Private sector knowledge producers, more commonly known as think tanks or research institutes, are used as authoritative sources in Western media either as interview guests or their research quoted by journalists.  Most studies have focused on their ability to influence government policy, but very little has focused on their role in the public sphere, particularly their visibility in media.  This study will explore how often think representatives appear as authoritative sources or experts in broadcast media during the 2015, 2017 and 2019 UK General Elections.  This will be done through a quantitative content analysis and thematic analysis investigating whether such representatives are accorded preferential access and ascribed primary authority to define narratives.  Additionally, a theoretical model has been designed to detect whether a marketplace of ideas can be detected or whether television news is a site of Habermassian rational-critical public sphere.  Inspired by the work of Anstead and Chadwick, and taking this vital work further, this study investigates whether authority signalling, and primary definition is still a relevant theory by analysing broadcast news coverage across three general elections.

A survey testing student uses of and attitudes towards traditional broadcast television news and eleven "tabloid" programs was conducted using 300 students enrolled at the University of North Texas. The 10:00 p.m. newscast was most watched by the students. The most watched weekly news magazine was "60 Minutes." The Oprah Winfrey Show" was the daily "tabloid" leader. "America's Most Wanted" led the weekly "tabloid" shows. Students perceived daily newscasts as important sources of information. "USA Today," the weekly news magazines "60 Minutes" and "20/20,1" and "America's Most Wanted" were also cited by students as being "important" information programming. However, the survey showed "tabloid television" was not a major source of informational programming for college students.