Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The percentage of presidential ads containing a misleading statement rose to 52% in 1996, up from 14% in 1992. At the same time, there was a drop both in broadcast and print press coverage of the presidential election, as well as in ad watches. The amount of broadcast coverage of the election was down 55% from 1992. Front-page newspaper campaign coverage was down 45% from 1992, whereas campaign coverage, measured in stories, was down 40% from 1992. Proportionally, broadcast ad watch stories in 1996 dropped by 68%, whereas print ad watches dropped by 20%. This article examines how ads were covered by the media and asks whether the drop in broadcast and print ad watches affected the decisions of political ad makers about creating or continuing to air controversial ads. In addition to a content analysis of print and broadcast ad watches, ad watch journalists and presidential ad consultants were questioned to help determine how ad watches affect the strategic decision-making process.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Annenberg Public Policy Center. (1996a, September 9). Improving ad watches. Annenberg School for Communication Report: Tracking the Quality of 1996 Campaign Discourse No. 1.

Annenberg Public Policy Center. (1996b, November 5). 1996: Better or worse? Annenberg School for Communication Report: Tracking the Quality of Campaign Discourse No. 17.

Annenberg Public Policy Center. (1996c, November 5). Clinton and Dole on the stump: Topics stressed, ignored, engaged. Annenberg School for Communication Report: Tracking the Quality of Campaign Discourse No. 18.

Annenberg Public Policy Center. (1996d, October 3-November 12). Annenberg political knowledge survey. Philadelphia: Annenberg School for Communication; Annenberg Public Policy Center.

Ansolabehere, S. , & Iyengar, S. (1996). Can the press monitor campaign advertising? An experimental study. Harvard International Review of the Press and Politics, 1(1), 72-86.

Bennet, J. (1996, October 22). Neither side takes high road in ads. The New York Times, pp. A22.

Broder, D. (1990, January 14). Five ways to put some sanity back in elections. Washington Post, p. B1.

Cappella, J. N. , & Jamieson, K. H. (1994). Broadcast ad watch effects: A field experiment. Communication Research, 21(3), 342-365.

Hernandez, D. G. (1996, October 5). Improving election reporting. Editor & Publisher, pp. 16-39.

10.

Jamieson, K. H. (1992). Dirty politics: Deception, distraction, and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.

11.

Jamieson, K. H. , & Cappella, J. N. (1997). Setting the record straight: Do Adwatches help or hurt? Harvard International Review of the Press and Politics, 2, 13-22.

12.

Just, M. R. , Crigler, A. N. , Alger, D. E. , Cook, T. E. , Kern, M. , & West, D. M. (1996). Crosstalk: Citizens, candidates, and the media in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

13.

Patterson, T. E. (1994). Out of order. New York: Random House.

14.

Pfau, M. & Louden, A. (1994). Effectiveness of ad watch formats in deflecting political attack ads. Communication Research, 21, 325-341.

15.

Rhee, J. W. (1996). How polls drive campaign coverage: The Gallup/CNN/USA Today tracking poll and USA Today's coverage of the 1992 presidential campaign. Political Communication, 13, 213-229.

16.

Sipchen, B. (1996, October 31). Elections '96: The presidential campaign; Shootout in of all places—Arizona. Los Angeles Times, p. A14.

Assessing the Impact of Ad Watches on the Strategic Decision-Making Process

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References