The first article in this issue finds no support for the widespread belief that sensational news coverage can increase a news organization’s profits. The second article estimates the average user in five European countries receives consumer surplus from free access to internet leisure activities of 525 to 785 Euros per year. The third article estimates the annual welfare from public service broadcasting programs in the Netherlands to be at least 131 million Euros more than the annual subsidy. Each study has implications that cross international boundaries. “The Economics of Sensationalism: The Lack of Effect of Scandal-Reporting on Business Outcomes,” by Brinja Meiseberg, Jochen Lengers, and Thomas Ehrmann, re-examines assumptions that sensational news stories increase circulation and advertising sales, thereby increasing newspaper profits. Journalists may instead produce sensational stories for ideological reasons or because sensational stories can boost their professional image and career. Newspaper advertising rates are usually fixed in the short-run, so advertisers might receive more benefits from circulation increases than newspapers do. The study examines these possibilities by researching effects from reporting by the German tabloid BILD on a scandal that forced the German federal president to resign. BILD’s reporting was criticized as sensational. First, do publishers profit from sensational news stories? The researchers use an event-study to determine if the scandal coverage resulted in abnormal returns to the stock price of BILD’s owner, the Axel Springer Corp.. This method is also used to look for abnormal increases in circulation at BILD, and abnormal increases in BILD’s online audience. Results “do not find support for any linkages”(p. 9) between coverage of the scandal and abnormal returns to Axel Springer’s stock price. There were “no effects on sales of single editions or in the aggregate” circulation figures (p. 9). Results were mixed for online audiences. However, the initial scandal reporting appeared to increase online audiences at BILD’s upscale competitors, perhaps because competing news outlets had “more brand name capital in regard to public affairs and issues having an impact on society-at-large” (p. 12). Second, do journalists benefit from producing sensational news? The study did not have adequate quantitative data to determine how the scandal affected the employment and earnings of journalists who covered the stories. However, some journalists did receive a prestigious prize for investigative reporting. Journalists also wrote a book and sold film rights to a German production company. The researchers conclude sensational stories can enhance a journalist’s career prospects. Media outlets “may be able to hire investigative journalists at lower wages in exchange for a certain degree of freedom of choice concerning which stories they want to cover” (p. 12). Third, do advertisers benefit from sensational coverage because they reach audiences that are larger than the audience they paid to reach. Advertisers did not receive any benefits because circulation was not increased by coverage of the scandal. The researchers conclude the conventional belief that sensational news coverage can increase audiences and profits was not supported. The scandal coverage may have instead been driven by “journalists’ private motivations” (p. 13) because journalists hoped to profit from the sale of books or film rights and to boost their professional reputations. “The Value of the Internet as Entertainment in Five European Countries” by Smaranda Pantea and Bertin Martens estimates how much value European consumers receive from the internet. The European Union promotes universal broadband coverage to stimulate economic growth, to reduce prices, and to provide internet access to isolated individuals and groups. However, broadband policy

中文翻译：

---

丑闻报道和商业结果、互联网接入带来的福利影响以及公共广播带来的福利影响

本期的第一篇文章没有发现对耸人听闻的新闻报道可以增加新闻机构利润的普遍看法的支持。第二篇文章估计，五个欧洲国家的平均用户每年从免费访问互联网休闲活动中获得的消费者剩余为 525 至 785 欧元。第三条估计荷兰公共服务广播节目的年度福利至少比年度补贴多1.31亿欧元。每项研究都有跨越国界的影响。由 Brinja Meiseberg、Jochen Lengers 和 Thomas Ehrmann 撰写的“耸人听闻的经济学：丑闻报道对商业结果的影响不足”重新审视了耸人听闻的新闻报道增加发行量和广告销售从而增加报纸利润的假设。记者可能出于意识形态原因或因为耸人听闻的故事可以提升他们的职业形象和职业生涯而制作耸人听闻的故事。报纸广告费率在短期内通常是固定的，因此广告商可能会从发行量增加中获得比报纸更多的收益。该研究通过研究德国小报 BILD 对迫使德国联邦总统辞职的丑闻的报道的影响来检验这些可能性。BILD 的报道被批评为耸人听闻。首先，出版商是否从耸人听闻的新闻故事中获利？研究人员使用事件研究来确定丑闻报道是否导致 BILD 所有者 Axel Springer Corp. 的股票价格出现异常回报。 这种方法也用于寻找 BILD 发行量的异常增加，以及BILD在线观众的异常增长。结果“没有找到任何关联的支持”（第 9 页）丑闻的报道与 Axel Springer 股票价格的异常回报之间。“对单一版本的销售或总体销售没有影响”发行量（第 9 页）。在线观众的结果喜忧参半。然而，最初的丑闻报道似乎增加了 BILD 高端竞争对手的在线观众，这可能是因为竞争新闻媒体“在公共事务和对整个社会产生影响的问题方面拥有更多的品牌资本”（第 12 页）。其次，新闻工作者是否从制造耸人听闻的新闻中受益？该研究没有足够的定量数据来确定丑闻如何影响报道这些故事的记者的就业和收入。然而，一些记者确实因调查报道而获得了著名的奖项。记者们还写了一本书，并将电影版权卖给了一家德国制作公司。研究人员得出结论，耸人听闻的故事可以提高记者的职业前景。媒体“或许能够以较低的工资雇佣调查记者，以换取他们在报道哪些故事方面有一定程度的选择自由”（第 12 页）。第三，广告商是否从耸人听闻的报道中受益，因为他们接触到的受众比他们支付的受众要多。广告商没有得到任何好处，因为丑闻的报道没有增加流通量。研究人员得出结论，认为耸人听闻的新闻报道可以增加受众和利润的传统观点不受支持。相反，丑闻报道可能是由“记者的私人动机”（第 13 页）驱动的，因为记者希望从书籍或电影版权的销售中获利，并提高他们的专业声誉。Smaranda Pantea 和 Bertin Martens 撰写的“五个欧洲国家互联网作为娱乐的价值”估计了欧洲消费者从互联网中获得的价值。欧盟促进普遍宽带覆盖以刺激经济增长、降低价格并为孤立的个人和群体提供互联网接入。然而，宽带政策 Smaranda Pantea 和 Bertin Martens 撰写的“五个欧洲国家互联网作为娱乐的价值”估计了欧洲消费者从互联网中获得的价值。欧盟促进普遍宽带覆盖以刺激经济增长、降低价格并为孤立的个人和群体提供互联网接入。然而，宽带政策 Smaranda Pantea 和 Bertin Martens 撰写的“五个欧洲国家互联网作为娱乐的价值”估计了欧洲消费者从互联网中获得的价值。欧盟促进普遍宽带覆盖以刺激经济增长、降低价格并为孤立的个人和群体提供互联网接入。然而，宽带政策