This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.
If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line,
send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Feb 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================
The Effect of CNN and Fox News' Post-Debate Coverage on
Viewers' Perceptions of Presidential Candidates
Jennifer Brubaker, Doctoral Candidate
Communication Studies
Kent State University
5147 Turney Road
Garfield Heights, OH 44125
216.570.6701
[log in to unmask]
Gary Hanson, Assistant Professor
School of Journalism and Mass Communication
Kent State University
Kent, OH 44242
330.672.8300
[log in to unmask]
Abstract
Television news coverage following a presidential debate is often
framed as a contest between winners and losers. The use of this
frame helps viewers form their assessments of the candidates'
performances. This study examines the effect of post-debate news
analysis on the perceived outcome of the debates and on the
perceptions of the personal qualities of the candidates. The study
found that the perceptions of Fox News Channel viewers changed after
watching the network's post-debate analysis.
Introduction
Over the past decades, cable news has changed the media landscape.
The most significant change comes in the political polarization of
media outlets. Since 2000, the number of Americans who regularly
watch Fox News has increased from 17% to 25%, whereas audiences for
other cable outlets have remained flat or declined (Pew, 2004). CNN,
the 24-year veteran and prototype of the all-news cable channel, has
fallen to a distant second (Johnson, 2004). Fox News has moved into
the dominant ratings position with a program lineup judged by many to
have a conservative slant.
Although Fox says that its mottos of being "fair and balanced" and
"we report, you decide" are the reasons for its success, others
suggest that it is the networks' overall right-leaning slant that has
made it number one (Johnson, 2004). Fox disagrees. A spokeswoman for
Fox News stated, "Saying that Fox News is beating the networks only
because Republicans are watching is like saying 'The Sopranos' beats
the networks only because Italians are watching" (Carter, 2004).
However, a Pew Research Center (2004) study found that 35% of people
who identify themselves as Republicans regularly watch Fox news, and
28% of those who identify themselves as Democrats watch CNN regularly.
The political polarization of audiences is forcing media outlets to
become polarized as well. News media are increasingly catering to
their partisan base, making their news more selective and slanted
(Samuelson, 2004). Media are traditionally accused of having a
liberal bias, yet Fox News may be changing that. To some, Fox's
popularity may be due to the fact that conservative programming
represents a welcomed backlash against that traditional liberal bias
of network and mainstream media (Samuelson, 2004). Hamilton (2004)
suggested that media bias is merely product differentiation. He
explained that it's economic forces that shape the judgments of news outlets.
Partisan or objective, the media play a powerful role during
political campaigns, such as the recent 2004 presidential race. One
aspect of media coverage, the analysis of presidential debates, has
garnered much scholarly attention (e.g., Morello, 1991; Tsfati, 2003;
Weaver & Drew, 2001). Researchers have found that the consumption of
debate-related news coverage is associated with perceptions of the
winner of the debate (Tsfati, 2003). Unfortunately, the media's
search for a winner has become the most important issue and damages
the potential value that televised debates could offer the audience
(Morello, 1991). With the media's increasing political polarization,
research must address the effect that partisan news outlets will have
on audiences' perceptions of debates.
In this paper, we look at the effects of viewing CNN and Fox News'
post-debate analysis on viewers' perceptions of the candidates and
the debate. First, we provide a theoretical base for our research by
reviewing framing theory, or second-level agenda setting. Second, we
discuss the evolution of debates in a presidential campaign, the
effects of debates on viewers, and the role of the media through
their post-debate coverage. Specifically, we address the impact of
CNN's and Fox News' post-debate analysis on viewers' perceptions of
two items: success in the debate and the personal characteristics of
George W. Bush and John Kerry. From the literature, we pose three
research questions.
Theoretical Base
Framing
Cohen (1963) stated that the mass media "may not be successful much
of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly
successful in telling its readers what to think about" (p.13). The
theory of agenda setting is based on the idea that the media set the
public agenda through the amount of coverage devoted to particular
issues and events (McCombs & Shaw, 1972). As media coverage
increases, an issue's salience to the audience increases, and the
item moves higher in the public's agenda hierarchy. Those issues that
receive prominent attention are the problems that the public views as
the nation's most important (Breen, 1997). By choosing which issues
and events to cover, the media shape their audience's reality.
Readers and viewers learn both about issues, and about how much
importance to attach to these issues, based on the information
provided (McCombs & Shaw, 1972).
Framing, or second-level agenda setting, has evolved from Cohen's
(1963) statement that the news tells people what to think about.
Instead, framing suggests that the news also tells people how to
think about it. Framing suggests that it is not only the quantity of
information about a topic that makes it important in the public's
agenda, but it is how the topic is presented that changes public
opinion (Jasperson, Shah, Watts, Faber, & Fan, 1998). The media act
as framers of the news and exert an immense amount of control over
how the public views issues and events (Breen, 1997). Media attention
that is focused on certain features will affect both the public's
understanding of an issue as well as the importance the public
assigns to it. The framing of issues influences the way people
distinguish an event or problem and, therefore, the media possess the
ability to alter the public's final evaluation of the situation
(Jasperson et al., 1998). The approach the media take to discuss an
issue affects public opinion.
The media's power lies in their ability to provide information that
activates existing schema, thereby shaping individual frames and the
interpretation of reality (Tewksbury, et al., 2000). To frame is to
"select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more
salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a
particular problem, definition, causal interpretation, moral
evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described"
(Tewksbury et al., 2000, pp. 804-805). Media actively set the
public's frames of reference with their presentation of issues and events.
The public relies heavily on this media-constructed version of
reality for political information and events. An interdependent
relationship exists between the media and politicians. These players
often compete for message control, creating three possible outcomes
in which the final presentation of news is: (a) dominated by the spin
of one group's message, (b) a mixture of all views with the media
acting as the final authority, or (c) a message that disregards the
other groups' input and presents a media-constructed version of the
issue (Callaghan & Schnell, 2001). The outcome most commonly
presented is evidence of which group directs the public agenda. The
media often serve a dual role. They act as the constructors of
reality, promoting frames of their own, and as channels for the
distribution of other groups' frames (Callaghan & Schnell, 2001).
The way the media present a news story influences the way the public
interprets that story and the corresponding issues or events. The
media are largely responsible for transmitting to the public a sense
of current situations and an impression of how various institutions
are performing (Cappella & Jamieson, 1996). The presentation of a
news item in a positive, confident frame portrays a vastly different
scenario to the audience than the same news item presented in a
negative, conflict frame. For example, if a candidate's performance
is described in positive terms such as confident or successful, the
viewers are likely to see the candidate the same way. Similarly, if
a candidate's performance is described in negative terms, the
audience is likely to see it that way, too. The scenario presented
affects public opinion, and the effects of framing can be influential
on the public's perceptions.
Summary
In the previous section we addressed framing, the theoretical basis
for our study. In the next section we review existing political
debate literature, including the history of debates, the influence of
television, media coverage, and the effects of debates on viewers.
History of Political Debates
In the 1858 Illinois Senate race, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas
took part in the first significant political debates. Nearly one
hundred years later, the 1948 Republican primary campaign saw the
first broadcast debate between two major presidential candidates with
Governor Harold Stassen of Minnesota and Governor Thomas Dewey of New
York seeking the nomination to challenge President Harry S Truman.
The debate was broadcast nationally on all four major radio networks.
The next momentous occasion in the history of debates was the "great
debate" of the 1960 presidential campaign between Senator John F.
Kennedy and Vice-President Richard M. Nixon. This series of debates
began the tradition of televised presidential debates during the
general campaign (there were earlier primary debates) (Benoit &
Brazeal, 2002). The general election debate has now become a common
rite of passage for presidential hopefuls. The Kennedy-Nixon debates
set the stage for political debating, as we currently know it, in the
media age (Trent & Friedenberg, 1991). It was 16 years before the
public watched the next presidential debates in their homes. Since
the debates resumed in 1976, however, televised debates have become a
typical component of presidential campaigns (Benoit & Currie, 2001).
Televised Debates
Since the first televised debates, debate has followed a hybrid
format that borrows from the press conference, the interview, and the
formal debate (Matera & Salwen, 1996). Modern political debates are
tremendously different from the first traditional debates early in
our nation's history. Political debates have become a form of
entertainment; they are more joint speeches or joint press
conferences than formal debate. Some scholars believe that this
"inadequacy of presidential debates" is due to "the gods of
television" (Hart & Jarvis, 1997, p. 1096). Hart and Jarvis concluded
that the "staging, camera treatment, choice of interrogators, and
debate formats demanded by television
make real dialogue all but
impossible" (p. 1096).
However, the televised debate is popular among voters. The first
presidential debate of the 2004 election between President George W.
Bush and Senator John Kerry attracted 62.5 million viewers; the third
and final debate drew an audience of over 51 million (Glassman, 2004;
"Ratings high," 2004). The large audiences of general election
debates often include many individuals who seek out little other
political information during the course of a presidential campaign
(Jamieson & Birdsell, 1988). The large size of these audiences gives
debates a huge potential for influence.
Media Coverage of Debates
Not only has the debate format been affected by media involvement,
but the large television audiences have been, and continue to be,
shown the debates through the eyes of the media. The media offer the
American public an education in campaign tactics, but tell them
little about the issues that actually affect them as citizens (Weaver
& Drew, 2001). Paletz (2002) explained that journalists frame
expectations of the candidates' performances prior to the debate
based on information provided by the candidates' representatives. The
post-debate coverage becomes judgments based on those pre-debate
expectations, as well as dramatic moments, candidates' gaffes (e.g.,
Ford's misstatement in the 1976 Ford-Carter debate that Eastern
Europeans were not under Soviet domination), and memorable lines
(e.g., Reagan's 1984 quip that he would not hold his opponent's youth
and inexperience against him) (Paletz, 2002).
The media's interpretation of the event is influential even for those
who have seen the debates. Many voters need the mass media's
interpretation to make them fully meaningful (Morello, 1991). In
addition, the voters who don't watch the debates receive their
information about them largely from the media (Benoit & Currie,
2001). Research has suggested that this type of media coverage does
not give voters an accurate portrayal of the debates (Trent &
Friedenberg, 1991).
Although the political candidates debate for 90 minutes about issues,
the post-debate media coverage is rarely about these issues. Instead,
it is about who won the debate. According to Kendall (1997), media
interpretations of a debate follow a standard pattern: they devote
little time to the issues and actual content of the debate and much
time to the candidate personalities, the process that led them to the
debate, preparation for the debate, and then they spin the stories
about the potential effects of the debate.
Gordon (1992) argued that debates do more harm than good by diverting
attention from the issues. The search for a winner has become the
most important issue and damages the potential value that televised
debates could offer the voters and the election process (Morello,
1991). This preoccupation diverts attention from the substance
available in public debates (Winkler & Black, 1993). Learning about
the issues is not a major outcome of debate and post-debate analysis
exposure; however, debate viewers do discover how well candidates
perform during a debate and are able to form ideas of the candidates'
images (Elliott & Sothirajah, 1993). Rather than guiding a decision
to vote for which candidate would best govern our country, voters
learn which candidate is the best debater. Debates have been reduced
to a horse race with the "stylistic features of a game show"
(Jamieson & Birdsell, 1988, p. 171).
The media and the public have become so conditioned to thinking about
the debate in terms of technique and winning or losing that the focus
has been shifted from their words to avoid missing some key element
of body language (Gordon, 1992). For example, in the Bush-Clinton
debates of 1992, an analyst noticed President George H. W. Bush
looking at his watch. Rather than discussing education, health care,
or the economy, post-debate analysis discussed what it meant that the
President of the United States looked at his watch during the debate
(Gordon, 1992).
Effects of Debates
Although obstacles exist to making generalizations about overall
debate effects, much research has been conducted to determine
possible effects. Televised debates help voters learn about general
policy, campaign, and candidate information (Lemert, 1993). Chaffee,
Zhao, and Leshner (1994) found that watching presidential debates was
associated with higher levels of learning about party issue positions
and candidate's personal information. Debates have been found to be
exceptionally helpful to undecided voters who are most interested in
the specific issues (Weaver & Drew, 1995).
Jamieson and Birdsell (1988) concluded that debates have a
surprisingly wide educational impact. Viewers are able to discuss
both the candidates and their stands on issues because of debates
(Jamieson & Birdsell, 1988). Benoit, Hansen and Verser (2003)
determined through meta-analysis that debates increase issue
knowledge and issue salience as well as change audience preference
for candidates' issue stands. However, Lemert (1993) argued that
although learning does take place during a debate, other campaign
communication may have had the same effect had there been no debate.
In addition, debates can have an agenda setting effect (Benoit et
al., 2003). Debates help to set the voters' agendas and to increase
their confidence in the democratic process (Trent & Friedenberg,
1991). McLeod and colleagues suggested that debates may bring about
"bonding, a stronger connection between issues, images, party, and
other factors because of face-to-face confrontations among
candidates" (McLeod et al., 1996, p. 403).
Summary
In the previous section we reviewed existing research on the effects
of debates and the role of the media through post-debate coverage.
Here we examine the effects of CNN and Fox's post-debate analysis on
viewers' perceptions. Although this study is largely exploratory, we
ask three research questions based on the literature.
Research Questions
The "spinning" of candidates' debate performance begins before the
debate even ends; the candidates' spokespeople are anxious to list
for the media all of the reasons why their candidate did a better job
than the opponent (Paletz, 2002). Lemert, Rosenberg, Bernstein,
Nestvold, and Elliot (1991) reported that post-debate media coverage
is "the strongest debate-related influence on performance
impressions" (p. 256). Therefore, the first research question
addresses the influence of CNN and Fox analysis on perceptions of
both candidates' debate performance.
RQ1: Did the CNN and Fox news analysis change viewers' perceptions of who
won the debate?
Benoit et al.'s (2003) meta-analysis reported that debates have
varying effects on audience perceptions of candidates' personal
characteristics. The researchers found that whereas debates alter
audience perceptions of candidates' personality, they do not
significantly influence perceptions of the candidates' competence or
leadership ability. Post-debate media analysis, however, focuses on
highlights and low points of the debate in relation to the candidates
themselves. Thus the second research question addresses the effect of
the post-debate analysis on viewers' perceptions of candidates'
personal characteristics.
RQ2: Did the CNN and Fox news analysis of the debate change viewers'
perceptions of
the personal qualities of the candidates?
Paletz (2002) explained that because debate audiences vary in their
predispositions, partisanship, and perspectives, it is uncommon to
have definitive debate victories where voters shift from one side to
the other. However, although winning usually means reinforcement of
supporters and wavering partisans, it is common for a candidate to
win over the undecided or uncertain viewers by reassuring them of
their abilities. Trent and Friedenberg (1991) concluded that debates
serve mostly to reinforce audiences' own positions regarding a
candidate; a very limited number of voters are actually shifted by
the debates. Lemert (1993) agreed that the debates do not inform any
new people and only further inform those in the know. Therefore, the
third research question addresses the relationship between
partisanship and changes in viewer perceptions.
RQ3: How was partisanship related to any change in perception?
Summary
In the previous section we posed three research questions, based on
the literature, about the effects of CNN and Fox News post-debate
analysis on viewers' perceptions. In the next section we describe a
study to test these questions.
Methodology
This study looks at how viewers of three cable news networks - CNN,
Fox News and C-SPAN - perceived the winner of the third presidential
debate between President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry and if
those perceptions as well as perceptions of the personal qualities of
the candidates changed after watching the post-debate news analysis.
The networks were chosen to represent an ideological spectrum. In
the current conventional wisdom, CNN tends to appeal to political
liberals; Fox News tends to appeal to conservatives. C-SPAN is
considered to be relatively neutral. The research was conducted on
October 13, 2004 during the live television coverage of the
debate. The subjects were students in introductory courses at a
large midwestern Carnegie II research university.
Subjects were divided randomly into three groups one for each
network. Each group answered three sets of questions a pre-test
survey prior to the debate, a post-debate survey immediately
following the debate and a post-analysis survey following the news
analysis. The administration of the post-analysis questionnaire
differed among the groups. Viewers of CNN and Fox News watched the
analysis provided by the network's anchors and
correspondents. Viewers of C-SPAN analyzed the debate themselves
with a discussion led by two faculty moderators.
The survey used Tivo Digital Video Recorders to halt temporarily the
coverage on CNN and Fox News in order to give respondents time to
complete the post-debate survey. (Digital Video Recorders, or DVRs,
recorded the incoming TV signal on a computer disk drive. This
technology made it possible to pause the live broadcast and then
resume playing it without losing any content. A digital video
recorder was not needed for the C-SPAN group since those viewers
conducted their own analysis.)
The research was conducted in five university classrooms under
supervision by the researchers. Each classroom had its own
television receiver and digital video recorder.
The surveys contained three major categories of questions: 1)
measures to determine the viewers' assessments of the candidates'
personal qualities, 2) measures to determine the viewers' attitudes
about the network they were watching and 3) measures to determine the
viewers' assessment of who won or lost the debate. The pre-test
questionnaire also included demographic questions. The measures to
examine the candidates' personal qualities included McCroskey and
Teven's (1999) measure of ethos and credibility (i.e., competence,
trustworthiness, and goodwill), the social attraction component of
McCroskey and McCain's (1974) interpersonal attraction scale, and
McCroskey's (1966) measure of source credibility.
McCroskey and Teven's (1999) measure of ethos and credibility
includes six items in each of three categories: competence,
trustworthiness, and goodwill. The measure was found to be reliable
in previous research. The alpha reliabilities were: Competence, .85;
Trustworthiness, .92; and Goodwill, .92. McCroskey and Teven found
the alpha reliability to be .94, when scored as a single measure.
The social attraction component of McCroskey and McCain's (1974)
interpersonal attraction scale asks participants to indicate how
strongly they agree or disagree with five statements such as, "I
think he could be a friend of mine" using a 7-point
scale. Researchers have found the social attraction component to be
reliable. McCroskey and McCain found a Cronbach alpha of .84, and
McCroskey, Richmond, Daly, and Cox (1975) reported split-half
reliability of .90 (see Rubin, Palmgreen, & Sypher, 1994). The social
attraction component also has been found to be valid in previous
research. For example, social attraction is positively related to
interpersonal competence (e.g., Johnson, 1992).
McCroskey's (1966) source credibility scale uses a 12-item semantic
differential measure that includes terms related to authoritativeness
(e.g., reliable/unreliable) and character (e.g., virtuous/sinful).
The measure has been found to be reliable in previous research.
McCroskey reported split-half reliabilities ranging from .94 to .98
for Authoritativeness, and .93 to .98 for Character (see Rubin et al., 1994).
The researchers for this study developed a Presidential Qualities
scale. The mean Presidential score for each candidate is derived from
three semantic-differential phrases measured on a 7-point scale with
the lower end of the scale representing the more negative
attribute. The paired phrases are: presidential/unpresidential,
composed/uncomposed and distinguished/undistinguished. (The
researchers of this study found a Cronbach alpha of .78.)
All components were measured using bipolar adjectives in seven-point
formats with 1 representing the most negative characteristics of each
measure (e.g., dishonest) and 7 representing the most positive
characteristic (e.g., honest.). Attitudes about the individual cable
news channels were measured with a semantic differential scale used
by Hanson and Wearden (2004) to evaluate media credibility in TV news
accuracy research. A copy of the post-test questionnaire is
included in Appendix A.
The data were analyzed using SPSS for Windows. Statistics tests
included frequency counts, t-tests, Chi-Square, and one-way analysis
of variance.
Results
The Sample
Two-hundred and forty-six people participated in the
study. Sixty-three percent of the students were female; 95% were
between 18 and 24 years old. Politically, 48% of the subjects said
they were Democrats, 28% Republican and 14% independent. (The
remainder indicated no political preference.) Fifty-three percent of
the subjects said they intended to vote for Kerry, 30% for Bush, 2%
for Ralph Nader. (The remainder was undecided or expressed no
preference.) Nearly two-thirds said they had watched the first
presidential debate. That number dropped to 44% for the second
debate and 43% for the debate between the vice-presidential
candidates. Two-thirds of the subjects indicated having a "high
interest" in the campaign. Eighty-three percent indicated a
likelihood of voting in the presidential election.
Research Questions
RQ1: Did the CNN and Fox news analysis change viewers' perceptions of who
won the debate?
The researchers used two measures to examine this question, each with
a different degree of precision. The first simply asked who won the
debate Bush, Kerry or a tie. The second used a 7-point scale to
measure the perceived strength of the winning candidate's performance
ranging from "strongly in favor of Kerry" to "strongly in favor of
Bush." Subjects were asked the questions twice once at the end of
the live television coverage of the debate and again after watching
30 minutes of the post-debate news analysis.
After watching the debate, the subjects' perceptions of the outcome
were largely the same across all the viewing
groups. Fifty-nine-point-five percent of CNN viewers and 55.3% of
Fox News viewers thought that John Kerry won the debate, and 24.1% of
CNN viewers and 23.5% of Fox News viewers thought that George W. Bush
had won. Following the post-debate analysis, viewers of CNN shifted
approximately 4 percentage points toward John Kerry, although the
shift was not significant. However, Fox News viewers shifted
dramatically in the direction of George W. Bush. Immediately after
the debate, 59.5% of Fox viewers thought Kerry had won compared to
23.5% for Bush. After the post-debate analysis, 41.1% of the Fox
viewers thought Bush had won compared to 38.4% for Kerry an
approximate 17 percentage point shift, and a statistically
significant change. (?2 df=2, n=158 = 6.210 p< .05). The C-SPAN
viewers didn't change their minds on John Kerry's performance (62.5%
after the debate; 61.8% after the analysis). George W. Bush picked
up approximately 10 percentage points (10.0% after the debate; 20.6%
after the analysis). Those who thought the debate ended in a tie
decreased by 10 percentage points. The shift was not significant,
however, given the relatively small number of subjects in the C-SPAN
group. The results of the three viewing groups are listed in Tables
1, 2 and 3.
Table 1
Comparison of CNN viewers' assessments of the debate winner from
post-debate to post analysis
Percentage Reponses
Post Debate
Post Analysis
George W. Bush
24.1%
20.3%
John Kerry
59.5%
62.2%
Tie
16.5%
17.6%
Notes: n=88 for post-debate survey; n=86 for post-analysis survey.
Subjects were asked who won the debate.
Table 2
Comparison of Fox News viewers' assessments of the debate winner from
post-debate to post analysis
Percentage Reponses
Post Debate
Post Analysis
George W. Bush
23.5%*
41.1%*
John Kerry
55.3%
38.4.%
Tie
21.2%*
20.5%*
Notes: n=95 for post-debate survey; n=92 for post-analysis survey.
Subjects were asked who won the debate. *significant difference (?2
df=2, n=158 = 6.210 p< .05).
Table 3
Comparison of C-SPAN News viewers' assessments of the debate winner from
post-debate to post analysis
Percentage Reponses
Post Debate
Post Analysis
George W. Bush
10.0%
20.6%
John Kerry
62.5%
61.8%
Tie
27.5%
17.6%
Notes: n=41 for post-debate survey; n=38 for post-analysis survey.
Subjects were asked who won the debate.
The shift in perceptions of Fox News viewers is apparent as well in
the second measure related to this research question. In this
question, subjects were asked to rate "
in whose favor they saw the
debate" using a 7-point scale, with the lower end of the scale
favoring Kerry and the higher end of the scale favoring Bush. The
mean responses show that CNN and C-SPAN viewers changed their
opinions very little from the post-debate surveys (M=3.22, SD=1.860
for CNN; M=3.05, SD=1.930 for C-SPAN ) to the post-analysis surveys
(M=3.21, SD=1.814 for CNN; M=3.17, SD=1.841 for C-SPAN
). Immediately after the debate, the Fox News viewers tended to view
the winner (M=3.30, SD=1.911) much the same as those watching CNN and
C-SPAN. But, after viewing the post-debate analysis, the mean
response of Fox News viewers increased in favor of President Bush
(M=3.99, SD=2.000). The change in the perceptions is statistically
significant t(163) = -2.24, p< .05. A comparison of the mean
responses from the post-debate to the post-analysis surveys across
all viewing groups is presented in Table 4.
Table 4
Comparison of all viewers' assessments of the strength of the winning
candidate's performance.
Mean Responses
Post Debate
Post Analysis
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
CNN
3.22
1.860
3.21
1.1814
Fox News
3.30*
1.911
3.99*
2.000
C-SPAN
3.05
1.930
3.17
1.841
Notes: n=83 for the CNN post-debate group; n=77 for the CNN
post-analysis group; n=83 for the Fox News post-debate group; n=79
for the Fox News post-analysis group; n= 39 for the C-SPAN
post-debate group; n=35 for the C-SPAN post-analysis group. Sources
rated each statement on a 7-point scale from 1 (strongly in favor of
Kerry) to 7 (strongly in favor of Bush). *Means are significantly
different (2-tailed p< .05).
RQ2: Did the CNN and Fox news analysis of the debate change viewers'
perceptions of
the personal qualities of the candidates?
Viewers may have been susceptible to the post debate analysis when it
comes to changing their opinions about who won or lost the debate.
But the subjects' overall impressions of the personal qualities of
the two candidates remained mostly unchanged across the pre-test and
the two post-test questionnaires. The study used the four composite
measures of personal characteristics discussed in the previous
section: social attraction, source credibility, goodwill and
presidential qualities.
There is some slight movement from pre-test to post-test in each of
the categories for all subjects, but none was determined to be
significant. The Fox News viewers tended to move slightly in favor of
President Bush and away from Senator Kerry. Again, the movement was
not considered to be significant. The results of the personal
qualities measures from all subjects are listed in Table 5. The
results of the Fox News viewers are listed in Table 6.
Table 5
All subjects' assessments of the candidates' personal qualities
Mean Responses
Pre-test
Post-debate
Post-analysis
Social Attractiveness
Kerry
4.953
4.982
4.938
Bush
5.001
5.087
5.027
Source Credibility
Kerry
5.059
5.257
5.174
Bush
4.964
5.019
4.976
Goodwill
Kerry
5.049
5.180
5.097
Bush
4.779
4.829
4.831
Presidential Qualities
Kerry
5.438
5.763
5.586
Bush
5.438
5.454
5.394
Notes: n=172 subjects that completed all three surveys with usable responses.
Sources rated each statement on a 7-point scale from 1 (the most
negative attribute) to 7 (the most positive attribute).
Table 6
Fox News viewers' assessments of the candidates' personal qualities
Mean Responses
Pre-test
Post-debate
Post-analysis
Social Attractiveness
Kerry
4.895
4.920
4.856
Bush
5.036
5.138
5.233
Source Credibility
Kerry
4.059
5.225
5.000
Bush
4.986
5.082
5.178
Goodwill
Kerry
5.035
5.129
4.919
Bush
4.819
4.817
5.019
Presidential Qualities
Kerry
5.515
5.606
5.438
Bush
5.485
5.406
5.430
Notes: n=52 Fox News viewers
Sources rated each statement on a 7-point scale from 1 (the most
negative attribute) to 7 (the most positive attribute).
RQ3: How was partisanship related to any change in perception?
The degree of political partisanship appears to be a factor in how
easily viewers' opinions of who won or lost the debate can be
swayed. As reported earlier, Fox News viewers in the survey moved
significantly toward President Bush as having done better in the
debate after watching the Fox News coverage. Most of that movement
appeared to come from those viewers who regarded themselves as
political moderates. Those Fox News viewers identifying themselves
as strong Democrats moved slightly in the direction of President Bush
from the post-debate survey (M=2.23 SD=1.431) to the post analysis
survey (M=2.59 SD=1.736) , as did those who identified themselves as
strong Republicans (M=5.47 SD=1.922) and (M=5.67 SD=2.015)
respectively. The shift among moderate Democrats and Republicans
moved more strongly toward President Bush from the post-debate survey
(M=3.32 SD=1.695) to the post-analysis survey (M=4.22 SD=1.757
t(89.4) = -2.57, p=.014). The responses to this question are listed
in Table 7.
Table 7
Comparison of Fox News viewers' assessments of the strength of the winning
candidate's performances by degree of political affiliation.
Mean Responses
Post Debate
Post Analysis
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
All Fox Viewers
3.30*
1.860
3.99*
1.818
Strong Democrats
2.23
1.431
2.59
1.736
Moderate Democrats and Republicans
3.32*
1.695
4.22*
1.757
Strong Republicans
5.47
1.922
5.67
2.015
Notes: n=95 for the post-debate survey; n= 92 for the post-analysis survey.
Sources rated each statement on a 7-point scale from 1 (strongly in
favor of Kerry) to 7 (strongly in favor of Bush). Sources
indicated their degree of political affiliation on a 7-point scale
from Strongly Republican to Strongly Democrat. The scale was
collapsed to three levels: 1 and 2 to Strong Republicans; 3, 4 and 5
to Moderate Democrats and Republicans; 6 and 7 to Strong
Democrats. *Means are significantly different (2-tailed p< .05).
Discussion
Given the fact that a significant number of Fox News viewers changed
their minds after watching the post-debate analysis, it becomes
important to look at what was said during that portion of the TV
coverage. The researchers conducted a preliminary examination of
the CNN and Fox News post-debate analyses. Each network's coverage
featured a panel of political commentators and reports from
correspondents who were covering the candidates' campaigns. Both
networks interviewed partisan representatives from the Bush and Kerry camps.
In its coverage, CNN stressed the closeness of the debate, although
the analysts ultimately called it in favor of John Kerry. The CNN
reporters used phrases like "wonk-fest" to describe the candidates'
performances. CNN's coverage included on-camera interviews with
voters at a focus group in Ohio in which 11 people thought Kerry had
won, 7 people thought Bush was the winner, and 8 people were still
undecided. The coverage also included a "Fact Check" section that
measured statements from both Bush and Kerry for inaccuracies. No
one issue dominated the CNN coverage. Kerry's aides were portrayed
as being "happy" with the debate's outcome.
The Fox News coverage was almost universal in its opinion that George
W. Bush won the debate. The only dissenting view was from Kerry's
campaign manager. One analyst said he thought that the President had
"knocked Kerry out." Another kept a score card of the twenty
questions asked during the debate and suggested that Kerry had not
won a single question outright. The consensus of the Fox News
analysts was that the President performed better than expected and
posted the strongest performance of his three debates. Senator
Kerry's reference during the debate to the lesbian sexual orientation
of Mary Cheney, the daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, was
mentioned several times by Fox News reporters as being a low-blow, as
being gratuitous and as being an example of dirty politics. An
off-camera Republican-sponsored focus group was reported to be upset
with the Cheney remark as well. (CNN's coverage did not mention the
Cheney controversy.) The President was credited with showcasing John
Kerry's liberal voting record, and the coverage reiterated Republican
changes that Kerry was the most liberal member of the U.S.
Senate. The Fox News coverage did report that the Kerry campaign
was pleased with the outcome of the debate, but most of its
post-debate analysis focused on the perceived strong performance by
President Bush.
The participants viewed the cable news networks themselves
differently. CNN and Fox News Channel viewers were asked to rate 15
semantic-differential paired statements using a 7-point scale where 1
represented the most negative attribute. The mean of the fifteen
individual measures was calculated to provide master score for media
credibility. CNN viewers rated the CNN network (M=4.985 SD=1.218)
more positively than the Fox News viewers rated Fox News (M=3.206
SD=1.387). The difference between the two is significant t(156.7) =
8.563, p=.00).
Results from this research on the effects of post-debate analysis are
consistent with past debate research. Previous research indicated
that post-debate media coverage is the strongest debate-related
influence on performance impressions. This research indicates that
Fox News played an important role in framing the final 2004
presidential debate for their viewers. Specifically, the analysis
played a role in framing the winner.
Election news, especially debate coverage, is often framed around
winning, losing, and strategizing. This type of strategic framework
is referred to as the "game frame" or "horse race" style of coverage.
By framing the debate with a strategic frame, as Fox News did, the
issues get lost behind the emphasis on the candidates' performances.
Specifically, coverage became focused on who won. Unfortunately for
viewers, when debates are reduced to a game, the actual substance and
issues are relegated to the sidelines. Use of the strategic frame
provides the public a one-sided view that would be better used to
highlight issue information.
Framing the debate as a horse race, with President Bush as the
winner, apparently encouraged the Fox news viewers to change their
minds in favor of Bush. In addition, the overemphasis on the
candidates' performances and on the horse race left less time not
only for issue coverage, but also for image coverage. The post-debate
analysis spin didn't focus on the candidates' personal qualities. The
results presented in this study are somewhat consistent with previous
debate research findings. Previous research indicated that debates do
not significantly influence perceptions of the candidates' competence
or leadership ability. Similarly, viewers' assessments of the
candidates' personal qualities related to their competence or
leadership ability (i.e., ethos and credibility) remained unchanged
after the post-debate analysis. However, although previous research
suggests that debates alter perceptions of candidates' personalities,
the post-debate analysis did not affect viewers' feelings toward the
candidates (i.e., social attraction).
Similarly, debate research indicates that it is uncommon to have
definitive debate victories where voters shift from one side to the
other. Although debates usually serve as reinforcement for supporters
and wavering partisans, they often are used to win over the undecided
or uncertain viewers. Post-debate analysis had the same effect. Most
of the movement between favoring Bush or Kerry appeared to come from
those viewers who regarded themselves as political moderates.
In today's media environment of political polarization, research
addressing the effects of
post-debate analysis is important. News media are increasingly
catering to their partisan base, making their news more selective and
slanted. This particularly becomes a factor in election coverage.
With 25% of the audience, Fox News is a dominant factor in the cable
news universe in a way that it wasn't in the 2000 campaign. Its
conservative philosophy appears to have an impact in the short-term
assessment of the winner of the debate. Future research must continue
to address the effects of political polarization on viewers'
impressions. Future expansion of this study could include a detailed
content analysis of the post-debate coverage to determine what the
networks exactly said when discussing the candidates' performances.
Although the total effects of televised political debates remain
unclear, it is quite evident that this rite of passage of
presidential hopefuls will continue. Viewers may look at debates as a
form of entertainment, but at least they're looking at them to the
tune of approximately 60 million viewers. This large audience
provides a wonderful opportunity for candidates to present themselves
and their positions, but the post-debate emphasis on the game or
horse-race aspects leaves both viewing voters and non-viewing voters
without an adequate portrayal of the event and causes them to focus
on single moments that may be irrelevant.
References
Benoit, W. L. & Brazeal, L. M. (2002). A functional analysis of the
1988 Bush-Dukakis
presidential debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38, 219-233.
Benoit, W. L. & Currie, H. (2001). Inaccuracies in media coverage of
the 1996 and 2000
presidential debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38, 28-39.
Benoit, W. L., Hansen, G. J., & Verser, R. M. (2003). A meta-analysis
of the effects of viewing
U. S. Presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 70, 335-350.
Breen, M. J. (1997). A cook, a cardinal, his priests, and the press:
Deviance as a trigger for
intermedia agenda setting. Journalism and Mass Communication
Quarterly, 74, 348-
356.
Callaghan, K., & Schnell, F. (2001). Assessing the democratic debate:
How the news media
frame elite policy discourse. Political Communication, 18, 183-212.
Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1996). News frames, political
cynicism, and media cynicism.
Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546, 71-84.
Carter, B. (2004, September 2). The Republicans: The convention in
New York. New York
Times. Retrieved March 25, 2005, from LexisNexis Academic.
Chaffee, S. H., Zhao, X., & Leshner, G. (1994). Political knowledge
and the campaign media of
1992. Communication Research, 21, 305-324.
Cohen, B. C. (1963). The press and foreign policy. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Elliott, W. R. & Sothirajah, J. (1993). Post-debate analysis and
media reliance: Influences on
candidate image and voting probabilities. Journalism and Mass Communication
Quarterly, 70, 321-335.
Glassman, M. (2004). Most wanted: Drilling down presidential
debates. The New York Times.
Retrieved November 6, 2004, from http://www.nytimes.com
Gordon, C. (1992). The next step: Kill political debates. Macleans, 106, 31.
Hamilton, J. T. (2004). All the news that's fit to sell. New Jersey: Princeton.
Hanson G. & Wearden, S. (2005) Measuring Newscast Accuracy: Applying
a newspaper model to television. Journalism and Mass Communication
Quarterly. 81(3) 546-558.
Hart, R. P. & Jarvis, S. E. (1997). Political debate: Forms, styles,
and media. American
Behavioral Scientist, 40, 1095-1122.
Jamieson, K. H. & Birdsell, D. S. (1988). Presidential Debates: The
Challenge of Creating an
Informed Electorate. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jasperson, A. E., Shah, D. V., Watts, M., Faber, R. J., & Fan, D. P.
(1998). Framing and the
public agenda: Media effects on the importance of the federal budget
deficit. Political
Communication, 15, 205-224.
Johnson, G. M. (1992). Subordinate perceptions of superior's
communication competence and
task attraction related to superior's use of compliance-gaining
tactics. Western Journal of
Communication, 56, 54-67.
Johnson, P. (2004, November 22). Will Fox News' success force
competitors to take sides? USA
Today. Retrieved March 25, 2005, from Academic Search Premier.
Kendall, K. E. (1997). Presidential debates through media eyes.
American Behavioral Scientist,
40, 1193-1207.
Lemert, J. B. (1993). Do televised presidential debates help inform
voters? Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 37, 83-94.
Lemert, J. B., Rosenberg, W. L., Bernsteain, J. M., Nestvold, K. J.,
& Elliot, W. R. (1991). News
verdicts, the debates, and presidential campaigns. New York: Praeger.
Matera, F. R. & Salwen, M. B. (1996). Unwieldy questions? Circuitous
answers? Journalists as
panelists in presidential election debates. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media,
40, 309-417.
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of
mass media. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-185.
McCroskey, J. C. (1966). Scales for the measurement of ethos. Speech
Monographs, 33, 65-72.
McCroskey, J. C., & McCain, T. A. (1974). The measure of
interpersonal attraction. Speech
Monographs, 41, 261-266.
McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., Daly, J. A., & Cox, B. G. (1975).
The effects of
communication apprehension on interpersonal attraction. Human Communication
Research, 2, 51-65.
McCroskey, J.C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of
the construct and its
measurement. Communication Monographs, 66, 90-103.
McLeod, J. M., Guo, Z., Daily, K., Steele, C. A., Huang, H.,
Horowitz, E. & Chen, H. (1996).
The impact of traditional and nontraditional media forms in the 1992
presidential
election. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 73, 401-415.
Morello, J. T. (1991). Who won? A critical examination of newspaper
editorials evaluating
nationally televised presidential debates. Argumentation and
Advocacy, 27, 114-125.
Paletz, D. L. (2002). The media in American politics. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Pew Internet and American Life (2004, June 8). News audiences
increasingly politicized.
Retrieved March 25, 2005, from http://www.nua.com/surveys/
Pfau, M. The subtle nature of presidential debate influence.
Argumentation and Advocacy, 38,
251-261.
Ratings High for Vice-Presidential Debate. (2004). The New York
Times. Retrieved November 6,
2005, from http://www.nytimes.com
Rubin, R. B., Palmgreen, P., & Sypher, H. E. (1994). Communication
research measures: A
sourcebook. NY: The Guilford Press.
Samuelson, R. J. (2004). Picking sides for the news. Newsweek, 143, 37.
Tewksbury, D., Jones, J., Peske, M. W., Raymond, A., Vig, W. (2000).
The interaction of news
and advocate frames: Manipulating audience perceptions of a local
public policy issue.
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,77, 804-829.
Trent, J. S. & Friedenberg, R. V. (1991). Political campaign
communication: Principles and
practices (2nd ed.). New York: Praeger.
Tsfati, Y. (2003). Debating the debate: The impact of exposure to
debate news coverage and its
interaction with exposure to the actual debate. Harvard International
Journal of
Press/Politics, 8, 70-86.
Weaver, D. & Drew, D. (2001). Voter learning and interest in the 2000
presidential election: Did
the media matter? Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 787-798.
Winkler, C. K. & Black, C. F. (1993). Assessing the 1992 presidential
and vice presidential
debates: The public rationale. Argumentation and Advocacy, 30, 77-86.
Appendix A
Post Analysis Questionnaire
What are the last 3 digits of your ticket number: __________
1. If the presidential election were held today, I would vote for:
1 George W. Bush/Dick Cheney
2 John Kerry/John Edwards
3 Undecided
4 I will not vote in the 2004 presidential election
2. I consider myself to be:
Strong Democrat, Democrat, Moderate Democrat, Neutral, Moderate
Republican, Republican, Strong Republican
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
3. How likely are you to vote in the 2004 presidential election?
Very Unlikely, Unlikely, Somewhat unlikely, Neutral, Somewhat Likely,
Likely, Very Likely
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
Based on what you saw in the last 30 minutes of post-debate coverage,
please indicate your impression of George W. Bush by choosing the
appropriate number between the pairs of adjectives below. The closer
the number is to an adjective, the more certain you are of your evaluation.
4. Intelligent 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 Unintelligent
5. Untrained 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Trained
6. Inexpert 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Expert
7. Informed 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Uninformed
8. Incompetent 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 Competent
9 Bright 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 Stupid
10. Cares about
me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Doesn't care about me
11. Has my interests at
heart 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Doesn't have my interests at heart
12. Self-centered 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 Not self-centered
13. Concerned with me
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Unconcerned with me
14. Insensitive
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sensitive
15. Not understanding
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Understanding
16. Honest 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Dishonest
17. Untrustworthy
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Trustworthy
18. Honorable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Dishonorable
19. Moral 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Immoral
20. Unethical 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Ethical
21. Phony 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Genuine
22. Reliable 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Unreliable
23. Unqualified
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Qualified
24. Valuable 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Worthless
25. Unfriendly
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Friendly
26. Pleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Unpleasant
27. Selfish 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Unselfish
28. Awful 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Nice
29. Virtuous 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Sinful
30. Presidential
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Unpresidential
31. Composed
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Uncomposed
32. Distinguished
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Undistinguished
Based on what you saw in the last 30 minutes of post-debate
coverage, please indicate your impression of John Kerry by choosing
the appropriate number between the pairs of adjectives below. The
closer the number is to an adjective, the more certain you are of
your evaluation.
33. Intelligent 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 Unintelligent
34. Untrained 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 Trained
35. Inexpert 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 Expert
36. Informed 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Uninformed
37. Incompetent 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 Competent
38. Bright 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 Stupid
39. Cares about
me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Doesn't care about me
40. Has my interests at
heart 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Doesn't have my interests at heart
41. Self-centered 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 Not self-centered
42. Concerned with me
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Unconcerned with me
43. Insensitive
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sensitive
44. Not understanding
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Understanding
45. Honest 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Dishonest
46. Untrustworthy
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Trustworthy
47. Honorable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Dishonorable
48. Moral 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Immoral
49. Unethical 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Ethical
50. Phony 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Genuine
51. Reliable 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Unreliable
52. Unqualified
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Qualified
53. Valuable 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Worthless
54. Unfriendly
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Friendly
55. Pleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Unpleasant
56. Selfish 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Unselfish
57. Awful 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Nice
58. Virtuous 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Sinful
59. Presidential
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Unpresidential
60. Composed
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Uncomposed
61. Distinguished
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Undistinguished
Based on what you saw in the last 30 minutes of post-debate coverage,
please indicate your impression of Fox News by choosing the
appropriate number between the pairs of adjectives below. The closer
the number is to an adjective, the more certain you are of your evaluation.
62. Fair 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Unfair
63. Unbiased 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Biased
64. Can be trusted
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Cannot be trusted
65. Accurate 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Inaccurate
66. Moral 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Immoral
67. Patriotic 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Unpatriotic
68. Factual 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Opinionated
69. Respects people's privacy
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Doesn't respect privacy
70. Cares what viewers think
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Doesn't care what viewers think
71. Watches out for your
interests 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Doesn't watch out for interests
72. Concerned about the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not concerned about the community's well-being community's
well-being
73. Separates fact from opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Mixes fact and opinion
74. Tells the whole story
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Doesn't tell the whole story
75. Doesn't sensationalize
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Sensationalizes
76. Concerned about the
public 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Concerned mainly about
interest making profits
Based on what you saw in the last 30 minutes of post-debate coverage,
please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the
following statements as they apply to George W. Bush.
77. I think he could be a friend of mine.
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Neutral, Somewhat
Agree, Agree, Strongly Agree
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
78. It would be difficult to meet and talk with him.
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Neutral, Somewhat
Agree, Agree, Strongly Agree
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
79. He just wouldn't fit into my circle of friends.
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Neutral, Somewhat
Agree, Agree, Strongly Agree
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
80. We could never establish a personal friendship with each other.
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Neutral, Somewhat
Agree, Agree, Strongly Agree
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
81. I would like to have a friendly chat with him.
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Neutral, Somewhat
Agree, Agree, Strongly Agree
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
Based on what you saw in the last 30 minutes of post-debate coverage,
please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the
following statements as they apply to John Kerry.
82. I think he could be a friend of mine.
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Neutral, Somewhat
Agree, Agree, Strongly Agree
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
83. It would be difficult to meet and talk with him.
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Neutral, Somewhat
Agree, Agree, Strongly Agree
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
84. He just wouldn't fit into my circle of friends.
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Neutral, Somewhat
Agree, Agree, Strongly Agree
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
85. We could never establish a personal friendship with each other.
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Neutral, Somewhat
Agree, Agree, Strongly Agree
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
86. I would like to have a friendly chat with him.
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Neutral, Somewhat
Agree, Agree, Strongly Agree
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
87. In whose favor did you see this debate?
Strongly Kerry, Kerry, Somewhat
Kerry, Tie, Somewhat Bush, Bush, Strongly Bush
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
88. Who do you believe won this debate?
1 George W. Bush
2 John Kerry
3 Tie
|
