Growing use of the Internet in political campaigns raises questions about the relative impact of traditional media and the Internet on voters. This experimental study tested the effectiveness of exposure to advertising, debates, and news from the 2000 presidential campaign on television and via the Internet. Results suggested that Internet exposure resulted in higher evaluations for both Bush and Gore but that the debates were the only format in which substantial differences were observed. Traditional television and Internet exposures also resulted in differences in the stimulation of information seeking and political behaviors. However, the Internet did not demonstrate universal superiority over television in lessening levels of political cynicism.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Althaus, S. L., & Tewksbury, D. (2000). Patterns of Internet and traditional news media use in a net worked community. Political Communication, 17, 25-45.
2.
Andreoli, V., & Worchel, S. (1978). Effects of media, communicator and message position on attitude change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 59-70.
3.
Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1995). Going negative: How attack ads shrink and polarize the electorate. New York: Free Press.
4.
Bennett, S. E. (1997). Why young Americans hate politics and what we should do about it. PS, 30, 47-53.
5.
Berlo, D. K. (1960). The process of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
6.
Brians, C. L., & Wattenberg, M. P. (1996). Campaign issue knowledge and salience: Comparing reception from TV commercials, TV news, and newspapers. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 172-193.
7.
Center for Media and Public Affairs (2000). Campaign 2000 final: How TV news covered the general election campaign. Media Monitor, 16(6), 1-9.
8.
Cohen, A. (1976). Radio vs. TV: The effects of the medium. Journal of Communication, 26, 29-35.
9.
Cutbirth, C. W., & Coombs, T. (1997, November). The coming electronic democracy: The Internet, political communication, and the duties of citizenship. Paper presented at the National Communication Association Convention, Chicago.
10.
The Democracy Online Project. (2000, December 4). Retrieved from http://www.democracyonline.org/databank/dec2000survey.shtml
11.
Devlin, L. P. (2001). Contrast in presidential campaign commercials of 2000. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 2338-2369.
12.
Eveland, W. P., & Dunwoody, S. (2001). User control and structural isomorphism or disorientation and cognitive load? Learning from the Web versus print. Communication Research, 28, 48-78.
13.
Garramone, G., Atkin, C. K., Pinkleton, B. E., & Cole, R. (1990). Effects of negative political advertising on the political process. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 34, 299-311.
14.
Ha, L., & Lincoln, J. E. (1998). Interactivity reexamined: A baseline analysis of early business Web sites. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media42, 456-473.
15.
Jacques, W. W., & Ratzan, S. C. (1997). The Internet’s World Wide Web and political accountability: New media coverage of the 1996 presidential debates. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 1226-1237.
16.
Just, M., Crigler, A. & Wallach, L. (1990). Thirty seconds or thirty minutes: What viewers learn from spot advertisements and candidate debates. Journal of Communication, 40, 120-133.
17.
Kaid, L. L. (2002). Political advertising and information seeking: Comparing the exposure via traditional and Internet media channels. Journal of Advertising, 31, 27-35.
18.
Kaid, L. L., McKinney, M. S., & Tedesco, J. C. (2000). Civic dialogue in the 1996 presidential campaign: Candidate, media, and public voices. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
19.
Katz, E., & Feldman, J. (1962). The debates in light of research: A survey of surveys. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates (pp. 173-223). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
20.
Laswell, H. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas (pp. 37-51). New York: Harper.
21.
Lipset, S. M., & Schneider, W. (1987). The confidence gap (Rev. ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
22.
Martinelli, K. A., & Chaffee, S. H. (1995). Measuring new voter learning via three channels of political information. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 72, 18-32.
23.
McKinney, M. S., & Gaddie, K. C. (2000, November). The medium and the message: TV vs. Internet viewing of a presidential primary debate. Paper presented at the National Communication Association Convention, Seattle.
24.
McKinnon, L. M., & Tedesco, J. C. (1999). The influence of medium and media commentary on presidential debate effects. In L. L. Kaid & D. G. Bystrom (Eds.), The electronic election (pp. 191-206). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
McKinnon, L. M., Tedesco, J. C., & Kaid, L. L. (1993). The third 1992 presidential debate: Channel and commentary effects. Argumentation and Advocacy, 30, 106-118.
26.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media. New York: New American Library.
27.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (1999, July). Falling through the Net: Defining the digital divide. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/contents.html
28.
Patterson, T. E., & McClure, R. D. (1976). The unseeing eye: Myth of television power in politics. New York: G.P. Putnam.
29.
Pearlstein, S. (1996, January 30). Angry female voters a growing force. Washington Post, p. 1, A5.
30.
Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2000). Youth vote influenced by online information: Internet election news audience seeks convenience, familiar names. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=27
31.
Rosenstone, S. J., Kinder, D. R., Miller, W. E., & the National Election Studies. (1997). American National Election Study, 1996: Pre- and post-election survey (Computer file). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies [Producer]. Ann Arbor: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [Distributor].
32.
Rumbough, T., & Tomlinson, J. (2000, November). Internet 2000: Evolution of Internet content and effects. Paper presented at the National Communication Association Convention, Seattle.
33.
Sundar, S. S. (2000). Multimedia effects on processing and perception of online news: A study of picture, audio, and video downloads. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 480-499.
34.
Sundar, S. S., Hesser, K. M., Kalyanaraman, S., & Brown, J. (1998, July). The effect of Website interactivity on political persuasion. Paper presented at the 21st General Assembly & Scientific Conference of the International Association for Media and Communication Research, Glasgow, UK.
35.
Tedesco, J. C., & Kaid, L. L. (2000, November). Candidate Web sites and voter effects: Investigating uses and gratifications. Paper presented at the National Communication Association Convention, Seattle.
36.
Vancil, D. L., & Pendell, S. D. (1987). The myth of viewer-listener disagreement in the first Kennedy-Nixon debates. Central States Speech Journal, 38, 16-27.
