Tag Archives: media

Argument for no epidemic of college closings…yet?

Posted on by

How many colleges in the United States have closed in recent years?

Photo by William Jacobs on Pexels.com

But it is not, as the New York Times claimed, part of “an epidemic of college closures.” Nor is it part of “a slew of small colleges that have closed because of financial instability or are at risk of shuttering,” according to the Christian Science Monitor. It is simply false that, as the Washington Postreported, “college closures have become increasingly common as campuses compete for a shrinking pool of U.S. students.” And Hampshire’s demise is certainly not an example of “a structural realignment” linked to an intentional “downsizing” program led by the Trump administration, as per the Washington Times.

The facts: According to a very good compilation list, since the beginning of 2020 exactly 49 degree-granting nonprofit colleges and universities have closed or announced their closures. That’s an average of seven per year, out of the 3,227 such institutions that existed in 2020. Now, I’m no epidemiologist, but an annual mortality rate of 0.02 percent does not sound like an epidemic to me.

Furthermore, the schools that have closed fit a specific type: super small. Hampshire had 844 students when it announced its closure, and that puts it at the high end of the 49 schools. Only five had over 2,000 students. Nine had less than 200 students. (For reference, the average nonprofit institution enrolls about 5,500.) And most fail an obscurity test I like to call “Have I heard of it?” I study higher education for a living. But of those 49, I’ve previously heard of just 10. Hampshire is well known despite its small size, and places like Cardinal Stritch University in Wisconsin and Birmingham-Southern College in Alabama had local recognition. But Limestone University? Eastern Nazarene College? Alderson Broaddus University? Cazenovia College? I could go on. No offense to their alumni, but these are not exactly name-brand schools.

The reason for the “…yet?” in the title of the post is because, as noted later in the article, there seem to be some with vested interests in this area:

So who is pushing the “epidemic” narrative? Many of the recent news stories have cited, often without name, a recent report that trumpeted past closures and identified 834 American colleges and universities facing “existential threats” in the near future from declining enrollment and other financial pressures. It’s from the Huron Consulting Group, a “global professional services firm” that offers its wares to manufacturers, utility companies, oil producers, commercial real estate investors, and—you guessed it—higher education. The Huron report is not publicly available and their press release offers no details on methodology except that they “analyzed more than a decade of data to develop a model with some predictive potential.” No worries about that though; presumably, colleges and universities would get to learn all the details once they pay Huron to help them navigate “a platform for the coordinated exchange of institutional assets.”

Several quick thoughts in response:

  1. Numbers do not interpret themselves; humans measure and report data, making interpretations along the way.
  2. Do we have longer-term data on the closings of colleges and universities? Having a baseline over time could be helpful.
  3. Going back to #1, this is an example of how some social issues get discussed in media and in the public. There is some data or evidence and people start talking about it. Predictions are made. People look for patterns and trends. They can tend to look for patterns and evidence that fit their predictions.
  4. Even if there is not a big change at this point, does this necessarily mean there won’t be big changes in the years to come?

I’m sure there will be more to come on this topic.

What counts as a “simple answer” for a social issue?

Posted on by

With numerous social issues or social problems under discussion by the media, there are no shortage of answers provided. But, if someone says they have a “simple answer,” is it really that simple? Take this example from the Chicago Tribune editorial board in regard to the high price of new cars in the United States:

Photo by abdo alshreef on Pexels.com

The simple answer is that U.S. automakers decided the best way to combat the rising costs of unionized labor, which has secured massive gains, and ballooning material expenses was to chase the higher profit margins that come from the bigger SUVs, now the vehicle of choice for a broad swath of Americans.

We’d also add that decades of protectionist policies in the U.S. auto industry and a lack of fresh competition have not exactly been to the advantage of American consumers.

Simple answers might be satisfying. Few people probably want to pay such high prices for new cars. If there is a simple answer, this seems to get us closer to finding a solution.

But, the answer provided above may not be so simple (even though that is the claim. The first paragraph has multiple pieces triggering each other. Higher labor costs and paying more materials led to a particular decision by automakers. Why that decision and not others? What other options did they consider? And this all took place over at least a few years.

The second paragraph then adds an additional factor at work: policy choices that led to limited competition among automakers. These also unfolded over time and in particular contexts.

Is this a simple answer? It doesn’t seem to be so to me. There are multiple moving pieces. This all took time to develop.

Say others then enter the conversation. There are plenty of people with vested interests in this question. Someone says, “No, really, I have just one thing that needs to be changed,” and someone else says, “It is actually a difficult and nuanced situation and we cannot make any progress unless we acknowledge that first.”

Tackling big social issues is often hard. I’m not sure offering simple solutions – at least, making that rhetorical move, even if the diagnosis or solution offered is not really simple – is helpful.

How would we know when there is a “housing panic”?

Posted on by

Headline: “Housing panic grips half of US cities as record price cuts send home values tumbling.” What does the text of the story say?

Photo by Anna Tarazevich on Pexels.com

Sellers are slashing prices at record rates to to lure hesitant buyers put off by soaring mortgage rates and economic uncertainty.

In July alone, 27.4 percent of listings had a price cut — the highest rate ever recorded in Zillow’s monthly data going back to 2018.  

It helped push prices down year-over-year in 25 of the 50 largest US cities. Most were in the South and West…

Tampa prices are down 6.2 percent, Austin 6 percent, Miami 4.6 percent, Orlando 4.3 percent and Dallas 3.9 percent, according to Zillow…

Price cuts are more common in the South and the Mountain region, according to Zillow, as homeowners desperately try to offload properties.

Summary of this data: these are “record” cuts, supported by the number of listings with a price cut (27.4%), the number of metro areas with price cuts (half of the largest cities), and four specific cities have had prices drop between 3.9% and 6.2%.

This may be unusual behavior compared to prior years. It might not be what property owners want to see. Is it a “housing panic”?

Here are several indicators I could imagine of a larger panic regarding housing values:

  1. Prices dropping across all or most metro areas. (We read later in the article that values are up in some metros, mostly in the Northeast and Midwest.)
  2. Price drops of more than 10%. This may be an arbitrary cut-off but it is at least double-digits.
  3. Consistent public reporting and/or conversation about a housing panic. If there was truly a panic, wouldn’t it be easy to find that conversation?
  4. An inability to sell many homes even with larger price cuts.

This is worth paying attention to, both for the actual figures and how they are interpreted.

Political ad season has been most intense in Pittsburgh

Posted on by

Political ad season 2024 been the most intense in this city:

Pittsburgh viewers tuning into Monday Night Football this week watched their Steelers beat the New York Giants — and 26 political ads.

That’s just a small slice of the roughly 2,300 political ads the typical Pittsburgh household has seen on television this year, according to AdImpact, more than any other market in the country. 

The nonstop political onslaught for viewers, however, means a windfall for the stations. The local ABC affiliate broadcasting Monday’s game charged as much $150,000 for a single 30-second ad, an astronomical sum for the market.

Pittsburgh is the most extreme example of a phenomenon happening in swing states across the country: Campaigns and their allies are buying so many political ads that local businesses — the personal injury lawyers, car dealers and furniture stores that are usually staples of local news commercial breaks — often can’t reserve any airtime even if they could afford the inflated rates. 

While political ads are likely airing almost everywhere due to local and state races, the presidential race depends on a few select states and big markets within them. Which party can turn out the most voters in the key suburban districts?

It would be interesting to see data after the election about how Pittsburgh area residents responded to these ads. How many people did they convince? What did it cost roughly to pickup each vote? How did these big ad buys perform compared to social media campaigns that can target specific individuals? Money was spent…but how effective was it.

Similarly, how might these ad seasons boost local media organizations? Is this like Christmas season for media where the money that comes in during political ad season covers budgets for a much longer time? If political ad season was reduced in length or in spending, how might these media organizations do with less money?

How does a story about a band’s tour bus dumping waste on a tourist boat enter a city’s “pop culture fabric”?

Posted on by

On August 8, 2004, the driver of the tour bus for the Dave Matthews Band emptied the bathroom waste as they crossed over the Chicago River. The waste fell on passengers in a tourist boat passing below.

Photo by Blue Arauz on Pexels.com

Lots of things happen in big cities. Some stories are stranger or more influential than others. But how might one story get commemorated for years? Which cultural narratives last? One non-profit leader described this particular story:

“The incident is woven into the city’s pop culture fabric, and the anniversary seemed like an opportunity to emphasize that the world has to protect our natural resources, but it didn’t work out,” Frisbie said of the effort.

The article on the 20th anniversary provides some hints on how this story caught on and continues to be told. To go beyond a story that the people involved tell over and over, some help is needed:

-Famous people involved. The music group was well-known with multiple #1 platinum albums under their belt. This was not a random tour bus.

-Criminal charges and a court case. This involves different public bodies and can keep a story in the news.

-The media. A strange but true story – bathroom matters! a famous band! charges! – is a good one to get attention. And can we expect stories on the 25th anniversary, the 30th, and so on?

I am sure it would be hard to measure but it would be interesting to look at how this story stacks up against other stories in the city of Chicago. Which ones stand the test of time? Does this one make it into “official” lore (books, museums, memorials, etc.)? What is the half-life of pop culture stories in Chicago?

The Home Alone house as one of the most newsworthy houses in America?

Posted on by

I saw the news: the Home Alone house has been sold.

Photo by Alena Darmel on Pexels.com

The red brick Georgian Revival mansion in Winnetka made famous by the 1990 film “Home Alone” garnered much attention when it was listed on May 24 for $5.25 million — more than three times what it had sold for in 2012 to its current owners — and in a testament both to the condition of the home and the popularity of Winnetka, the mansion found a buyer just one week later.

How many houses generate this much interest when they are on the market or even when they are not? The same story above noted the number of visitors to the fictional home of the McCallisters:

A 1992 Chicago Tribune headline for a story about the home being placed on a local house walk called the mansion “a “home that’s never left alone.” Then-owner Cynthia Abendshien told the Tribune even back then that “there are a lot of people, especially children, that will knock on the door and ask to see the house.”

It’s not much different today, although the mansion now is set behind a wrought iron fence and gate. On a nice day, a visitor showing up to gawk at the mansion soon will discover that there’s company — other visitors there for the same purpose.

There are historic mansions that get a lot of visitors. Think Hearst Castle, Biltmore. Lots of communities have preserved older homes or historic preservation districts. Homes designed by well-known architects, like Frank Lloyd Wright, draw the attention of visitors.

But homes made famous by a movie? Particularly a movie aimed at kids? That when it goes on sale prompts articles by the New York Times, Architectural Digest, and the Today Show? It may be an particular confluence of when the movie was made, the way news outlets today report similar stories, and the interest people have in famous or celebrity houses. I am sure the home will be back in the news at some point, though the movie is now over 30 years old and real estate markets change.

What exactly is “strong opposition” to a proposed nearby development?

Posted on by

This is a familiar situation in American communities: a landowner proposes a change to their land. The potential change goes to the local government for approval. Neighbors and community members have an opportunity to weigh in. Some people voice opposition. How might we know whether the community opposition is “strong” or not? It could be measured in multiple ways:

Photo by Rene Asmussen on Pexels.com

-The number of people clearly opposed to the change. This could be the difference between two opponents speaking at public meetings versus 60. Or there may be an online petition with hundreds or thousands of signatures against the proposal.

-The loudness of the opposition. Are those opposed speaking out regularly? Are their concerns expressed clearly and often online and in the media? Is the opposition clearly identifiable and known within the community? What kind of rhetoric is being used by all sides?

-The connections and resources of the opposition. Do they have the ear of leaders and politicians? Who can support the opposition? Will an unfavorable decision lead to a lawsuit?

-Is “strong” opposition that which leads to the proposal being voted or turned down?

All of this is context dependent as well. Certain proposals will generate more attention based on their location and the proposed change.

I would guess most opponents of proposed developments are spirited and believe in their cause. Whether this adds up to “strong” opposition might be much harder to judge.

(This thinking was inspired by a headline regarding a local land use proposal that some residents opposed.)

Did certain sitcoms change American society – and how would we know?

Posted on by

Did Norman Lear change American culture through the television shows he created? Here is one headline hinting at this:

From the linked article, here are some of the ways Lear was influential:

Lear had already established himself as a top comedy writer and captured a 1968 Oscar nomination for his screenplay for “Divorce American Style” when he concocted the idea for a new sitcom, based on a popular British show, about a conservative, outspokenly bigoted working-class man and his fractious Queens family. “All in the Family” became an immediate hit, seemingly with viewers of all political persuasions.

Lear’s shows were the first to address the serious political, cultural and social flashpoints of the day – racism, abortion, homosexuality, the Vietnam war — by working pointed new wrinkles into the standard domestic comedy formula. No subject was taboo: Two 1977 episodes of “All in the Family” revolved around the attempted rape of lead character Archie Bunker’s wife Edith.

Their fresh outrageousness turned them into huge ratings successes: For a time, “Family” and “Sanford,” based around a Los Angeles Black family, ranked No. 1 and No. 2 in the country. “All in the Family” itself accounted for no less than six spin-offs. “Family” was also honored with four Emmys in 1971-73 and a 1977 Peabody Award for Lear, “for giving us comedy with a social conscience.” (He received a second Peabody in 2016 for his career achievements.)

Some of Lear’s other creations played with TV conventions. “One Day at a Time” (1975-84) featured a single mother of two young girls as its protagonist, a new concept for a sitcom. Similarly, “Diff’rent Strokes” (1978-86) followed the growing pains of two Black kids adopted by a wealthy white businessman.

Other series developed by Lear were meta before the term ever existed. “Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman” (1976-77) spoofed the contorted drama of daytime soaps; while the show couldn’t land a network slot, it became a beloved off-the-wall entry in syndication. “Hartman” had its own oddball spinoff, “Fernwood 2 Night,” a parody talk show set in a small Ohio town; the show was later retooled as “America 2-Night,” with its setting relocated to Los Angeles…

One of Hollywood’s most outspoken liberals and progressive philanthropists, Lear founded the advocacy group People for the American Way in 1981 to counteract the activities of the conservative Moral Majority.

The emphasis here is on both television and politics. Lear created different kinds of shows that proved popular as they promoted particular ideas. He also was politically active for progressive causes.

How might we know that these TV shows created cultural change? Just a few ways this could be established:

-How influential were these shows to later shows and cultural products? How did television shows look before and after Lear’s work?

-Ratings: how many people watched?

-Critical acclaim: what did critics think? What did his peers within the industry think? How do these shows stand up over time?

But, the question I might want to ask is whether we know how the people who watched these shows – millions of Americans – were or were not changed by these minutes and hours spent in front of the television. Americans take in a lot of television and media over their lifetime. This certainly has an influence in the aggregate. Do we have data and/or evidence that can link these shows to changed attitudes and actions? My sense is that is easier to see broad changes over time but harder to show more directly that specific media products led to particular outcomes at the individual (and sometimes also at the social) level.

These are research methodology questions that could involve lots of cultural products. The headline above might be supportable but it could require putting together multiple pieces of evidence and not having all the data we could have.

Is the current era all about more interesting circuses vying for our attention?

Posted on by

A profile of the latest ventures of former footballer Gerard Piqué ends with this:

Photo by sergio souza on Pexels.com

That, perhaps, is the point that all those critics who dismissed the Kings League have missed. It may well be a circus. But Piqué might respond that there is nothing wrong with being a circus. Circuses are popular. They draw a crowd, they hold the gaze, because nobody is ever quite sure what is coming next.

While the circus itself has passed peak popularity in the United States, the argument above appears to have some merit: the average resident of society today is presented with a vast array of circuses. Some are free, some are not. They come through various media forms. They all promise to try to entertain or engross you. Novelty and spectacle are key. The speed at which it all happens is new as is the number of options.

What does this do to the potential viewers? Does it enhance their lives in the long run? Do people want their lives dominated by circuses or would they rather invest in longer-term pursuits, relationships, and community life?

The example above presents a modified form of soccer/football with its own twists. Fans of the regular game plus others interested in a fast-moving and entertaining time can tune in or attend. How long does this last?

Is it possible to get convincing data on whether the media is covering a story or not?

Posted on by

A strike is threatening the operation of railroads in the United States. Is the media coverage of the story sufficient or appropriate to the scale of the issue? How could this be measured?

Photo by Brett Sayles on Pexels.com

Media stories and/or reports can be counted in multiple ways. Count articles, headlines, the number of words written, social media posts, time spent on it during television broadcasts. Look at where and when stories are reported or not; does it lead the news or come later? Is it buried on a webpage or a newspaper page? How many resources are devoted to the topic could involve looking at how many reporters are on a story or the length of stories and reports.

But, this measurement question is complicated by the issue of knowing when the coverage is enough or not. My sense of most of the Internet arguments about this is that one political side feels for one reason or another that a story is not getting sufficient attention. Would an accurate count or measurement of coverage be convincing? What is an appropriate level of coverage depends on who is asking.

Additionally, the media has its own logics and pressures regarding what stories it covers and how it displays them. Not everything can be the top headline. Resources for covering the news are limited.

This might just be a perfect kind of argument for our politicized and fragmented current age. For those who really care about an issue, no level of media coverage might be enough. For those who are less interested or less aware, they might not care or know what they are missing. Media sources will provide information but not so do necessarily evenly across all news stories. And social media, the Internet, and politics provides space to express concern or outrage about the coverage or lack thereof.