Reproductions Supplied by EDRS Are the Best That Can Be Made from the Original Document
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 459 500 CS 510 718 TITLE Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (84th, Washington, DC, August 5-8, 2001) . Miscellaneous. INSTITUTION Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. PUB DATE 2001-08-00 NOTE 256p.; For other sections of the 2001 proceedings, see CS 510 704-724. PUB TYPE Collected Works Proceedings (021) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC11 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Agenda Setting; Broadcast Television; Content Analysis; Foreign Countries; Higher Education; *Journalism Education; *News Media; *Political Campaigns; Student Attitudes IDENTIFIERS *Civic Journalism; Cross National Studies; International News; Journalists; Olympic Games Boycotts; Senate; Television News; *Television News Magazines; Virginia ABSTRACT The Miscellaneous section of the proceedings contains the following papers: "Hype versus Substance in the Final Weeks of the Broadcast Television Networks' 2000 Presidential Election Campaign Coverage" (Julia R. Fox and James Angelini); "Commercial Quality Influence on Perceptions of Television News" (Stephen Perry, Dana Trunnell; Chris Moore, and Cori Ellis) "To Be on TV or To Be a TV Journalist: Students' and Professionals' Perceptions of the Role of Journalism in Society" (Ron F. Smith and George Bagley); "Network Television Coverage of the 1980 and 1984 Olympic Boycotts: A Content Analysis of the Evening News on ABC, CBS, and NBC" (Anthony Moretti); "Gatekeeping International News: An Attitudinal Profile of U.S. Television Journalists" (Hun Shik Kim); "A Content Analysis of Television News Magazines: Commodification and Public Interest" (Kuo-Feng Tseng); "Agenda Setting and Its Theoretical Elaboration" (Namkee Park); "National News Cultures: Towards a Profile of Journalists Using Cross-National Survey Findings" (Mark Deuze); and "Civic Journalism in the 2000 U.S. Senate Race in Virginia" (David Kennamer and Jeff South).(RS) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (84th, Washington, DC, August 5-8, 2001): Miscellaneous. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) O This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. O Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS. BEEN GRANTED BY BEST COPYAVAILABLE TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 1 0 Hype Versus Substance in the Final Weeks of the Broadcast Television Networks' 2000 Presidential Election Campaign Coverage Paper Submitted to The Radio-Television Journalism Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication for possible inclusion at the 2001 annual conference in Washington, DC March 30, 2001 By: Julia R. Fox and James Angelini Indiana University Inquiries about the submission should be addressed to: Julia R. Fox Assistant Professor Department of Telecommunications Indiana University Radio and Television Center 1229 E.7th St. Bloomington, IN 47405-5501 (812) 855-9935 [email protected] Running Head: Hype Versus Substance 3 Hype Versus Substance Hype Versus Substance in the Final Weeks of the Broadcast Television Networks' 2000 Presidential Election Campaign Coverage Television is the primary source of presidential election information for the majority of Americans (Graber, 1993; Hernandez, 1997; Manheim, 1984). As television news has increased in importance as a source of presidential election information during the past few decades, many content analyses have examined the television networks' news coverage of presidential election campaigns during the last 25 years. A robust and much criticized finding of these studies has been an emphasis on the "horserace" aspects of the campaign, rather than on more substantial coverage of campaign issues (Arterton, 1984; Broh, 1980, 1983; Clancey & Robinson, 1985; Foote & Rimmer, 1983; Fox, 1995; Graber, 1976, 1980; Greenfield, 1982; Hofstetter, 1981; Joslyn, 1984; Lichter, Amundson, & Noyes, 1988; Lichter & Lichter, 1996; Marshall, 1983; Mickelson, 1989; O'Keefe & Atwood, 1981; Patterson, 1977, 1980; Patterson & McClure, 1976; Ranney, 1983; Robinson & Sheehan, 1980; Sahr, 1983; Schram, 1987; Wilson, 1983) . Researchers have also long criticized the networks' emphasis on the hoopla surrounding political campaigns. "ABC, CBS, and NBC devote most of their election coverage to the trivia of election campaigning that make for flashy pictures. Hecklers, crowds, motorcades, balloons, rallies and gossip these are the regular subjects of the network campaign stories" (Patterson & McClure, 1976, pp. 21- 22). A content analysis of the television networks' coverage of the final weeks of the 1988 presidential election campaign found the emphasis to be on horserace and hoopla, rather than on issues and candidate qualifications, in 4 Hype Versus Substance both the audio and video messages of the news stories (Fox, 1995) . But a similar study of the final two weeks of the broadcast television networks' coverage of the 1996 presidential election campaign found that, while there was still more hype than substance in the visuals, there was no significant difference between the amount of hype and the amount of substance when the audio and video messages were combined, and when the audio messages were analyzed separately (Fox & Goble, 1997) . There was significantly less discussion of horserace in the 1996 campaign stories than in the 1988 campaign stories, and significantly less hype in general in the audio of the 1996 campaign stories than in the audio of the 1988 campaign stories (Fox & Goble, 1997) . There was also significantly more substantive coverage in both the audio and video messages of the broadcast television networks campaign coverage in 1996 than in 1988 (Fox & Goble, 1997) . On average, there was almost twice as much discussion of issues in the 1996 campaign stories than in the 1988 campaign stories (Fox & Goble, 1997) . Similarly, there was more than twice as much time devoted to issues in the video of the campaign stories in 1996 than in 1988 (Fox & Goble, 1997) . This suggested that the broadcast networks were moving in the direction of increasing the percentage of substantive presidential election coverage and decreasing the percentage of hype coverage (Fox & Goble, 1997). However, for the 2000 presidential election campaign coverage it appeared as if it would be business as usual for the television networks in terms of the longstanding emphasis of hype over substance. During a visit to Indiana University prior to the election, ABC's Sam Donaldson argued that the election would be won on tactics, and that the results would depend on which candidate the voters liked best (Meunier, 2000) . Donaldson suggested that 5 3 Hype Versus Substance images, such as Al Gore kissing his wife, Tipper, at the convention, influenced the candidate preferences that likely voters expressed in public opinion polls (Meunier, 2000) . If Donaldson's remarks typified the views of other broadcast television network news gatekeepers, then there would be good reason to expect the broadcast networks' coverage to reflect a similar emphasis on images and campaign tactics. Thus, it is predicted (Hypothesis 1) that this analysis will find significantly more hype than substance in the final two weeks of the broadcast television networks' coverage of the 2000 presidential election campaign: Hla when the audio and video messages are analyzed together, Hlb when the audio messages are analyzed separately, and Hic when the video messages are analyzed separately. This study focuses on the final weeks of campaign coverage, as studies have shown that voters making up their minds at the end of a campaign tend to be less partisan and more likely to use--and to be influenced by--media messages in making their decisions (Chaffee & Choe, 1980; Katz, 1973; Lazarsfeld, Berelson, & Gaudet, 1944; Mendelsohn & O'Keefe, 1975; O'Keefe, 1979) . A Rasmussen Research national poll of likely voters during the final full week of campaigning in the 2000 presidential election campaign found more than five percent of those surveyed had not yet determined which candidate would receive their votes ("Voter details," n.d.) . As late as the weekend before election day, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup national poll of likely voters found three percent of those surveyed still undecided (Newport, 2000a) . Although that percentage had narrowed to just one percent by the day before the election (Newport, 2000b), even a margin that small is enough to swing an election, as evidenced by the final vote counts in 2000 in Iowa, New 4 6 Hype Versus Substance Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Wisconsin, and, or course, Florida. For these reasons, an examination specifically of the final weeks of campaign coverage is warranted. This study also analyzes the audio and video messages separately, as those messages can be either dissonant or redundant, and recent research suggests that viewers process audio and video messages differently (Lang, Potter, & Bolls, 1999) .Specifically, Lang, Bolls, and Potter (1999) found that when they increased the cognitive load of television messages, by varying the pacing and arousal,