Communicating the Negative Aspects Of

8/8/2019 Communicating the Negative Aspects Of

1/14

Communicating the Negative Aspects ofPack Journalism to Media Reporters

Gerald-Mark Breen and Jonathan MatusitzUniversity of Central Florida, USA

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate, through various discussions, how and why pack journalism

is a negative and unethical media practice, and why the material contained herein should be read by

journalism scholars and practitioners as a method of education in order to reduce journalistic propensity

and usage of pack journalism practices. The first section is a definition of pack journalism based on

scholarly, research-oriented sources as well as explanations given by professional, practical figures who

study this area of journalistic conduct. The authors, then, delve into the general unethical aspects and

implications inherent in the practice of pack journalism. With the intent to provide sufficient evidence to

avert and sway journalists away from the practice, the authors offer individualized sections on how pack

journalism (1) can render a loss of independent reporting, (2) can contribute to through looking at

actual, prominent cases (Michael Jackson trial, Scott Peterson trial, and Asian Tsunami disaster in 2004)

misfortune and unfairness to those targeted by the packs, and (3) how groupthink, a communication

theory explaining the negatively perceived social behavior that can create disastrous outcomes, is related

to pack journalism. What comes next is a description of Social Responsibility Theory, an original and

historical model and series of recommendations of how journalists should ethically and honestly conduct

themselves vis--vis the media. Through these various sections, and the discussions and arguments

thereof, the authors believe that this paper is an educational tool and preventive strategy to influence

and/or convince media personnel of the pitfalls of pack journalism, how wrong and harmful it can be, and

how to avoid it, if and when possible, so as to serve the best public interest.

Pack Journalism: A Definition

Before specifically addressing strategic methods by which journalists can be educated and trained to

avert pack journalistic practices, we find it necessary to go over pack journalism as a definition and

description first and to clearly identify the conditions that constitute the practice. Protess et al. (1992)

define pack journalism as "journalism of outrage," is a collection of behavior and conditions by which

substantial groups of reporters from diverse and typically large media outlets collaborate in the samephysical surroundings to cover the same story (Bloom, 2002; Breen & Matusitz, 2006; Broder, 2000;

Frank, 2003; Matusitz & Breen, 2007; Ross, 1998; Stoddard, 2005). These "packs" cite or draw from the

same available information, simultaneously, generally with the same intention (Breen & Matusitz, 2005a;

Grimes, 1994; Kalb, 1994; Lauterer, 2000), with the same "pack-like instincts" (McNair, 2000, p. 137), and

executing the same gathering and reporting methods (Kalb, 1994; Sanders, 2003). They flock like a

cluster of birds where each journalist observes carefully what the other journalists are writing, doing, and
http://www.ucf.edu/http://www.ucf.edu/


2/14

highlighting. The journalists often transfer from mega-event to mega-event, lodge together in a closely

linked group of hotels overlooking the streets, and congregate outside of courthouses, other government

buildings, or at the accident scenes. Typically, their primary goal is to obtain comments from the important

sources (Bloom, 2002; Frank, 2003; Glascock, 2004; Kalb, 1994; Knowlton, 1997; Matusitz & Breen,

2007; Stoddard, 2005).

Pack journalism has been observed as an actual practice for a considerable period of time (Breen &

Matusitz, 2006; Craig, 1996; Gordon et al., 1999; Knowlton, 1997; Matusitz & Breen, 2007; Ross, 1998).

For instance, it was documented in 1960 when herds of reporters pursued and covered incidents

involving President Eisenhower. Steele, Babcock, and Johnson (1999), neophytes in their journalistic

careers at that time observed: "Reporters were talking about what the story was; they were agreeing what

the essence was before it even happened. After the event, they collaborated on the collective lead" (p. 2).

Nevertheless, it was not until 1973 that the term "pack journalism" was coined by prominent journalistic

figure Timothy Crouse. Crouses motivation for identifying the practice emerged from his observation of

journalists behavior during his participation in the 1972 Nixon and McGovern presidential elections.

Specifically, Crouse witnessed the manner in which campaign journalists pursued political contestants, for

weeks or months at a time, like a massive school of fish swimming together in unison (Crouse, 1973;

Kuhn & Neveu, 2002; Roa, & Lee, 2005; Rosenstiel, 2005). Riding on the same bus or airplane, the

reporters dined, sipped liquor, socialized, shared and compared notes with other colleagues for extended

periods of continuous time (Crouse, 1973), and bunked up together in dormitory-like settings similar to

military barracks (Bennett, 2003; Matusitz & Breen, 2007; Stoddard, 2005). Campaign journalism, as

Crouse (1973) asserted in his book, sculpted itself into what is commonly known as pack journalism. The

purpose is to persistently pursue a political candidate (Broder, 2000; Clawson & Oxley, 2008; Knowlton,

1997; Kuhn & Neveu, 2002; Roa & Lee, 2005; Rosenstiel, 2005); reporters must seek out and connect to

the pack of other reporters, where even the most autonomous reporter "cannot completely escape the

pressures of the pack" (Crouse, 1973, p. 15).

Negative Ethical Implications of Pack Journalism

One straightforward and candid method of educating journalists on the negativities of pack journalism and

why media personnel should avoid or reduce their tendencies and practices of this reporting behavior can

be by simply identifying the negative ethical implications of the practice.

Nowadays, pack journalism has become integrated into traditional political journalism (Kuhn & Neveu,

2002; McNair, 2000; Roa & Lee, 2005; Rosenstiel, 2005). This pack-style news coverage leads to agenda

setting in journalism, which results in "mainstream pack journalism" (Bloom, 2002; Wright, 2003). The

issue evident here is that pack journalism is viewed as not only flawed and inefficient, but also unethical

and lacking good principle (Broder; 2000; Frank, 2003; Ross, 1998). Moreover, scholarly figures in the


3/14

fields of mass communication and political science share common perceptions on the deleterious and

unethical nature of this news media practice (Belsey & Chadwick, 1992; Rosenstiel, 2005; Sanders,

2003). Pack journalists, or those who implement the practice, are at fault, because they perpetuate

questionable issues of journalistic laziness, short-term and long-term misguidance and paranoia to

readers and viewers (due to sensationalizations and the redundant reporting styles), an increased

invasion of privacy into celebrities and citizens who become the focus of news events, a reduction of

independence in news reporting, the potential hazard of lost credibility in the content of news reported by

packs, and economic and fiscal mismanagement. Importantly, not only can such unethical journalism risk

the physical safety of those being covered, but it can also disseminate information, that can adversely,

and sometimes permanently, affect peoples reputations (Breen & Matusitz, 2005b; Englehardt, 2002;

Glascock, 2004; Litwin, 2008; Maisel, West, & Clifton, 2007; Sanders, 2003; Seib, 1997).

Loss of Independent Reporting

Perhaps the most despicable and horrendous consequence of pack journalism "is the loss of independent

reporting" (Gordon et al., 1999, p. 286). When reporters learn that pack journalism causes the loss of

independent reporting, they should be more willing to avoid the practice of pack journalism altogether and

to emphasize that facts and truths are what they should report to media consumers. Thus, informing

journalists of this consequence of pack journalism is an excellent method by which they can avoid or

minimize this behavior.

Even though journalists sometimes think of themselves as non-conformists and independent thinkers,

they are practically commanded by editorial and executive leaders in media outlets to "follow the pack."

Their individual opinions about events become identical to those of other journalists due to the conformity

of the parallel interpretation of those events. Likewise, numerous news organizations appoint a sizable

number of reporters to the same events. In effect, they feel that there is genuine elimination of

independent reporting, a disproportionate and mismanaged selection of news topics, and a loss in ones

wishes to dissent(Stoddard, 2005; Stone, 1989). Gordon et al. (1999) note:

Although one might blame reporters, photographers, videographers, and sound

recordists for the mob scenes that have cast disrepute on the news media and made

public life much less attractive, the blame really should fall on the city editors who send

out these reporters and photographers (p. 285).

Indeed, it appears that the ordinary lone-reporter method of newsgathering that is deemed "critical,

analytical, and interpretative" (Lule, 1992, p. 4) and that strives for novel and creative content (Breen &

Matusitz, 2006; Grossman, 2000) has been supplanted by behavior that typifies a communication theory

known as "groupthink" (Janis, 1972), perpetuating the sort of pack mentality that yields news coverage in

a one-dimensional fashion. When this situation occurs, individuality is affected and diminishes.


4/14

Furthermore, while the general public perceives reporters to be culpable for exercising this behavior, they

are only partially at fault. In actuality, the news editors and the powerful media organizations are

responsible (Frank, 2003; Matusitz & Breen, 2007; Stoddard, 2005).

Needless to say, since pack journalism has been swapped by a type of "groupthink" (Janis, 1972) and

group mentality that yields news coverage in a one-sided manner, it has also rendered an almost sheer

eradication of credibility in the news printed (Craig, 1996; Frank, 2003; Stoddard, 2005) through the

employment of deceptive and excessive expression (Frank, 2003; Haiman, 1999). This ethical issue of

journalistic fraud, inaccuracy, and hyperbole is an instance that presents a serious threat to honest and

candid news coverage, which is in direct contrast to the true purpose that media creators, producers, and

distributors are designed to practice and uphold.

In addition to the aforementioned discussion of groupthink, the concept will be addressed in greater detail

later in the paper and will be emphasized as a specific topic to raise to pack journalists to minimize their

behavior in this regard.

Prominent Stories Covered by Unethical and Damaging Pack Journalism

Another way we have decided to demonstrate how pack journalism is unethical, and thus, should be

presented to journalistic reporters who disreputably practice their methods as such, is by looking at some

major cases in media history (Glascock, 2004) that received such coverage and resulted in terrible and

unfair circumstances. Here, we will examine three cases in particular, deemed as bona fide cases of pack

journalism (Breen & Matusitz, 2005a; 2005b; 2005c). They are Michael Jackson Sexual Molestation

Case, the Scott Peterson Murder Trial, and the Great Tsunami Disaster of 2004. These classic examples

effectively demonstrate why media personnel should minimize or abandon pack journalism strategies.

The Michael Jackson Sexual Molestation Case(MJSMC)

The pack journalists who reported on the MJSMC clearly and unethically helped Michael Jackson in

numerous ways, as demonstrated by his full acquittal of a plethora of felonious charges that were

vehemently brought against him by prosecutors. For instance, pack journalists overstated and broadly

announced Jacksons self-proclamations of his innocence, which were affirmed by his attorneys and his

fans from all over the world (Breen & Matusitz, 2005a). Not only did the pack journalists engage in the

aforementioned behavior, but they also maintained a clear pattern of demonizing the representation of the

prosecution and the motivation for their case (indeed, this kind of media coverage won in doubting the

prosecutions evidence and contentions). As was seen by the world, Jackson was officially vindicated on

all felony counts (Breen & Matusitz, 2005a).


5/14

Additionally, pack journalists consistently depicted Michael Jackson as unblemished, printing stories that

emphasized strong support from other celebrities (e.g., Elizabeth Taylor), while portraying the

prosecutions case as weak, unsubstantial, and malicious. As a result of this pack coverage, the court

proceedings were delayed multiple times and people developed profound disdain for the accusers, the

prosecuting attorneys. Furthermore, this pack journalism influenced the trial and jury, earning Jackson a

complete acquittal of the charges against him. Due to his high profile, pack journalists indeed worked in

Michael Jacksons favor, which resulted in a "not guilty" verdict that an ordinary individual would likely not

have been so lucky to receive.

The Scott Peterson Murder Trial

The media coverage in the 2003-2005 Scott Peterson Murder Trial demonstrates another prime example

of the unethical nature of pack journalism (Breen & Matusitz, 2005b; Skoloff, 2004). Aside from

transparent blanket-press coverage from media personnel, the entire Scott Peterson murder trial, from

beginning to end, received a tremendous amount of coverage from leading news sources. According to

Skoloff (2004), as well as Breen & Matusitz (2005b), the Scott Peterson murder trial was featured on

more People magazine covers than any homicide investigation in the publications history.

Throughout the case, pack journalists from the U.S. and other parts of the world persistently stalked Scott

Peterson, his mistress (Amber Frey), the victims relatives, the defense and prosecuting lawyers, and

members of the jury. The media frenzy consumed the resources of two chief newspapers, namely The

New York Times and TheChicago Tribune. The archives ofTheNew York Times showcases pack

journalism at its worst. The widespread reports from the attorneys and the emotionally charged

descriptions of the victims relatives reveal the unethical and excessive media coverage (Breen &

Matusitz, 2005b). In particular, these unethical practices, committed by the pack journalists, include

reporters swarming around Mark Geragos, the tampering and muddling of evidence, the invasive and

unnecessarily negative investigation of the retired judge, the journalistic abuse of the poignant, emotional

eruptions from the victims relatives, and the harsh, even inhuman and monstrous, depiction of Scott

Peterson (Breen & Matusitz, 2005b). These particular cases also reveal how media consumers in the

New York district and the readership in New Yorks surrounding geographic areas were influenced and

how their beliefs and attitudes about the case were shaped by the stories in The New York Times.

In the same trial, The Chicago Tribune also engaged in pack journalism. According to Breen and Matusitz

(2005b), through the icy and remorseless portrayal of Scott Peterson and the encouragement of women

to be suspicious or at least consider their own husbands latent capacities for murder, The Chicago

Tribune distributed multiple articles that irreparably impaired and injured Petersons public reputation.

These powerful editorials contributed to the guilty verdict and Peterson subsequently receiving the death

penalty. According to Breen and Matusitz (2005b), the level of journalistic misconduct throughout the


6/14

Peterson case can be categorized as "immoral and malicious newsgathering and reporting" (p. 14).

Furthermore, Breen and Matusitz (2005b) asserted:

From damaging credibility and reputation (i.e., slander, libel, hyperbole, and defamation of character) to

the emotional blackmail of the victims family and the dehumanization of Scott Peterson to influence

public opinion, all of these unethical harms to all parties concerned constitute immoral newsgathering

procedures. The Scott Peterson murder trial embodied one of the worst and damaging kinds of pack

journalism in history (p.15).

The Great Tsunami Disaster of 2004

On December 26, 2004, a sudden and catastrophic earthquake of biblical proportions spurred several

tsunamis (large tidal waves) that flooded a number of maritime regions in Southern Asia (primarily,

Indonesia, India, Malaysia, and Sri Lanka) and claiming more than 150,000 human lives (Breen &

Matusitz, 2005c; Djuhari, 2004). After the story aired, pack journalists fled to the scene in search of

information. Utilizing countless resources, including helicopters, cameras, news crews, and employing

any means necessary to obtain pictures and descriptions of the disastrous aftermath, the reporters seized

the area. According to Breen and Matusitz (2005c), pack journalists outside the region (such as in Europe

and the United States) also participated via satellite newsgathering equipment, launching,

a media frenzy of reporting in nearly every newspaper on the globe. The widespread coverage of the

disaster (e.g., via newspapers, television news channels, as well as comparable reporting styles), in

addition to the manner and tone (sensational, aggrandized, and cataclysmic language) in which the

stories were told, illuminate one important way in which pack journalism can produce significantly

negative effects. These effects include the inducement of global hysteria (p. 13).

Significantly, in cases where satellite technology is required for newsgathering, reports are sometimes

delayed, information can become inaccurate, and at times media organizations receiving the information

exaggerate the details of the event (Livingston & Van Belle, 2005).

With that said, the horrific and graphic photographs plastered alongside the articles themselves (which

usually included corpses, screaming people, and all sorts of miserable and agonizing human expression),

and the enlarged bold-print titles were the first images that newspaper readers viewed. As suggested by

Marris and Thornham (2000), as well as Hastings, Stead, and Webb (2004), these headlines (the actual

words) carry the greatest weight in terms of bringing the initial, and thus, most emotional, mental, and

psychological impact to media consumers. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that they are accurate

representations of the event.

Is Pack Journalism a Form of Groupthink?


7/14

Journalists engage in pack reporting can learn to minimize their behavior by looking at the similarity

between pack journalism and theoretical concept of groupthink. Groupthink is a theoretical construct that

was officially established by Lewin in the 1930s and then later empirically and scientifically advanced by

Irvin Janis (1972). One way to comprehend groupthink is to view it as a "mode of thinking that people

engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members striving for

unanimity overrides their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action" (Janis, 1982, p.

6). Miller (2001) more recently identified that in instances involving groupthink, "group members have a

strong desire to get along with each other and maintain good feelings about the group" (p. 221). Due to

this collective pursuit to preserve group cohesiveness, there is a propensity or proclivity for the individual

group members to hesitate to mention "contrary points of view, will try to keep others in agreement with

the group as a whole, and will maintain a belief (usually illusory) that the group is in complete agreement

and is invulnerable to errors" (Miller, 2001, p. 221). Based on these scholarly assumptions, it is logical to

assert that groupthink is conceptually similar if not identical to the conditions of pack journalism practices,

especially when reviewing classic historical decisions (Matusitz & Breen, 2007). In a recent article byMatusitz and Breen (2007), pertinent examples were identified, such as the groupthink decisions on the

Pearl Harbor bombing, the Vietnam war, the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Watergate scandal, the space

shuttle explosions and deaths of both the Challenger and Columbia crew members, the bankruptcy of

Enron, and the decision to invade and begin a war in Iraq in 2003.

As noted earlier in this paper, pack journalism occurs when sizable groups of reporters surround a news

site, partake in copycat reporting by unethically and haphazardly exchanging news information, and

listlessly refusing to verify the data through independent sources (Breen & Matusitz, 2005a; 2005b;

2005c; Crouse, 1973; Frank, 2003). Along the same lines, groupthink is a theoretical idea that illustrates aconsensus-seeking tendency in particular groups. Occasionally, the consequences of this decision-

making process can be defective, sometimes resulting in deadly and catastrophic circumstances.

Individuals working in journalism (Janis, 1982; 1989) and government (Ben-David, 2000) share common

perceptions on pack journalisms flaws and its noticeable and inherent link to groupthink. These quotes

emphasize the issues of one-dimensional reporting of events, an inevitable disregard for independence in

news reporting (Matusitz & Breen, 2007), and the peril of lost believability and accuracy in the actual

printed news submitted by the pack journalists, which is eventually distributed through newspapers. This

is what actually characterizes the dynamics and conditions of groupthink: one-dimensional thinking, an

absence or disappearance of independence (of the mind), and a loss of reporting accuracy (Matusitz &Breen, 2007).

According to Ben-David (2000), a distinguished Israeli diplomat, pack journalism is utilized because: "For

some reporters, it is easier to file the same story as their colleagues. They can share the research, the

cab fare, the information, and the work and in some cases the ignorance" (Ben-David, 2000, p. 1).


8/14

Nearly identical conclusions were drawn from Kalb, an equally prestigious scholar. Kalb (1994) is quoted

as describing pack journalism as follows:

For those who still see conspiracy in examples of overlapping reporting, there is a possible explanation in

what is called "pack journalism," reporters who band together and cover the same story, the same

sources, in the same way. Covering a campaign or the White House or any other story where a horde of

journalists rush after a single source can often yield the meager one-dimensional news product

associated with "pack journalism" (p. 1).

Clearly, pack journalism is one type of manifestation of groupthink activity based on the theoretical criteria

as posited by Janis (1982; 1989). In each of the aforementioned instances, pack journalists adopted a

"mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the

members striving for unanimity overrides their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of

action" (Janis, 1982, p. 6). Furthermore, as suggested in works by Miller (2001), pack journalists are

group members who express "a strong desire to get along with each other and maintain good feelings

about the group" (p. 221). Since there is an effort to keep a strong connection with members of the group,

what has occurred in all of these cases is that singular individuals within the group developed and was

rendered into a forced reluctance to address differing perspectives, strived to maintain accord with the

group as sort of team, and retained a type of faith that the group was in total union and was safe from any

blunders that may have taken place (Miller, 2001). Nevertheless, the bottom line is that pack journalism

represents a significant kind of groupthink (Janis, 1982, 1989).

Social Responsibility Theory: An Ideal Abandoned by Some Journalists

Another means by which to convince and educate journalists regarding the unethical and negative

features of pack journalism is by conducting a simple comparative analysis between the conditions of

pack journalism and Social Responsibility Theory. This type of analysis, as presented here, should

provide adequate persuasion to make pack journalists reconsider their styles of reporting and perhaps

choose to pursue a different method of newsgathering.

The Hutchins Commission, an organization created in 1947 by Time Magazine creator Henry Luce and

his Yale University colleague Robert Hutchins, devised a series of guidelines by which journalists should

ethically operate. These guidelines were framed into a theoretical construct known as SocialResponsibility Theory (SRT) (Matusitz & Breen, 2007). SRT advocates the attitude and addresses that

the press be responsible and print materials to present to the public in a truthful way (Lloyd, 1991).

Because magazines, newspapers, television news stations, and other types of media channels have

always been essential and important conduits of information designed for public education (Matusitz &

Breen, 2007), the Hutchins Commission was created with the purpose of widely asserting to all that

unless "adequate, reliable, truthful, and total coverage of all major and minor events relevant to all groups


9/14

are included in all news publications, the public as a whole would inevitably be ignorant, misled, and/or

victimized by propaganda" (p. 18).

More specifically, it is important to mention what the Hutchins Commission recommended in their official

statements and arranged guidelines. These recommendations emphasized that society as a whole should

have five, principal expectations of the media and how they should function in the best interest of society.

The following statements represent the verbatim recommendations as published by the Hutchins

Commission (Lyons, 1947):

A truthful, comprehensive, and intelligent account of the days events in a context which gives them

meaning.

A forum for the exchange of comment and criticism.

The projection of a representative picture of the constituent groups in the society.

The presentation and clarification of the goals and values of the society.

Full access to the days intelligence (p. 1).

Considering these tenets, it is logical to infer that the very essence of pack journalism runs contradicts

principles recommended by the Hutchins Commission. Also, by taking these statements into account and

having a clear understanding of what typically constitutes pack journalism behavior, it could arguably be

deemed as a monster that perpetrates a deceitful and shallow account of the days events, a

contraposition to what Social Responsibility Theory involves (Matusitz & Breen, 2007).

Discussion

The information presented in this paper makes it clear that pack journalists, and media personnel in

general, need to be made aware of the hazards involved in practicing this type of newsgathering. Of

course, the primary goal of this paper is to inform journalism scholars and practitioners in an effort to

teach them how and why pack journalism is a behavior, set of conditions, and practice that must be

reduced as much as possible and understood as something that should and must be either minimized or

eliminated together. As scholars of mass communication research, we believe it is unrealistic to expect

journalists to stop utilizing this practice entirely. Furthermore, we also do not expect that the information

provided in this paper will prompt journalists to cease utilizing standardized industry practices.

However, we remain optimistic and believe that some pack journalists may read and recognize that they

may need to reconsider how they perform their jobs, which may result in the implementation of fewer pack

practices. In addition, we hope that pack journalists realize that Social Responsibility Theory is not


10/14

necessarily an obsolete or archaic set of guidelines that should be disregarded in favor of contemporary

newsgathering practices. Social Responsibility Theory is a sound, reasonable, and honest method of

newsgathering that journalists can still employ. Without responsibility, accountability, and a serious

dedication to delivering news to people with the intent of truthfully informing them and keeping their best

interests at heart, the media will continue to misinform, hyperbolize, and sensationalize stories. The

longer this distortion of current events continues, the less informed citizens of the world will be. Is this not

the truth? You be the judge.

References

Arterburn, T. R. (1998, July 28). Hometown of a shooting suspect copes with a media frenzy. Christian

Science Monitor, p. A5.

Belsey, A., & Chadwick, R. (1992). Ethical issues in journalism and the media. New York: Routledge.

Ben-David, L. (2000). Why are they saying all those terrible things about Israel?New York: Routledge.

Bennett, W. L. (2003). News content: Four information biases that matter. In W. L. Bennett (Ed.), The

politics of illusion (pp. 41-78). New York: Longman.

Bloom, S. G. (2002). Inside the writers mind: Writing narrative journalism. Iowa City: Iowa State Press.

Breen, G. M., & Matusitz, J. (2005a, November). Pack journalism as a tool for celebrity criminals: A

textual analysis of the Michael Jackson sexual scandal media coverage. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the National Communication Association, Boston.

Breen, G. M., & Matusitz, J. (2005b, November). Pack journalism at its worst: A textual analysis of the

media coverage of the Scott Peterson trial. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National

Communication Association, Boston.

Breen, G. M., & Matusitz, J. (2005c, November). The Asian tsunami disaster: A textual analysis of how

pack journalism creates global hysteria. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National

Communication Association, Boston.

Breen, G. M., & Matusitz, J. (2006, November). Inoculation theory: A theoretical and practical framework

for conferring resistance to pack journalism tendencies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

National Communication Association, San Antonio.

Broder, D. S. (2000). Behind the front page. New York: Simon & Schuster.


11/14

Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (2008). Public opinion: Democratic ideals, democratic practice.

Washington D.C.: CQ Press.

Craig, D. A. (1996). Communitarian journalism(s): Clearing conceptual landscapes. Journal of Mass

Media Ethics, 11(2), 107-118.

Crouse, T. (1973). The boys on the bus.New York: Random House Press.

Djuhari, L. T. (2004, December 28). U.N. says death toll may top 100,000.AOL News, p. A1.

Frank, R. (2003). These crowded circumstances: When pack journalists bash pack journalism.

Journalism, 4(4), 441-458.

Glascock, J. (2004). The Jasper dragging death: Crisis communication and the community newspaper.

Communication Studies, 55(1), 29-47.

Gordon, A., Kittross, J., Merrill, J., & Reuss, C. (1999). Controversies in media ethics.Reading, MA:

Addison Wesley.

Grimes, W. (2004). Pack journalism. New York Times Book Review, 153(52809), 1-10.

Grossman, L. (2000). Reflections on broadcast award: Amidst the chaff, some good stuff. Columbia

Journalism Review, 38, p. 64.

Haiman, F. S. (1999). The voices of extremism revisited. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 16,

119-135.

Hallett, J. (2003, April 13). Pack journalism added to the confusion during the 93 LucasVille riot. The

Columbus Dispatch, p. B5.

Hanson, C. (1994). Courting disaster. Columbia Journalism Review, 5, 15-27.

Hastings, G., Stead, M., & Webb, J. (2004). Fear appeals in social marketing: Strategic and ethical

reasons for concern. Psychology and Marketing, 21(11), 961-986.

Janis, I. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign policy decisions and fiascos.

Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Kalb, M. (1994). The Nixon memo. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.


12/14

Kann, P. (1994, October 29). 10 disturbing trends in U.S. journalism. Editor and Publisher, p. A18.

Knowlton, S. R. (1997). Moral reasoning for journalists: Cases and commentary. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Kolodzy, J. (2004). Pack journalism: Seen from two sides, darkly. Christian Science Monitor, 96(242), p.

9.

Kramer, R. M. (1998). Revisiting the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam decisions 25 years later: How well has the

groupthink hypothesis stood the test of time? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,

73, 236-271.

Kuhn, R., & Neveu, E. (2002). Political journalism: New challenges, new practices. New York: Routledge.

Lauterer, J. (2000). Community journalism: The personal approach. Iowa City: Iowa State Press.

Litwin, M. L. (2008). The ABCs of strategic communication: Thousands of terms, tips and techniques.

Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.

Livingston, S., & Van Belle, D. (2005). The effects of satellite technology on newsgathering from remote

locations. Political Communication, 22(1), 45-62.

Lloyd, S. (1991). A criticism of Social Responsibility Theory: An ethical perspective. Journal of Mass

Media Ethics, 6(4), p. 199.

Lule, J. (1992). I. F. Stones ethical perspective. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 8, 88-102.

Lyons, L. (1947). The press and its critics. The Atlantic Monthly,1, 115-116.

MacDougall, A. K. (1989). Memoirs of a radical in the mainstream press. Columbia Journalism Review, 2,

36-41.

Maisel, L. S., West, D. M., & Clifton, B. M. (2007). Evaluating campaign quality: Can the electoral process

be improved?Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marris, P., & Thornham (2000). Media studies: A reader. New York: New York University Press.

Matusitz, J., & Breen, G. M. (2007). Unethical consequences of pack journalism. Global Media Journal,

6(11).

Mundy, A. (1995, July 31). Gunning with the pack. MediaWeek, p. A15.


13/14

McNair, B. (2000). Journalism and democracy: An evaluation of the political public sphere. New York:

Routledge.

Miller, K. (2001). Communication theories. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Postman, D. (1998, May 23). Backlash to media mob: You have no sympathy. Seattle Times, p. A1.

Protess, D. L., Cook, F. L., Doppelt, J. C., Ettema, J. S., Gordon, M. T., Leff, D. R., & Miller, P. (1992).

The journalism of outrage: investigative reporting and agenda building in America. New York: The

Guildford Press.

Roa, S., & Lee, S. T. (2005). Globalizing media ethics? An assessment of universal ethics among

international political journalists. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 20(2), 99-120.

Raven, B. H. (1998). Groupthink, Bay of Pigs, and Watergate reconsidered. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 73, 352-361.

Rooney, B. (2004, December 11). Media metropolis at Peterson trial: Blanket press coverage as jury

weighs death penalty decision.ABC News Network: World News Tonight.

Rosenstiel, T. (2005). Political polling and the new media culture. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69(5), 698-

715.

Ross, S. D. (1998). Pack journalism. In M. Blanchard (Ed.), History of the mass media in the United

States: An encyclopedia (pp. 489-490). Chicago, IL: Fitzroy Dearborn.

Sanders, K. (2003). Ethics and journalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Seib, P. M. (1997). Journalism ethics. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Steele, R., Babcock, W., & Johnson, H. (1999). Eye-opening encounters.American Journalism Review,

21, p. 6.

Stewart, R. (1999, February 2). Circus has come back to town. Houston Chronicle, p. A1.

Stoddard, A. B. (2005). The new pack journalism. Congressional Quarterly, 63(11), p. 1.

Stone, I. F. (1989). The haunted fifties: 1953-1963. Boston: Little, Brown & Company.


14/14

Ullmann, O. (1991, January). Inside the White House: Pecking orders,pack journalism, and other stories

of the people who cover the president. The Washingtonian, p. A5.

Vincent, R. C., Crow, B. K., & Davis, D. K. (1997). When technology fails: The drama of airline crashes in

network television news. In D. Berkowitz (Ed.), Socialmeanings of news (pp. 351-361). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Wicker, T. (1989, June 20). Two honorable men. New York Times, p. A23.

Documents

Communicating the Negative Aspects Of