09.01.2013 Views

European Journal of Scientific Research - EuroJournals

European Journal of Scientific Research - EuroJournals

European Journal of Scientific Research - EuroJournals

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Reflection <strong>of</strong> US Policy Towards Pakistan in Pakistani Press 331<br />

Coding Sheet<br />

Editorial<br />

Editorial Note<br />

Categories Politics Economics Education Defense Health Terrorism<br />

Total space<br />

Favor<br />

Against<br />

Neutral<br />

Total space<br />

Favor<br />

Against<br />

Neutral<br />

The required data for the study in hand was collected through the analysis <strong>of</strong> the editorial pages<br />

<strong>of</strong> the newspapers issues from 1 st January to March 31 st , 2007. First, data is analyzed thoroughly and<br />

then with the help well-defined coding sheet, the data was converted from qualitative to quantitative<br />

manner. Pilot study is made to check how reliable the coding process is (Hansen, A. et al., 1998).<br />

Reliability in content analysis is essentially about consistency: consistency between different coders<br />

(inter-coder reliability), and consistency <strong>of</strong> the individual coder’s coding practice over time (intracoder<br />

reliability). There are several different ways <strong>of</strong> checking or measuring reliability in content<br />

analysis, from a simple check on the percentage <strong>of</strong> coding decisions which coders agree, to more<br />

complex formula which take into account the degree to which a certain level <strong>of</strong> agreement would occur<br />

simply by chance in a set number <strong>of</strong> coding decisions (pp.120-21). Higher percentage <strong>of</strong> inter-coder<br />

reliability was observed. In this way, finally the required data from the selected 135 newspapers was<br />

collected. Total measurement <strong>of</strong> the all the newspapers was observed as:<br />

‘The Nation’ (a) total number <strong>of</strong> published editorials= 09 (space 1691 in cm).<br />

(b) total number <strong>of</strong> published ed. Notes= 27 (space 3470 in cm).<br />

‘The News’ (a) total number <strong>of</strong> published editorials= 05 (space 1068 in cm).<br />

(b) total number <strong>of</strong> published ed. Notes= 17 (space 2865 in cm).<br />

‘Dawn’ (a) total number <strong>of</strong> published editorials= 12 (space 2363 in cm).<br />

(b) total number <strong>of</strong> published ed. Notes= 10 (space 1244 in cm).<br />

All Papers (a) total number <strong>of</strong> published editorials= 25 (space 5122 in cm).<br />

(b) total number <strong>of</strong> published ed. Notes= 53 (space 7579 in cm).<br />

Findings<br />

The results <strong>of</strong> the study reveal the overall editorials and editorial motes coverage to United States<br />

policy towards Pakistan by the elite English press—daily ‘The Nation’, ‘The News’ and ‘Dawn’ for the<br />

months <strong>of</strong> January, February and March, 2007. The analytical review <strong>of</strong> figures 1.1 & 1.2 illustrates<br />

that ‘The Nation’ for the first entire month <strong>of</strong> the study did not publish any editorial on the issue under<br />

investigation and for the same month published significantly more editorial notes. While for the month<br />

<strong>of</strong> February the paper published more editorials and less editorial notes on the same issue. Similarly for<br />

the month <strong>of</strong> March the said paper published reasonable editorials and somewhat editorial notes on the<br />

study’s issue. The month wise comparison <strong>of</strong> the paper in term <strong>of</strong> the published editorials shows that<br />

the paper significantly published more editorial notes on the issue compare to its editorials for the<br />

whole three months stipulated period.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!