Communicating the Negative Aspects of

Pack Journalism to Media Reporters

Gerald-Mark Breen and Jonathan Matusitz

University 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-à-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 same
physical 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
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. Crouse’s 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
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 people’s 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 one’s
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.
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 Jackson’s 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
prosecution’s evidence and contentions). As was seen by the world, Jackson was officially vindicated on
all felony counts (Breen & Matusitz, 2005a).
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
prosecution’s 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 Jackson’s 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 publication’s 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 victim’s 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 The Chicago Tribune. The archives of The New York Times showcases pack
journalism at its worst. The widespread reports from the attorneys and the emotionally charged
descriptions of the victim’s 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 victim’s 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 York’s 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 Peterson’s 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
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?

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 by
Matusitz 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 a
consensus-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 journalism’s 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).
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 Social
Responsibility 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
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 day’s 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 day’s 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 day’s 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
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 writer’s 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.
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.
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. Stone’s 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.
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 and
Human 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.
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.), Social meanings of news (pp. 351-361). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.

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