nach oben

Erschienen in:

2016 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

A Functional Analysis of 2012 United States General Election Presidential and Vice Presidential Debates

verfasst von : Ph.D. William L. Benoit, Ph.D. Mark Glantz

Erschienen in: Die US-Präsidentschaftswahl 2012

Verlag: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This study used Functional Theory to content analyze three presidential debates between Democratic nominee Barack Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney as well as the sole debate between vice presidential candidates Joe Biden and Paul Ryan in the 2012 election. The three presidential debates were mostly positive (63 % acclaims) with many attacks (33 %) and some defenses (5 %). Obama, the campaign’s incumbent, was relatively more positive than Romney, the challenger. The vice presidential candidates also used attacks (48 %) more than acclaims (39 %) and defenses (14 %). However, there was no significant difference between the vice presidential candidates’ use of attacks and acclaims. The presidential candidates stressed policy (76 %) more than character (24 %). The vice presidential candidates also stressed policy (65 %) more than character (35 %).

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Beating Bush, Loving Obama – Die US-Präsidentschaftswahlen in der deutschen Tagespresse

Nächstes Kapitel Memes, Big Data und Storytelling. Rückblick auf den digitalen US-Wahlkampf 2012

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Benoit, W. L. (1999). Seeing spots: A functional analysis of presidential television advertisements, 1952–1996. Westport: Praeger.

Benoit, W. L. (2003). Topic of presidential campaign discourse and election outcome. Western Journal of Communication, 67, 97–112.

Benoit, W. L. (2007). Communication in political campaigns. New York: Peter Lang.

Benoit, W. L., & Airne, D. (2005). A functional analysis of American vice presidential debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 41, 225–236.

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., & Harthcock, A. (1999). Function of the great debates: Acclaims, attacks, and defenses in the 1960 presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 66, 341–357.CrossRef

Benoit, W. L., & Henson, J. R. (2009). A functional analysis of the 2008 vice presidential debate: Biden versus Palin. Argumentation & Advocacy, 46, 39–50.

Benoit, W. L., & Wells, W. T. (1996). Candidates in conflict: Persuasive attack and defense in the 1992 presidential debates. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Benoit, W. L., Blaney, J. R., & Pier, P. M. (1998). Campaign ‘96: A functional analysis of acclaiming, attacking, and defending. Westport: Praeger.

Benoit, W. L., McHale, J. P., Hansen, G. J., Pier, P. M., & McGuire, J. P. (2003a). Campaign 2000: A functional analysis of presidential campaign discourse. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Benoit, W. L., Hansen, G. J., & Verser, R. M. (2003b). A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing US presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 70, 335–350.CrossRef

Benoit, W. L., Stein, K. A., & Hansen, G. J. (2005). New York Times coverage of presidential campaigns, 1952–2000. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82, 356–376.CrossRef

Benoit, W. L., Stein, K. A., McHale, J. P., Chattopadhyay, S., Verser, R., & Price, S. (2007). Bush versus Kerry: A functional analysis of campaign 2004. New York: Peter Lang.

Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Bishop, G. F., Meadow, R. G., & Jackson-Beeck, M. (Eds.). (1978). The presidential debates: Media, electoral, and policy perspectives. New York: Praeger.

Bitzer, L., & Rueter, T. (1980). Carter vs Ford: The counterfeit debates of 1976. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Carlin, D. B., & Bicak, P. J. (1993). Toward a theory of vice presidential debate purposes: An analysis of the 1992 vice presidential debate. Argumentation and Advocacy, 27, 119–130.

Carlin, D. P., & McKinney, M. S. (Eds.). (1994). The 1992 presidential debates in focus. Westport: Praeger.

Center for Responsive Politics. (2012). 2012 Presidential race. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12. Accessed 17 March 2015.

Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.CrossRef

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edn.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Coleman, S. (2000). Televised election debates: International perspectives. New York: St. Martin’s.

Daily, W. O., Hinck, E. A., & Hinck, S. S. (2007). Politeness in presidential debates: Shaping political face in campaign debates from 1960 to 2004. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Friedenberg, R. V. (Ed.). (1994). Rhetorical studies of national political debates, 1960–1992 (2nd edn.). Westport: Praeger.

Friedenberg, R. V. (Ed.). (1997). Rhetorical studies of national political debates: 1996. Westport: Praeger.

Hellweg, S. A., Pfau, M., & Brydon, S. R. (1992). Televised presidential debates: Advocacy in contemporary America. New York: Praeger.

Hinck, E. A. (1993). Enacting the presidency: Political argument, presidential debates, and presidential character. Westport: Praeger.

Holsti, O. (1969). Content analysis in communication research. New York: Free Press.

Jamieson, K. H., & Birdsell, D. S. (1988). Presidential debates: The challenge of creating an informed electorate. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kraus, S. (Ed.). (1962). The great debates. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Kraus, S. (Ed.). (1977). The great debates: Carter versus Ford, 1976. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Kraus, S. (2000). Televised presidential debates and public policy (2nd edn.). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.CrossRef

Lanoue, D. J., & Schrott, P. R. (1991). The joint press conference: The history, impact, and prospects of American presidential debates. Westport: Praeger.

Louden, A. (2013). Political debates: Selected bibliography. http://www.wfu.edu/%7Elouden/Political%20Communication/Bibs/DEBATES.html. Accessed 17 March 2015.

Merritt, S. (1984). Negative political advertising: Some empirical findings. Journal of Advertising, 13, 27–38.CrossRef

Mirkinson, J. (2012). Second presidential debate ratings: 65.6 Mio. tune in. The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/second-presidential-debate-ratings_n_1974838.html. Accessed 17 Oct 2012.

de Moraes, L. (2012). Third presidential debate least watched of the three: 59.2 Mio. viewers. Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/tv-column/. Accessed 23 Oct 2012.

Racine Group. (2002). White paper on televised political campaign debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38, 199–218.

Reinemann, C., & Maurer, M. (2005). Unifying or polarizing?Short-term effects and postdebate consequences of different rhetorical strategies in televised debates. Journal of Communication, 55, 775–794.CrossRef

Schroeder, A. (2000). Presidential debates: Forty years of high-risk TV. New York: Columbia University Press.

Stetler, B. (2012a). Presidential debate drew more than 70 Mio. viewers. New York Times. http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/. Accessed 4 Oct 2012.

Stetler, B. (2012b). Vice-presidential debate draws more than 50 Mio. viewers. New York Times. http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/. Accessed 12 Oct 2012.

Stewart, C. J. (1975). Voter perception of mud-slinging in political communication. Central States Speech Journal, 26, 279–286.CrossRef

Swerdlow, J. L. (1984). Beyond debate: A paper on televised presidential debates. New York: Twentieth Century Fund.

Swerdlow, J. L. (Ed.). (1987). Presidential debates 1988 and beyond. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc.

Titel: A Functional Analysis of 2012 United States General Election Presidential and Vice Presidential Debates
verfasst von: Ph.D. William L. Benoit
Ph.D. Mark Glantz
Verlag: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden
Buch: Die US-Präsidentschaftswahl 2012
Print ISBN: 978-3-531-19766-1

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-531-19767-8

Copyright-Jahr: 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19767-8_13