English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Communication researchers largely condemned news coverage of the 1993-1996 health care reform debate, producing empirical proof that the American media offered citizens little useful information about the issues involved, the substance of proposed legislation, or the potential consequences of passing or not passing legislation. This study seeks to determine whether the “elite press” followed suit in its coverage of the 20092010 health care reform debate, or if it fared better. It applies paragraph-by-paragraph content analysis to investigate the framing and sourcing of fourteen months’ worth of articles in The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. Results show that the game frame was dominant, yet was not significantly more prominent than the issue/economic consequences frame, and the conflict frame was rare; both framing and sourcing change significantly over the course of the debate; and many significant relationships exist between specific sources and frames.

The elite American press coverage of the 2009-2010 health care reform debate