The Effect of Fox News and CNN's Postdebate Commentator Analysis on Viewers' Perceptions of Presidential Candidate Performance
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Southern Communication Journal
Vol. 74, No. 4, October–December 2009, pp. 339–351
The Effect of Fox News and CNN’s
Postdebate Commentator Analysis on
Viewers’ Perceptions of Presidential
Candidate Performance
Jennifer Brubaker & Gary Hanson
Television news coverage following a presidential debate often presents the debate as a
contest between winners and losers by employing a horse race paradigm. The use of this
paradigm can help viewers form their assessments of the candidates’ performances, but
its overuse can limit serious campaign discourse on the issues. This study examines
the effect of postdebate analysis by two cable news networks on the perceived outcome
of a 2004 presidential debate and the perceptions of the candidates, finding perceptions
of the outcome differing between viewers of the two networks. This finding contributes to
our understanding of viewer interaction with postdebate television coverage by focusing
on the importance of the sources of information.
Introduction
Since 1960, televised presidential debates have followed a hybrid format that borrows
from the press conference, the interview, and the formal debate.1 They have become a
form of political theater—more joint speeches or joint press conferences than formal
debates. Hart and Jarvis blame ‘‘the gods of television’’ and conclude that the
‘‘staging, camera treatment, choice of interrogators, and debate formats demanded
by television . . . make real dialogue all but impossible.’’2 After the elements of a true
Jennifer Brubaker, Department of Communication Studies, University of North Carolina; Gary Hanson, School
of Journalism and Mass Communication, Kent State University. Correspondence to: Jennifer Brubaker,
Department of Communication Studies, University of North Carolina–Wilmington, 601 South College Dr.,
Wilmington, NC 28403. E-mail: brubakerj@uncw.edu
ISSN 1041-794x (print) # 2009 Southern States Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/10417940902721763340 The Southern Communication Journal
debate have been removed, viewers are left with entertainment programming, with
many aspects just as, if not more, similar to reality programming or a sporting event
than a formal debate. This is only amplified by the postdebate analysis, which lends
itself to the likes of ‘‘American Idol’’ judges or ESPN analysts, focusing on the tactics
and maneuvers of the candidates. Rather than centering on the issues, televised
postdebate analysis becomes focused on deciding a victor.
Today’s televised debates differ from earlier political debate in that the perfor-
mances of the candidates themselves are discussed endlessly by media commentators
in newspapers, television, and on the Internet once the debate is over. Since the 1976
debates between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, a staple of presidential debate cover-
age has been the televised postdebate analysis. Yet, the impact of postdebate analysis
has received little critical study.3 This paper seeks to add to that body of work by
looking at the immediate impact of the postdebate analysis—specifically to see if
the commentary changes TV viewers’ perceptions of who won. The study examines
the question from two perspectives—the surface-level judgment of the winner and
loser and the larger issue of the viewers’ opinions of the candidates.
A common trend in the media coverage of elections has been the focus on the
horse race of the campaign. This reporting is a journalistic perspective that views
elections as strategic exercises and focuses on who is winning and who is losing rather
than the candidates’ issues or policies.4 This focus becomes a problem when it takes
the emphasis off of serious campaign discourse that emphasizes issues and public
policy and instead moves it to mere speculation about winners and losers.5 Televised
debates between the candidates are the one opportunity for voters to compare the
candidates side-by-side. As a result, debates are one of the significant events of the
campaign season and receive extensive news coverage. The debates are unique in that
they allow for an extended period of airtime in which the focus of attention is on the
candidates themselves followed immediately by analysis from the network’s journal-
ists and pundits. In short, viewers can form their own opinions after watching the
candidates and then have those opinions either validated or challenged by watching
the TV experts. With so much attention given by the media to the horse race aspect
of presidential campaigns, it is important to examine the impact that the postdebate
analysis plays on public perception of the outcome.
This paper looks at the effects of the postdebate commentary on viewers’ percep-
tions of the candidates and the debate by analyzing the content of the postdebate ana-
lysis of CNN and Fox News Channel following a presidential debate between George
W. Bush and John Kerry in 2004. This study then considers whether the viewers’ per-
ceptions of who won the debate changed after viewing the postdebate coverage. We
found that postdebate analysis appears to have some impact on the assessment of the
winner (and loser) of the debate. Much of this debate analysis content fits the general
strategic paradigm of who won and who lost, with discussions of issues also largely
presented in terms of winners and losers. Consistent with the argument that overuse
of the horse race perspective affects the valuable aspects offered by debates,6 the med-
ia’s use of the horse race paradigm in this analysis altered the public’s final evaluation
of the debate and of each candidate’s performance.The Effect of Postdebate Analysis 341
Postdebate Analysis and the Horse Race
Debates are a key element of presidential campaigns.7 The televised debate is popular,
with the first presidential debate of the 2004 election between President George W.
Bush and Senator John Kerry attracting 62.5 million viewers and the third and final
debate drawing an audience of over 51 million.8 The large size of the television audi-
ence gives debates a huge potential for influence. Debates are exceptionally helpful for
undecided voters who are most interested in the specific issues.9 They are also helpful
for those voters who don’t follow the campaigns except for the debates.10
Researchers have studied the postdebate commentary and analysis that follow a
presidential debate.11 Many voters need the mass media’s interpretation to make
the debates fully meaningful.12 That interpretation is influential for those voters
who watched the debate and is an important source of information for those who
did not.13 Research has suggested that media coverage does not give voters an accu-
rate portrayal of the debates.14 Benoit, Hansen, and Stein found that newspaper cov-
erage of primary debates accentuated the negative, emphasized character over policy
and told voters relatively little of the content of these debates.15 Postdebate coverage
on television follows similar patterns.16 Researchers have found that the consumption
of debate-related news coverage is associated with perceptions of the winner of the
debate.17 Kendall says that media interpretations of a debate devote little time to
the issues and the actual content and devote much time to the candidates’ personal-
ities, the process that led them to the debate, and the candidates’ preparation for the
debate; media then write stories about the potential effects of the debate.18 Winkler
and Black argued that the preoccupation with the process elements diverts attention
from the substance available in public debates.19 Gordon suggested that because of
this diversion, the debates do more harm than good.20 Rather than focusing on which
candidate best would govern our country, voters learn which candidate is the best
debater. Jamieson and Birdsell argued that debates have been reduced to a contest
with the ‘‘stylistic features of a game show.’’21 With so many viewers relying on
the postdebate analysis for interpretation of the debate, the media have the potential
to do a lot of good by expanding viewers’ knowledge and deepening their under-
standing of the issues. Instead, the media miss out on this civic opportunity by fixat-
ing on the process and the winners and losers.
The thoroughness of media coverage, and consequently, its usefulness to voters,
depends not just on the quantity of the coverage but also on its focus.22 A common
theme in the coverage of political debates is to reduce the candidates’ discussions to
questions of who won and who lost.23 The race itself is often reduced to the metaphor
of a horse race.24 Critics argue that this horse race paradigm has become the most
important issue in campaign coverage and damages the potential value that televised
debates could offer the voters and the election process.25 Journalists analyze the win-
ner by using this theme to look at various parameters: campaign strategy, positions
on issues, discussions of a candidate’s character, and the image that candidates pre-
sent on television. According to the Center for Media and Public Affairs, only 18% of
media coverage on the 2004 election was substantive (such as discussions of policy342 The Southern Communication Journal
issues, candidates’ records, or candidate qualifications) whereas 77% focused on the
horse race, addressing the candidates’ viability or strategy.26
Any examination of the effect of the postdebate coverage on viewer’s perceptions
of the debate must begin with the coverage itself. Bernstein et al. reported that post-
debate media coverage is ‘‘the strongest debate-related influence on performance
impressions.’’27 Thus, our first research question is:
RQ1: Did the postdebate analysis assess the performance of the candidates using
the horse race perspective?
Trent and Friedenberg concluded that while debates serve mostly to reinforce
audiences’ own positions regarding a candidate; a very limited number of voters
change their opinions as the result of them.28 Postdebate media analysis, however,
focuses on highlights and low points of the debate in relation to the candidates them-
selves. Prior research does show, however, that news coverage following the debate
can have an influence on voters’ perceptions of how the candidates did in the parti-
cular skirmish of the debate. Accordingly, the second research question asked:
RQ2: Did the postdebate analysis change viewers’ minds about the outcome of the
debate?
Benoit et al.’s meta-analysis reported that debates have varying effects on audience
perceptions of candidates’ personal characteristics.29 The researchers found that,
whereas debates alter audience perceptions of candidates’ personality, they do not
significantly influence perceptions of the candidates’ competence or leadership abil-
ity. Postdebate media analysis, however, focuses on highlights and low points of the
debate in relation to the candidates themselves. Accordingly, the third research
question asked:
RQ3: Did the postdebate analysis influence the audience members’ perceptions of
the candidates’ credibility?
Debates are a key element of presidential campaigns, and their large audience gives
them a huge potential for influence. Much of this audience needs the mass media’s
interpretation to make the debates fully meaningful. The postdebate analysis, how-
ever, tends to devote little time to the issues and the actual content and to devote
much time to the candidates’ personalities, the process that led them to the debate,
and the candidates’ preparation for the debate, leaving viewers at a loss for key issue
information. These research questions seek to ascertain just how much influence the
media have in both short-term perceptions of the debate winner and long-term
perceptions of the candidates’ credibility.
Methods
This study seeks to determine the impact of the commentary on the audience follow-
ing the debate itself. The research was conducted on October 13, 2004 during the live
television coverage of the third of three presidential debates between George W. BushThe Effect of Postdebate Analysis 343
and John Kerry. Participant viewers were measured immediately after viewing the
debate and immediately after viewing the postdebate commentary. Public opinion
polls generally showed Kerry leading Bush prior to the third debate; although
the margin of his lead was decreasing, establishing the frame of Kerry as the front
runner.30
Measures
A small number of studies have examined content of the postdebate analysis.31 Two
dimensions often present in bias studies are the relative amount of coverage (i.e.,
length or amount of time spent) and tone (i.e., positive or negative).32 This study
applied the coding scheme developed by Druckman, who looked at newspaper and
television coverage of a Minnesota senate race and coded for position, length, type,
and content. He considered four categories of topics within the coverage: issue,
personal, strategy, and other.33
Sample
The sample was comprised of students from various majors at a large Carnegie II
research university. A total of 178 participants provided usable data. Eighty-six par-
ticipants viewed the coverage on CNN; 92 viewed the coverage on Fox News. The
sample was 37% men and 63% women. Thirty percent identified themselves as
Republicans, 47% as Democrats, and 20% as Independent or Other. Twenty-seven
percent reported a high level of political activity. Sixty percent of the participants
had viewed earlier debates respectively. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 47.
Participants were randomly assigned to view the CNN or Fox News Channel tele-
casts of the debate and the postdebate analysis and to complete an 88-question survey
at the conclusion of the debate and again at the conclusion of the postdebate analysis.
(Digital video recorders were used to temporarily halt the live coverage before the
postdebate analysis began to give respondents time to complete the first survey.)
Cable networks were chosen for analysis due to their longer and more concentrated
political coverage. Fox News and CNN were chosen due to the size of their respective
audiences. A 2005 Annual Report on American Journalism reported Fox News as the
number one cable news network and CNN as number two in 2004.34 For the third
debate, FoxNews had 7.1 million viewers and CNN had 3.4 million.
Measurement
Both the postdebate and the postanalysis questionnaires measured the perceptions of
who won or lost the debate and perceptions of the candidates. Transcripts of the
postdebate coverage for each network were used for the content analysis. Individual
segments of the commentary were coded for the following: (a) length, (b) person
speaking (i.e., network anchor or reporter, political pundit, campaign partisan,344 The Southern Communication Journal
candidate, and other), (c) topic frame (i.e., issue, strategy, character, and other), and
(d) the favorability of the segment for each of the candidates.
Debate assessment
Participants were asked two questions to assess the outcome of the debate—one using
the 7-point scale to assess the winner (1 ¼ Strongly Kerry and 7 ¼ Strongly Bush) and
the other using a forced-choice response (Bush, Kerry, or tied).
Content analysis
The transcripts of the news coverage immediately following the debate served as the
text for the content analysis. The unit of analysis was uninterrupted text of an indi-
vidual person speaking. As Schiffer suggested, two dimensions are present in media
bias studies: the relative amount of time given to each comment and tone of the com-
ments themselves.35 The amount of time was coded by counting the words in the
transcript. Three coders were given detailed instructions for coding the postdebate
transcripts. The study used Druckman’s coding scheme for content frames (issue,
strategy, character, and other.)36 Content frames were assigned if at least two of
the coders were in agreement. Those units for analysis for which there was no agree-
ment were coded separately and excluded from analyses in which the specific content
was a variable. Five-point scales (1 ¼ clearly unfavorable to the candidate and
5 ¼ clearly favorable to the candidate) were used to assess the tone of the comment
for each of the candidates. Interrater reliabilities were calculated for each pair of
assessments and averaged for CNN (k ¼ .493) and Fox (k ¼ .501). The analysis of
the content frames and the favorability for each candidate were weighted by the word
count to approximate the amount of time given to each comment.
Ethos and credibility
This construct was measured using McCroskey and Teven’s measure of ethos and
credibility. Participants assessed 18 semantic differential items that measure dimen-
sions of: competence (e.g., intelligent=unintelligent), goodwill (e.g., cares about
me=doesn’t care about me), and trustworthiness (e.g., honest=dishonest). Partici-
pants rated their agreement on a 7-point scale (1 ¼ strongly agree with the negative
term and 7 ¼ strongly agree with the positive term). Responses were summed and
averaged to create ethos and credibility indices for each candidate from the postde-
bate and the postanalysis questionnaires (Kerry postdebate: M ¼ 5.19, SD ¼ 0.89,
a ¼ .89; Bush postdebate: M ¼ 4.82, SD ¼ 0.81, a ¼ .80; Kerry postanalysis:
M ¼ 5.07, SD ¼ 0.98, a ¼ .92; Bush postanalysis M ¼ 4.82, SD ¼ 0.86, a ¼ .83).
Results
The first research question asked if the postdebate analysis assessed the performance
of the candidate by using the horse race perspective. The portion of the postdebateThe Effect of Postdebate Analysis 345
Table 1 Amount of Time Spent on Content Categories by CNN
and Fox News
CNN (%) Fox (%)
Issues 22.3 29.8
Strategy 49.9 56.9
Character 3.2 5.3
Other 24.5 7.9
Notes. n ¼ 60 for CNN postdebate analysis; n ¼ 64 for Fox postdebate analysis.
Percentages are weighted by word count of each comment.
coverage under consideration for this study consisted of 64 individual comments for
CNN and 60 individual comments for Fox. The comments ranged from 1 word to
436 words in length. Each network’s coverage featured a panel of political commen-
tators and reports from correspondents who were covering the candidates’ cam-
paigns. Both networks interviewed partisan representatives from the Bush and
Kerry campaigns. Both networks spent most of their postdebate news coverage ana-
lyzing the candidates’ strategies for winning: CNN 49.9%; Fox 56.9% (frequencies
weighted for word count). Less time was spent analyzing positions on issues (CNN
22.3%; Fox 29.8%) and character (CNN 3.2%; Fox 5.3%). Interstitial material
(e.g., introductions, questions from the anchors that were neutral in terms of framing
categories, cues to commercial breaks) accounted for the remainder: (CNN 24.5%;
Fox 7.9%). (The percentages are weighted by word count for each comment. Many
of the interstitial comments on CNN were longer than on Fox, which helps explain
the higher percentage.) The percentage of time spent on each of the categories is sum-
marized in Table 1.
The content of the Fox postdebate coverage was judged by the coders to be more
favorable to the Republican candidate than the content of the postdebate coverage on
Table 2 Mean Responses of Content Analysis of the Postdebate Coverage on CNN and
Fox News for Each Candidate
CNN Fox
Bush Kerry Bush Kerry
Entire postdebate coverage 3.28 3.38 3.75 2.53
Issues 3.14 3.11 3.70 2.57
Strategy 3.13 2.55 3.51 2.82
Character 3.28 3.38 3.75 2.82
Other 3.80 2.79 5.00 1.00
Notes. N ¼ 376 (60 CNN comments and 64 Fox comments for each of three coders).
Coders assessed comments on 5-point scales for each candidate (5 ¼ clearly favorable, 1 ¼ clearly unfavorable).
Means are weighted by word count for each category.346 The Southern Communication Journal
Table 3 Comparison of CNN Viewers’ Assessments of the Debate
Winner From Postdebate to Postanalysis
Postdebate (%) Postanalysis (%)
George W. Bush 24.7 20.3
John Kerry 58.0 62.2
Tie 17.3 17.6
Notes. n ¼ 81 for postdebate survey; n ¼ 74 for postanalysis survey.
Subjects were asked who won the debate.
CNN. Commentators on CNN gave the edge to Senator Kerry when discussing the
candidates’ debate strategies, while commentators on Fox favored President Bush.
The ratings for each of the candidates for all content areas are summarized in
Table 2. Based on the content analysis, the cable networks reached different conclu-
sions of who won. CNN viewed the debate as a draw, with a slight edge to Kerry in
debate strategy; Fox News Channel viewed Bush as the significant winner in all
content categories.
RQ2 asked if the postdebate analysis changed viewers’ minds about the outcome
of, or who won, the debate. The researchers used two measures to answer RQ2, each
with a different degree of precision. The first simply asked who won the debate—
Bush, Kerry, or a tie. The results are summarized in Tables 3 and 4. Following the
postdebate analysis, CNN viewers shifted 4.2 percentage points toward Kerry. Fox
viewers shifted 18.3 percentage points toward Bush. This change in assessment by
Fox viewers is statistically significant (v2 ¼ 6.656, df ¼ 2, n ¼ 171, p < .05).
The second measure used a 7-point scale to assess the perceived strength of the win-
ning candidate’s performance ranging from ‘‘1 ¼ strongly in favor of Kerry’’ to ‘‘7 ¼
strongly in favor of Bush.’’ Means were calculated for the CNN postdebate
(M ¼ 3.22, SD ¼ 1.86), the CNN postanalysis (M ¼ 3.19, SD ¼ 1.77), the Fox
postdebate (M ¼ 3.32, SD ¼ 1.89) and the Fox postanalysis (M ¼ 4.02, SD ¼ 2.00).
The mean responses of the Fox viewers on the question of ‘‘in whose favor did you
see the debate’’ changed from 3.28 to 4.02. The change was significant, t(186) ¼ 2.46,
Table 4 Comparison of Fox Viewers’ Assessments of the Debate
Winner From Postdebate to Postanalysis
Postdebate (%) Postanalysis (%)
George W. Bush 24.2 42.5
John Kerry 53.8 38.8
Tie 22.0 18.8
Notes. n ¼ 91 for postdebate survey; n ¼ 80 for postanalysis survey. Subjects were asked
who won the debate.
Significant difference (v2 ¼ 6.656, df ¼ 2, n ¼ 171, p < .05).The Effect of Postdebate Analysis 347
Table 5 Comparison of All Viewers’ Assessments of the Strength of the Winning
Candidate’s Performance
Postdebate Postanalysis
Mean SD Mean SD
CNN 3.22 1.86 3.19 1.77
Fox News 3.32 1.91 4.02 2.00
Notes. n ¼ 85 for the CNN postdebate group; n ¼ 78 for the CNN postanalysis group; n ¼ 101 for the Fox News
postdebate group; n ¼ 87 for the Fox News postanalysis group. Sources rated each statement on a 7-point scale
from 1 (strongly in favor of Kerry) to 7 (strongly in favor of Bush).
Means are significantly different (two-tailed p < .05).
Table 6 Comparison of CNN Viewers’ Assessments of the Candidates From Postdebate
to Postanalysis
Postdebate Postanalysis
M SD M SD
George W. Bush 4.84 0.78 4.63 0.79
John Kerry 5.21 0.93 5.24 1.01
Notes. n ¼ 81 for postdebate survey; n ¼ 74 for postanalysis survey. Subjects rated each candidate using the
7-point McCrosky and Teven Ethos and Credibility Scale (1 ¼ strongly agree with the negative characterization;
7 ¼ strongly agree with the positive characterization).
p < .05. A comparison of the mean responses from the postdebate to the postanalysis
surveys is presented in Table 5. The assessment of the outcome of the debate by viewers
of the Fox coverage changed significantly after the postdebate analysis.
RQ3 asked whether the participants’ assessments of the candidates’ credibility
would be influenced by the postdebate analysis. Subjects were surveyed at the end
of the debate and again after watching 30 minutes of the postdebate news analysis.
Table 7 Comparison of Fox Viewers’ Assessments of the Candidates From Postdebate to
Postanalysis
Postdebate Postanalysis
M SD M SD
George W. Bush 4.80 0.83 4.94 0.88
John Kerry 5.11 0.90 4.87 0.91
Notes. n ¼ 91 for postdebate survey; n ¼ 80 for postanalysis survey.
Subjects rated each candidate using the 7-point McCrosky and Teven Ethos and Credibility Scale (1 ¼ strongly
agree with the negative characterization; 7 ¼ strongly agree with the positive characterization).348 The Southern Communication Journal
Participants’ assessments of the candidates on the ethos and credibility scale
remained statistically unchanged from the postdebate to the postanalysis surveys.
Tables 6 and 7 present the results of the analysis.
Discussion
Postdebate analysis appears to have some impact on the assessment of the winner
(and loser) of the debate, at least in the short term. The way in which the debate
is presented by the media can influence a viewer’s perception of the winner. This
paper adds to existing research by looking at the immediate impact of the postdebate
analysis to see if the commentary alters TV viewers’ perceptions of who won. Media
coverage of election campaigns has changed in recent decades; among the trends
identified is an increase in horse race coverage.37 With so much attention given to
the horse race aspect of presidential campaigns, it is important to examine the impact
of postdebate analysis on public perception of the outcome.
As is the common journalistic perspective in the coverage of political debates,
much of this debate analysis content fits the general strategic paradigm of who
won and who lost. Even discussions of issues were largely presented in terms of win-
ners and losers. Consistent with the argument that overuse of the horse race perspec-
tive affects the valuable aspects offered by debates,38 the media’s use of the horse race
paradigm in this analysis altered the public’s final evaluation of the debate and of
each candidate’s performance. However, the overall assessments of the candidates’
personal qualities did not change, which supports prior research that postdebate cov-
erage (and news coverage in general) has little immediate effect on public opinion.
The participants seemed to make a distinction between their longer held beliefs about
the candidates (e.g., trustworthiness) and their immediate assessment of who won a
particular skirmish. The focus on tactics and debate strategy may be difficult to pro-
cess for people who don’t follow the give-and-take of the campaign minutia and may
need someone to help put it into perspective for them. This places the media in a
powerful position to establish the leading candidate.
The 2005 Annual Report on American Journalism suggested that the cable news
audience was fracturing along party lines.39 The content analysis in this study did
point to differences in the networks’ postdebate coverage. Fox News Channel clearly
favored the Republican candidate. In its coverage, CNN stressed the closeness of the
debate, although the analysts called it in favor of Kerry. The CNN reporters used
phrases like ‘‘wonk-fest’’ to describe the candidates’ performances. CNN’s coverage
included on-camera interviews with voters at a focus group in Ohio in which 11 peo-
ple thought Kerry had won, 7 thought Bush was the winner, and 8 were undecided.
The coverage also included a ‘‘Fact Check’’ section that measured statements from
both Bush and Kerry for inaccuracies. No one issue dominated the coverage. Kerry’s
aides were portrayed as being happy with the outcome.
The Fox coverage was almost universal in its assessment that George W. Bush won
the debate. The only dissenting view came from Kerry’s campaign manager. Speaking
of Bush, Morton Kondracke said, ‘‘I think he won the debate. Kerry as Fred [Barnes]The Effect of Postdebate Analysis 349 said, was on the defensive a lot of the time, so I think it was a great—a much better performance by Bush.’’ Analyst William Kristol said, ‘‘I think Bush knocked Kerry out tonight. I think it was just—he just slaughtered him.’’ Another analyst kept a scorecard of the 20 questions asked during the debate and suggested that Kerry had not won a single question outright. The consensus of the Fox analysts was that the president performed better than expected and posted the strongest performance of his three debates. Senator Kerry’s reference during the debate to the lesbian sexual orientation of Mary Cheney, the daughter of Vice President Richard Cheney was mentioned several times as being a ‘‘low-blow,’’ as being ‘‘gratuitous’’ and as being an example of ‘‘dirty politics.’’ An off-camera Republican-sponsored focus group was reported to be upset with the Cheney remark. (CNN’s coverage did not mention the Cheney comment.) The Fox coverage did report that the Kerry campaign was pleased with the outcome, but most of its postdebate analysis focused on the perceived strong showing by Pre- sident Bush. Further, results from this research on the effects of postdebate analysis areconsis- tent with past debate research. Previous research indicated that postdebate media coverage is the strongest debate-related influence on performance impressions. Debate research indicates that it is uncommon to have definitive debate victories where voters shift from one side to the other.40 Although debates usually serve as reinforcement for supporters and wavering partisans, they are also used to win over the undecided or uncertain viewers.41 The findings indicate that most of the move- ment between favoring Bush or Kerry on the part of Fox viewers appeared to come from those who regarded themselves as political moderates rather than partisans. Those who considered themselves to be strong partisans were fixed in their views; however, moderates were more open to the media’s interpretations and susceptible to their influence on establishing an outcome and determining a winner. Although the total effects of televised political debates remain unclear, it is quite evident that this rite of passage of presidential hopefuls will continue. Viewers may look at debates as a form of entertainment, but approximately 60 million people are doing that looking. This large audience provides a wonderful opportunity for candidates to present themselves and their positions, but the postdebate emphasis on the game or horse race aspects leaves both viewing voters and nonviewing voters without an adequate portrayal of the event and causes them to focus on single moments that may be irrelevant. The findings from this study are limited to a discussion of college-age participants. While the participants were randomly assigned which coverage to watch, more of them identified themselves as Democrat than Republican, which may account for the larger scores for Senator Kerry. The length of the study (i.e., watching the debate and the postdebate coverage and completing two lengthy surveys) may have introduced some test fatigue. The content analysis may be affected by its focus on the individual comment as the unit of analysis. The ongoing analysis of the postdebate coverage is an important inquiry to con- tinue. Future study will benefit from a broader selection of participants beyond the
350 The Southern Communication Journal
college-age individuals in this study. New content analysis coding schemes might be
able to identify specific language that could be influential in the determining the
effects of the coverage on participants. Future research will want to examine how
deeply held those opinions are—especially among those in the middle of the political
spectrum, looking at whether these viewers’ opinions will change again after the next
exposure to the candidates and at what point in the process their opinions are
solidified.
Notes
[1] Frances R. Matera and Michael B. Salwen, ‘‘Unwieldy Questions? Circuitous Answers?
Journalists as Panelists in Presidential Election Debates,’’ Journal of Broadcasting & Electro-
nic Media 40 no. 3 (1996): 309–318.
[2] Roderick P. Hart and Sharon E. Jarvis, ‘‘Political Debate. Forms, Styles, and Media,’’
American Behavioral Scientist 40, no. 8 (1997): 1096.
[3] John T. Morello, ‘‘‘Who Won?’: A Critical Examination of Newspaper Editorials Evaluating
Nationally Televised Debates,’’ Argumentation & Advocacy 27, no. 3 (1991): 114–126; Yariv
Tsfati, ‘‘The Impact of Exposure to Debate News Coverage and Its Interaction with Expo-
sure to the Actual Debate,’’ Harvard International Journal of Press=Politics 8, no. 3 (2003):
70–86; David Weaver and Dan Drew, ‘‘Voter Learning and Interest in the 2000 Presidential
Election: Did the Media Matter?,’’ Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 78, no. 4
(2001): 787–798; William R. Elliott and Jayanthi Sothirajah, ‘‘Post-Debate Analysis and
Media Reliance: Influences on Candidate Image and Voting Probabilities,’’ Journalism
Quarterly 70, no. 2 (1993): 321–335.
[4] Russell K. Mayer, ‘‘What to Expect from Electoral Expectations,’’ Harvard International
Journal of Press=Politics 6, no. 3 (2001): 71–89.
[5] Mayer, ‘‘What to Expect.’’
[6] Morello, ‘‘‘Who Won?’’’
[7] William L. Benoit, Glenn J. Hansen, and Rebecca M. Verser, ‘‘A Meta-Analysis of the
Effects of Viewing U.S. Presidential Debates,’’ Communication Monographs 70, no. 4
(2003): 335–350.
[8] Mark Glassman, ‘‘Most Wanted: Drilling Down Presidential Debates; with Questions Come
Ratings,’’ The New York Times, October 18, 2004; James Bennet and Jim Rutenberg, ‘‘A
Televised Event That Delivered High Drama and Garnered High Ratings,’’ The New York
Times, October 15 2004.
[9] Weaver and Drew, ‘‘Voter Learning.’’
[10] Kathleen Hall Jamieson and David S. Birdsell, Presidential Debates: The Challenge of
Creating an Informed Electorate (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988).
[11] Morello, ‘‘‘Who Won?’’’, 114; Tsfati, ‘‘The Impact of Exposure,’’; Weaver and Drew,
‘‘Voter Learning and Interest’’.
[12] Morello, ‘‘‘Who Won?’’’
[13] William L. Benoit and Heather Currie, ‘‘Inaccuracies in Media Coverage of the 1996 and
2000 Presidential Debates,’’ Argumentation & Advocacy 38, no. 1 (2001): 28–40.
[14] Judith S. Trent and Robert V. Friedenberg, Political Campaign Communication: Principles
and Practices, 2nd ed., Praeger Series in Political Communication (New York: Praeger,
1991).
[15] William L. Benoit, Glenn J. Hansen, and Kevin A. Stein, ‘‘Newspaper Coverage of
Presidential Primary Debates,’’ Argumentation & Advocacy 40, no. 4 (2004): 246–258.
[16] Benoit and Currie, ‘‘Inaccuracies in Media Coverage.’’
[17] Tsfati, ‘‘The Impact of Exposure.’’The Effect of Postdebate Analysis 351
[18] Kathleen E. Kendall, ‘‘Presidential Debates through Media Eyes,’’ American Behavioral
Scientist 40, no. 8 (1997): 1193–1207.
[19] Carol K. Winkler and Catherine F. Black, ‘‘Assessing the 1992 Presidential and Vice
Presidential Debates: The Public Rationale,’’ Argumentation & Advocacy 30, no. 2 (1993):
77–88.
[20] Charles Gordon, ‘‘The Next Step: Kill Political Debates,’’ Macleans (1992).
[21] Jamieson and Birdsell, Presidential Debates.
[22] Robert Lichter, ‘‘A Plague on Both Parties: Substance and Fairness in TV Election News,’’
The Harvard International Journal of Press=Politics 6, no. 3 (2001): 8–30.
[23] The Debate Effect: How the Press Covered the Pivotal Period of the 2004 Presidential
Campaign, (Washington, DC: Project for Excellence in Journalism, 2004); William L.
Benoit, Kevin A. Stein, and Glenn J. Hansen, ‘‘New York Times Coverage of Presidential
Campaigns,’’ Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 82, no. 2 (2005): 356–376.
[24] In the Public Interest? A Content Study of Early Coverage of the 2000 Campaign,
(Washington, DC: Project for Excellence in Journalism, 2000), http://www.journalism.
org/node/394 (accessed October 4, 2009).
[25] Morello, ‘‘‘Who Won?’’’
[26] ‘‘Campaign 2004 - The Primaries. Center for Media and Public Affairs,’’ Media Monitor
XVIII, no. 1 (2004), http://www.cmpa.com/files/media_monitor/04marapr.pdf (accessed
October 4, 2009).
[27] James M. Bernstein et al., ‘‘Television News and Presidential Debate Verdicts a Compara-
tive Study of Network Newscasts, 1976–1988,’’ (paper presented at the Annual Convention
of the Midwest Association for Public Opinion Research, Chicago, November 1989).
[28] Trent and Friedenberg, Political Campaign Communication.
[29] Benoit, Hansen, and Verser, ‘‘A Meta-Analysis.’’
[30] Gary Langer, ‘‘Poll: Viewers Divided on Debate Winner,’’ http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/
Vote2004/story?id=150662 (accessed August 24, 2008).
[31] William R. Elliott and Jayanthi Sothirajah, ‘‘Post-Debate Analysis and Media Reliance:
Influences on Candidate Image and Voting Probabilities,’’ Journalism Quarterly 70, no. 2
(1993): 321–335.
[32] Adam J. Schiffer, ‘‘Assessing Partisan Bias in Political News: The Case(S) of Local Senate
Election Coverage,’’ Political Communication 23, no. 1 (2006): 23–39.
[33] James N. Druckman, ‘‘Media Matter: How Newspapers and Television News Cover
Campaigns and Influence Voters,’’ Political Communication 22, no. 4 (2005): 463–481.
[34] The State of the News Media 2005 (Washington, DC: Project for Excellence in Journalism,
2005).
[35] Schiffer, ‘‘Assessing Partisan Bias.’’
[36] Druckman, ‘‘Media Matter.’’
[37] Carsten Reinemann and Jürgen Wilke, ‘‘It’s the Debates, Stupid! How the Introduction of
Televised Debates Changed the Portrayal of Chancellor Candidates in the German Press,
1949–2005,’’ The Harvard International Journal of Press=Politics 12 (2007): 92–111.
[38] Morello, ‘‘’Who Won?’.’’
[39] The State of the News Media 2005.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Ibid.You can also read
