Despite the brouhaha accorded presidential debates by the media,
which regards these confrontations as events of significant
magnitude, social scientists have been less convinced of their
impact and importance. They tend to assert that such performances
have had little effect on voting behavior, and tend to merely
reinforce viewers' already held biases. In "The Joint Press
Conference," David J. Lanoue and Peter R. Schrott focus on the
impact of presidential debates on voters and attempt to reconcile
the disparate views of media and social science. Confronting the
positive conventional wisdom of the former and the largely
negative, empirical data of the latter, they arrive at some
surprising conclusions. Research that emerged after the 1980, 1984,
and 1988 debates strongly suggested that debates do matter and that
their impact may be substantial. In addition, not only have the
direct effects of debates on voting behavior come under
reconsideration, but also their importance in changing and
reinforcing viewers' candidate images and issue positions. This
five-chapter study ties together the research of social scientists
arguing that many scholars have understated the ability of debates
to influence voters and elections. Lanoue and Schrott base their
assertion on evidence gleaned from re-assessment of the same
studies used by others to support findings of limited effects, as
well as their own more recent contributions.
Following the introduction, Chapter 2 presents an analytical and
critical history of the presidential debates since 1960 and focuses
on the conventional wisdom on these debates. An area largely
ignored by students of debating, the content of presidential
debates, is examined in Chapter 3 which also presents a brief
history of the use and evolution of content analysis in the study
of political communication. Chapter 4 organizes and integrates the
post-1960 findings of social scientists emphasizing the importance
of reinforcement as an electorally significant phenomenon. Chapter
5 presents a model of debate effects that takes into consideration
the direct and indirect paths between debate watching and attitude
change and indicates that early reports of the electoral triviality
of debates were premature. The groundbreaking reinterpretations
contained in this first comprehensive analysis of the issue of
debate effects will be required reading for students and scholars
of mass media and communications, public opinion, and
journalism.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!