Prof. Dr. Diana Owen, Georgetown University
American Mass Media and Political Education:
Challenges and Opportunities
Largely by default, the mass media have assumed a
prominent role in American political education. Most
citizens’ regular experiences with the political world
occur vicariously through the mass media.
As
educators, media are primary sources of information
about government, politics, and current affairs. They
integrate political processes, provide insights into the
workings of government, establish linkages between
leaders, institutions, and citizens,1display models of
civic behavior, and organize political community.
While it is clear that the media are positioned to be
political educators, their reputation as agents fostering democratic values and civic orientations is
mixed at best. The reality of Americans’ heavy dependence on mass media for many of the basic
elements of democratic life raises important questions for those concerned about democratic
education and civic engagement.
A core issue, although one that is largely beyond the scope of this paper, is: what should
society expect of news media in terms of democratic education? At this point in history, media
organizations are not formally mandated to be public servants. They are, first and foremost,
business enterprises where the profit motive looms large. The news media long have wrestled
with the uneasy relationship between meeting societal responsibilities and making money. News
organizations respected their public service role more in the past than in the current era. Familyowned newspapers, which have now all-but-disappeared, had a commitment to providing readers
with quality news that outweighed purely financial concerns.2 Broadcast networks originated
news programming to fulfill public service obligations required of holders of public licenses.
Buffered by regulations that mandated public service, news reporters took pride in their role as
responsible conveyors of public information. This situation began to change in the 1980s, as
government deregulation relaxed public service requirements for licensing and the acquisition of
multiple media properties by a single corporation. Media organizations expected their news
arms to be profitable, which resulted in substantial changes in format, content, and news values.
Today’s news associations are best characterized as commercial and entertainment enterprises.
News media’s role in democrat education is ancillary, and it is exploited at their convenience, as
I will illustrate with the case study presented in this paper.
Whether or not it is reasonable to expect profit-driven entities without a clear mandate to
successfully educate citizens about politics, the fact remains that the media are functioning in
this capacity. Thus, this paper will address the basic question: how effective are television and
Internet news media as agents of democratic education? There are numerous reasons why
broadcast and Internet news media have the potential to be democratic educators. The audience
reach of these media forms is extensive. In addition, people are using media technologies,
especially the Internet, specifically for educational purposes. At the same time, the nature of
individuals’ experiences with mass communications is becoming increasingly solitary, as the
level of interpersonal discussion is diminishing, especially for young people. Finally, the amount
of overtly political content conveyed to citizens through mass media is extensive.
I will argue that the news media offer the possibility of contributing to the political
enlightenment of American citizens. Not only are the audiences for mass media vast and
exposure to political content extensive, media face little competition from human sources.
However, modern media values and standard operating procedures undermine the ability of the
media to be meaningful and productive agencies of democratic education.
This paper focuses specifically on national television news programming and its Internet
news counterparts. To illuminate the possibilities and limitations of electronic news media for
citizen education, we begin with a general discussion of the trends in audience use and content of
political news. These trends and their implications for a meaningful media-centered democratic
educational experiences will be exemplified by a case study of the news media and the 2000
American presidential election campaign.
Individuals’ Experiences With Mass Media
120
There has been a marked shift in the social context within which people experience mass
media that has significant consequences for democratic education. Not only is the audience for
mass media mammoth, it is also dedicated. Face-to-face discussions among citizens, especially
about politics, have become rarer in the current era. Mass media have come to substitute for
interpersonal agents of political socialization and learning. Today, individuals spend more time
with a greater variety of media, as their time interacting with family members, friends, and
colleagues has diminished. These trends have been most profound for young people.
Television
Studies conducted in the late 1950s and early 1960s indicated that television was an
important, yet not overwhelming, force in the lives of children and adolescents. By the time
children were in the first grade, they were spending an average of three to four hours a day
watching television. Television influenced how children structured their days and spent their
leisure time. However, young people’s television use was integrated into their overall living
situation, which included interactions with family and friends. Television viewing often was a
social or family event, and programming would stimulate discussion. Watching the news was a
ritualized dinner time habit for many people.3 Although most young people did not monitor
political media heavily, those who relied on mass media for political information tended to
consult their parents often on political matters. They also were the most politically informed,
had greatest trust in political institutions and actors, and were more likely to say they would
participate in politics in the future than young people who did not watch television news.4
By the mid-1960s, there was evidence of a shift in young people’s patterns of media use
and interpersonal discussion that presaged the current trends. Children and adolescents watched
more television and relied less on family members, teachers, and peers for political guidance. At
the same time, news about politics and government become increasingly negative as a result of
Watergate and Vietnam, as investigative journalism was practiced with enhanced zeal. As a
result, young people who monitored television news exhibited higher levels of political cynicism,
were less politically tolerant, and were more likely to declare that they would not be active in
politics later in life.5
121
Today, children and adolescents spend a tremendous amount of time with the mass
media, frequently in isolation. A study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation indicates
that the typical American child (ages 2-18) spends 38 hours a week, roughly the equivalent of
holding a full-time job, consuming mass media outside of school. This rate is higher for children
eight and older who are exposed to media for six and three quarter hours per day.6 The vast
majority of this time is spent using media alone, or occasionally with friends, as parental
influence is minimal. As Table 1 indicates, the amount of time spent watching television by
young people increases incrementally as they age, while time passed with parents and friends
decreases.
A significant number of young people’s bedrooms have become multi-media
sanctuaries, where they hole up away from the distractions of other people. Over 65% of people
between the ages of 8 and 18 have a television in their bedroom.7
Table 1
Time Spent Viewing Television Alone Versus With Parents and Friends
Age 2-7
Age 8-13
Age 14-18
Alone
14%
30%
41%
Parents and Friends
19%
6%
2%
Note: Percentages represent proportion of total media time spent watching television alone and
with parents/friends
Source: Kaiser Family Foundation, Kids & Media @ The New Millennium, 1999
Despite the proliferation of media technologies, Americans’ preference for television as
an information source is still evident, especially when local, national network, and cable news
programs are taken together. As Table 2 indicates, local television news is more popular than
national network news shows. Increasingly, Americans are turning away from the long-standing,
fixed-time network news broadcasts, and watching “rolling” or “real” time broadcasts on twenty122
four hour news stations, such as CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and FOX News. Internet news users
claim that they primarily log on to get weather and business information, and monitor current
events less often.
Table 2
Percent of Adults Who Use News Source At Least Once A Week
Local TV News
56%
Network TV News
30%
Cable TV News
22%
Newspaper
46%
Online News
33%
Source, Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, July 18, 2001
Television is still by far the favored medium for young people, as well. Children and
adolescents spend less than 3% of their television viewing time intentionally watching news and
public affairs programming.
However, the proliferation of news programs that employ
entertainment-style formats enhances the possibility for accidental viewing. Further, there are
many political messages in the entertainment programs that they watch, such as the popular
sitcom, Spin City, and the dramatic, behind-the scenes portrayal of the White House, The West
Wing.
Internet
The diffusion of Internet technology in American society has been rapid, and the number
and sophistication of users continues to grow. Approximately 106 million people have gone
online, and 59 million individuals are daily users.8
Not surprisingly, young people are
123
significantly more likely to use the Internet and have better knowledge of what it can do than
older individuals.
Nearly 17 million young people (age 12-17), representing 73% of this
population, go online with some regularity.
Both children and adults with access to the Internet either at home, at work, or at school
tend to go online for news at least occasionally, as Table 3 demonstrates. However, regular use
of the Internet to look for political news is far more limited, as only 17% of adults check news
organizations’ web sites as part of their daily routine.9 Young people are far less likely to
consult news web sites on a regular basis, accessing them quickly and sporadically, often for
purposes of completing homework assignments.
Table 3
Percentage of People With Internet Access Who Have Ever Accessed Online News
Adults
66%
15-17 year olds
73%
12-14 year olds
63%
Youth whose family income is > $50,000
71%
Youth whose family income is < $50,000
63%
Source: Pew Internet and American Life Project Teens and Parents Survey, NovemberDecember 2000.
The characteristics of Internet technology render it in some ways more conducive to
being an educational conduit than television. Internet use requires the dedicated attention of
users. In addition, the interactivity facilitated by the medium allows users to become more
124
integrally engaged in the learning process.
Social conditions are enhancing the Internets’
educative role, as well. The government by way of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has
offerered incentives to schools for providing Internet access to students. As a result, 98% of
American public schools have some form of Internet access.
Seventy-seven percent of
instructional classrooms are Internet-equipped, although the number is significantly lower in
areas with a high rate of poverty. Thus, almost all school children have access to the Internet in
some form. Schools are using the Internet widely as a teaching tool, and most parents reinforce
this trend by encouraging students to use online resources for their schoolwork. Almost 95% of
teenagers have used the Internet for school research, and 71% rely on the Web as the main
source for school projects.10
Although the evidence is not yet conclusive, some data indicate that heavy online media
use is associated with increased social isolation.11 The Internet’s impact on social relationships
is something of a mixed bag, especially for young people. Approximately 40% of young people
(age 12-17) feel that the Internet has cut into their ability to socialize in real time with other
people, especially peers, and that it has changed the way that they interact. On the one hand,
email and instant messaging allow them to keep in more frequent contact with a larger number of
individuals who are geographically dispersed. However, young people recognize that online
relationships are not as deep or lasting as face-to-face contacts. To quote a 17 year old boy
participating in a Pew Internet and American Life Project, “The Internet has helped me socialize,
but not at a very personal level.”12
News Values and Content
News media accounts of government and politics have traditionally been far from
flattering. In the current era, negative accounts of political leaders, institutions, and citizen
politics have become more drastic and sensational. It almost goes without saying that news
accounts of government and politics are conflict-ridden and scandal-driven.
Technological innovations have worked to exacerbate the problems with political media
coverage. In the past, television evening news producers struggled to fit coverage of the day’s
events into a limited allotment of network time, usually amounting to about twenty-two minutes.
The proliferation of communications forums, especially the development of cable news and
125
Internet options, has resulted in a need for news organizations to supply a steady stream of media
content. As a result, news organizations rely heavily on repeated messages. Talking heads are
frequently brought in to provide talk/analysis that is highly speculative and entertainment
oriented. In addition, journalists have come to play an increasingly active role in news making,
rather than simply reporting, as they seek to reap the benefits of becoming one of the media
industry’s “star personalities.”
Mass media organizations have the capacity to disseminate information rapidly from farflung locations. “Live coverage” has become a selling point of the television news industry.
Traditional news values have been altered radically, as no one wants to be the last to break a
story. This forces issues and events to be placed in the public domain before facts have been
checked and sources verified. Only in extreme cases, such as occurred when television news
anchors made repeated wrong calls of the winner of the state of Florida during the 2000
presidential election, does the press feel compelled to acknowledge their mistakes.
Election 2000: A National Civics Lesson?
The protracted American presidential election in 2000 provides an illustration of how the
potential for mass media to foster democratic values and behaviors is undercut by the standard
operating practices of news organizations. Although voters’ attention to the general election was
generally low, exposure to campaign news was widespread. Media coverage of the campaign
phase conformed to trends established in past elections, featuring personality-based reporting and
focusing heavily on the “horse race” and conflicts between candidates while issues were placed
on the back-burner.
Election night was a catastrophe for media organizations, as in their
competitive rush to be the first to declare a winner, journalists made a series of mistaken calls of
the outcome. As they struggled to make a quick recovery from their election night blunders with
coverage of the post-election process for determining the next resident of the White House, the
media sought to capitalized on a newly-energized audience for political news.
Journalists
congratulated themselves for being the primary teachers of a “national civics lesson.” But, did
television and Internet news media live up to this claim?
126
Voter Participation
Election campaigns provide regular opportunities for citizens to focus on and take part in
the political process with relative ease. Yet, for more than a quarter century, Americans’ interest
and participation in electoral contests has waned.
The 2000 presidential election was no
exception to this trend, as the campaign failed to engage the public, especially young people.
Only half of citizens under the age of 25 registered to vote, compared to 80% of older people.
While 51% of eligible voters turned out to vote, representing a slight increase from the 1996
contest, less than 35% of voters under the age of 25 made it to the polls, while 46% of the under
30 voted.13
Interest in the campaign was correspondingly low, especially for young people. Statistics
from the Vanishing Voter Project at Harvard University indicate that in January, 12% of 18-24
year old voters reported having an interest in the campaign, a figure that peaked at around 30%
prior to election day. These data compare negatively with older citizens, as 20% were interested
in the campaign in January rising to slightly over 45% in November.14 The margin of difference
between older and younger voters averaged between 8% and 15% in the weeks from the national
nominating conventions to election day.
Survey data collected several weeks prior to the 2000 presidential election indicated that
young people’s reasons for not voting were not grounded in the belief that their vote did not
count or an especially high level of dissatisfaction with the candidates George W. Bush or Al
Gore as conventional wisdom would lead us to believe.15
Less than half (40%) of those
questioned responded that the corrupt nature of politics kept them from the polls. Young people
had doubts about the efficacy of the election itself. They believed strongly that they would not
be effected personally by the election outcome (74%), that the country was already going in the
right direction 60%), and that they could do more good by working in the community than by
voting (58%). Further, a majority of young voters (60%) felt that they did not know enough
about candidates to make an informed decision. Despite the unprecedented amount of election
news available in print, on television and radio, and via the Internet, young people did not feel
that the quality of the information was sufficient to prepare them for voting. (See Table 4.)
127
Table 4
Young Citizens’ (ages 18-24) Reasons for Not Participating in Election 2000
The election outcome will not impact me 74%
personally
I don’t know enough about the candidates to 60%
vote
Things are already going in the right direction 60%
in this country
I can make more of a difference by getting 58%
involved in my community than by voting
Politics is just about money and lying, and I 39%
don’t want to involve myself in it
It’s difficult for me to get out to the polls to
31%
vote
I don’t like any of the candidates
30%
All candidates are basically the same, so it 28%
doesn’t make much difference to me who gets
elected
My vote doesn’t matter
25%
128
It’s complicated to register to vote where I 12%
live
Source: Youth, Voting, and the 2000 Election, Kaiser Family Foundation, September, 2000
Television: Still the Main Source for Election News
Although voter interest and participation in presidential elections is far from stellar,
citizens’ exposure to election media messages is widespread. Television continues to dominate
massively as the main source of election news, extending a trend that spans three decades.
Seventy percent of the public followed the 2000 election via television. However, there has been
a change in the source of television news upon which voters rely. Cable television news has
gained in popularity since the previous presidential campaign in 1996, as the audience for
network news has dropped off. Citizens’ attention to television news increased notably as the
post election drama played on, with cable and local stations gaining more viewers while the
network figures remained steady. (See Table 5.)
Despite great anticipation by political observers and news organizations that the 2000
election would constitute “Campaign 1.0,” the audience for Internet campaign news was limited.
Approximately 10% of the public used the Internet as a primary source of election news, with
another 11% claiming that they sought online election news occasionally.16 Web traffic actually
decreased for some news sites during the period from the national nominating conventions until
election day. MSNBC.com’s normal audience share declined by 27%, while CNN.com lost 18%
of its visitors.17
The most striking trend in citizens’ campaign media use is the drastic decline in reliance
on print as a primary source of information.
Thirty-nine percent of the public claimed
newspapers as a priority resource for election news in November, 2000, dropping from 60% in
1996. Newspaper use fell further to 24% during the election overtime in 2000 as television news
viewership increased. Similarly, magazine readership declined markedly from 1996 to 2000.
The data do not support the contention that the audience for print was shifting its preferences
wholesale to online sources because of the similarity in content, as reliance on the Internet for
129
campaign news did not rise substantially over time. The extent to which Internet news has cut
into the audience base for newspapers and magazines is modest.
Table 5
Sources of Campaign News
Early
November Early
1996
2000
72%
70%
83%
Network TV
36%
22%
23%
Local TV
23%
21%
30%
Cable TV
21%
36%
41%
Newspapers
60%
39%
24%
Radio
19%
15%
17%
Magazines
11%
4%
1%
Internet
3%
11%
10%
Television
November Late November 2000
Note: Survey respondents were permitted to name up to two sources that they rely on most for
election information.
Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Internet Election News Audience
Seeks Convenience, Familiar Names, December 3, 2000
130
Television News Coverage of the General Election
Although it is difficult to establish a causal connection, the low level of public electoral
engagement corresponds to the increased role in election campaigns assumed by the mass media.
The contemporary American presidential election process is largely orchestrated by the press.
The media have assumed the functions of recruiting presidential nominees, structuring
campaigns, setting the issue agenda, and mobilizing voters traditionally reserved for political
parties and elites.18 Since the advent of the mass media election, candidates have bypassed the
established partisan apparatus and taken their campaigns directly to the public using media
management strategies that have grown in complexity with the emergence of new
communications technologies and outlets.
A meaningful civics lesson on elections would convey information about democratic
processes, including technical details about how to vote. It would identify the nation’s issue
agenda, provide a context for understanding these issues, and illuminate the candidate’s
positions. Facts about governance, such as how presidents can set the tone and agenda for their
administration through the appointment process and who each candidate would be likely to
choose to fill major positions would be presented. However, mainstream television news sources
provided strikingly little of this type of information during Campaign 2000 or its aftermath.
Campaign coverage has become increasingly media-centric, as journalists position
themselves as intermediaries between candidates and voters. Since the 1980s, journalists have
increasingly spoken for candidates rather than allowing them to convey messages in their own
words. Reporters stole the spotlight from candidates even more in 2000 than they have in prior
elections. The average candidate sound bite on network news shrank to an all-time low of 7.8
seconds19, down from 10 seconds in 1988 and a little over 8 seconds in 1992 and 1996. Since
1988, the length of candidate sound bites has decreased by 30%, while reporters’ speaking time
has increased exponentially.
Reporters speech overwhelmed televisions news coverage of
Campaign 2000, constituting 74% of airtime, compared to 11% for candidates and 11% for other
sources, such as voters, campaign staffers, pundits, and experts.20
At the same time, media messages about politics and campaigns have become more
negative, as journalists focus on scandal and flaws in candidates’ character. During the 2000
campaign, over 60% of television news coverage of the candidates was negative.21 The press
131
took Bush to task for lacking intelligence and Gore was labeled a “serial exaggerator.” A stock
news frame adopted by journalist is to bash candidates for being the root cause of the public’s
disengagement from political campaigns. Veteran New York Times and Newsweek reporter
Robert Shogan sums up this sentiment: “The politicians provide us with a campaign that’s
superficial, deceptive, dishonest. It’s hard for reporters to change that.”22
Poll-driven coverage of campaigns has increased incrementally with every campaign
since 1960. The inordinate focus on polls devalues elections by portraying them as strategic
games between candidates, and leaves voters with the impression that the outcomes are
predetermined. Some voters become confused or annoyed by the constant barrage of shifting
numbers. Although both candidates in 2000 presented specific information about issues in their
speeches and on their web sites, the preponderance of news coverage focused on the themes of
campaign strategy and the horse race. The close election was the dominant news frame for the
general election campaign. Seventy-one percent of network news stories focused on the horse
race in 2000, compared to 48% in 1996 and 58% in 1992. Only 40% of television news stories
mentioned policy issues.23 Internet news sites were similarly lacking in substance, as only 2
percent of campaign stories focused on the candidates’ core beliefs and issues.24
132
It is important to note that there was a tremendous amount of information about the 2000
presidential election available from a wide range of televised sources. Voters could gain detailed
biographical information about candidates from morning talk programs, such as The Today Show
and Good Morning America, evening news magazine shows, such as Dateline, and cable
programs, such as the Arts and Entertainment network’s Biography. Studies indicate that voters
find these kinds of interview/biography offerings useful when making judgements about
candidates.25 Candidates made appearances on entertainment talk programs, such as Oprah! and
Late Night with David Letterman, where they could bypass journalistic censorship and answer
audience questions. These appearances were popular with voters and garnered large audiences.
Online Election News
Online election resources were plentiful during the 2000 election, as the scope, quantity,
and novelty of online campaign coverage expanded with the emerging capabilities of the
medium.
News organizations’ web sites had much to offer in terms of rich content and
innovative ways of receiving information.
News sites not only included material about
candidates and issues, but also made available specific technical information about voting
compiled by democratic education organizations. Media watchdog organizations found that lead
stories were frequently well-sourced and accurate. Users’ capacity to quickly download audio
and video clips was perhaps the most significant development. Voters were able to engage in
online political discussions with commentators and witness live online interviews with reporters
facilitated by news organizations’ websites. Approximately 25% of all political news site front
pages contained stories recycled from other sources with no new reporting, and a quarter
contained no interactive features.26 One questionable aspect of online news sites was their
constant use of instant polls which provide misleading information based on heavily biased
convenience samples of self-selected respondents. The results of these polls would many times
be announced during television news broadcasts with only minor caveats to consumers.
The availability of Internet news sites did little to revolutionize coverage of the general
election campaign. Although Internet news sites had much to offer, this information remained
invisible to the majority of the voting public. News sites responded effectively to criticisms
about Internet news in prior campaigns that were lodged by young people, especially. The sites
119
provided updated information and unique content in a convenient format, hosted many types of
interactive forums that provided access to politicians and political experts, and made use of all
the bells and whistles supported by the technology. Still, only 4% of the public and 22% of
regular online users went to the web for election news. Contrary to expectations, young people
did not flock to the web for campaign information, as 25% of voters under the age of 30 who are
Internet users logged on.
Data collected by the Pew Research Center provide some intriguing hints, based
admittedly on very limited evidence, at the potential of online media to influence voting
behavior. Traditionally, studies have indicated that the media’s influence on vote choice is
limited, as partisan and group ties structure voting decisions. Media effects have been associated
primarily with the acquisition of political knowledge and attitude development, while evidence
of direct influence on overt political action is rare. However, the Pew data indicate 50% of
younger voters and 43% of older voters report that the information they received online
influenced their decision to vote for or against a candidate.27
In keeping with the trends in broadcast news, the most popular political news sites for
election coverage were associated with 24 hour news networks. Fifty-nine percent of election
news consumers named CNN.com a top destination, with 57% finding the site to be “very
useful.” MSNBC.com (52%) was also popular, although less satisfying to users, with 43%
declaring it useful. The network news Internet sites attracted 45% of online election news
junkies, with 37% coming away satisfied.
The Post-election Media Circus
The special circumstances precipitated by having a presidential campaign that did not
produce a winner on election night caused a dramatic surge in public attention to the political
process. Less than half of the voting age public reported having even a fair amount of interest in
the election in the week prior to going to the polls. Citizens expressed a collective a desire to
learn about the intricacies of a highly complex electoral system that they discovered they barely
understood. Further, people became concerned about the possibility that basic voting rights, that
they had largely taken for granted, might be compromised. Evidence of votes being disqualified
120
because of confusing ballots and technical problems with punch cards and voting machines
mounted along with allegations that black citizens had been kept from voting in some locations.
Citizens’ attention to the election skyrocketed overnight as a result of the uncertain
outcome. Seventy-seven percent of the public claimed to be riveted to the post-election saga.28
Television news ratings spiked, as network news provided 60% more coverage of the post
election drama than of the entire election. Internet use the day after the election was the heaviest
in the history of the medium. News and information sites saw their traffic increase by between
130% and 500%. ABCNews.com received 27.1 million page views, substantially breaking its
previous record of 10 million page views with the release of the Starr Report detailing the
scandalous antics of President Bill Clinton and intern Monica Lewinsky. MSNBC.com doubled
its record breaking traffic of 3 million visitors that it receives in the wake of major disasters, such
as airline crashes and earthquakes. The boom in web traffic persisted throughout the recount
period, as users sought to get updated information on a regular basis.29
The post-election events stimulated political discussion as well as media use. Over
eighty percent of citizens discussed the election in the first week of the post-election period. The
situation brought to life many aspects of the political process that are not well-known to average
individuals. Many people sought information about their rights and obligations, as well as how
the system operates.
Many in the press do not see it as their job to provide lessons in democratic citizenship.
However, the media adopted the socially responsible news frame of the national civics lesson in
an effort to make restitution for the election night blunders that plunged already tepid public faith
in the news business to even lower depths.
democratic values and processes.
Journalists engaged in lofty rhetoric about
They conjured up images of the Founding Fathers, and
recounted tales of history making political dilemmas that were solved by virtue of the sanctity
and wisdom of the Constitution.
If the public was looking for the media to make good on its promise of a substantive
lesson in civic education, they were sorely disappointed.
The news media did little to
accommodate the public’s desire to understand complex democratic processes, such as the
electoral college. In spite of the legions of experts they paraded before the cameras, television
news failed to illuminate for citizens how it was possible for a candidate to win the popular vote
121
and lose the election. Nor did they successfully disentangle the complicated constitutional
procedures for determining the winner. Online news sites became the ghetto for some of this
information, but the most prominent Web-based features were the recycled stories from the day’s
quickly changing television news headlines.
The national civics lesson news frame clashed mightily with the dominant themes of the
“crisis of democracy,” the conflicts between the candidates and their camps, and the horse race
that wouldn’t end.
The strategic frame emphasized the maneuvering of candidates, their
operatives, and their media-friendly legal teams.
A disproportionate amount of coverage,
extending beyond what good watchdog journalism would warrant, focused on flaws in the
process. Countless stories focused on the ways in which citizens were denied their rights
through the deviousness or carelessness of government officials. Citizens were bombarded with
images of confused election workers holding paper ballots up to the light in often vain attempts
to determine voter intention. They were overwhelmed with questionable statistical evidence
citing the proportion of ballots that go uncounted in any given election, figures that even the
best-trained political scientists have difficulty validating.
Most journalists lacked the detailed knowledge of American political processes that
would enable them to enlighten voters. In keeping with the establish trend of self-promotion,
broadcast journalists devised methods that would allow them to hold center stage without
providing any specialized knowledge. MSNBC in-studio correspondents, for example, would
consult with journalists in the field about the latest vote counts, and record information on yellow
legal pads which they would then transfer by hand to a marker board for the public to digest. All
of this attention to the minutia of vote tallies ultimately proved worthless, as the Supreme Court
rendered the entire exercise moot.
The post-campaign period ultimately became frustrating for citizens, who became more
disheartened about the situation as time went on. Harvard University’s Vanishing Voter Project
found that seventy percent of the public reported being discouraged by the post-campaign events.
Responding to the dominant media frame, 50% claimed that the election was unfair to voters.
Citizens’ sense of political efficacy, their belief that they have an influence on government and
politics, diminished significantly.
122
Conclusion
The 2000 election campaign is one example of many missed opportunities for the media
to take a responsible approach in the reporting of important civic events. It may not be necessary
or desirable for the media to make good on their post-election proclamation that they are the
nation’s civic educators. Yet, under the current circumstances the media are not even allies with
parents, teachers, and community leaders who strive to instill strong citizenship values in young
people. In fact, media challenge personal agents of socialization for time and attention, while at
the same time promulgating messages that run counter to the interests of a democratic polity.
Critics have argued that the mass media election has negative consequences for democratic
citizenship. The media may give citizens the false impression that they know more about politics
than they do, and that they have developed intimate relationships with candidates they hardly
know. Far from providing regular occasions for meaningful lessons in civics, some scholars
argue that mass media elections undermine political legitimacy, as the public has become
increasingly dissatisfied with the election process itself.30 The public’s lack of faith in and
dissatisfaction with media coverage of the 2000 general election campaign contributed to
political disinterest and disengagement. When the given chance to capitalize on the outpouring
of citizen attention to and concern about the electoral process sparked by the uncertain outcome,
the media failed to rise to the occasion, and instead fell back on stock media frames and cliches.
The ultimate outcome of the post-election media phase hardly served the purpose of a national
civics lesson, but instead worked to further undermine citizens’ sense of a fair and just electoral
system.
Notes:
1
.Timothy E. Cook, Governing With the News, (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), 1998.
2
.James D. Squires, Read All About It, (New York, NY: Random House), 1993.
123
3
.Wilbur Schramm, Jack Lyle, and Edwin B. Parker, Television in the Lives of Our Children,
(Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press), 1961.
4
.Analysis by author of the Eight Cities Study of Political Socialization (David Easton, Robert
Hess, Judith Torney, Jack Dennis, 1967). This data set included over 10,000 students aged 7-17
and their parents.
5
.Analysis by author of the Study of High School Seniors and Their Parents (M.Kent Jennings
and Richard Niemi, 1965-1973) and the Wisconsin Parent-Child Socialization Study (Jack
Dennis, Steven Chaffee, David Sears, 1980-1981).
6
.”New Study Finds Kids Spend Equivalent of Full Work Week Using Media,” Kaiser Family
Foundation, www.kff.org/content/1999/1535/pressreleasefinal.doc, November 17, 1999.
7
.Kaiser Family Foundation, Kids & Media @ The New Millenium, www.kff.org, 1999.
8
.Pew Internet & American Life Project Survey, November-December, 2000.
9
.Pew Internet & American Life Project Survey, November-December, 2000.
10
.”The Internet and Education,” Pew Internet and American Life Project, September 1, 2001.
11
.Norman Nie, and Lutz Erbring, “The Internet Study; Intersurvey Questionnaire; Survey
Questionnaire Marginals,” Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society, 2000;
Kathleen O’Toole, “Study Takes Early Look at Social Consequences of Net Use,” Stanford
Online Report, www.stanford.edu/dept/news/, February 16, 2000; David Streitfeld, “A Web of
Workaholic Misfits? Study Finds Heavy Internet Users Are Socially Isolated,” The Washington
Post, February 16, 2000, A1.
12
.”Teenage Life Online: The Internet’s Impact on Friendships and Family Relationships,” Pew
Internet and American Life Project, www.pewinternet.org/, June 20, 2001.
13
. “Presidential Election Turnout,” Center for Voting and Democracy, www.igc.org/turnout/htm,
March 12, 2001.
14
.Thomas E. Patterson and Marvin Kalb, “Election Apathy Pervasive Among Young Adults,”
Vanishing Voter Weekly Update, www.vanishingvoter.org, May 12, 2000.
15
.Among 18-29 year olds, 48% voted for Gore, 46% for Bush, 5% for Nader, and 1% for
Buchanan.
16
.”Internet Election News Audience Seeks Convenience, Familiar Names,” Pew Research
Center for the People & the Press, (Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center), December 3, 2000.
124
17
.Leslie Wayne, “Online Coverage Fell Short of the Hype,” The New York Times, August 19,
2000.
18
.Thomas E. Patterson, Out of Order. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993.
19
.”Journalists Monopolize TV Election News,” Center for Media and Public Affairs,
www.cmpa.com/pressrel/electpr10.htm, October 20, 2000.
20
.ibid.
21
. “Campaign 2000 Final: How TV News Covered the General Election Campaign,” Media
Monitor, November/December, 2001.
22
.Robert Shogan, Bad News: Where the Press Goes Wrong in the Making of the President (New
York, NY: Ivan R. Dee), 2001.
23
.Stephen Hess, “Critical Information Not Covered by Media,” The Hess Report on Campaign
Coverage in Nightly Network News, (Washington, D.C.), September 25, 2001; “Campaign 2000
Final,” November/December, 2001.
24
.”ePolitics: A Study of the 2000 Presidential Campaign on the Internet,” Election Coverage
2000 (Washington, D.C.: The Project for Excellence in Journalism), November, 2000.
25
.Marion R. Just, Ann N. Crigler, Dean E. Alger, Timothy Cook, and Montague Kern,
Crosstalk: Citizens, Candidates, and the Media in a Presidential Campaign (Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press), 1996.
26
.”ePolitics: A Study of the 2000 Presidential Campaign,” November, 2000.
27
.”Internet Election News Audience Seeks Convenience, Familiar Names,” Pew Research
Center for the People & the Press, (Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center), December 3, 2000.
28
.”Interested But Discouraged: Americans’ View of the Election Drama,” The Vanishing Voter,
(Cambridge, MA: The Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy),
November 21, 2000.
29
.Farhad Manjoo, “Net Traffic at All-Time High,” Wired News, www.wirednews.org,
November 8, 2000.
30
.Thomas E. Patterson, Out of Order, (New York, NY: Alfred A.Knopf), 1993.
125