Numerous studies of learning about politics from the media suggest that in spite of criticism of election news coverage for being superficial and preoccupied with campaign strategy, voters do learn, especially from television news, newspapers, and televised debates. Most likely to be learned are awareness and concern over certain issues, candidates, and traits of candidates. Specific positions of candidates and parties on issues are somewhat less likely to be taught by media. Contrary to popular belief, media exposure seems to have little relationship to voters' images of candidates; prior political attitudes and educational levels are much stronger predictors of these perceived images. Exposure to media coverage of elections, especially television coverage, is likely to reinforce interest in politics and voting turnout, although heavy media emphasis on campaign strategy and maneuvering can make some voters more cynical and less likely to vote. Newer forms of media, such as radio and television talk shows, seem to have notably weaker and less consistent links to voter learning of any kind.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
David H. Weaver and Richard G. Gray, “Journalism and Mass Communication Research in the United States: Past, Present and Future,” in Mass Communication Review Yearbook 1, ed. G. Cleveland Wilhoit and Harold de Bock (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1980), pp. 124-151.
2.
Bernard Berelson , Paul Lazarsfeld, and William McPhee, Voting (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954).
3.
3. Lee B. Becker, Maxwell E. McCombs, and Jack M. McLeod, “The Development of Political Cognitions,” in Political Communication, ed. Steven H. Chaffee (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1975), pp. 21-63.
4.
Carl Hovland , Irving Janis, and Harold Kelley, Communication and Persuasion (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1953).
5.
5. Joseph Klapper, The Effects of Mass Communication (New York: Free Press, 1960), p. 8.
6.
6. Joe McGinniss, The Selling of the President 1968 (New York: Trident Press, 1969).
7.
7. Maxwell E. McCombs, “Mass Communication in Political Campaigns: Information, Gratification, and Persuasion,” in Current Perspectives in Mass Communication Research, ed. F. Gerald Kline (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1972), pp. 169-194.
8.
as cited in McCombs, “Mass Communication in Political Campaigns,” p. 171.
9.
as cited in McCombs, “Mass Communication in Political Campaigns,” p. 171.
10.
10. I am indebted to McCombs, “Mass Communication in Political Campaigns,” for many of the ideas in this section.
11.
11. Maxwell E. McCombs and Donald L. Shaw, “The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media,”Public Opinion Quarterly, 36:176-187 (Summer 1972).
12.
12. Bernard C. Cohen, The Press, the Public and Foreign Policy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963), p. 13.
13.
David L. Protess and Maxwell McCombs, eds., Agenda Setting (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1991).
14.
Jack M. McLeod , Lee B. Becker, and James E. Byrnes, “Another Look at the Agenda-Setting Function of the Press,”Communication Research, 1:131-165 (Apr. 1974).
15.
Judy Van Slyke Turk , “Information Subsidies and Media Content: A Study of Public Relations Influence on the News,”Journalism Monographs, 100:1-29 (Dec. 1986).
16.
16. David H. Weaveret al., Media Agenda-Setting in a Presidential Election: Issues, Images, and Interest (New York: Praeger, 1981).
17.
17. Harold G. Zucker, “The Variable Nature of News Media Influence,” in Communication Yearbook 2, ed. Brent D. Ruben (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1978), pp. 225-240.
18.
David H. Weaver and Maxwell E. McCombs, “Voters' Need for Orientation and Choice of Candidate: Mass Media and Electoral Decision Making” (Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Roanoke, VA, June 1978).
19.
19. Weaveret al., Media Agenda-Setting in a Presidential Election, pp. 185-192.
20.
20. Ibid., pp. 28-30.
21.
21. Steven Chaffee and Stacey Frank, “How Americans Get Political Information: Print Versus Broadcast News,” this issue of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
22.
Steven H. Chaffee , Xinshu Zhao, and Glenn Leshner, “Political Knowledge and the Campaign Media of 1992,”Communication Research, 21:305-324 (June 1994).
23.
23. Thomas E. Patterson and Robert D. McClure, The Unseeing Eye: The Myth of Television Power in National Elections (New York: G. P. Putnam, 1976).
24.
Dan Drew and David Weaver, “Voter Learning in the 1988 Presidential Election: Did the Debates and the Media Matter?” ibid., 68:27-37 (Spring-Summer 1991).
25.
Chaffee , Zhao, and Leshner, “Political Knowledge and the Campaign Media of 1992,” pp. 313, 318.
26.
26. Chaffee, Zhao, and Leshner, “Political Knowledge and the Campaign Media of 1992,” p. 318.
27.
27. David O. Sears and Steven H. Chaffee, “Uses and Effects of the 1976 Debates: An Overview of Empirical Studies,” in The Great Debates: Carter vs. Ford, ed. Sidney Kraus (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1979), pp. 223-261.
28.
28. Kathleen Hall Jamieson and David S. Birdsell, Presidential Debates: The Challenge of Creating an Informed Electorate (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), p. 127.
29.
29. Drew and Weaver, “Voter Learning in the 1988 Presidential Election,” p. 34.
30.
30. Chaffee, Zhao, and Leshner, “Political Knowledge and the Campaign Media of 1992,” p. 313.
31.
Richard Harwood , “The Waning Power of the Press,”Presstime, p. 25 (Aug. 1992).
32.
32. Weaver and Drew, “Voter Learning in the 1992 Presidential Election.”
33.
33. Jack McLeodet al., “The Impact of Traditional and Non-Traditional Forms of Political Communication in the 1992 U.S. Presidential Election” (Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the Midwest Association for Public Opinion Research, Chicago, Nov. 1993).
34.
34. Laura Waluszko, “Radio and Television Call-In Shows and Their Impact on the Public in the 1992 Presidential Campaign” (Paper prepared for “Government and Mass Media,” seminar taught by David Weaver, Indiana University, spring 1995).
35.
35. Chaffee, Zhao, and Leshner, “Political Knowledge and the Campaign Media of 1992,” p. 313.
36.
36. Karin Sandellet al., “The Media and Voter Decision-Making in Campaign 92” (Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Miami, FL, 1993), pp. 23-24.
37.
37. Weaveret al., Media Agenda-Setting in a Presidential Election, pp. 185-192.
38.
38. Drew and Weaver, “Voter Learning in the 1988 Presidential Election,” pp. 35-36.
39.
39. Weaver and Drew, “Voter Learning in the 1990 Off-Year Election,” pp. 362-366.
40.
40. Waluszko, “Radio and Television Call-In Shows,” tabs. 1 and 2.
41.
Thomas E. Patterson , The Mass Media Election (New York: Praeger, 1980), pp. 67-75. Patterson concludes that although the relationship between election interest and media exposure is reciprocal, media exposure is more powerful.
42.
42. Weaveret al., Media Agenda-Setting in a Presidential Election, pp. 61-74.
43.
43. Weaver and Drew, “Voter Learning in the 1992 Presidential Election,” p. 13.
44.
44. Waluszko, “Radio and Television Call-In Shows,” tab. 5.
45.
45. Wei Wu, “Alienation or Involvement: A Discriminant Analysis of Media Effects on Voter Turnout in the 1992 Presidential Election” (Paper delivered for “Government and Mass Media,” seminar taught by David Weaver, Indiana University, spring 1995).
46.
Joseph N. Cappella and Kathleen Hall Jamieson, “Public Cynicism and News Coverage in Campaigns and Policy Debates: Three Field Experiments” (Paper delivered to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York, Sept. 1994).
47.
See John Bare, “The Role of Non-Traditional News Sources in the 1992 Campaign” (Paper delivered to the annual meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, St. Charles, IL, May 1993).
48.
For a more general discussion of coverage of politics, see Doris A. Graber, Mass Media and American Politics, 4th ed. (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1993), pp. 260-275.
49.
Lynn Vavreck“Campaign News and Political Predispositions: A Multiplicative Model of Candidate Evaluations” (Paper delivered to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York, Sept. 1994).
50.
Sidney Kraus , ed., Mass Communication and Political Information Processing (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1990), esp. chaps. 5 and 6.
51.
Shanto Iyengar and Donald R. Kinder, News That Matters (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), pp. 63-81.
52.
Norman N. Holland , The Critical I (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992).
53.
Iyengar and Kinder, News That Matters.
54.
54. Weaver, McCombs, and Spellman, “Watergate and the Media,” p. 471.
