David Birdsell, Baruch College (CUNY) (moderator 1- Day 1); [respondent for Sean Aday]
William Benoit, Ohio University (moderator 2- Day 1); [respondent for David Birdsell]
Sunshine Hillygus, Duke University (moderator 3- Day 1); [respondent for William Benoit]
Kevin Coe, University of Arizona; [respondent for Sunshine Hillygus]
Michael Schudson, Columbia University; [respondent for Kevin Coe]
Doris Graber, University of Illinois at Chicago; [respondent for Michael Schudson]
Carol Winkler, Georgia State University; [respondent for Doris Graber]
Sean Aday, George Washington University; [respondent for Carol Winkler]
Kathleen Hall Jamieson, University of Pennsylvania (gadfly)
Laura Silver, (Annenberg School for Communication graduate student)
Tim Fallis, (Annenberg School for Communication graduate student)
Elizabeth Roodhouse, (Annenberg School for Communication graduate student)


David Birdsell (Moderator 1, Day 1, Group 1, Candidate Discourse & Media Systems)
The papers are in the packets, so I will not summarize the papers here. Instead, I’ll summarize the responses.

Response to Birdsell: Are debates a moderating or mediating variable for the consumption of other media? In addition to looking at non-presidential (“down-ticket”) debates, we should look too at primary debates, which feature greater format innovation. Should look at rules for inclusion: is it necessary to limit to two? Can the number of participants be unbounded (probably not if learning isn’t to suffer)? Inclusion of regulatory constraints on debates would be useful.

Response to Benoit: Nature of communication is easier to study than nature of effects.
Things to think about:

1. Fragmented media environment: to what extent are findings conditional on that environment, e.g., if you’re narrowly communicating a message might be willing to be more negative.
2. Improve differentiation of policy areas. Two more that matter: valence (I’m for education) vs. position (I oppose NCLB). Do you talk about problems or policy positions?
3. Thinking about policy vs. character: such a blurry line policy and character. (e.g., leadership qualities).
4. Remember in making functional assessments, that minor party candidates might not want to win a majority; they might want to affect agenda instead.

Response to Hillygus: Media fragmentation is strong here but it’s an overall theme that pervades all papers in this group.
 
Two additional ‘bad’ things:

1. We should raise ethical concern about audience surveillance given the tracking characteristics of new media.
2. Public dialogue emerges in campaigns without sharing cultural experiences.
3. Advertising and marketing literatures should be useful in determining uses of niche media.
4. How are underlying principles of messaging consistent rather than different in new tech contexts?
5. In thinking about how to study this: what will become the central texts of analysis?
6. Specific skeins of text really matter.
7. Fragmentation is interesting but let’s not over-sell it. The non-fragmented audience may have been a brief phenomenon in the television era.

Response to Coe: The paper does well with delivery and reception but pays little attention to production. How are presidential messages produced? Databanks have improved textual study. There are four things that presidential language might be trying to affect: solidarity, reinforcement, persuasion, and conversion. An expanded literature review involving the role of narrative in reception would be useful. See Lewis, QJS ’85.

Response to Schudson: The “people” has always been problematic. The “people” is not the source of what democracies should do. Burkean concepts of the people re representative government become important here. We are often told that government involves; so does democracy involve, broad understanding among the people. It’s not clear that this is true. We pay too little attention to local news. Local government t is most important thing for most citizens, and that’s what they know most about. But the field hasn’t paid enough attention to what people need from local news. Feed the grassroots for grassroots purposes. Rod Hart’s Political Keywords and Michael McGee’s work with “the people” as ideograph should be useful.

Response to Graber: Consider bolstering to show non-reliance on concept of nation-state, because there are, for example, regional actors. Corporate actors with free speech, in the wake of Citizens United, needs to be better understood as well.

Response to Winkler:

1. It’s important to think about definition of crisis, and who defines it.
2. Temporal change over lifespan of crisis
3. Cognitive mechanisms for effects on audiences during crisis (predispositions)
4. US media policy and audience dynamic on global media. Is the globalized media environment changing things. 
5. Historical perspectives: really don’t know that war coverage is different now. 
6. Important to think about definition of crisis, and who defines it.
7. Temporal change over lifespan of crisis
8. Cognitive mechanisms for effects on audiences during crisis (predispositions)
9. US media policy and audience dynamic on global media. Is the globalized media environment changing things.
10. Historical perspectives: really don’t know that war coverage is different now.

Comments for Aday:

1. It is important to think about definition of crisis, and who defines it.
2. Consider and incorporate temporal changes over lifespan of crisis
3. Cognitive mechanisms for effects on audiences during crisis (predispositions)
4. US media policy and audience dynamic on global media. Is the globalized media environment changing things.
5. Historical perspectives: really don’t know that war coverage is different now.

Summary of Table 1 Friday lunch conversation following Michael Schudson’s normative desiderata:
In addition to Michael’s list, media should endeavor:

1. Not to deceive;
2. Not to lie;
3. To disclose intent (i.e., partisan coverage may be fine if predispositions are disclosed);
4. To make plain how evidence used in the news account has been gathered and interpreted;

All of this said, there are problems:

1. In figuring out what is misleading (e.g., is a mistake borne of deadline pressure “misleading” or just an error)?
2. In determining what level of “certainty” is required for responsible journalism (publication).

William Benoit (Moderator 2, Day 1, Group 1, Candidate Discourse & Media Systems)
Summary on theory: to include local news talk radio and other soft news. Another was to include issue ownership and functional federalism. 3 rhetorical theory including Aristotle and Burke.

Sunshine Hillygus (Moderator 3, Day 1, Group 1, Candidate Discourse & Media Systems)
Our group represents two different sections in the book:

1. candidate discourse and
2. news in political systems. 

Each author had a number of specific unanswered questions about their specific area, and often these could be classified as questions either about the nature/content of communications or questions about their effects.  The following seemed to be the core questions of relevance to many of our topics.

1. How has the fragmented media environment changed the nature of the relationship between the press, state, citizens...as well as parties, interest groups, and corporations.
2. How can we get ahead of new and emerging technologies?  We should consider how the characteristics of communication platforms (e.g., whether one to one, one to many, carry along, etc) might constrain the patterns of communication that we expect.
3. The methodologies that we use shape the questions that we ask and the answers that we get, so it seems important to include a discussion of evidence and inference in pol comm research.
4. Big picture: Is a partisan or professional press  best for democracy?  What are the standards for evaluating "best"?  Do we want an informed citizenry?  a participatory citizenry? an affiliated citizenry? a represented citizenry?

Carol Winkler (Group 1, Candidate Discourse & Media Systems)
The most important takeaway from today's discussion in Group 1 was the following: In the changing media climate, it is critical to examine platform elements related to new media, rather than the content, to discover durable findings that will continue to be of value to future scholars.  These would include elements such as framing, degree of difficulty relating to entering the message, changed nature of the interactions with the platform, ability of the participants to customize the project, whether the media is mobile, etc.