All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Balance in Campaign Coverage
Unformatted Document Text:  Coverage Balance 25 Notes 1 Prior studies yielded mixed findings on the issue of coverage balance and media favorability. Some studies found relatively evenhanded treatment of Republicans and Democrats in the presidential elections. See, David Domke, David P. Fan, Michael Fibison, Dhavan V. Shah, Steven S. Smith, and Mark D. Watts, “News Media, Candidates and Issues, and Public Opinion in the 1996 Presidential Campaign,” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 74 (Winter 1997): 718-37; Richard Hofstetter, Bias in the News (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1976); Thomas Johnson, “Filling out the racing form: How the media covered the race in the 1988 primaries,” Journalism Quarterly 70 (Summer 1993): 300-10; Jeff Merron and Garry D. Gaddy, “Editorial endorsements: Bias in Coverage of Ferraro’s Finances,” Journalism Quarterly 63 (1986):127-37; Guido H. Stempel, III and John Windhauser, The Media in the 1984 and 1988 Presidential Campaigns (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1991). Other studies, however, supported the claim of media favorability. See, Peter Clarke and Susan H. Evans, Covering Campaigns: Journalism in Congressional Elections (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1983). Kenneth Dautrich and Thomas H. Hartley, How The News Media Fail American Voters (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999); Keith Kennedy and Chris Simpson, “Was coverage of the 1988 presidential race by Washington’s two major dailies biased?” Journalism Quarterly 70 (1993): 345-55; Dennis Lowry and Jon Shidler, “The Sound Bites, the Biters, and the Bitten,” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 72 (1995): 33-44. 2 See, Charlie Cook, “2000 Elections Cook Report,” The National Journal, 12 October 2000. Howard Kurtz, “Are the Media Tilting to Gore?” The Washington Post, 25 September 2000. 3 Project for Excellence in Journalism, “The Last Lap: Covering the Final Days of Campaign 2000,” (November 2000). The project analyzed the coverage of 17 news outlets (3 newspapers, 8 broadcasts and 5 Internet sites) for 21 days. Overall, 24% of the Bush-dominated stories were positive in nature, while that was true of only 13% of the Gore stories. Bush (49%) was also less likely to receive negative coverage than Gore (56%). <http://www.journalism.org> 4 Robert Lichter, “A Plague on Both Parties,” Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 6 (Summer 2001): 8-30. The content analysis of the three networks’ coverage found that positive Bush coverage was 37%, while that of Gore was 40%. Gore led the race for positive press in September, while Bush was favored in October and November. 5 Robert Lichter, “Press release of the Center for Media and Public Affairs,” (14 August 2000) <http://www.cmpa.com> 6 Steven H. Chaffee, Communication Concepts 1: Explication (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1991); Principal R. Reynolds, A primer in theory construction (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1971); Roger D. Wimmer and Joseph R. Dominick, Mass Media Research (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1997). 7 Peter Clarke and Susan Evans, Covering Campaigns (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1983)

Authors: Son, Young Jun. and Weaver, David.
first   previous   Page 25 of 29   next   last



background image
Coverage Balance 25
Notes
1
Prior studies yielded mixed findings on the issue of coverage balance and media favorability.
Some studies found relatively evenhanded treatment of Republicans and Democrats in the
presidential elections. See, David Domke, David P. Fan, Michael Fibison, Dhavan V. Shah,
Steven S. Smith, and Mark D. Watts, “News Media, Candidates and Issues, and Public Opinion
in the 1996 Presidential Campaign,” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 74 (Winter
1997): 718-37; Richard Hofstetter, Bias in the News (Columbus: Ohio State University Press,
1976); Thomas Johnson, “Filling out the racing form: How the media covered the race in the
1988 primaries,” Journalism Quarterly 70 (Summer 1993): 300-10; Jeff Merron and Garry D.
Gaddy, “Editorial endorsements: Bias in Coverage of Ferraro’s Finances,” Journalism Quarterly
63 (1986):127-37; Guido H. Stempel, III and John Windhauser, The Media in the 1984 and 1988
Presidential Campaigns
(Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1991). Other studies, however,
supported the claim of media favorability. See, Peter Clarke and Susan H. Evans, Covering
Campaigns: Journalism in Congressional Elections
(Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press,
1983). Kenneth Dautrich and Thomas H. Hartley, How The News Media Fail American Voters
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1999); Keith Kennedy and Chris Simpson, “Was
coverage of the 1988 presidential race by Washington’s two major dailies biased?” Journalism
Quarterly
70 (1993): 345-55; Dennis Lowry and Jon Shidler, “The Sound Bites, the Biters, and
the Bitten,” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 72 (1995): 33-44.
2
See, Charlie Cook, “2000 Elections Cook Report,” The National Journal, 12 October 2000.
Howard Kurtz, “Are the Media Tilting to Gore?” The Washington Post, 25 September 2000.
3
Project for Excellence in Journalism, “The Last Lap: Covering the Final Days of Campaign
2000,” (November 2000). The project analyzed the coverage of 17 news outlets (3 newspapers, 8
broadcasts and 5 Internet sites) for 21 days. Overall, 24% of the Bush-dominated stories were
positive in nature, while that was true of only 13% of the Gore stories. Bush (49%) was also less
likely to receive negative coverage than Gore (56%). <http://www.journalism.org>
4
Robert Lichter, “A Plague on Both Parties,” Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 6
(Summer 2001): 8-30. The content analysis of the three networks’ coverage found that positive
Bush coverage was 37%, while that of Gore was 40%. Gore led the race for positive press in
September, while Bush was favored in October and November.
5
Robert Lichter, “Press release of the Center for Media and Public Affairs,” (14 August 2000)
<http://www.cmpa.com>
6
Steven H. Chaffee, Communication Concepts 1: Explication (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1991);
Principal R. Reynolds, A primer in theory construction (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1971);
Roger D. Wimmer and Joseph R. Dominick, Mass Media Research (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Company, 1997).
7
Peter Clarke and Susan Evans, Covering Campaigns (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press,
1983)


Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 25 of 29   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.