News in a Digital Age Comparing the

Presentation of News Information over

Time and across Media Platforms
Jennifer Kavanagh
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/news-in-a-digital-age-comparing-the-presentation-of-
news-information-over-time-and-across-media-platforms-jennifer-kavanagh/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Fake News, Propaganda, and Plain Old Lies: How to Find

Trustworthy Information in the Digital Age Donald A.
Barclay

https://textbookfull.com/product/fake-news-propaganda-and-plain-
old-lies-how-to-find-trustworthy-information-in-the-digital-age-
donald-a-barclay/

Image Brokers: Visualizing World News in the Age of

Digital Circulation Zeynep Devrim Gürsel

https://textbookfull.com/product/image-brokers-visualizing-world-
news-in-the-age-of-digital-circulation-zeynep-devrim-gursel/

The Origin of Dialogue in the News Media Regula Hänggli

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-origin-of-dialogue-in-the-
news-media-regula-hanggli/

Sharing News Online: Commendary Cultures and Social

Media News Ecologies Fiona Martin

https://textbookfull.com/product/sharing-news-online-commendary-
cultures-and-social-media-news-ecologies-fiona-martin/
Dynamics of News Reporting and Writing Foundational
Skills for a Digital Age 1st Edition Vincent F. Filak

https://textbookfull.com/product/dynamics-of-news-reporting-and-
writing-foundational-skills-for-a-digital-age-1st-edition-
vincent-f-filak/

In the News The Practice of Media Relations in Canada

William Wray Carney

https://textbookfull.com/product/in-the-news-the-practice-of-
media-relations-in-canada-william-wray-carney/

The Independence of the News Media: Francophone

Research on Media, Economics and Politics Loïc
Ballarini

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-independence-of-the-news-
media-francophone-research-on-media-economics-and-politics-loic-
ballarini/

Skills in the Age of Over Qualification Comparing

Service Sector Work in Europe 1st Edition Caroline
Lloyd

https://textbookfull.com/product/skills-in-the-age-of-over-
qualification-comparing-service-sector-work-in-europe-1st-
edition-caroline-lloyd/

The discourse of news values : how news organizations

create newsworthiness 1st Edition Bednarek

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-discourse-of-news-values-
how-news-organizations-create-newsworthiness-1st-edition-
bednarek/
 A RAND Initiative to Restore the Role of Facts and Analysis in Public Life

NEWS
IN A DIGITAL AGE
Comparing the Presentation of News Information over
Time and Across Media Platforms

JENNIFER KAVANAGH​ I WILLIAM MARCELLINO

JONATHAN S. BLAKE I SHAWN SMITH

STEVEN DAVENPORT I MAHLET G. TEBEKA

C O R P O R AT I O N
 For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR2960

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication.

ISBN: 978-1-9774-0231-8

Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif.

© Copyright 2019 RAND Corporation
R® is a registered trademark.

Cover design by Pete Soriano. Cover image: Adobe Stock/terovesalainen.

Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation
of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized
posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this
document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is
required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents
for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit
www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public

policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure,
healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the
public interest.

RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.

Support RAND
Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at
www.rand.org/giving/contribute

www.rand.org
Preface

The media ecosystem in the United States has experienced rapid techno-
logical changes over the past 30 years that have affected the way news is
produced, consumed, and disseminated. This internally funded report
seeks to assess empirically whether and how presentation of news in
newspapers, television, and online has changed in light of these devel-
opments. We use RAND-Lex, a suite of RAND Corporation tools that
combine text analysis and machine learning, to explore changes in news
presentation over time and across platforms. It considers the implications
of observed changes and of areas in which reporting has stayed the same.
The report will be of interest to journalists, those who study news media
and mass communication, and consumers who want to understand more
about the media ecosystem and how it has evolved.
This report is one of a series focused on the topic of Truth Decay,
defined as the diminishing role that facts, data, and analysis play in
today’s political and civil discourse. The original report, Truth Decay:
An Initial Exploration of the Diminishing Role of Facts and Analysis in
American Public Life by Jennifer Kavanagh and Michael D. Rich, was
published in January 2018 and laid out a research agenda for studying
and developing solutions to the Truth Decay challenge.

RAND Ventures

RAND is a research organization that develops solutions to public

policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world

iii
iv News in a Digital Age

safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is non-
profit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest.
RAND Ventures is a vehicle for investing in policy solutions.
Philanthropic contributions support our ability to take the long view,
tackle tough and often-controversial topics, and share our findings
in innovative and compelling ways. RAND’s research findings and
recommendations are based on data and evidence, and therefore do
not necessarily reflect the policy preferences or interests of its clients,
donors, or supporters.
Funding for this venture was provided by gifts from RAND
supporters and income from operations. For more information about
RAND Ventures, visit www.rand.org/giving/ventures.
Contents

Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi
Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii

CHAPTER ONE
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Changing Media Ecosystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
News Presentation in a Digital Age: Past Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Limitations of Existing Work and Contributions of This Report.. . . . . . . . . . . 15
Objective of This Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Outline of This Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

CHAPTER TWO
Data and Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Preparing the Data for Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Periodization and Comparisons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Analysis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

CHAPTER THREE
Changes in Newspaper Reporting over Time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Discussion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

v
vi News in a Digital Age

CHAPTER FOUR
Differences in Television News.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Discussion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

CHAPTER FIVE
Comparing Print and Online Journalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Discussion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

CHAPTER SIX
Summary and Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Print Journalism: Modest Shifts Toward More-Subjective Reporting. . . . . 121
Television News: Stronger Shifts to Subjectivity, Conversation, and
Argument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Online Journalism: Toward a Subjective Kind of Advocacy.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Implications for Truth Decay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Next Steps: What Other Research Is Needed?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

APPENDIXES
A. About RAND-Lex. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
B. Graphs from Subsample Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
C. ANOVA Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
About the Authors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Figures

2.1. Corpus-Level ANOVA View. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

2.2. Tagged-Text View. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.1. Significant Linguistic Factors by Group: Newspapers Pre-
Versus Post-2000 (Full Sample). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.2. Detailed Metrics for Newspaper Analysis (Full Sample).. . . . . . . . 53
3.3. Significant Linguistic Factors by Group: National
Newspapers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.4. Detailed Metrics for Newspaper Analysis (National
Newspaper Sample).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.1. Significant Linguistic Factors by Group: Broadcast
Television. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4.2. Detailed Metrics for Broadcast Television Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.3. Significant Linguistic Factors by Group: Broadcast Versus
Cable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.4. Detailed Metrics: Broadcast Versus Prime-Time Cable
Programming Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
5.1. Significant Linguistic Factors by Group: Newspapers
Versus Online Journalism (Full Sample).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
5.2. Detailed Metrics: Newspapers Versus Online Journalism
Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
5.3. Significant Linguistic Factors by Group: Newspapers
Versus Online Journalism (Reduced Sample). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
5.4. Detailed Metrics: National Newspapers and Reduced
Online Sample .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
B.1. New York Times, Pre- and Post-2000 Comparison. . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
B.2. Washington Post, Pre- and Post-2000 Comparison.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
B.3. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Pre- and Post-2000 Comparison. . . . . . 155
B.4. Online Versus Newspaper Journalism Analysis
Comparison. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

vii
Tables

S.1. Data Sets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

2.1. Readership for Online News Outlets.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.2. Details of Online Journalism Data Collection and
Validation Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.3. Data Sets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.4. RAND-Lex Linguistic Parent Categories and Definitions. . . . . 38
3.1. Characteristics of Newspaper Reporting, Pre- and
Post-2000 (Full Sample). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.2. Textual Examples of Pre-2000 News Presentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.3. Textual Examples of Post-2000 News Presentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.4. Nonstatistically Significant Language Characteristics (Full
Newspaper Sample).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.5. Characteristics of Newspaper Reporting, Pre- and
Post-2000 (National Newspaper Sample).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.6. Textual Examples of Pre-2000 News Presentation
(National Newspaper Sample Only).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.7. Textual Examples of Post-2000 News Presentation
(National Newspaper Sample Only).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.8. Nonstatistically Significant Language Characteristics
(National Newspaper Sample). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.9. Comparisons by Paper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.1. Characteristics of Broadcast News, Pre- and Post-2000. . . . . . . . . 74
4.2. Textual Examples of Pre-2000 Broadcast Television. . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.3. Textual Examples of Post-2000 Broadcast Television
(Vargas Excerpt). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.4. Nonstatistically Significant Language Characteristics:
Broadcast Television (Pre- and Post-2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

ix
x News in a Digital Age

4.5. Characteristics of Broadcast News Versus Prime-Time

Cable Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.6. Textual Examples of Post-2000 Broadcast Television (Cell
Phone Excerpt). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4.7. Textual Examples of Post-2000 Prime-Time Cable
Programming.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.8. Textual Examples of Post-2000 Prime-Time Cable
Programming: Argumentation and Reasoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
4.9. Nonstatistically Significant Language Characteristics:
Broadcast Versus Cable.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
5.1. Characteristics of Newspapers and Online Journalism,
2012–2017. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.2. Textual Examples of Online Journalism: Personal
Disclosure and Thinking, Social Closeness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5.3. Textual Examples of Newspaper Journalism: Characters,
Action, Motion, and Spatial Relations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.4. Textual Examples of Newspaper Journalism: Abstract
Concepts, Elaboration, Time.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.5. Nonstatistically Significant Language Characteristics:
Online Versus Newspapers (Full Sample).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
5.6. Newspapers Versus Online Journalism, Both Samples.. . . . . . . . 115
5.7. Characteristics of Newspaper and Online Journalism,
2012–2017 (Reduced Sample’s Unique Characteristics). . . . . . . 116
5.8. Textual Examples of Online Journalism (Reduced
Sample): General Positivity and Public Virtue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
5.9. Nonstatistically Significant Language Characteristics:
Online Versus Newspapers (Reduced Sample). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
6.1. Summary of Key Results.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
A.1. Definitions of Stance Variables and Categories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
C.1. Full Newspaper Sample, Pre- and Post-2000.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
C.2. National Newspaper Sample, Pre- and Post-2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
C.3. New York Times, Pre- and Post-2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
C.4. Washington Post, Pre- and Post-2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
C.5. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Pre- and Post-2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
C.6. Broadcast Television, Pre- and Post-2000.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
C.7. Broadcast Television Versus Cable Journalism, 2000–2017.. . . . 192
C.8. Online Versus Print Journalism, 2012–2017. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
C.9. Online Versus Print Journalism (reduced sample),
2012–2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Summary

Over the past 30 years, the way that Americans consume and share
information has changed dramatically. People no longer wait for the
morning paper or the evening news. Instead, equipped with smart-
phones or other digital devices, the average person spends hours each
day online, looking at news or entertainment websites, using social
media, and consuming many different types of information. Although
some of the changes in the way news and information are dissemi-
nated can be quantified, far less is known about how the presentation
of news—that is, the linguistic style, perspective, and word choice used
when reporting on current events and issues—has changed over this
period and how it differs across media platforms.1
We aimed to begin to fill this knowledge gap by identifying and
empirically measuring how the presentation of news by U.S. news
sources has changed over time and how news presentation differs
across media platforms.
Our interest and motivation in investigating this topic—the
presentation of news—emerged from observations in a 2018 RAND
Corporation report, Truth Decay: An Initial Exploration of the Dimin-

1 By platform, we refer to the means through which news is delivered and consumed.
Newspapers, broadcast television, cable television, the internet, and social media are all
platforms—as is radio, which was not a subject of this report. The term news presentation
refers to the linguistic style of news and to relevant patterns in usage (e.g., contexts, relevant
frames). The term is intended to encompass both the discourse of news and the style of
presentation.

xi
xii News in a Digital Age

ishing Role of Facts and Analysis in American Public Life.2 That report
pointed to four trends—increasing disagreement about objective facts,
data, and analysis; a blurring of the line between fact and opinion;
an increasing relative volume of opinion over fact; and declining trust
in government, media, and other institutions that used to be sources
of factual information—that together have degraded factual discourse
and called into question the meaning and purpose of news.
In this report, we further analyze the second and third trends
of Truth Decay and explore whether existing trends in news presen-
tation might match the expectations of the Truth Decay framework.
We cannot directly measure the extent to which fact and opinion have
blurred or quantify the relative balance of fact and opinion, but we are
able to measure how characteristics of news presentation—such as per-
sonal perspective, subjectivity, and use of authoritative sources—have
evolved. This report documents the results of our analysis.

Objective and Research Questions

Our objective was to explore how the linguistic style of news cover-
age (e.g., tone, subjectivity, ambiguity, emotion) in select print, broad-
cast, and digital media in the United States has changed over time and
differs across platforms. To pursue this objective, we addressed four
research questions:

• In what measurable ways did the style of news presentation in

print journalism change between 1989 and 2017?
• In what measurable ways did the style of news presentation in
broadcast journalism change between 1989 and 2017?

2 Jennifer Kavanagh and Michael D. Rich, Truth Decay: An Initial Exploration of the
Diminishing Role of Facts and Analysis in American Public Life, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND
Corporation, RR-2314-RC, 2018. The 2018 report is the first in a series of studies, includ-
ing the one that this report focuses on, that RAND intends to produce on Truth Decay, the
phrase that we use to describe the diminishing role of facts, data, and analysis in American
public life. When used in this study, Truth Decay refers to RAND’s larger research effort,
not just to the 2018 report.
 Summary xiii

• How did the style of news presentation in broadcast journalism

differ from the style used in prime-time cable programming over
the period from 2000 to 2017?
• How did the style of news presentation in online journalism differ
from that of print journalism over the period from 2012 to 2017?

Methodology

To address these questions, we began by examining how cable news

networks, the internet, and social media are reshaping the U.S. media
industry and ecosystem and radically changing not only how people
consume information but also how that information is produced,
shared, and disseminated. We also explored past research into how
these changes are affecting news presentation across digital platforms.
We found that most other examinations of news presentation, although
valuable, are qualitative in nature and do not address the specific lin-
guistic characteristics that we were most interested in exploring.
We then turned to quantifying the changes in news presentation
and measuring these changes on different media platforms over time.
To do this, we analyzed and compared the text or transcripts of news
stories produced over different periods by three types of media: print
journalism (the New York Times, Washington Post, and St. Louis Post-
Dispatch), television (broadcast and cable), and online journalism (Bre-
itbart News, BuzzFeed Politics, Daily Caller, HuffPost Politics [which
until April 2017 was Huffington Post], Politico, and TheBlaze). We
chose these sources because they are heavily consumed, generally rep-
resentative of their media cohorts, and generate ample data that team
members could analyze.3

3 For newspapers, we chose the three sources with the longest available online, text-based
archives. This sample also used two of the largest national newspapers and a leading regional
one. For the newspaper analysis, we examined text from the three papers’ front-page stories
(along with the text of those stories that continued onto later pages), sampling each paper
every eighth day from January 1, 1989, to December 31, 2017. For television, we used mate-
rial from each major network news organization and the three largest cable outlets. For
broadcast and cable television news, we collected transcripts of the flagship news programs
xiv News in a Digital Age

We made four specific comparisons: newspapers before 2000

with newspapers after 2000, broadcast television news before 2000
with broadcast television news after 2000, broadcast television news
with prime-time cable programming in the years 2000–2017, and print
with online journalism from 2012 to 2017.4 Table S.1 shows the data
sets that we reviewed to conduct these comparisons.
To compare text in the data sets, we used a suite of computer soft-
ware tools designed by RAND called RAND-Lex, which combines
machine learning with textual analysis to identify patterns in the use
of words and phrases. The process works by calculating the frequency
of certain words, phrases, or characters and then attaching a score to
one of 121 linguistic measures or characteristics. This allows research-
ers to comb through large volumes of text (e.g., in the tens of millions
of words) and to conduct both descriptive and exploratory statistical
tests to analyze and interpret the meaning of those data. In this study,
RAND-Lex enabled us to make reliable claims about how the presen-
tation of news has (and has not) changed over time with specific refer-
ence to changes in tone, sentiment, and language used, on a very large
scale.

on the American Broadcasting Company (ABC), Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), and
National Broadcasting Company (NBC) and of a selection of prime-time programs from
the three major cable television news networks: Cable News Network (CNN), Fox News
Channel, and Microsoft/National Broadcasting Company (MSNBC). For online journal-
ism, we focused on six of the most highly trafficked online journalism outlets, three on the
left side of the political spectrum and three on the right. We searched the archives of these
six news websites, taking homepage stories stored by the Internet Archive (archive.org) for
every eighth day from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2017. If archived stories were
not available for the selected date, the team took stories from the closest available date within
four days of the original target.
4 These dates were chosen in large measure because of two important changes in
the U.S. media industry that took place around the year 2000. First, viewership of
all three major cable networks (especially Fox News) increased dramatically start-
ing around 2000. In the years after 2000, cable programming solidified its position as a
major source of news for U.S. audiences. Second, 2000 marks a turning point in the
growth of the internet. It was around this time that internet usage among Americans
first passed the 50-percent mark. Internet use escalated rapidly after that, and roughly
90 percent of Americans are online today.
Table S.1
Data Sets

Articles/ Articles/
Segments Words Segments Words
Analysis Name Sample 1 (Sample 1) (Sample 1) Sample 2 (Sample 2) (Sample 2)

Newspapers

Full newspaper sample NYT, WP, SLPD 12,272 11,360,227 NYT, WP, SLPD 2000– 15,342 17,072,668
pre-2000a 2017a

National newspaper NYT, WP pre-2000 8,091 8,791,100 NYT, WP 2000–2017 11,082 13,617,145

New York Times NYT pre-2000 4,736 4,698,501 NYT 2000–2017 5,821 7,085,705

Washington Post WP pre-2000 3,355 4,092,599 WP 2000–2017 5,261 6,531,440

St. Louis Post-Dispatch SLPD pre-2000 4,181 2,569,127 SLPD 2000–2017 4,260 3,455,523

Television

Broadcast news ABC, NBC, CBS pre-2000 4,223 1,513,175 ABC, NBC, CBS 2000–2017 6,502 2,299,085

2000–2017 television ABC, NBC, CBS 2000– 6,502 2,299,085 CNN, MSNBC, Fox News 4,232 12,278,437
comparison 2017 Channel 2000–2017

Cross-platform

Full internet/full Online 2012–2017 38,252 21,238,215 Newspapers (NYT, WP, 4,609 5,611,270
newspaper sample (Politico, HuffPo, SLPD) 2012–2017
Breitbart, Daily Caller,
Blaze, BuzzFeed Politics)a
Summary
xv
Table S.1—Continued
xvi

Articles/ Articles/
Segments Words Segments Words
Analysis Name Sample 1 (Sample 1) (Sample 1) Sample 2 (Sample 2) (Sample 2)

Reduced internet/ Online 2012–2017 26,020 15,798,570 Newspapers (NYT, WP) 3,398 4,358,964
national newspapers (Politico, HuffPo, 2012–2017
Breitbart, Daily Caller)b
News in a Digital Age

NOTE: We conducted several different versions of most analyses, using variations in the samples to assess the robustness of the
results and assessing the influence of specific sources within the analysis. HuffPo = HuffPost Politics; NYT = New York Times; SLPD =
St. Louis Post-Dispatch; WP = Washington Post.
a
Data sets were halved (taking alternating stories from source data sets) before compilation into the analytical corpora because of
computing capacity constraints.
b
Data set was quartered (taking every fourth article) before analysis because of computing capacity constraints. Sample counts are
before halving or quartering. Unless otherwise noted, data collection periods started in 1989 and ended in 2017.
 Summary xvii

Key Findings
In What Measurable Ways Did the Style of News Presentation in
Print Journalism Change Between 1989 and 2017?
We found that although much of the language and tone of reporting
in the New York Times, Washington Post, and St. Louis Post-Dispatch
remained constant over the past 30 years, there were quantifiable
changes in certain linguistic areas between the pre- and post-2000 peri-
ods. For example, the three newspapers’ reporting before 2000 used
language that was more heavily event- and context-based; contained
more references to time, official titles, positions, and institutions; and
used more-descriptive, elaborative language to provide story details. In
contrast, we found that post-2000 reporting engaged in more storytell-
ing and more heavily emphasized interactions, personal perspective,
and emotion.

In What Measurable Ways Did the Style of News Presentation in

Broadcast Journalism Change Between 1989 and 2017?
Broadcast journalism went through changes similar to those of news-
paper journalism in the same period. Our analysis found a gradual shift
in broadcast television coverage from more conventional reporting in
the pre-2000 period, during which news stories tended to use precise
and concrete language and often turned to public sources of authority,
to more subjective coverage in the post-2000 period, which relied less
on concrete language and more on unplanned speech, expression of
opinions, interviews, and arguments.

How Does the Style of News Presentation in Broadcast Journalism

Differ from the Style Used in Prime-Time Cable Programming over
the Period 2000–2017?
We found a starker contrast between broadcast news presentation and
prime-time cable programming in the post-2000 period. Compared
with news presentation on broadcast television, programming on cable
outlets exhibited a dramatic and quantifiable shift toward subjective,
abstract, directive, and argumentative language and content based
more on the expression of opinion than on reporting of events. This
xviii News in a Digital Age

was accompanied by an increase in airtime on cable channels devoted

to advocacy for those opinions rather than on balanced description of
context. It should be noted, however, that some of this contrast is to
be expected based on the very different objectives and business models
of the two platforms. Cable programming, particularly during prime
time, is geared toward a narrower audience and uses opinions and pro-
vocative material to attract attention; broadcast television aims at a
wider audience and sticks closer to traditional forms of reporting.

How Does the Style of News Presentation in Online Journalism

Differ from That of Print Journalism over the Period 2012–2017?
Comparing newspaper and online journalism in the 2012–2017 period,
we found that the news presentation style in newspapers sampled
remained far more anchored in what could be considered traditional
reporting than the online media outlets sampled. News presentation in
newspapers tended to be more strongly characterized by use of charac-
ters, time, and descriptive language (to describe events or issues) and by
a more narrative context. It also appeared to be more strongly character-
ized by the use of concrete objects, numbers, references to duration, and
connections to individual roles, spatial relationships, and retrospective
reasoning. In contrast, language in the online journalism sample tended
to be more conversational, with more emphasis on interpersonal interac-
tions and personal perspectives and opinions. Appeals were less narrative
and more argumentative, with an eye toward persuasion.

Implications of Findings

The general trends observed in our analysis provide initial evidence of

a gradual and subtle shift over time and between old and new media
toward a more subjective form of journalism that is grounded in per-
sonal perspective. In each of the analyses that considered changes over
time, we found evidence of a shift from a journalistic style based on
the use of public language (e.g., sharing of talk, descriptions of groups),
academic register (e.g., formal style, citing precedent), references to
authority figures and sources, and event- and context-based reporting
 Summary xix

to a style of journalism based more heavily on personal perspective,

narration, and subjectivity. We saw this trend in broadcast news and,
to a lesser extent, in newspapers.
In comparing the characteristics of new and old media, we found
that prime-time cable programming is more highly interactive and
subjective than broadcast television news and relies on arguments and
opinions intended to persuade and debate, a stark contrast from the
more academic style and precise language employed in broadcast tele-
vision in the pre-2000 period. Similarly, our online journalism sample
was characterized by a personal and subjective style that, in many
cases, emphasized argument and advocacy and was very different from
the pre-2000 print journalism sample, which relied more heavily on
event-based reporting that often referred to authoritative institutions
or sources.
Although we found measurable evidence of more widespread use
of opinion and subjectivity in the presentation of news than in the past,
the change has been subtle, not wholesale. News reporting has not
shifted from Walter Cronkite–style serious reporting to fiction or pro-
paganda—even in the biggest contrasts we saw, there was still much
similarity over time and across platforms. Future research could extend
this analysis to other types of media, such as local newspapers and tele-
vision news, news radio programs, video content, and photographs that
appear alongside news stories.
Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the support of many colleagues in the writing of this
report. We are especially indebted to Michael Rich for his support of
this work and for his insights and feedback on early drafts. James Dob-
bins, Geoffrey McGovern, and Samantha Cherney provided valuable
input during the project’s early stages. Craig Bond and Sarah Mead-
ows guided the report through the quality assurance process and their
comments improved the report. Gordon Lee provided expert assistance
on the report’s summary. The authors are also appreciative of com-
ments from their three reviewers, Sandra Evans and Todd Helmus of
RAND and Tom Johnson of the University of Texas. Their observa-
tions greatly improved this report.

xxi
Abbreviations

ABC American Broadcasting Company

ANOVA analysis of variance
CBS Columbia Broadcasting System
CMU Carnegie Mellon University
CNN Cable News Network
LIWC Linguistic Inquiry Word Count
MSNBC Microsoft/National Broadcasting Company
NBC National Broadcasting Company
NYT New York Times
POV point of view
SLPD St. Louis Post-Dispatch
WP Washington Post

xxiii
CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

Over the past 30 years, the way that Americans consume and share
information has changed dramatically. The days of waiting for the
morning paper or the evening broadcast are gone; smartphones are
ubiquitous, and the average person spends hours each day online, look-
ing at news or entertainment websites, using social media, and con-
suming many different types of information.1 News consumers have
an array of choices—newspapers, broadcast television, cable program-
ming, online journalism, and social media—all of which provide dif-
ferent types of information in different ways. Some of the changes
observed in the way that news is produced and disseminated can be
quantified. For example, newspaper and television audiences have
measurably declined while social media sites and online sources have
gained users and followers.2 The growth of online-only journalism
outlets also can be tracked. A recent assessment of trends in this area
highlighted not only a marked increase in traffic to online journal-
ism sites but also expansion and diversification by the sites themselves,
with more than 60 percent of these sites having at least one mobile app
and more than 70 percent also having podcasts.3 Data provide insight

1 Jeffrey Cole, Michael Suman, Phoebe Schramm, and Liuning Zhou, Surveying the Digital
Future 2017, Los Angeles, Calif.: Center for the Digital Future at USC Annenberg, 2017.
2 Pew Research Center, “Newspapers Fact Sheet,” State of the News Media project, web-
page, June 13, 2018c; Pew Research Center, “Network News Fact Sheet,” State of the News
Media project, webpage, July 25, 2018d.
3 Pew Research Center, “Digital News Fact Sheet,” State of the News Media project, web-
page, June 6, 2018b.

1
2 News in a Digital Age

into the growth of such platforms as Twitter and Facebook, and public
opinion surveys measure how often these sources are used for news.4
Analyses identify sources of disinformation and track their spread, and
surveys assess what people want out of media outlets and whether they
are satisfied with the choices they have.5
What has gone less explored is how the presentation of news (in
terms of its linguistic elements and characteristics) has changed over
this period and how it differs across platforms or types of media.6 Our
interest and motivation in investigating this topic—the presentation
of news—emerges from the observations of a 2018 RAND Corpora-
tion report, Truth Decay: An Initial Exploration of the Diminishing Role
of Facts and Analysis in American Public Life. That report defines Truth
Decay as comprising four specific trends: increasing disagreement about
objective facts, data, and analysis; a blurring of the line between fact and
opinion; an increasing relative volume of opinion over fact; and declining
trust in institutions that used to be looked to as sources of factual infor-
mation, such as the government and the media. In that report, we argue
that the phenomenon is driven by the interaction of four primary drivers:
characteristics of human cognitive processing, such as cognitive bias;
changes in the media ecosystem; competing demands on the education
system that challenge its ability to prepare students for this new media
ecosystem; and political, social, and demographic polarization. We posit
that Truth Decay creates at least four challenges to the foundations of
American democracy: the erosion of civil discourse, political paralysis
that results when policymakers do not share a set of facts, political alien-
ation and disengagement, and uncertainty for individuals and policy-
makers who lack the objective benchmarks they need to make individual
and policy decisions. Within each of these areas, that report describes

4 Kurt Wagner and Rani Molla, “Facebook Is Not Getting Any Bigger in the United
States,” Recode, March 1, 2018; Elisa Shearer and Jeffrey Gottfried, News Use Across Social
Media Platforms 2017, Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center, September 7, 2017.
5 Gallup and Knight Foundation, American Views: Trust, Media, and Democracy, Washing-
ton, D.C.: Gallup, January 2018; Katie Langin, “Fake News Spreads Faster Than True News
on Twitter—Thanks to People, Not Bots,” Science Magazine, March 8, 2018.
6 We use the terms platforms and types of media to refer to different means of information
transmission and sharing—for example, newspaper, television, and radio.
 Introduction 3

what can be learned from existing research and identifies key empirical
and theoretical gaps (i.e., areas in need of more or different data and new
theories) that create obstacles to a full understanding of Truth Decay and
its implications. 7
Among the gaps mentioned in that report is the lack of good empir-
ical data on each of the four trends that define Truth Decay, with the
partial exception of declining trust in institutions, for which there is
extensive polling data. The other three defining trends suffer a lack of
empirical data that would allow researchers to track the phenomenon
over time, to understand where it is most severe, and to devise policy
solutions. This report aims to begin to fill this gap, focusing specifically
on the second and third trends—the blurring of the line between fact
and opinion and an increasing relative volume of opinion over fact.
There have been efforts to characterize differences in news pre-
sentation using qualitative and descriptive analyses.8 These efforts pro-
vide significant insight, but they do not quantify the size or signifi-
cance of observed changes, and they provide limited precision about
what identified differences look like in context.9 In this report, we seek
to fill this gap by identifying and presenting empirical measurements
both of changes in the presentation of news in U.S. sources over time
and of the differences that exist across platforms.10
We are particularly interested in anything that provides insight into
how the use of or reliance on authoritative and fact-based information
has changed or how it differs across platforms because this factor is most
directly relevant to Truth Decay and its characteristic trends. For exam-

7 Jennifer Kavanagh and Michael D. Rich, Truth Decay: An Initial Exploration of the Role
of Facts and Analysis in American Public Life, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation,
RR-2314-RC, 2018.
8 We use the term news presentation throughout this report to refer to the linguistic style of
news and to relevant patterns in usage (e.g., contexts, relevant frames). The term is intended
to encompass both the discourse of news and the style of presentation.
9 Robert W. McChesney, Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious
Times, New York: New Press, 2015; Cass Sunstein, #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age
of Social Media, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2018.
10 In this report, we focus only on media produced within the United States for U.S. audi-
ences. Future work could consider these questions from an international perspective.
4 News in a Digital Age

ple, in Chapters Three through Five, we provide evidence of changes

over time in the frequency of, on the one hand, references to authority
figures, institutions, and event-focused coverage (proxies for “authorita-
tive sources”) and, on the other hand, uses of personal perspective and
subjectivity (proxies for “opinion-based sources”). However, our analysis
does not directly or definitively answer the question of how that infor-
mation is used or how its use has changed. First, the suite of computer
software tools that we used, RAND-Lex, combines machine learning
with textual analysis to identify patterns in the use of words and phrases
and can measure many different linguistic characteristics (described in
Chapter Two), but it does not directly assess reliance on facts or measure
the accuracy of information. Second, our samples of text do not support
broad generalizations, which we will explain further in our discussion of
results and implications in the final chapter.

The Changing Media Ecosystem

Before considering changes in news presentation specifically, it is useful

to explore some of the ways that the media ecosystem has changed more
generally in the past 30 years. In that time, the media industry and
ecosystem have been reshaped by significant technological changes:
The players, ways of doing business, and types and amount of con-
tent available are all fundamentally different now than they were three
decades ago. The emergence and spread of cable news networks, broad
access to the internet, and the rise of social media radically changed
the ways that news information is produced, shared, disseminated, and
consumed.11 In 1989, it was presented in three major forms: newspa-

11 In this report, we use information as a general term to refer to all types of material con-
veyed to an audience through any media channel. We use news to refer to information
focused on current events, social and policy issues, and the interactions of these events and
issues with people and places. News is a type of information, but not all information would
be considered news. Recipes, for instance, are information but would not be considered
news by our definition. Opinion pieces and editorials are another form of information that
would not be counted as news. For more information on this, see Kavanagh and Rich, 2018,
Table 1.1, pp. 8–10.
 Introduction 5

pers, broadcast television, and radio. Newspapers were a central part of

the market, with a circulation of more than 62 million, just below its
peak in the 1970s.12 This began to change during the 1990s. By 2000,
weekday circulation had fallen to less than 56 million. By 2010, this
number stood at only about 45 million, and by 2017 it had fallen to a
little more than 30 million.13
Broadcast television news also was affected by changes in the way
people consume information, with viewership declining even as the
medium remains the most popular way for people to get news.14 Specif-
ically, broadcast networks lost 4 percent of their evening news viewers
between the 2015–2016 and 2016–2017 seasons, falling to 23.1 mil-
lion total.15 Prime-time cable viewership, which is smaller than the
broadcast television audience overall, also has declined, although at a
slower rate. In 2017, Fox News led the pack with 2.4 million prime-time
viewers, followed by MSNBC at 1.6 million and CNN with 1.1 mil-
lion.16 About 50 percent of Americans report turning to some kind of
television programming for news—in 2017, 26 percent of Americans
reported that they often get news from network television; 28 percent
reported often getting news from cable television.17
There are several reasons for these declines. The most signifi-
cant, perhaps, is the rise of the internet and the spread of social media
as a way to produce, consume, and share news. The use of online
sources of news has become ubiquitous; in some cases, online use
has grown faster than consumption of other media has declined. In
2018, 90 percent of adults reported using online media as sources of

12 Pew Research Center, State of the News Media project, homepage, undated.
13 Pew Research Center, undated.
14 Pew Research Center, undated.
15Stephen Battaglio, “‘ABC World News Tonight’ Takes Ratings Crown but Broadcast
News Audiences Continue to Shrink,” Los Angeles Times, September 26, 2017.
16Lisa de Moraes, “FNC Tops Cable in 2017, MSNBC Grows Most, CNN Bags Best Total
Day on Record,” Deadline, December 19, 2017.
17 Although we mention radio as a major form of news, we do not analyze it in this report.
We had hoped to feature radio transcripts but were unable to locate a systematic database of
such transcripts that would allow us to conduct a rigorous evaluation.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
high-speed engine; that being a field into which the liberating system
could not enter. We had quite an argument on this point. I told him
his invention interested me only because it would enable two or
three times the power to be obtained from a given engine without
additional stress on any part, the fly-wheel to be reduced in size, and
the means for getting up the speed of machinery to be largely
dispensed with. I represented to him also that a high-speed engine
ought to be more economical and to give a more nearly uniform
motion.
He finally agreed to my condition, and I took him directly to the
office of Mr. Richards and engaged him to make an analysis and
drawing of Mr. Allen’s system under his direction, and soon
afterwards gave him an order for the plans for an experimental
engine, 6×15 inches, to make 160 revolutions per minute.
As the diagram of the link motion was at first drawn, the center of
the trunnions vibrated in an arc which terminated at points on the line
connecting the center of the engine shaft with the ends of the rocker
arms, and which in the diagram on page 48 is named “radius of link.”
I determined to work out this link motion myself on a large scale.
For this purpose I drew a diagram in which the throw of the eccentric
was 4 inches, and the distance from the center of the shaft to that of
the trunnions of the link in their mid-position was 12 inches. I made a
three-point beam compass. Two of these points were secured
permanently on the beam, 12 inches apart. As one of these points
traversed the path of the center of the eccentric, the other could be
made to traverse the arc of vibration of the trunnions of the link.
I divided the former into 40 equal divisions measured from its dead
points, making needle-holes in the circle, in which the taper
compass-points would center themselves accurately. The paper was
firm and the points of division were fixed with extreme care; and they
lasted through all my experiments. I then set out 20 corresponding
divisions in the arc of vibration of the center of the trunnions. These
showed distinctly the modification of the motion at the opposite ends
of this vibration as already described.
The third point was adjustable on a hinged beam which could be
secured in any position. I drew two arcs representing the lead lines
of the link, or the lines on which the link would stand when the
eccentric was on its dead points. The third point was now secured on
its beam at any point on one of the lead lines, when the other points
stood, one on the dead point of the eccentric and the other at the
end of the trunnion vibration.
The apparatus was now ready for use, the corresponding points
on the circle and the arc being numbered alike. By setting the first
two points in any corresponding holes, the third point would show the
corresponding position of that point of the link at which it was set. I
thus set out the movements of six different points of the link, the
highest being 12 inches above the trunnions. These represented the
movements of the valves of the engine when the block was at these
points in the link. The apparatus being firm, it worked with entire
precision. To my surprise, it showed much the larger valve opening
at the crank end of the cylinder, where the movement of the piston
was slowest. That would not do; we wanted just the reverse.
I called Mr. Allen in and showed him the defect. After considering it
a few minutes, he said he thought it would be corrected by lowering
the trunnions, so that their arc of vibration would coincide with the
line of centers at its middle point, instead of terminating on it. This
was done, and the result was most successful. The lead was now
earlier and the opening wider at the back end of the cylinder, as the
greater velocity of the piston at that point required, and the cut-offs
on the opposite strokes more equal. The link has always been set in
this way, as shown in the diagram.
From this description of the link motion, it will be seen that the
correct vertical adjustment of the trunnions of the link was an
important matter. To enable this adjustment to be made with
precision, and to be corrected, if from wear of the shaft-bearings or
other cause this became necessary, I secured the pin on which
these trunnions were pivoted to the side of the engine bed in the
manner shown in the following figure. To hold the wedge securely,
the surface of the bed below was reduced, so that the wedge was
seized by the flange. The correct position of this pin was determined
by the motions given to the valves.
 VERTICAL ADJUSTMENT
OF SUSTAINING PIN
FOR TRUNNIONS
OF THE ALLEN LINK

I now took a more prominent part myself in steam-engine design. I

had got an idea from Mr. Sparks that took full possession of my
mind. This was the exceedingly unmechanical nature of the single or
overhanging crank. The engines of the “New York,” built by Caird &
Co., of Greenock, were among the first of the direct inverted-cylinder
engines applied to screw propulsion. They were then known as the
steam-hammer engines, their leading feature being taken from Mr.
Nasmyth’s invention. I am not sure but Caird & Co. were the first to
make this application. The forward engine had a single crank. The
vital defect of this construction became especially apparent in these
vertical engines of large power. The stress on the cap bolts during
the upward strokes and the deflection of the shaft alternately in
opposite directions over the pillow-block as a fulcrum were very
serious. Mr. Sparks told me that on his very first voyage he had a
great deal of trouble with this forward bearing, and it caused him
continual anxiety. He got into such a state of worry and
apprehension that as soon as he reached New York he wrote to the
firm: “For God’s sake, never make another pair of engines without
giving a double crank to the forward engine.” The reply he got was,
to mind his own business: they employed him to run their engines;
they would attend to the designing of them. He told me not long after
that he had the satisfaction of seeing every ship they built except his
own disabled, either by a broken shaft or broken pillow-block bolts.
He attributed the escape of the “New York” from a like disaster to his
own extreme care. They did, however, adopt his suggestion on all
future vessels, and, moreover, added a forward crank and pillow-
block to the engines already built. This they evidently found
themselves compelled to do. I saw this addition afterwards on the
“Bremen,” sister ship to the “New York.” The added pillow-block was
supported by a heavy casting bolted to the forward end of the
bedplate.
I went everywhere visiting engines at work and in process of
construction, to observe this particular feature of the overhanging
crank, which was universal in horizontal engines. In this class of
engines, running slowly, its defective nature was not productive of
serious consequences, because no stress was exerted on the cap
bolts and the shaft was made larger in proportion to the power of the
engine, as it had to carry the fly-wheel. But I was astonished to see
the extent to which the overhang of the single crank was allowed.
Builders seemed to be perfectly regardless of its unmechanical
nature. First, the crank-pin was made with a length of bearing
surface equal to about twice its diameter; then a stout collar was
formed on the pin between its bearing surface and the crank. The
latter was made thick and a long hub was formed on the back of it. I
was told that the long hub was necessary in order to give a proper
depth of eye to receive the shaft. This being turned down smaller
than the journal, so that the crank might be forced on up to a
shoulder, the eye needed to be deep or the crank would not be held
securely. Finally, the journal boxes were made with flanges on the
ends, sometimes projecting a couple of inches. Altogether, the
transverse distance from the center line of the engine to the solid
support of the shaft in the pillow-block was about twice what it
needed to be. I also saw in some cases the eccentric placed
between the crank and the pillow-block. Fifteen years later I saw a
large engine sent from Belgium to our 1876 Exhibition which was
made in this manner.
 I determined at once that such a construction would not do for
high-speed engines, and proceeded to change every one of these
features. The single crank could not be avoided, but its overhang
could be much reduced.
 OLD AND NEW CRANKS
AND JOURNAL BOXES.
THE CRANKS ARE SHOWN IN
THE VERTICAL POSITION.
CRANKS AND TOP AND
BOTTOM
BOXES ARE SHOWN IN
SECTION.

The following sketches show the changes which were then made,
and all of which have been retained. The inside collar on the crank-
pin was dispensed with and the diameter of the pin was made
greater than its length, the projected area being generally increased.
The shank of the pin was made larger and shorter, and was riveted
at the back. Instead of turning the shaft down smaller than the
journal to receive the crank, I made it with a large head for this
purpose. The keyway could then be planed out and the key fitted
above the surface of the journal, and the joint was so much further
from the axis that but little more than one half the depth was required
in the crank-eye.
Mr. Corliss had already discarded the flanged boxes. He also first
made this bearing in four parts. The wear in the horizontal direction,
the direction of the thrust, could then be taken up. For this purpose
he used two bolts behind the front side box only. I modified his
construction by making the side boxes wider and taking up their
wear by wedges behind both of them, thus preserving the alignment.
One wedge could also be placed close to the crank. The dotted lines
show the width of the side boxes and the location of the wedges.
The shaft was made with a collar to hold the bearings in place, and
was enlarged in its body. The substitution in place of the crank of the
entire disk carrying a counterweight completed these changes. This
was the fruit of my first lesson in high-speed engine designing, which
had unconsciously been given to me by Mr. Sparks. The oil passage
in the pin was added later, as will be described.
I had another piece of good luck. I happened one day to see in the
Novelty Iron Works the hubs being bored for the paddle-wheels of
the new ship for the Collins line—the “Adriatic.” These were perhaps
the largest castings ever made for such a purpose. I observed that
they were bored out only half-way around. The opposite side of the
hole had been cored to about half an inch greater radius, and three
key-seats were cored in it, which needed only to be finished in the
key-seating machine. The idea struck me that this would be an
excellent way to bore fly-wheels and pulleys. As commonly bored, so
that they could be put on the shaft comfortably they were bored too
large, their contact with the shaft could then be only on a line
opposite the key, and the periphery could not run perfectly true.
I adopted the plan of first boring to the exact size of the shaft and
then shifting the piece about an eighth of an inch, and boring out a
slender crescent, the opposite points of which extended a little more
than half-way around. The keyway was cut in the middle of this
enlargement. The wheel could then be readily put on to the shaft,
and when the key was driven up contact was made over nearly one
half the surface and the periphery ran dead true. I remember seeing
this feature much admired in London, and several times heard the
remark, “I should think the key would throw it some.”
To prevent fanning I made the fly-wheel and pulley with arms of
oval cross-section. These have always been used by me. They have
done even better than I expected. They are found to impart no
motion to the air, however rapidly they may be run.
 Flanges on the Eccentric.

Flanges on the Strap.

As already stated, the Allen valve-gear required the position of the

eccentric to coincide with that of the crank, so that these should pass
their dead points simultaneously. To insure this and to make it
impossible for the engineer to advance his eccentric, which he would
be pretty sure to do if he could, I made the eccentric solid on the
shaft. This also enabled me to make it smaller, the low side being
brought down nearly to the surface of the shaft. The construction,
moreover, was substantial and saved some work.
All eccentrics that I had seen were flanged on each side to keep
the strap in place. I observed the oil to work out freely between the
flanges and the strap. This action would of course be increased in
high-speed engines. So I reversed the design, as shown in the
above sections of these two bearings at the top of the eccentric,
putting the flanges on the strap instead of on the eccentric.
It will be seen that the more rapid the speed the more difficult it
becomes to keep the oil in the first bearing, and the more difficult it
becomes for it to get out of the second one. I ought to have adopted
the same construction for the main shaft journal, but in all the years I
was making engines it never occurred to me. I contented myself with
turning a groove in the hub of the crank, as shown to prevent the oil
from getting on the disk.
The problem of crank-pin lubrication at high speed at once
presented itself and had to be met. I finally solved it in the manner
partially shown on page 54. A wiper was bolted on the back of the
crank, and from it a tube entered the diagonal hole in the pin. This
always worked perfectly. This wiper and the oil cup are shown on
page 230. Other devices have been employed by various makers of
high-speed engines, but I always adhered to this one. It has the
advantage of being equally applicable to double-crank engines.
Aside from the above features, the design for my exhibition engine
was made by Mr. Richards.
 CHAPTER V

Invention of the Richards Indicator. My Purchase of the Patent. Plan my London

Exhibition. Engine Design. Ship Engine Bed to London, and sail myself.

he subject of an indicator directly presented itself. Mr.

Allen invited Mr. Richards and myself to his engine-
room, and took diagrams for us with a McNaught
indicator. This was the first indicator that either of us
had ever seen. Indicators were then but little known in
this country. The Novelty Iron Works made a very few
McNaught indicators, almost the only users of which were the Navy
Department and a few men like Mr. Ericsson, Mr. Stevens, Mr.
Sickels, and Mr. Corliss. I told Mr. Richards that we must have a
high-speed indicator and he was just the man to get it up for us. He
went to work at it, but soon became quite discouraged. He twice
gave it up. He could not see his way. I told him I was not able to
make any suggestion, but the indicator we must have, and he had to
produce it. After some months he handed me a drawing of an
indicator which has never been changed, except in a few details.
This important invention, which has made high-speed engineering
possible, came from the hands of Mr. Richards quite complete. Its
main features, as is well known, are a short piston motion against a
short, stiff spring; light multiplying levers, with a Watt parallel motion,
giving to the pencil very nearly a straight line of movement; and a
free rotative motion of the pencil connections around the axis of the
piston, which itself is capable of only the slight rotation caused by the
compression or elongation of the spring. Elegant improvements have
since been made, adapting the indicator to still higher engine
speeds; but these have consisted only in advancing further on the
lines struck out by Mr. Richards. In fact, this was all that could be
done—giving to the piston a little less motion, lightening still further
the pencil movement, and making the vertical line drawn by the
pencil more nearly a straight line.

DIAGRAM TAKEN SEPTEMBER 13, 1861,

FROM THE FIRST ALLEN ENGINE
BY THE FIRST RICHARDS INDICATOR.
ENGINE, 6 INCHES BY 15 INCHES,
MAKING 160 REVOLUTIONS PER
MINUTE.
THIS CARD WAS RUN OVER TWENTY
TIMES.

I took Mr. Richards’ drawing to the Novelty Iron Works and had an
indicator ready for use when the engine was completed. The engine
was made by the firm of McLaren & Anderson, on Horatio Street,
New York, for their own use. It was set up by the side of their throttle-
valve engine, and was substituted for it to drive their machinery and
that of a kindling-wood yard adjoining for which they furnished the
power. It ran perfectly from the start, and saved fully one half of the
fuel. In throttle-valve engines in those days the ports and pipes were
generally so small that only a part of the boiler pressure was realized
in the cylinder, and that part it was hard to get out, and nobody knew
what either this pressure or the back pressure was. I have a diagram
taken from that engine, which is here reproduced.
The indicator was quickly in demand. One day when I was in the
shop of McLaren & Anderson, engaged in taking diagrams from the
engine, I had a call from the foreman of the Novelty Iron Works. He
had come to see if the indicator were working satisfactorily, and if so
to ask the loan of it for a few days. The Novelty Iron Works had just
completed the engines for three gunboats. These engines were to
make 75 revolutions per minute, and the contract required them to
be run for 72 consecutive hours at the dock. They were ready to
commence this run, and were anxious to indicate the engines with
the new indicator.
I was glad to have it used, and he took it away. I got it back after
two or three weeks, with the warmest praise; but none of us had the
faintest idea of the importance of the invention.
I remember that I had to go to the Novelty Works for the indicator,
and was asked by Mr. Everett, then president of the company, if we
had patented it, for if we had they would be glad to make them for
us. The idea had not occurred to me, but I answered him promptly
that we had not, but intended to. I met Mr. Allen at Mr. Richards’
office, and told them Mr. Everett’s suggestion, and added, “The first
question is, who is the inventor, and all I know is that I am not.” Mr.
Allen added, “I am not.” “Then,” said Mr. Richards, “I suppose I shall
have to be.” “Will you patent it?” said I. “No,” he replied; “if I patent
everything I think of I shall soon be in the poorhouse.” “What will you
sell it to me for if I will patent it?” I asked. “Will you employ me to
obtain the patent?” he replied. “Yes.” “Well, I will sell it to you for a
hundred dollars.” “I will take it, and if I make anything out of it will pay
you ten per cent. of what I get.” This I did, so long as the patent
remained in my hands.
The success of the stationary and the marine governors and of the
engine and the indicator fired me, in the summer of 1861, with the
idea of taking them all to the London International Exhibition the next
year. The demonstration of the three latter seemed to have come in
the very nick of time. For this purpose I fixed upon an engine 8
inches diameter of cylinder by 24 inches stroke, to make 150
revolutions per minute, and at once set Mr. Richards at work on the
drawings for it. I thought some of speeding it at 200 revolutions per
minute, but feared that speed would frighten people. That this would
have been a foolish step to take became afterwards quite apparent.
 Joseph E. Holmes

That summer I made application for space in the London

Exhibition of 1862, and soon after was waited upon by the Assistant
United States Commissioner, Mr. Joseph E. Holmes. So far as the
engine to be exhibited was concerned, I had nothing to show Mr.
Holmes. The drawings were scarcely commenced. I, however, took
him to McLaren & Anderson’s shop and showed him the little engine
at work there and took diagrams from it in his presence, and
expatiated on the revolution in steam-engineering that was there
inaugurated, but which has not yet been realized to the extent I then
dreamed of. It was evident that Mr. Holmes was much impressed
with the assurance of the success of the new system that the perfect
running of this first little engine seemed to give. I told him that the
engine for the exhibition would certainly be completed, and on that
assurance he accepted my entire proposed exhibit. I did not see him
again until we met the next spring in London, under the somewhat
remarkable circumstances hereafter to be related.
In spite of all efforts it was found impossible to complete the
engine and have it tested before shipment as I had intended. Indeed,
as the time approached after which no further exhibits would be
received, two things grew more and more doubtful. One was whether
the engine could be got off at all, and the other whether I could
obtain the means to make the exhibit. Finally I managed to get the
engine bed finished and immediately shipped it by a mail steamer.
A small, slow steamer chartered by the United States Commission
and loaded with exhibits had sailed previously, carrying the assistant
commissioner and a number of exhibitors and their representatives,
who, until they reached their destination, remained in blissful
ignorance of what happened directly after their departure.
But to return to my own movements. Mr. Hope one day said to me:
“I understand you shipped your engine bed last Saturday; what did
you do that for? You don’t know yet whether you can go yourself.” I
replied: “If I had not shipped it then, I should lose my space and
would have to abandon the exhibition altogether. If I find that I can’t
go, the bed can come back.” I redoubled my exertions to get the
remaining parts of the engine completed and to raise the necessary
funds. The next Saturday I shipped everything that was ready. On
the following Monday, by making a large sacrifice, I realized a sum
that could be made to answer, and on Wednesday I sailed on the
Cunard steamer “Africa,” leaving to my reliable clerk, Alexander
Gordon, long President of the Niles Tool Works, and now Chairman
of the Board of Directors of the Niles-Bement-Pond Company, the
responsibility of seeing that everything still wanting should follow as
rapidly as possible.
I left, not knowing an Englishman in the whole island, to have the
parts of an engine, the first one from the drawings and the first
engine I ever made, brought together for the first time by I had no
idea whom, and assembled and put in motion before the eyes of the
world. But I had no misgivings. The engine had been built in my own
shop, under my constant supervision, and by workmen trained to the
greatest accuracy. The crank-pin I had hardened and ground by my
friend Mr. Freeland. I knew the parts would come together perfectly.
The result justified my confidence.
One incident of the voyage is worth recording. As we were leaving
port we passed the “China,” the first screw steamer of the Cunard
fleet, coming in on her maiden voyage.
We had some rough weather, sometimes with a following sea. I
was much interested at such times in watching the racing of the
engines, when occasionally both paddle-wheels would be revolving
in the air in the trough of the sea. The feature that especially
attracted my notice was that the faster the engines ran the more
smoothly they ran. It was certainly a fascinating sight to see these
ponderous masses of metal, the parts of great side-lever engines,
gliding with such velocity in absolute silence. The question what
caused them to do so it did not occur to me to ask.
 Alexander Gordon

Being anxious to reach London as quickly as possible, after a

tedious voyage of twelve days, I left the steamer at Cork, to go
through with the mail. The custom-house inspectors first interested
me. On the little boat by which the mail is transferred from the ship to
the shore, two of the representatives of Queen Victoria were anxious
to know if I had any liquor or tobacco in my trunk, these being the
only dutiable articles. They were quite satisfied with my reply in the
negative. A personal examination they never thought of. Truthful
themselves, I moralized, they do not suspect untruth in others. Their
next question was, “Have you got the price of a glass of beer about
you?” I made them happy with a half crown, several times their
modest request, and they stamped me as an American free with his
money. I purchased a first-class ticket to London, and received the
assurance that I should go through with the mail. I was the only
passenger on the train of two coaches, besides the mail-van. It was
late at night. The regular passenger-train had gone some hours
before. Not being up in the English ways, I did not know how I might
make myself comfortable, but sat up all night, dozing as I could. I did
not sleep after two o’clock. In that high latitude it was already light
enough to see fairly well.
After that hour the railroad ran through a farming country all the
way to Dublin. I was amused with the queer shapes of the fields.
These were generally small, and running into sharp corners,
regardless of convenience in cultivation. They were separated
always by hedges and ditches. A ditch was dug some two feet deep
and three or four feet wide, the dirt was thrown up into a bank to
correspond on one side, and on this bank was planted a hedge of
hawthorn—“quick-set” they commonly called it. These hedges were
of all ages, from those young and well kept to those in all stages of
growth and dilapidation. I could have passed everywhere from field
to field through breaks in the hedges, sometimes wide ones. I could
not see of what use they were except for hunters to jump over. Saw
occasionally a laborer’s cabin, sometimes a group of them. When an
Irishman came out to sun himself, he always stood higher than the
eaves of his thatched roof. Occasionally a more pretentious house
would appear. These were all alike, painted white, full of windows,
very thin from front to back, and looked like waffles set on edge.
Never did I see a tree or a bush about a house to relieve the
appearance of barrenness, but there were often small trees in the
hedge-rows.
The railway station on one side of Dublin was about four miles
from the station on the opposite side, from which a short railway ran
to Kingston, a point a little distance south of Dublin, from which the
channel boats crossed to Holyhead. There being no other means of
conveyance, I rode through Dublin in an open van sitting on the mail-
bags. At the Kingston station an empty train stood waiting for the
mails. The regular passenger-train had gone some time before, but
the boat at Kingston was also waiting for the mail. I got into a
carriage, having ordered my trunk put into the baggage-van, but was
ordered out by the guard. I showed him my ticket, and was told that I
would have to see the superintendent. That official appeared, and
told me this train was for the mails. It had an empty passenger-
coach. I showed him my ticket and told him the assurance on which I
had bought it, that I should go through with the mails. He replied that
the passenger-train had gone, I should have been here to take it.
Said he was very sorry, but it was impossible. I got mad. My trunk
stood on the platform. As nobody would touch it, I took it up and put
it into the open door of the baggage-van myself. The superintendent
ordered two men to take it out, which they did. I told him of my great
anxiety to reach London that afternoon. All the reply he made was to
repeat that he was very sorry, but it was impossible, and I was
compelled to stand there and see that train move off, and fool away
the whole day in Dublin. Does the reader want to know what the
matter was? If he does not know already, he is as green as I was. I
had not given the superintendent two and sixpence. But I had more
yet to learn about England and the English, and much more serious.