Newspaper coverage of presidential debates.

• Author: Benoit, William L.

Since their re-introduction in 1976, televised debates have become an integral part of presidential campaigns. Political debates have several important advantages over other kinds of campaign messages. First, they give voters a chance to see and contrast the major candidates face to face, addressing the same topics at the same time. Second, their length is noteworthy: "As messages running an hour or longer, debates offer a level of contact with candidates clearly unmatched in spot ads and news segments.... the debates offer the most extensive and serious view of the candidates available to the electorate" (Jamieson, 1987, p. 28). Third, although candidates prepare extensively for these encounters, unanticipated questions or comments from an opponent may elicit spontaneous remarks that can give voters a more accurate view of the candidates than do highly scripted speeches or television spots. Fourth, debates afford candidates the opportunity to refute false or misleading statements from opponents at the time those statements occur, rather than later.

Scholars have studied presidential debates extensively (books include Benoit & Wells, 1996; Bishop, Meadow, & Jackson-Beeck, 1978; Bitzer & Rueter, 1980; Carlin & McKinney, 1994; Coleman, 2000; Friedenberg, 1994, 1997; Hellweg, Pfau, & Brydon, 1992; Hinck, 1993; Jamieson & Birdsell, 1988; Kraus, 1962, 1979, 2000; Lanoue & Schrott, 1991; Martel, 1983; Schroeder, 2000). However, news coverage of these events has received relatively little scholarly attention. This is unfortunate because "news commentary does influence viewers' perceptions about debates" (Hellweg, Pfau, & Brydon, 1992, p. 99).

One exception is Kendall (1997), who investigated television network news coverage of the 1996 presidential debates:

Media interpretations have been found to follow a pattern: They devote little time to the content of the debates, and much time to the personalities of the candidates and the process by which they make the decision to debate, prepare to debate, and "spin" the stories about expectations for and effects of the debate. (p. 1)

Kendall found that 9 of 31 lead stories concerned the campaign and 7 more were about the debates. She also reported that these stories tended to discuss the relationship of the debates to the campaign and that "the candidates' own words in the debates" were "seldom shown" (p. 5). Thus, some research indicates that television news coverage of debates offers little of substance. Benoit and Currie (2001) explain that timing is probably a factor:

Presidential debates are always held in the evening after the network news. By the time the evening news has the opportunity to discuss the debates--on the day after the debate--the debates are now roughly 20 hours old and hardly news. Thus, television news has already moved on to discussion of reactions to the debates. It is unfortunate that this means that the evening news rarely reports on what transpired in the debates. (p. 37)

Hence, it may be more fruitful to focus on newspaper rather than television coverage.

Although debate viewership has tended to decline over the years (Commission on Presidential Debates, 2003), neither candidates nor scholars can afford to ignore a message that has been seen by at least 36 million voters in every campaign (and by as many as 80 million in 1980). The Racine Group (2002) concluded that "while journalists and scholars display varying degrees of cynicism about the debates, few deny that viewers find them useful and almost no one doubts that they play an important role in national campaigns" (p. 201). Benoit, Hansen, and Verser's (2003) meta-analysis found that watching debates can increase issue knowledge and issue salience, have an agenda-setting effect, alter perceptions of the candidates' personality, and affect vote preference. Clearly this message form merits scholarly attention.

Although millions of voters watch these messages, millions more do not. Nonetheless, even nonviewers can learn about debates, and the participating candidates, from news coverage. Considerable research investigates whether media coverage is ideologically balanced (see, e.g., the meta-analysis by D'Alessio & Allen, 2000, or the recent re view by Niven, 2003). We are more concerned with the accuracy of news reports. Can voters rely on newspapers to provide an accurate picture of this important campaign message? This study addresses this question by investigating the relationship between the content of presidential debates (1980-2000) and newspaper coverage of those debates.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Analysis of political messages often employs two key categories: functions (positive or negative [attack] messages) and topics (issue-oriented [policy] or image-oriented [character]). We will elucidate these two categories in turn.

Functions: Acclaims, Attacks, and Defenses

Most research on political campaign messages studies two functions: positive and negative. Functional theory adds a third, less common function: refutation of negative messages (Benoit, 1999, 2001; Benoit, Blaney, & Pier, 1998). Benoit and Harthcock (1999) define these three functions as follows: "Themes that portray the candidate in a favorable light are acclaims. Themes that portray the opposing candidate in an unfavorable light are attacks. Themes that attempt to repair the candidate's reputation (from attacks by the opposition) are defenses" (p. 346). For example, in the first debate of 2000, Governor George W. Bush provided this acclaim:

I want to take one half of the surplus and dedicate it to Social Security, one quarter of [the] surplus for important projects. And I want to send one quarter of the surplus back to the people who pay the bills. I want everybody who pays taxes to have their tax rates cut.

Protecting Social Security and cutting taxes clearly would be viewed as desirable by many in his audience. In the same debate, Vice President Al Gore attacked thusly:

Under Governor Bush's tax cut proposal, he would spend more money on tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent than all of the new spending that he proposes for education, health care, prescription drugs and national defense all combined. Now, I think those are the wrong priorities.

Because many in the audience would not favor tax cuts for the wealthy, this comment is an attack. Gore also claimed that his plan would cover prescription drugs for all senior citizens, whereas Bush's plan covered only 5% of seniors. Bush responded to this attack by saying:

Wait a minute, that's just totally false for him to stand up there and say that. Let me make sure the seniors hear me loud and clear.... All seniors will be covered. All poor seniors will have their prescription drugs paid for. In the meantime, we're going to have a plan to help poor seniors.

This is a defense because it identifies ("that's just totally false") and rejects ("All seniors will be covered") an attack. These three functions work together as an informal form of cost-benefit analysis. Acclaims emphasize a candidate's benefits, attacks reveal an opponent's costs, and defenses minimize or dissipate a candidate's alleged costs.

Studies investigating presidential TV advertisements often analyze the functions of these messages (see Benoit, 1999, 2001; Johnston & Kaid, 2002; Kaid & Johnston, 2001; West, 1997). However, research on presidential debates often asks different questions and rarely utilizes functional theory (see Carlin & McKinney, 1994; Coleman, 2000; Friedenberg, 1994, 1997; Hellweg, Pfau, & Brydon, 1992; Hinck, 1993; Jamieson & Birdsell, 1988; Kraus, 1962, 1979, 2000; Lanoue & Schrott, 1991). Bitzer and Rueter (1980) counted attacks in the Carter-Ford debates, but did not compare them with positive comments (or with defenses). Of course, the functional approach cannot answer every important question about debates or other campaign messages. But it can help us determine whether news coverage of debates is reasonably accurate.

Two studies have investigated news coverage of presidential debates from the functional perspective. Benoit and Currie (2001) compared the functions and news coverage of the 1996 and 2000 general election debates. In both years, the news covered attacks and defenses more often, and acclaims less often, than they occurred in the debates. In 1996, attacks accounted for 54% of news coverage of the debates but represented only 33% of the utterances in the debates. Defenses accounted for 7% of debate utterances but constituted 11% of news coverage. Acclaims, the most common function of debates (59%)...