Newspaper Coverage of Presidential Primary Debates

Argumentation and Advocacy

Volumn 40, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 246-258

  Benoit, William L ^a   Hansen, Glenn J ^b   Stein, Kevin A ^c  

^a Department of Communication at the University of Missouri ^*  (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645586937     PISSN: 10511431     EISSN: 25768476     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00028533.2004.11821610     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S., (1995). Going negative: How attack ads shrink and polarize the electorate. New York: Free Press.
2. Benoit, W. L., (1999). Seeing spots: A functional analysis of presidential television advertisements, 1952–1996. Westport, CT: Praeger.
3. Benoit, W. L., (2003). Presidential campaign discourse as a causal factor in election outcome. Western Journal of Communication, 67, 97–112.
4. Benoit, W. L., Blaney, J. R., & Pier, P. M., (1998). Campaign '96: A functional analysis of acclaiming, attacking, and defending. Westport, CT: Praeger.
5. Benoit, W. L., & Brazeal, L. M., (2002). A functional analysis of the 1988 Bush-Dukakis presidential debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38, 219–233.
6. Benoit, W. L., & Currie, H., (2001). Inaccuracies in media coverage of presidential debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38, 28–39.
7. Benoit, W. L., & Hansen, G. J., (2001). Presidential debate questions and the public agenda. Communication Quarterly, 49, 130–141.
8. Benoit, W. L., Hansen, G. J., & Verser, R. T., (2003). A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 70, 335–350.
9. Benoit, W. L., & Harthcock, A., (1999). Functions of the Great Debates: Acclaims, attacks, and defense in the 1960 presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 66, 341–357.
10. Benoit, W. L., Pier, P. M., Brazeal, L. M., McHale, J. P., Klyukovksi, A., & Airne, D., (2002). The primary decision: A functional analysis of presidential primary debates, 1948–2000. Westport, CT: Praeger.
11. Benoit, W. L., Pier, P. M., McHale, J. P, Hansen, G. J., & McGuire, J. P., (2003). Campaign 2000: A functional analysis of acclaiming, attacking, and defending. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
12. Benoit, W. L., & Wells, W. T., (1996). Candidates in conflict: Persuasive attack and defense in the 1992 presidential debates. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
13. Berquist, G. F., (1960). The Kennedy-Humphrey debate. Today's Speech, 8, 2–3, 31.
14. Bishop, G. F., Meadow, R. G., & Jackson-Beeck, M., (Eds.). (1978). The presidential debates: Media, electoral, and policy perspectives. New York: Praeger.
15. Bitzer, L., & Rueter, T., (1980). Carter vs Ford: The counterfeit debates of 1976. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
16. Carlin, D. B., & McKinney, M. S., (1994). The 1992 presidential debates in focus. Westport, CT: Praeger.
17. Cohen, J., (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.
18. Coleman, S., (2000). Televised election debates: International perspectives. London: Macmillan Press.
19. Davis, J. W., (1997). U.S. presidential primaries and the caucus-convention system: A sourcebook. Westport, CT: Praeger.
20. Domke, D., Fan, D. P., Fibison, M., Shah, D. V., Smith, S. S., & Watts, M. D., (1997). News media, candidates and issues, and public opinion in the 1996 presidential campaign. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 718–737.
21. Farnsworth, S. J., & Lichter, S. R., (2003). The nightly news nightmare: Network television's coverage of U.S. presidential elections, 1988–2000. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Little-field.
22. Finkel, S. E., & Geer, J. G., (1998). A spot check: Casting doubt on the demobilizing effect of attack advertising. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 573–595.
23. Friedenberg, R. V., (1994). Rhetorical studies of national political debates—1960-1992 (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Praeger.
24. Friedenberg, R. V., (1997). Rhetorical studies of national political debates—1996. Westport, CT: Praeger.
25. Graber, D. A., (1989). Mass media and American politics (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
26. Hart, R. P., (2000). Campaign talk: Why elections are good for us. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000.
27. Hellweg, S. A., Pfau, M., & Brydon, S. R., (1992). Televised presidential debates: Advocacy in contemporary America. Westport, CT: Praeger.
28. Hinck, E. A., (1993). Enacting the presidency: Political argument, presidential debates, and presidential character. Westport, CT: Praeger.
29. Jamieson, K. H., (1987). Television, presidential campaigns, and debates. In J. L., Swerdlow (Ed.), Presidential debates 1988 and beyond (pp. 27–33). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc.
30. Jamieson, K. H., & Birdsell, D. S., (1988). Presidential debates: The challenge of creating an informed electorate. New York: Oxford University Press.
31. Jamieson, K. H., Waldman, P., & Devitt, J., (1998). Mapping the discourse of the 1996 US presidential general election. Media, Culture, & Society, 20, 323–328.
32. Joslyn, R. A., (1980). The content of political spot ads. Journalism Quarterly, 57, 92–98.
33. Kaid, L. L., & Johnston, A., (1991). Negative versus positive television advertising in U.S. presidential campaigns, 1960–1988. Journal of Communication, 41, 53–64.
34. Kane, T., (1987). The Dewey-Stassen primary debate of 1948: An examination of format for presidential debates. In J., Wenzel (Ed.), Argument and critical practices (pp. 249–253). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
35. Kendall, K. E., (1997). The 1996 Clinton-Dole presidential debates: Through media eyes. In R. V., Friedenberg (Ed.), Rhetorical studies of national political debates—1996 (pp. 1–29). Westport, CT: Praeger.
36. Kendall, K. E., (2000). Communication in the presidential primaries: Candidates and the media, 1912–2000. Westport, CN: Praeger.
37. Kraus, S., (Ed.). (1962). The great debates: Kennedy vs. Nixon, 1960. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
38. Kraus, S., (Ed.). (1979). The great debate: Carter vs. Ford, 1976. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
39. Kraus, S., (2000). Televised presidential debates and public policy (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40. Landis, J. R, & Koch, G. G., (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrica, 33, 159–174.
41. Lang, G. E., & Lang, K., (1980). The formation of public opinion: Direct and mediated effects of the first debate. In G. F., Bishop, R. G., Meadow, & M., Jackson Beeck, (Eds.), The presidential debates: Media, electoral, and policy perspectives (pp. 61–80). New York: Praeger.
42. Lanoue, D. J., & Schrott, P. R., (1991). The joint press conference: The history, impact, and prospects of American presidential debates. New York: Greenwood Press.
43. Lau, R. R., Sigelman, L., Heldman, C., & Babbitt, P. R., (1999). The effectiveness of negative political advertising: A meta-analytic assessment. American Political Science Review, 93, 851–876.
44. Lichter, S. R., & Noyes, R. E., (1995). Good intentions make bad news: Why Americans hate campaign journalism. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
45. Lichter, S. R., Noyes, R. E., & Kaid, L. L., (1999). No news or negative news: How the networks nixed the '96 campaign. In L. L., Kaid & D. G., Bystrom (Eds.), The electronic election: Perspectives on the 1996 campaign communication (pp. 3–13). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1999.
46. Martel, M., (1983). Political campaign debates: Issues, strategies, and tactics. New York: Longman.
47. Page, S., (2003, October 24). Debates flaw: No one's watching. TV ratings at bottom of barrel. USA Today, p. 5A.
48. Patterson, T. E., (1980). The mass media election: How Americans choose their president. New York: Praeger.
49. Patterson, T. E., (1994). Out of order. New York: Random House, Vintage Books.
50. Princeton Survey Research Associates. (1999). Accessed 10/5/03 via Lexis-Nexis.
51. Reber, B. H., & Benoit, W. L., (2001). Presidential debate stories accentuate the negative. Newspaper Research Journal, 22, 30–43.
52. Robinson, M. J., & Sheehan, M. A., (1983). Over the wire and on tv: CBS and UPI in campaign '80. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
53. Rudd, R., (1986). Issues as image in political campaign commercials. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 50, 102–118.
54. Sears, D. O., & Chaffee, S. H., (1979). Uses and effects of the 1976 debates: An overview of empirical studies. In S., Kraus (Ed.), The great debates: Carter vs. Ford, 1976 (pp. 223–261). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
55. Schroeder, A., (2000). Presidential debates: Forty years of high-risk TV. New York: Columbia University Press.
56. Steeper, F. T., (1980). Public response to Gerald Ford's statements on Eastern Europe in the second debate. In G. F., Bishop, R. G., Meadow, & M., Jackson-Beeck, (Eds.), The presidential debates: Media, electoral, and policy perspectives (pp. 81–101). New York: Praeger.
57. West, D. M., (1997). Air wars: Television advertising in election campaigns 1952–1996 (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
58. Zakahi, W. R, & Hacker, K. L., (1995). Televised presidential debates and candidate images. In K. L., Hacker, (Ed.), Candidate images in presidential elections (pp. 99–122). Westport, CT: Praeger.