HYPE VERSUS SUBSTANCE
IN NETWORK TELEVISION COVERAGE
OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS
By Julia R. Fox, James R. Angelini, and Christopher Goble
Content analysis of broadcast television networks’ weekday nightly
newscasts during the final weeks of the 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000 presidential election campaigns found an emphasis on hype rather than substantive coverage of the campaigns. Examination of audio and video
messages separately showed this to be true for both. Further, even when
the audio was substantive, the accompanying visuals often were not.
The results are discussed in terms of media reliance, journalistic responsibility, and cognitive processing of mediated messages.
From the earliest days of our country’s origins, it has been a commonly held belief that democracy requires active and informed citizens
capable of making political decisions.1 According to CBS journalist
Edward R. Murrow, this was the premise upon which our political system was founded.2 The assumption, which still holds today, is that citizens will seek out and acquire political knowledge in a thoughtful manner to make rational political decisions.3
Most citizens seek out political information from the media.4 For
decades, television has been the primary source of presidential election
information for most Americans, and for much of this time broadcast
network television news has been the dominant television news source.5
However, in 2000, while television remained the dominant campaign
news source, more people reported relying primarily on cable news
(36%) than network news (22%).6 No doubt increased reliance on cable is
related to the convenience of having television news available round the
clock. However, the broadcast networks’ nightly newscasts still have
greater numbers of viewers than the audience for any particular cable
news program.7 Thus, it is important to examine the quality of political
information provided in television news campaign coverage, and it
remains particularly important to examine the coverage of the broadcast networks’ nightly newscasts. This study examines the broadcast
television networks’ nightly news coverage of presidential election
campaigns from the 1980s, the 1990s, and 2000, specifically examining
the emphasis on hype versus substance in the audio and video mesJulia R. Fox is an assistant professor in the Department of Telecommunications at
Indiana University; James R. Angelini is a graduate student at Indiana University; and
Christopher Goble is a visiting instructor at Monmouth College. This research was
funded in part by an Undergraduate Research and Creative Activity Partnership grant
from the Office of Research and the University Graduate School at Indiana University.
HYPE VERSUS SUBSTANCE IN NETWORK TELEVISION COVERAGE
J&MC
Q
J&MC Quarterly
Vol. 82, No. 1
Spring 2005
97-109
©2005 AEJMC
97
sages during the final two weeks of the 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000 election campaigns.
Literature
Timing of Voting Decisions. It is particularly important to examine
Review
the content of television news coverage during the final weeks of an elec-
98
tion campaign. Voters making up their minds at the end of a campaign
tend to be less partisan and more likely to use—and to be influenced by—
media messages in making their decisions.8
A significant number of voters in the past few decades—more than
enough to swing the results of an election—have made up their minds in
the final weeks of election campaigns. In 1988, 15% of voters said they
made up their minds during the final week of the campaign.9 In both 1988
and 1996, more than 10% of those surveyed said they made up their
minds during the final days of the campaign, either over the last weekend
(2%), the day before (3%), or the day of the election (6%).10
Chaffee and Rimal found between 21% and 36% of voters polled in
1992 to be what they called last-minute deciders—making their voting
choice in the final three weeks of the campaign.11 In another poll in 1992,
25% said they made their decision in the final week of the campaign, with
17% reporting they made up their minds in the final days of the campaign
—4% percent over the last weekend, 4% percent the day before the election, and 9% on election day.12 On the Friday before the 1992 presidential
election, ABC News reported 5% of likely voters were still undecided.13
Similarly, in 1996, an average of 5% of those surveyed in twenty-six
different national polls during the final two weeks of the campaign had
not yet committed to Clinton, Dole, or Perot.14 A survey taken in the days
following the 1996 campaign indicates the number of late deciders was
even larger, as 17% of the respondents reported making up their minds
definitely to vote for the candidate of their choice in the final week of the
campaign.15
In 2000, a national poll of likely voters during the final full week of
campaigning found more than 5% of those surveyed had not yet determined which candidate would receive their votes.16 As late as the weekend before election day, a national poll of likely voters found 3% of those
surveyed still undecided.17 Although that percentage had narrowed to
just 1% by the day before the election,18 even a margin that small is
enough to swing an election, as evidenced by the final vote counts in 2000
in Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Wisconsin, and, of
course, Florida.
Furthermore, polling conducted just after the 2000 election again
indicated the number of undecided voters was greater than indicated by
polls taken prior to election day. A survey conducted 10-12 November
found 5% of those surveyed said they made up their minds to definitely
vote for the candidate of their choice on election day, 2% did so the day
before election day, 2% decided over the last weekend, and 5% made a
decision in the last week of the campaign.19 Exit polls conducted on election day in 2000 also found more last-minute deciders than polls leading
into election day had suggested. On NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw
JOURNALISM & MASS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY
election night, Katie Couric reported 17% of voters in exit polls said they
made up their minds in the last week.20 As there are clearly more than
enough media-reliant late deciders to swing the results of an election, an
examination of the final weeks of campaign coverage is warranted.
Network News Campaign Coverage. Given the importance of
broadcast network television news as a source of presidential election
information, many content analyses have examined network campaign
coverage during the past three decades. A robust and much-criticized
finding of these studies has been an emphasis on the “horserace”
aspects of the campaign rather than on more substantial coverage of
campaign issues.21 Researchers have also long criticized network emphasis on the hoopla surrounding political campaigns. “ABC, CBS, and
NBC devote most of their election coverage to the trivia of election campaigning that make for flashy pictures. Hecklers, crowds, motorcades,
balloons, rallies and gossip—these are the regular subjects of the network campaign stories.”22
Many of these studies of television election coverage have used
the news story as the unit of analysis.23 Such an approach, however,
assumes that each story covers only one topic. Others have examined
the number of mentions or references given to various topics related to
the presidential election campaign in television network news coverage.24 While this approach accounts for stories that address more than
one topic, it still assumes a unified message within both audio and video
information presented in the news stories.
Audio and Video Campaign Messages. Television news is presented in story units that combine both audio and video. There is evidence
that television news is processed in a single code fashion, with audio
and video messages processed as one informational unit, when the
audio and video messages are redundant.25 However, there is also evidence that viewers process the audio and video messages separately
when those messages are dissonant.26 These differences in message processing may occur while integrating the information in the hippocampus, a polymodal system where information about events is initially
stored as synaptic changes.27 Dissonant audio and video may be
processed as two separate unimodal events in the hippocampus, while
redundant video and audio messages may receive deeper, bimodal processing as one event. Dual coding of verbal and visual messages results
in better memory performance than unimodal encoding.28 Similarly,
memory researchers have found that the deeper or more elaborately
information is encoded, the better it will be remembered.29
In addition, the amount of cognitive resources needed to process
television messages varies with the degree of redundancy between
the audio and video.30 In a meta-analysis using the limited capacity
model of mediated message processing, Lang argued that television
news messages with dissonant audio and video require more resources
to process than messages with greater redundancy and are therefore
more likely to overload processing capacity, resulting in poorer memory performance.31 Furthermore, recent research has found that when
overload occurs, audio message processing suffers, while video processHYPE VERSUS SUBSTANCE IN NETWORK TELEVISION COVERAGE
99
Hypotheses
ing is not impaired.32 Given these processing differences, content analyses of television news should distinguish between audio and video messages.
A few content analyses of television network news’ presidential
campaign coverage have compared the tone of audio and video messages
in the stories.33 Graber found verbal news messages about candidates
tended to be negative, whereas accompanying visuals were often considerably more favorable, a treatment she referred to as kind pictures and
harsh words.34 Similarly, in what they referred to as tough talk and pretty pictures, Crigler and colleagues found candidates were presented more
favorably in video than audio messages.35 These differences were considered to be the result of dual control over television campaign news stories,
with reporters shaping verbal messages while campaigns controlled visual images through carefully orchestrated campaign events.36
Given the emphasis found in previous studies on horserace rather
than issues, it might be predicted that analyzing the audio and video separately would yield an emphasis on hype rather than substance in both
the audio and the video messages. However, the evidence of differing
tones in audio and video messages found in previous studies suggests
that audio and video coverage may differ in other respects as well.37
Specifically, the dual control over audio and video in campaign messages
discussed in those studies could render varying emphases in topics
addressed in video and audio messages. For example, a reporter’s verbal
script may address an important campaign issue, but the accompanying
visuals, rather than illustrating the audio, may instead be of staged campaign activities, thus rendering dissonant audio and video messages. If
so, even if the audio emphasis is more hype than substance, as previous
horserace studies suggest, there may still be more substance in the audio
than in the video. If this is the case, then even when the audio coverage
is substantive the accompanying visuals may emphasize hype rather than
substance.
Given previous studies, a study distinguishing between audio and
video messages in election campaign stories should find the emphasis in
the video messages to be on hype, rather than substance. Thus, this study
predicts:
H1: The visual emphasis will be on hype rather than
substance.
However, it is not clear whether the same will hold true when examining only the audio messages. Thus, this study poses the following
research question:
RQ1: Will the audio emphasis be on substance or hype?
100
Finally, given the dual control over audio and video of television
news campaign stories, this study predicts:
JOURNALISM & MASS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY
H2: There will be more substance in the audio than the
video messages, and
H3: Audio substance will be positively correlated with
video hype.
Concept Operationalization. Substantive coverage is defined as
coverage about campaign issues and candidate qualifications, while
hype is defined as coverage emphasizing campaign hoopla and “the
horserace.” “The horserace” is indicated by images of or references to
the actual campaign contest such as polls, strategies, tactics, and
endorsements. Hoopla is indicated by images of or references to activities and items related to campaign events such as rallies, photo opportunities, hand shaking, ball throwing, flag waving, baby kissing, balloons, motorcades, crowds, and celebrities. Candidate qualifications are
indicated by images of or references to candidates’ experience in terms
of previous political accomplishments and positions held. Campaign
issues are indicated by images of or references to issues in the party platforms such as the environment, the economy, education, crime, health
care, foreign affairs, and defense.
Sampling. Similar to other studies,38 this study utilized saturation
samples, examining all newscasts from ABC’s World News Tonight with
Peter Jennings, CBS’s Evening News with Dan Rather, and NBC’s The
Nightly News with Tom Brokaw during the final two weeks of the campaigns. For 1988, this included 26, 27, 28, 31 October and 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8
November. For 1992, the dates included 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
October and 2, 3 November. For 1996, the dates included 23, 24, 25, 28,
29, 30, 31 October and 1, 4, 5 November. For 2000, the dates included 25,
26, 27, 30, 31 October and 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 November.
Coding. Coded stories were either read by the anchors or packages by reporters preceded by anchor lead-ins. The length of each story
in seconds was recorded. For presidential election stories, the amount
of time in both the audio and the video messages devoted to hype, using
the categories of horserace and hoopla, and substance, using the categories of campaign issues and candidate qualifications, was also coded.
Coders were provided directions, category and concept definitions and
examples, and sample completed coding sheets for a newscast.
Following Patterson and McClure’s example39 using multiple coders,
coders were assigned newscasts from alternate nights and from each of
the three networks. The coding instrument was pretested with a group
of three communication students from a large Eastern university who
first coded and then discussed their coding of a sample newscast with
the primary researcher to determine if there was agreement on the study
concepts and operationalizations. The instrument and coder instructions were revised slightly following that discussion.
Reliability. According to Riffe, Lacy, and Fico,40 Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) is used to measure the degree to which coders vary
together in their observations when coding interval or ratio-level data,
HYPE VERSUS SUBSTANCE IN NETWORK TELEVISION COVERAGE
Method
101
such as the number of seconds of network evening news coverage devoted to a topic. Correlations of .84 or better are considered indications of
good coder reliability for ratio-level measurement.41
This study examines coder reliability using Pearson r coefficients
from SPSS’s distances correlations, which measure similarities or dissimilarities between pairs of cases based on particular variables of interest. In
this instance, pairs of coders were measured for similarities in their codings of audio horserace, audio hoopla, video horserace, video hoopla,
audio substance, audio qualifications, video substance, and video qualifications. An advantage of this correlation is that it renders one statistic (r)
indicating the amount of similarity between the two coders on all of these
variables, rather than having to run correlations for all coders on each
variable individually. Yet, comparing pairs of coders with distances correlations still offers detailed information about where reliability problems
might be occurring among the various coders when more than two coders
are used. In this regard, distances correlations give both a complete and
a parsimonious picture of coder reliability.
Correlation coefficients indicated that the 1988 data coders had high
intercoder reliability (coefficients ranged from to r = .951 to r = .999) and
intracoder reliability (coefficients ranged from to r = .975 to r = .999). For
the 1996 data, three of the four study coders had perfect intracoder
reliability (r = 1.000), while the fourth coder also had high intracoder reliability (r = .984); for intercoder reliability, coefficients ranged from r = .857
to r = .977. There was only one coder for the 1992 and 2000 data; that
coder was tested for reliability in using the coding scheme by comparing
his coding of a subsample of the 1996 data to the 1996 data coders’ results.
Correlation coefficients for intercoder reliability ranged from r = .811 to
r = .93, and for coder intra-reliability r = 1.0.
Results
102
Prior to analyzing the data, an analysis of variance was run using
network as an independent variable to see if the networks varied significantly in their coverage of the coding categories. No significant differences were found.
There were 170 news stories about the presidential election campaign during the final weeks of the 1988 campaign, representing 41% of
the networks’ total news stories during that two-week period. In 1992,
there were 181 presidential election stories, representing 42% of the total
news stories. In 1996, there were 98 stories, or 26% of the total news
stories. In 2000, there were 156 stories, accounting for 37% of all news
stories. The proportion of stories devoted to the presidential election
was significantly less in 1996 than in 1988 (t = 4.52, d.f. = 789; p[two-tailed]
< .001), 1992 (t = 5.10, d.f. = 796; p[two-tailed] < .001), and 2000 (t = 3.60,
d.f. = 787; p[two-tailed] < .001). In addition, the average length of stories
was shorter in 1996 than in the other years (see Table 1).
H1: This hypothesis predicted there would be more hype than substance in the video messages. As shown in Table 1, there was more than
four times more hype (M = 40.26) than substance (M = 8.95) in the visual
messages in 1988 (t = 8.01, d.f. = 169; p[two-tailed] < .001). In 1992, there
JOURNALISM & MASS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY
TABLE 1
Time in Seconds for Different Types of Campaign Coverage, by Year
1988
M
s.d.
M
1992
s.d.
M
1996
s.d.
M
2000
s.d.
Video Hype
40.26a
40.74
51.54d
46.85
42.69g
37.83
60.36i
56.32
Video Hoopla
32.59
38.61
29.99
36.69
39.31
38.25
32.06
36.75
Audio Horse Race
52.00
Video Horse Race
Audio Hype
Audio Hoopla
Video Substance
Video Issue
Video Qualification
Audio Substance
Audio Issue
Audio Qualification
Story Length
7.66
12.83
21.55
30.00
3.39
39.31
28.29
51.17
60.63
53.48
67.61
47.20
46.11
49.33
77.51
51.81
8.63
16.09
7.30
16.60
17.47
36.89
15.53
4.72
47.42
4.72
b
8.95ac
8.28
.66
21.13bc
20.95
3.18
116.49
48.55
28.44
27.38
3.83
48.60
44.15
8.86
99.97
e
60.31
42.84
28.63
5.22df
16.78
19.59gh
2.67
10.51
.08
2.55
10.39
19.51
43.61
47.39
.82
21.62ef
39.43
41.37h
61.94
12.70
32.61
1.02
3.96
8.97
105.70
23.87
69.98
40.35
93.95
62.21
57.87
j
61.99
6.48ik
1.76
48.57
24.67
21.64
8.93
20.76jk
40.77
5.53
17.26
15.23
103.53
35.67
66.23
Means within a data column sharing a common superscript are significantly different beyond
p=.001 by the t-test.
was almost ten times as much hype as substance in the video messages
(t = 12.83, d.f. = 180; p[two-tailed] < .001). In 1996, there was twice as
much hype as substance in the visual messages (t = 3.29, df = 94; p[twotailed] = .001). In 2000, there was ten times more hype than substance
in the video messages (t = 10.79, d.f. = 155; p[two-tailed] < .001). H1 was
supported.
RQ1: This research question asked if the audio emphasis would
be on substance or hype. In 1988, there was more than twice as much
hype (M=60.63) as there was substance (M=21.13) in the audio messages
(t = 7.30, d.f. = 169; p[two-tailed] < .001). In 1992, there was more than
three times as much hype as there was substance in the audio messages
(t = 9.80, d.f. = 180; p[two-tailed] < .001). In 1996, however, the difference between the amount of hype and substance in the audio messages
was not statistically significant. In 2000, there was, once again, more
than three times more hype than substance in the audio messages (t =
10.44, d.f. = 155; p[two-tailed] < .001).
H2: This hypothesis predicted that there would be more substance
in the audio than in the video messages. In 1988, there was almost three
times more substance in the audio messages than in the video messages
(t = 4.85, d.f. = 169; p[two-tailed] <.001). In 1992, there was four times as
HYPE VERSUS SUBSTANCE IN NETWORK TELEVISION COVERAGE
103
Discussion
104
much substance in the audio messages as there was in the video messages
(t = 6.77, d.f. = 180; p[two-tailed] <.001). In 1996, there was twice as much
substance in the audio messages than in the video messages (t = 4.72, d.f.
= 94; p[two-tailed] <.001). In 2000, there was three times more substance
in the audio messages than in the video messages (t = 5.07, d.f. = 155;
p[two-tailed] < .001). H2 was supported.
H3: This hypothesis predicted that audio substance would be positively correlated with video hype. There was a statistically significant
positive correlation between audio substance and video hype in 1992 (r =
.21, N = 181, p < .01) and in 2000 (r = .34, N = 156, p < .001). H3 is partially supported.
With the exception of 1996, there has been an upward trend in both
audio and video hype, mostly due to the upward trends in audio and
video horserace coverage. Also with the exception of 1996, substantive
coverage remained fairly constant, and was considerably less than the
hype coverage. Although there was more audio substance per story in
1996 than in the other years, there were significantly fewer stories about
the election in 1996 than the other years. Furthermore, the increase in
audio substance per story in 1996 was an anomaly. By 2000, the networks
devoted as much discussion to describing campaign hoopla and four
times as much discussion to the horserace as they did to discussing campaign issues. Discussion of candidate qualifications was all but nonexistent in the final weeks of all four of the campaigns examined.
Despite the dual control of the audio and video messages by
reporters and campaign handlers, this study found both the audio and
video emphasis to be on hype rather than substance. These results are in
keeping with previous studies of campaign coverage that found an
emphasis on horserace rather than more substantive issues.
Given the presumed importance of an informed citizenry to a successful democracy, and the heavy reliance of voters on television news for
campaign information, these results are obviously cause for concern, particularly given the heavier media reliance of late deciders. During the
final weeks of a campaign a substantial number of voters—often enough
to swing an election—have not yet made up their minds as to which candidate they will select. These voters are looking to television news for
information to help make informed choices. But the information broadcast to the public in the final weeks of the campaigns emphasized hype
rather than substance.
Furthermore, post-hoc analysis of story placement within the newscast found hype messages more likely to come earlier in the newscast than substantive messages. When analyzing data for all stories
(presidential and other) from all four years combined, there were small
but significant negative correlations between story order and audio substance (r = -.09, N = 1,128, p = .003) and between story order and video
substance (r = -.07, N = 1,128, p = .023). However, there were considerably
larger and more significant negative correlations between story order and
audio hype (r = -.29, N = 1,128, p <.001) and between story order and
JOURNALISM & MASS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY
video hype (r = -.31, N = 1,128, p <.001). This may be an indication that
hype messages are considered of greater importance by the broadcast
network news gatekeepers and are more likely to be heard and seen by
viewers than substantive messages aired later in the newscasts.
Finally, even when the audio coverage was substantive, the
accompanying visuals often emphasized hype rather than substance.
Yet, as previously noted, when audio and video messages are dissonant
viewers may overload their limited available cognitive resources while
processing the messages; when this happens, it is audio processing, not
video, that suffers. Therefore, substantive audio messages in television
campaign stories may be wasted effort if dissonant visuals are remembered but the audio is not. While content analyses do not, of course,
examine viewer processing, results such as those found in this study
should be considered in light of what is known about how viewers
process television messages.
Thus, in addition to providing more substantive coverage overall,
reporters who want to provide more substance in their coverage should
take care to match substantive audio messages with similarly substantive visuals to enhance the encoding of information in the audio messages. It might be argued that hype video shots are almost unavoidable
on the campaign trail, given the political parties’ control over photo
opportunities. But reporters can still create substantive and interesting
computerized graphics and/or use related file footage for their stories.
For example, a reporter discussing candidate George Bush’s proposal to
drill for oil in the Alaskan wilderness could show file footage of Alaskan
wilderness to accompany the audio, rather than footage of Bush at a
campaign appearance. Otherwise, visually interesting hype messages
may compete for and ultimately usurp viewers’ message processing
resources at the expense of the more important, and precious, substantive audio information.
NOTES
1. Bruce Williams and Jill Edy, “Basic Beliefs, Democratic Theory,
and Public Opinion,” in Public Opinion, ed. Carroll J. Glynn, Susan
Herbst, Garrett J. O’Keefe, and Robert Y. Shapiro (Boulder, CO:
Westview Press, 1999), 212-45.
2. Edward Bliss Jr., ed., In Search of Light: Broadcasts of Edward R.
Murrow 1938-1961 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967), 362.
3. Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, “Public Opinion and Rationality,” in
Public Opinion and the Communication of Consent, ed. Theodore L. Glasser
and Charles T. Salmon (New York: The Guilford Press, 1995), 33-54;
Michael Schudson, The Power of News (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1995).
4. Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser, The News About the
News: American Journalism in Peril (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002).
5. John E. Craft, Frederic A. Leigh, and Donald G. Godfrey,
Electronic Media (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2001);
HYPE VERSUS SUBSTANCE IN NETWORK TELEVISION COVERAGE
105
106
Doris A. Graber, Mass Media and American Politics, 4th ed. (Washington,
DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1993); Jarol B. Manheim, “Can
Democracy Survive Television?” in Media Power in Politics, ed. Doris A.
Graber (Washington, DC: C Q Press, 1984), 131-37; The Pew Research
Center for the People & the Press, “Despite Uncertain Outcome Campaign
2000 Highly Rated,” online at <http://www.people-press.org/
post00que.htm> 2000; The Pew Research Center for the People and the
Press, “Public’s News Habits Little Changed by September 11,” online
at <http://people-press.org/reports/print/php3?ReportID=156> 9 June
2002.
6. The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, “Despite
Uncertain Outcome Campaign 2000 Highly Rated.”
7. Bob Sirott, “Stick with Veterans,” The Chicago Tribune, 19 December
2004, sec. 2.
8. Steven H. Chaffee, “Studying the New Communication of Politics,”
Political Communication 18 (April 2001): 237-44; Steven H. Chaffee and Sun
Yuel Choe, “Time of Decision and Media Use During the Ford-Carter
Campaign,” Public Opinion Quarterly 44 (spring 1980): 53-69; Paul F.
Lazarsfeld, Bernard R. Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet, The People’s Choice
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1944); Harold Mendelsohn and
Garrett J. O’Keefe, The People Choose a President: Influences on Voter Decision
Making (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1975).
9. The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, “Despite
Uncertain Outcome Campaign 2000 Highly Rated.”
10. The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, “Despite
Uncertain Outcome Campaign 2000 Highly Rated.”
11. Steven H. Chaffee and Rajiv Nath Rimal, “Time of Vote Decision
and Openness to Persuasion,” in Political Persuasion and Attitude Change,
ed. Diana C. Mutz, Paul M. Sniderman, and Richard A. Brody (Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press, 1996), 267-91.
12. The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, “Despite
Uncertain Outcome Campaign 2000 Highly Rated.”
13. American Broadcasting Company, ABC World News Tonight with
Peter Jennings, 30 October 1992.
14. Politics Now, “Poll Track,” online at <http://www.politicsnow.
com/resource/polltrak/data/cldopeda.htm> 1996.
15. The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, “Despite
Uncertain Outcome Campaign 2000 Highly Rated.”
16. Rasmussen Research, “Voter Details, Six Day Sample: Six Days
Worth of Presidential Demographics,” online at <http://www.portraitofamerica.com/poll.cfm?id=1498> 4 November 2000.
17. The Gallup Organization, “National Popular Vote Appears Very
Close as of Sunday,” online at <http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/
pr001105c.asp> 5 November 2000.
18. The Gallup Organization, “Popular Vote in Presidential Race Too
Close to Call,” online at <http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr
001107.asp> 7 November 2000.
19. The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, “Despite
Uncertain Outcome Campaign 2000 Highly Rated.”
JOURNALISM & MASS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY
20. National Broadcasting Company, NBC Nightly News with Tom
Brokaw, 7 November 2000.
21. C. Anthony Broh, “Horse-Race Journalism: Reporting the Polls in
the 1976 Presidential Election,” Public Opinion Quarterly 44 (winter
1980): 515-49; C. Anthony Broh, “Presidential Preference Polls and
Network News,” in Television Coverage of the 1980 Presidential Campaign,
ed. William C. Adams (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation,1983), 29-48; M. Clancey and M. J. Robinson, “General Election
Coverage: Part I,” in The Mass Media in Campaign ‘84: Articles from Public
Opinion Magazine, ed. M. Robinson and A. Ranney (Washington, DC:
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1985), 27-33;
Doris Graber, “Press and TV as Opinion Resources in Presidential
Campaigns,” Public Opinion Quarterly 40 (1976): 285-303; Doris Graber,
Mass Media and American Politics (Washington, DC: Congressional
Quarterly Press, 1980); C. Richard Hofstetter, “Content Analysis,” in
Handbook of Political Communication, ed. Dan D. Nimmo and Keith R.
Sanders (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1981), 529-60; S. Robert
Lichter, Daniel Amundson, and R. Noyes, The Video Campaign: Network
Coverage of the 1988 Primaries (Washington, DC: American Enterprise
Institute and the Center for Media and Public Affairs, 1988); S. Robert
Lichter and Linda S. Lichter, “Campaign ‘96 Final: How TV News
Covered the General Election,” in Media Monitor (Washington, DC:
Center for Media and Public Affairs, November/December 1996),
online at <http://www.proxima.com/cmpa/html/novdec96.html>;
Thomas E. Patterson, “The 1976 Horserace,” The Wilson Quarterly 1
(spring 1977): 73-79; Thomas E. Patterson, The Mass Media Election: How
Americans Choose Their President (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1980);
Thomas E. Patterson and Robert D. McClure, The Unseeing Eye: The Myth
of Television Power in National Politics (New York: Paragon Books, 1976).
22. Patterson and McClure, The Unseeing Eye: The Myth of Television
Power in National Politics, 21-22.
23. Broh, “Horse-Race Journalism: Reporting the Polls in the 1976
Presidential Election,” 515-49; Broh, “Presidential Preference Polls and
Network News,” 29-48; Clancey and Robinson, “General Election
Coverage: Part I,” 27-33; Graber, “Press and TV as Opinion Resources in
Presidential Campaigns,” 285-303; Graber, Mass Media and American
Politics, 1980; C. Richard Hofstetter, Bias in the News (Columbus, OH:
Ohio State University Press, 1976); C. Richard Hofstetter, “News Bias in
the 1972 Campaign: A Cross-Media Comparison,” Journalism
Monographs 58 (1978): 1-30; Lichter and Lichter, “Campaign ‘96 Final:
How TV News Covered the General Election”; Lawrence W. Lichty and
G. A. Bailey, “Reading the Wind: Reflections on Content Analysis of
Broadcast News,” in Television Network News: Issues in Content Research,
ed. William Adams and Fay Schreibman (Washington, DC: School of
Public and International Affairs, George Washington University, 1978),
111-37; Patterson and McClure, The Unseeing Eye: The Myth of Television
Power in National Politics; Robert L. Stevenson, Richard A. Eisinger, Barry
M. Feinberg, and Alan B. Kotok, “Untwisting the News Twisters: a
Replication of Efron’s Study,” Journalism Quarterly 50 (summer 1973):
HYPE VERSUS SUBSTANCE IN NETWORK TELEVISION COVERAGE
107
108
211-19.
24. Broh, “Horse-Race Journalism: Reporting the Polls in the 1976
Presidential Election,” 515-49; Graber, “Press and TV as Opinion
Resources in Presidential Campaigns,” 285-303.
25. Tom Grimes, “Encoding TV News Messages into Memory,”
Journalism Quarterly 67 (winter 1990): 757-66; Tom Grimes, “Mild
Auditory-Visual Dissonance in Television News May Exceed Viewer
Attentional Capacity,” Human Communication Research 18 (December
1991): 268-98.
26. Grimes, “Encoding TV News Messages into Memory”; Grimes,
“Mild Auditory-Visual Dissonance in Television News May Exceed
Viewer Attentional Capacity.”
27. James L. McClelland, Bruce L. McNaughton, and Randall C.
O’Reilly, “Why There are Complementary Learning Systems in the
Hippocampus and Neocortex: Insights from the Successes and Failures of
Connectionist Models of Learning and Memory,” Psychological Review 102
(July 1995): 419-57.
28. Allan Paivo, “Mental Imagery in Associative Learning and
Memory,” Psychological Review 76 (1969): 241-63; Allan Paivo, Mental
Representations: A Dual Coding Approach (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1986).
29. Fergus I. M. Craik and Robert S. Lockhart, “Levels of Processing: A
Framework for Memory Research,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior 11 (December 1972): 671-84; Fergus I. M. Craik and Endel Tulving,
“Depth of Processing and Retention of Words in Episodic Memory,”
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104 (September 1975): 268-94.
30. Michael D. Basil, “Multiple Resource Theory I: Application to
Television Viewing,” Communication Research 21 (April 1994): 177-207.
31. Annie Lang, “Defining Audio/Video Redundancy from a LimitedCapacity Information Processing Perspective,” Communication Research 22
(February 1995): 86-115.
32. Annie Lang, Robert Potter, and Paul Bolls, “Something for Nothing:
Is Visual Encoding Automatic?” Media Psychology 1 (1999): 145-63.
33. Ann N. Crigler, Marion R. Just, and Timothy E. Cook, “Local News,
Network News and the 1992 Presidential Campaign” (paper presented to
the American Political Science Association annual meeting, Chicago, IL,
September 1992); Doris A. Graber, “Kind Pictures and Harsh Words: How
Television Presents the Candidates,” in Elections in America, ed. K. Lehman
Schlozman (Winchester, MA: Allen & Unwin, Inc., 1987), 115-41; Graber,
Mass Media and American Politics, 1993.
34. Graber, “Kind Pictures and Harsh Words: How Television Presents
the Candidates,” 115-41; Graber, Mass Media and American Politics, 1993.
35. Crigler, Just, and Cook, “Local News, Network News and the 1992
Presidential Campaign.”
36. Crigler, Just, and Cook, “Local News, Network News and the 1992
Presidential Campaign”; Graber, Mass Media and American Politics, 1993.
37. Crigler, Just, and Cook, “Local News, Network News and the 1992
Presidential Campaign”; Graber, “Kind Pictures and Harsh Words: How
Television Presents the Candidates,” 115-41; Graber, Mass Media and
JOURNALISM & MASS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY
American Politics, 1993.
38. Hofstetter, Bias in the News; Patterson and McClure, The Unseeing
Eye: The Myth of Television Power in National Politics.
39. Patterson and McClure, The Unseeing Eye: The Myth of Television
Power in National Politics.
40. Daniel Riffe, Stephen Lacy, and Fred Fico, Analyzing Media
Messages: Using Quantitative Content Analysis in Research (Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum, 1998).
41. Stephen Lacy, Daniel Riffe, and Quint Randle, “Sample Size in
Multi-Year Content Analyses of Monthly Consumer Magazines,”
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 75 (summer 1998): 408-417.
HYPE VERSUS SUBSTANCE IN NETWORK TELEVISION COVERAGE
109