c Serbiac

irexns*irexbm*adrevpermed .64 .12 .96 South Africa, Egypt, Kuwait, Lebanon, Qatar, UAE

~irexfs*irexns*~irexbm*~irexsi*~adrevpermedd .41 0 .90 Azerbaijan~irexfs*~irexns*~irexbm*irexsi*~adrevpermedd .37 0 .80 Ukraine~irexfs*~irexns*~irexbm*~irexsi*adrevpermedd .32 .01 .90 Bahrain, OmanSolution coverage: 0.96; Solution consistency: 0.74; a Cases listed in descending order of membership in the termb Indicates membership in irexpj > .5c Indicates membership in irexpj <.5 d ~ indicates the condition of more nonmembership than membership in the variable

conditions in the dataset but simplifies the causal paths as much as possible for each model, thus

helping the researcher identify the most important factors in the outcome.

The Intermediate Solution generated by the fsQCA analysis of these data shows that the number

of sources of information available in a country was a key condition in journalism quality in 15 of the

cases, while the democratic supportiveness and effectiveness of social institutions was a key condition in

12 cases, with significant overlap between those two groups. A third variable associated with

journalism quality was advertising revenue per media outlet, which was identified in 10 cases as being

related to whatever journalism quality was evident in the absence of other factors, even in those cases

Table 4: Intermediate SolutionRaw Coverage

Unique Coverage

Consistency Cases Covereda

irexns .96 .004 .75 Croatia, South Africa, Lebanon, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova, Egypt, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Kuwait, Armenia, Qatar, Georgia, UAE, Serbia, Azerbaijan

irexsi .84 .001 .73 South Africa, Croatia, Moldova, Egypt, Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Armenia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Lebanon, Georgia, Ukraine

19

adrevpermed .69 .03 .73 Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, South Africa, Egypt, Lebanon, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Oman

Solution coverage: 1.00; Solution consistency: 0.64a Cases listed in descending order of strength of membership in the term

that were more nonmember than member in the set of countries producing quality journalism – but not

yet fully a nonmember in the professional journalism set.

In summary, then, the findings relative to the hypotheses were as follows:

H1: The degree of Freedom of Speech in a developing country will be more strongly related to

quality journalism performance than the financial resources available to media organizations.

H1 was supported. Although neither freedom of speech nor advertising revenue per media outlet

were either necessary or sufficient conditions for journalism quality, freedom of speech was more

consistently related to the outcome of journalism quality than was advertising revenue and played a role

in that outcome in a slightly greater number of cases. Also interesting, although not hypothesized, is the

suggestion in the data that if a large number of news sources are available to the public, the availability of

multiple sources of information can, at least in part, offset a restrictive freedom of speech regime. The

data suggest that that is particularly the case when the revenue per media outlet is higher.

H2: The strength of Social Institutions that support democratic and transparent government in a

developing country will be more strongly related to quality journalism than the financial resources

available to media organizations.

H2 also was supported. The strength of social institutions was more consistently related to the

outcome of quality of journalism and was a factor in more cases than was advertising revenue per media

outlet. Moreover, even in countries where the level of available advertising revenue per media outlet was

similar to the levels found in fully developed Western media markets, the availability of financial resources

was insufficient to produce quality of journalism where other supporting conditions in the media ecology

were lacking.

20

H3: A high number of news sources, combined with low advertising revenue per media outlet,

will be related to lower journalism performance.

The data for H3 are mixed, but largely in the direction hypothesized. Only one case, Azerbaijan,

had the conditions specified in the hypothesis along with the absence of all other potentially mediating

conditions included as variables. In that case, the hypothesis was supported. There were no cases in this

dataset that represented the opposite condition, where the country was more a member than nonmember

in all of the independent variables except for advertising revenue per media outlet.

A number of other cases, mostly countries located in Central or Eastern Europe, had the

condition of a high number of news sources combined with low advertising revenue per media outlet

combined with a mix of scores on the other independent variables. Three of those cases, Georgia,

Romania and Serbia, also produced journalism that was not judged to reach international standards of

quality, despite having other factors in their favor such as legal regimes supportive of free speech, and

stronger, democratically supportive social institutions. But, two cases –Croatia and Moldova – had the

conditions of a large number of media sources and low advertising revenue per media outlet, and yet still

produced higher quality journalism. These findings suggest that, consistent with the authors’ previous

research (2009, 2015), levels of competition high enough to undercut the financial resources of news

organizations are associated with lower quality journalism. It appears that in the digital age, the negative

impact hypercompetition has on news organizations’ finances may be more important to the quality of the

journalism produced than the positive effects of added competition. But given the inconsistencies in

outcome identified in the analysis, more work and more precise data on the financial resources of the

news media in each case are needed to confirm this interpretation.

Conclusion

The findings of this project confirm the value of using fsQCA as an alternative analytical

approach to statistical methods when dealing with small N, nonrandom samples of data. Specifically,

the analysis of these 21 cases shows that that there are multiple conditions in news ecologies that can

affect the ability of news organizations to produce professional quality journalism at least minimally

21

sufficient to support transparency in government and democratic and economic development

processes.

Of central interest in the analysis of these data is the finding that none of the independent

variables is either necessary or sufficient for the production of quality journalism. This includes both a

legal regime supporting freedom of expression and the availability of significant financial resources per

media outlet. Instead, the results here suggest that a combination of several factors that support news

organizations is necessary in a news ecology, if a society is to have a watchdog, investigative news

media.

Importantly, however, there appear to be several different combinations of conditions that can

produce some level of quality journalism. Of those conditions, a legal regime supporting freedom of

expression clearly is one of the most important and effective. However, the data also show that, in the

absence of such legally established freedoms, a large number of competing sources of news and

information in the market, solid business management skills in the media, and the resulting financial

resources those skills provide news organizations can combine to produce some level of quality

journalism.

Indeed, in the 21 developing and transitional countries included in this dataset, the number of

news and information sources available to the public was the condition most consistently and broadly

associated with quality journalism, while the strength of social institutions supporting democracy, and

the financial resources available to news organizations also were important in promoting journalism

quality. Finally, consistent with the authors’ previous work (2009, 2013), the data suggest that in cases

where the number of news sources is high and the advertising revenue per media outlet is low,

journalism quality may suffer.

Finally, the inconsistencies in the data strongly suggest that there are other variables in news

ecologies – as yet unidentified and not included in IREX’s current objectives – that influence journalism

22

quality. Work to identify these additional variables is necessary and ongoing in this research program.

Of particular importance to the future of research in this area is the availability of detailed and accurate

financial data from news organizations.

The questions raised in this study are not of merely theoretical interest. Over the past quarter

century, governments, foundations and NGOs have invested vast amounts of money in trying to support

the development of quality news media in developing and transitional countries because of the strong

evidence that a functioning watchdog media is a necessary, although not sufficient, condition for a

functioning, democratic, noncorrupt government (Islam, 2002). The results of those investments have

been decidedly mixed, however. Moreover, even as Western experts focused on bolstering journalism

quality in emerging nations, the competition for audiences and advertisers introduced by the digital

revolution had begun eroding journalism quality at home. Today, the question of what environmental

conditions are necessary to support the sustainability of journalism that promotes governmental

transparency, honesty, and responsiveness, and other socioeconomic externalities such as education

and economic development, is a matter of nearly universal concern. There is much more to be learned

about the sustainability of quality journalism.

23

References

Authors. (2003)

Authors. (2004).

Authors. (2006).

Authors. (2007).

Authors. (2009).

Authors. (2013).

Authors. (2014).

Anderson S. P., & Coate S. (2005). Market Provision of Broadcasting: A Welfare Analysis. Review of

Economic Studies, 72, 947-972.

Anderson S. P., Oystein F., Kind H. J., & Peitz M. (2012). Media market concentration, advertising levels,

and ad prices. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 30, 321-325.

Austin, A., Barnard, J., & Hutcheon, N. (2014, April). Advertising expenditure forecasts. London, England:

ZenithOptimedia.

Carr, D. (2012, June 10). Newspaper as business pulpit. Retrieved June 28, 2014 from

www.NYTimes.com.

Carrington, T., & Nelson, M. (2002). Media in Transition: the hegemony of economics, in: The Right to

Tell: The Role of Mass Media in Economic Development, Washington, DC: World Bank Institute,

225-45.

Chen, R., Thorson, E., & Lacy, S. (2005). The impact of newsroom investment on newspaper revenues

and profits: Small and medium newspapers 1998-2002, Journalism & Mass Communication

Quarterly, 82, 516-532.

Cho, S.Y., Thorson, E., & Lacy, S. (2004). Increased circulation follows investments in newsroom.

Newspaper Research Journal, 25 (4), 26-39.

Chozick, A. (2013, April 20). Conservative Koch brothers turning focus to newspapers. Retrieved June 28,

2014, from www.NYTimes.com.

Chozick, A., & Carr, D., (2012, Feb.15). Interference seen in Philadelphia papers. Retrieved June 28,

2014, fro, www.NYTimes.com

24

Coffey, A. J. (2007). Linguistic market segmentation and audience valuation by U.S. television

advertisers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.

Compaine, B. M. (1985). The expanding base of media competition. Journal of Communication, 35(3), 81-

96.

D'Aveni, R. A. (1994) Hypercompetition: Managing the Dynamics of Strategic Maneuvering, New York,

N.Y.: The Free Press.

European Federation of Journalists (2004). Eastern empires: Foreign ownership in Central and Eastern

European media: Ownership, policy issues and strategies. Retrieved July 5, 2007, from

http://www.ifj-europe.org/pdfs/easternempires.pdf

Freedom House. (2015, April). Freedom of the press. Accessed Dec. 1, 2015 from

https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FreedomofthePress_2015_FINAL.pdf

Global Forum for Media Development (2007), Media Matters: perspectives on advancing governance &

development, Paris: Internews Europe.

International Research & Exchange Board. (2014). Media sustainability index 2014: Europe and Eurasia.

Washington, D.C.: IREX.

Islam, R. (2002). Into the looking glass: What the media tell and why, in The right to tell.

The role of mass media in economic development, Washington, D.C.: World Bank

Institute, 1-23.

Just, M., Levine, R., & Belt, T. (1999). The budget game: Numbers show staff, not stuff, wins viewers.

Columbia Journalism Review, 38 (4), 93-94.

Kumar, K. (2006). Promoting independent media: Strategies for democracy assistance. Boulder, Colo:

Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Lacy, S. (1989). A model of demand for news: Impact of competition on newspaper content. Journalism

Quarterly, 66, 40-48.

Lacy, S. (1992). The financial commitment approach to news media competition. Journal of Media

Economics, 2, 5-21.

25

Lacy, S. (2000). Commitment of financial resources as a measure of quality, in R.G. Picard (Ed.),

Measuring media content, quality, and diversity: Approaches and issues in content research,

Turku, Finland: Turku School of Economics and Business Administration, 25-50.

Lacy, S., & Blanchard, A. (2003). The impact of public ownership, profits, and competition on number of

newsroom employees and starting salaries in mid-sized daily newspapers. Journalism & Mass

Communication Quarterly, 80 (1), 949-968.

Lacy, S., & Fico, F. (1991). The link between newspaper content quality and circulation. Newspaper

Research Journal, 12 (2), 46-57.

Lacy, S. & Riffe, D. (1994). The impact of competition and group ownership on radio news. Journalism &

Mass Communication Quarterly, 71 (3), 583-593.

Lacy, S., & Rosenstiel, T. (2015, March). Defining and Measuring Quality Journalism. Accessed

November 18, 2015, http://mpii.rutgers.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/129/2015/04/Defining-and-

Measuring-Quality-Journalism.pdf

Litman, B. R., & Bridges, J. (1986). An economic analysis of daily newspaper performance. Newspaper

Research Journal, 7 (3), 9-26.

McQuail, D. (1992). Media performance: Mass communication and the public interest. Sage.

Norris, P. (Ed). (2010). Public sentinel: News media and governance reform (pp. 3-30). Washington,

D.C.: The World Bank. Retrieved July 4, 2014 from

http://issuu.com/world.bank.publications/docs/9780821382004

Powers, A. (1993). Competition, conduct, and ratings in local television news: Applying the industrial

organization model. Journal of Media Economics, 6(2), 37-44.

Ragin, Charles C. (2006). User's guide to Fuzzy-Set/Qualitative Comparative Analysis 2.0. Accessed

Dec. 4, 2015 from www.u.arizona.edu/~cragin/fsQCA/download/fsQCAManual.pdf

Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. (2009). Configural Comparative Methods, Qualitative Comparative Analysis

(QCA) and Related Techniques, SAGE Publications, Inc.

Rosenstiel, T., Gottlieb, C. T. C. & Brady, L. A. (1999, November/December). Quality Brings Higher

Ratings, but Enterprise is Disappearing, Columbia Journalism Review, pp. 84-89.

26

Russi, L., Siegert, G., Gerth, M. A., & Krebs, I. (2014). The relationship of competition and financial

commitment revisited. A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis in European newspaper

markets. Journal of Media Economics, 27 (2), 60-78.

South East Europe Media Organization. (2005). South East Europe Media Handbook 2004/2005, O.

Vujovic (Ed.), Vienna, Austria.

St. Cyr, C., Lacy, S., & Guzman-Ortega, S. (2005). The long-run relationship between newsroom

investment and change in circulation for medium and large dailies. Newspaper Research Journal,

26 (4), 50-60.

Thiem, A., & Dusa, A. (2013). A Package for Qualitative Comparative Analysis. The R Journal, 5/1, 87-97.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Institute For Statistics (2012). The media

landscape in 28 Countries: Results from a UIS pilot survey. Retrieved June 30, 2014, from

http://www.uis.unesco.org/Communication/Documents/Media-statistics-pilot-survey-report.pdf

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2008). Media Development Indicators: A

framework for assessing media development Accessed Dec. 9, 2015,

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0016/001631/163102e.pdf

van Der Wurff, R. & van Cuilenburg, J. (2001). Impact of moderate and ruinous competition on diversity:

The Dutch television market. The Journal of Media Economics, 14, 213-229.

Waterman, D. (1989). Diversity and quality of information products in a monopolistically competitive

industry. Information Economics and Policy, 4 (4), 291-303.

Wildman, S. S. & Siwek, S. S. (1988). International trade in films and television programs. Cambridge,

MA: Ballinger Publishing Co.

World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers. (2014). Soft censorship, hard impact: A global

review. Retrieved June 25, 2014, from www.wan-ifra.org

World Bank Institute, (2002). The right to tell: The role of mass media in economic development.

Washington, D.C.: Wor

27