Television Coverage of State Government

HE federal government and local governments have grown in recent years, but the expansion of state governments has been most dramatic. Between 1960 and 1972, spending by state governments more than tripled and the number of state government employees nearly doubled (Palmer, 1977:4). Despite these changes, state gov-ernments continue to suffer from a visibility problem, manifested in low levels of public awareness, knowledge, and participation (Jen-nings and Ziegler, 1970; Reeves and Glendening, 1976; Milbrath, 1971). These conditions fall far short of the "rational-activist " model of political linkage. Clearly, state politics is not characterized by "extensive information, accurate communication, broad participation, attention to politics, rational choice " (Luttbeg, 1974:4). One reason for the low salience of state government is the states ' middle role in our federal system, which often obscures the states ' responsibility for a wide range of policy decisions (Palmer:9). Another reason is the prevalence of interstate residency changes, which reduces incentives for citizens to learn the intricacies of par-ticular state governments (Berman, 1975:12). Insofar as the low salience of state government is due to these factors, it is probably beyond control. However, the salience of state government, like the salience of various issues, may depend substantially on the amount of Abstract An empirical analysis of 3,334 state and local television news stories in 10 cities clarifies the reluctance of commercial television newscasters to cover state government. Contrary to what many television news directors assert, television's minimal attention to state government cannot be attributed to an alleged negative relationship between state government and newscast ratings. Rather, it appears to stem from the high cost of obtaining filmed coverage of state government in a timely fashion