The 700 Club as Religion and as Television

438 Pages·2017·9.53 MB·English

by  Stewart Hoover

UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPeennnnssyyllvvaanniiaa
SScchhoollaarrllyyCCoommmmoonnss
Dissertations (ASC) Annenberg School for Communication
1985
TThhee 770000 CClluubb aass RReelliiggiioonn aanndd aass TTeelleevviissiioonn:: AA SSttuuddyy ooff RReeaassoonnss
aanndd EEffffeeccttss
Stewart Hoover
University of Pennsylvania
Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations_asc
Part of the Communication Commons
RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn
Hoover, Stewart, "The 700 Club as Religion and as Television: A Study of Reasons and Effects" (1985).
Dissertations (ASC). 19.
https://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations_asc/19
This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations_asc/19
For more information, please contact [email protected].
TThhee 770000 CClluubb aass RReelliiggiioonn aanndd aass TTeelleevviissiioonn:: AA SSttuuddyy ooff RReeaassoonnss aanndd EEffffeeccttss
AAbbssttrraacctt
There has been a great deal of public debate recently over the phenomenon known as the "Electronic
Church." This label has come to be attached to a rather large group of religious television broadcasters
who syndicate programming nationally and who pay for their use of this expensive medium through
commercial-like appeals for funds from viewers.
These broadcasters have come to public attention and scientific scrutiny recently due to their prominence
in programming schedules nationwide (a function of technological and Federal policy developments) and
to their presumed involvment in "right of center" politics.
DDeeggrreeee TTyyppee
Dissertation
DDeeggrreeee NNaammee
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
DDeeppaarrttmmeenntt
Communication
FFiirrsstt AAddvviissoorr
George Gerbner
SSuubbjjeecctt CCaatteeggoorriieess
Communication
This dissertation is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations_asc/19
THE 1.QQ .Q..m AS REl..IGION AND
AS TEl..EVISION: A STUDY OF
REASONS AND EFFECTS
Stewart Mark Hoover
A DISSERTATION
in
Communications
PreSented to the Graduate Faculties of the University of
Pennsylvania in Partial Fulfillment of the ReqUirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
1985
ANNENBERG~
p Gradua te Group Chairperson
002
1985
H789
COPYRIGHT
Stewart Mark Hoover
1985
() \)
ACKNCWLEDGEMENTS
No endeavor such as this one could be done alone. There
are many people who·have contributed greatly to whatever
Value there may be in this work. I wish to thank, first, my
faculty committee at the Annenberg School, without whom this
project would not have been possible. Larry Gross, my
chairperson, .contributed many hours to consideration of the
issues intrOduced here, and encouraged me to try the
methodology used here, as intimidating as it might have
seemed to us at the time. George Gerbner has been a trusted
mentor, an inspirational teacher, and a valued colleague
during my doctoral studies. Last but not least, Carolyn
Marvin contributed muCh to the conceptualization of
communication and the importance Of this particular avenue of
research, and provided helpful insights to me and other
committee members at what always seemed to be just the right
moment.
I would like also to acknowledge the aSSistance and
counsel ot" many others who gave of their time and expertise
as I carried out this study. William F. Fore of the National
Council ot" Churches laid much of the groundwork for this
project through his own research and writings. Everett
Parker and Dallas Smythe, who carried out the landmark study
in the field, both contributed very helpful insights to this
process, as well. David Clark of the Christian Broadcasting
Network was a tireless source of information and assistance
over the five years this study was underway. Robert White
and Peter Horsfield provided invaluable bibliographic and
other aSSistance. James Carey, Daniel Dayan and Elihu Katz
gave the project a boost with kind words and keen interest,
even as my own interest was flagging in the final stages of
the research. There are really too many others to mention,
though they know WhO they are, and I am indebted to them.
Finally, I would like to acknOWledge the support,
encouragement, counsel, and assistance of my wife, Karen, who
beyond everything else she has contributed to my academic
career, is responSible for the trajectory figures in this
document.
Whatever val ue there may be in this work is the resul t
Of the combined efforts Of these and other people.
Stewart Hoover
iii
CONTENTS
Introd.uction ........................................... 1
I.. Previous Research and Theoretical Background ••• 3
Intro<1uction .................................. 3
Prey ious Research ............................. 4
The Religious-Institutional Context ••••••••••• 9
The "Electronic Church":
Religion or Television? .•....•.••..•••. 16
Television's Cultural Environment •••••••••••• 21
Summary •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 28
II. The Present Study:
Research Questions and Methodology •••••• 31
III. The AnnenbergiGallup Study:
Regional Survey Findings •••••••••••••••• 35
Introduction ................................. 35
BaSi c Findings ............................... 36
Summary •........•.......••.••..•.••.....•••.. 45
IV. The Specific Case of CBN:
Institution and Audience •••••••••••••••• 47
Introduction ................................. 47
Institution .................................. 48
Audience ......................................................... 50
Summary ........................................... 58
V. Analysis and Findings of Interviews •••••••••••• 62
Viewing and Involvement Trajectories ••••••••• 64
Trajectory Analyses Case by Case ••••••••••••• 76
Findings of Trajectory Analyses ••••••••••••• 100
iv
CONTENTS, Cont'd.
VI. Analysis Of Emerging Concepts for Further
Development and Research •••••••••••••••••••• 104
Localism and Translocalism •••••••••••• ·• ••••• 108
Methodological Issues ............................................. 133
Summar-y .......................................................................... 139
VII. Concl usions ..................................................................... 144
Introduction ..... '. ...................................................... .. 144
Is it Religion or Is it Television? •••••••• 148
Religious Television and
Conventional Religiosity ••••••••••••••• 152
Localism and Translocalism •••••••••••••••••• 158
Summary ......................................................................... 1 59
Appendix I: Regional Survey Questionnaire ••• 196
Appendix II: Interview Agenda ••••••••••••••• 207
Appendix III: The Personal Interviews ••••••• 210
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 11.1: Personal Interview Sample
Demographic Distributions •.....•......... 37
Table 111.1: Correlations Between Religious Viewing
and Various Religious Measures, Full
Regional Sample .......................... 42
Table 111.3: Cnurch Attendance Among Respondent
Categories of Religious Television
V1ewi'ng, Within Subgroups •••••••••••••••• 44
Table IV.1: Northeastern Subsample: Frequency
Distribution of Various Characteristics
Among Categories of Religious Viewing •••• 57
Table IV.2: Correlations Between Religious Viewing
and Various Religious Measures, Study
Sample .•..•...••••......•••...•..•......• 63
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Viewing/Involvement Trajectory,
Respondent Number 3 •••••••••••••• 84
Figure 2: Viewingiinvolvement Trajectory,
Respondent Number 4 •..••.••••••.. 85
Figure 3: Viewingiinvolvement Trajectory,
Respondent Number 8 ...•.••..•••.. 87
Figure 4: Viewing/Involvement Trajectory,
Respondent Number 12 ..•.•....•.•. 89
Figure 5: Viewing/Involvement Traj ectory,
Respondent Number 14 ••••••.•••••• 92
Figure 6: Viewing/Involvement Trajectory,
Respondent Number 18 ............. 94
Figure 7: Viewing/Involvement Trajectory,
Respondent Number 19 •••••...•••.. 96
Figure 8: Viewing/Involvement Trajectory,
Respondent Number 20 •...•..•....• 98
Figure 9: Viewing/Invol vement Trajectory,
Respondent Number 22 •.•..•...... 100
Figure 10: Viewing/Involvement Traj ect ory ,
Respondent Number 29 •••.••••••.• 102
Figure 11: Viewing/Involvement Traj ectory,
Respondent Number 31 •...••••.•.• 105
Figure 12: Viewing/Involvement Traj ectory,
Respondent Number 35 ••..••••••.. 106
Figure 13: Viewing/Involvement Traj ect ory ,
Respondent Number 36 ............ 109
vii
List of Figures, ContI d.
Figure 14: Viewing/Involvement Traj ect ory ,
Respondent Number 40 •••••••••••• 11 2
Figure 15: Vlewing/Involvement Traj ect ory ,
Respondent Number 45 ••••.••••••• 114
Figure 16: Vlewing/Invol vement Traj ect ory ,
Respondent Number 46 ••.••••••••• 117
Figure 17: Vlewing/Inv'ol vement Trajectory,
Respondent Number 47 •••....•.... 120
Figure 18: Viewing/Involvement Traj ect ory ,
Respondent Number 51 •••••••••••• 122
Figure 19: Vl ew ing/Invol vement Traj ect ory ,
Respondent Number 52 •••.•••••••. 124
Figure 20: Vlewing/Involvement Traj ect ory ,
Respondent Number 53 ••...••••••• 127
viii