Why news coverage of the debate may matter more than the debate
Consider this experiment. In 2004, Kim Fridkin and other researchers at Arizona State University showed people footage of the third presidential debate, the debate plus 20 minutes of post-debate commentary on NBC, the debate plus 20 minutes’ time to read commentary on CNN.com. So who won the debate, Bush or Kerry? It depended on whether you watched the news…
People watching the debate tended to think that Kerry had won, as did those who read analysis on CNN. But those who watched the NBC post-morten had the opposite impression. Fridkin et al. write:
“Our findings suggest that voters’ attitudes are influenced by the arguments presented directly by the candidates during the debate as well as by the media’s instant analyses of the candidates’ debate performances….the impact of the candidates’ messages was often altered by the media’s instant analyses.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Capt. Obvious, is that you?
hillsoftx on October 3, 2012 at 9:21 AM
That’s why the libs troll the threads here. Only they are awful when it comes to
persuadingspinning.cozmo on October 3, 2012 at 9:21 AM
Not exactly a V-8 Moment !!!
jake-the-goose on October 3, 2012 at 9:28 AM
George Snufflupagus has already declared Obama the winner of the first two debates. He’s taking a wait and see on the third debate. He’ll make a decision on that one early this afternoon.
Fallon on October 3, 2012 at 9:28 AM
Well duh. People would rather be told what to think rather than think for themselves.
Spannerhead on October 3, 2012 at 9:30 AM
We already know how the MSM will cover this debate. It does not matter one whit how Obama performs. The best Romney can hope for is a “draw” (and that’s only if Obama really stinks it up).
DRayRaven on October 3, 2012 at 9:30 AM
I’ll try to locate the transcript from the 1980 post-debate discussion in which the journalists thought that it was a draw or gave Carter a slight advantage.
aunursa on October 3, 2012 at 9:32 AM
Yep. Obama could spit in Romney’s face and the press would credit Obama for being passionate in his arguments.
Mr. D on October 3, 2012 at 9:33 AM
Of course, it does- and always has. Mitt could verbally turn Barack into Monty Python’s Black Knight and the News media will discus at length who Romney fled just when the fight was turning in Obama’s favor.
michaelo on October 3, 2012 at 9:34 AM
Here it is…
Reaction to the Carter-Reagan Debate
October 28, 1980
Not a single reference to Amy Carter, “There you go again”, or “Are you better off?”
aunursa on October 3, 2012 at 9:38 AM
Of course. Let’s face it, they’ve already decided Obama has won all three, and people too lazy/stupid to come to their own conclusions will rely on the likes of Wolf Blitzer and Jon Stewart to form them instead.
I don’t plan on watching any of them, as I don’t have the stomach for the leading, biased questions thrown out by the lib moderators, nor can I stand to listen to Obama’s sneering condescension, but I suspect Romney will attempt to show that he’s reasonable and that he cares about the little guy. He’s battle-tested as far as debates go, and he’s faced the questions he’s likely to get from hostile media outlets throughout the campaign, so I doubt he’ll be thrown off his game. I hope he challenges Obama, and I hope he hammers home to the American people that four more years of this just cannot happen.
changer1701 on October 3, 2012 at 9:39 AM
Ladies and gents, your DUH moment of the day…….
tdpwells on October 3, 2012 at 9:40 AM
The talking points have already dished out, most of the MSM articles will have already been written:
Romney upset Palestinians/minorities/transgender unemployed lesbians/poor people.
Basically he just went and gaffed again all over your telly box.
mudskipper on October 3, 2012 at 9:41 AM
1980 Post-debate analysis…
JIM LEHRER: Robin, our first analytical shot goes to a Washington reporter, John Stacks, national political correspondent for Time magazine. Was there a clear winner, John?
JOHN STACKS: I think not. I hate to use a sports analogy in this … moment, but it was really like a hyped Super Bowl, I think, in which both teams played extremely defensively, and the game became rather dull. I don’t think either man fundamentally changed the balance of power in this election
aunursa on October 3, 2012 at 9:42 AM
Then MSNBC viewers will probablhy believe that Romney should be arrested for blaspheming the Marxist Messiah.
RBMN on October 3, 2012 at 9:42 AM
STACKS: I don’t think there was a ‘worst moment’ for either of them. Occasional kinds of lapses in the sense that they forgot what they were going to say, just for a brief instance-I think worst for both of them was the failure of either of them to transcend the moment and to rise above simply sending the salvos back and forth. Again. I would have to say on the positive side that both summations were rather good. I thought Carter’s was slightly better and more coherent than Reagan’s, but Reagan’s was a little more emotional.
aunursa on October 3, 2012 at 9:44 AM
Tonight:
Clear it is B. Obama will attack Mitt with, “Well my Obama Care is based on your Mitt Care you passed in Mass”.
So,
Mitts answer:
“Ya, I made that one error attempting to get along with Democrats like you. I learnd my lesson. Now if Jim the moderator here has enough time tonight we can stipulate to my one error and go on to the 30 or 40 huge errors and blunders like the death of Amb. Stephens in the last 3 3/4 years.”
APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 3, 2012 at 9:56 AM
Read the entire transcript of the 1980 debate analysis. The breadth of the chasm between the reaction by the journalists and the reaction by the voters is breathtaking.
EMMERICH: I believe that certainly anyone who already had decided to support Governor Reagan or vice versa, their minds were not going to be changed. But we were talking earlier about the importance of the undecided voters, and it seems to me if you were undecided going into this debate, well President Carter came across as a little more presidential. And certainly Governor Reagan did not do badly. But he seemed to be a little more bumbling to me than President Carter.
aunursa on October 3, 2012 at 9:57 AM
Fixed.
UltimateBob on October 3, 2012 at 9:57 AM
Obama could turn up on stage, flip the bird, kick over his podium, and start chooming and that would be considered a tour de force by the master orator.
CorporatePiggy on October 3, 2012 at 10:03 AM
I can guarantee you the 2012 debates you read about and see on the news will not be the same debates if you had watched them yourself.
albill on October 3, 2012 at 10:07 AM
All the msm has to do in insert Mitt Romney as the one who lost and B. Obama as the one who won in their 2000, 2004, 2008 news lies.
After all they are not all that orginal.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 3, 2012 at 11:12 AM
This column by Howie Carr says it all.
Fleuries on October 3, 2012 at 11:56 AM