, Syracuse University (moderator 1- Day 1); [respondent for Erika Falk]
, Duke University (moderator 2- Day 1); [respondent for Pamela Shoemaker]
S. Robert Lichter
, George Mason University (moderator 3- Day 1); [respondent for James Hamilton]
David H. Weaver
, Indiana University; [respondent for S. Robert Lichter]
, University of Pennsylvania; [respondent for David H. Weaver]
, Arizona State University; [respondent for Oscar Gandy]
, John Hopkins University; [respondent for Kim Fridkin]
, Princeton University (gadfly)
, (Annenberg School for Communication graduate student)
, (Annenberg School for Communication graduate student
(Moderator 1, Day 1, Group 2, Media Content & Effects)
I fear that we — who are primarily older — cannot anticipate the usefulness of the material in this book to the younger students who will buy it in 2012. We put too much emphasis on the theories and research that we learned as grad students. We are not eager to retire approaches that apply little to this new media world?
In addition, we attach negative affect to concepts such as media fragmentation or the polarization of the electorate. Are these negative from the context of younger people who will be old enough to hold office by the time we retire and then die? Maybe, but my point is that we have not asked the question. Is this book to represent the old world or the new one?
(Moderator 2, Day 1, Group 2, Media Content & Effects)
Insights from today: Continued low levels of knowledge we have about tracing the connections out among media content, voter knowledge, voter decisions, policy formulation, and policy outcomes.
New to me: With more editing and selection and filtering of stories done by algorithm, the code offers you an interesting new source of information about "gatekeeping." We believe that for group 2 it will be better for each of us to handle methods questions within our own essays. Many would favor an intro essay at the start of the book that matches methods with particular types of research questions.
In terms of missing chapters, Larry Bartels identified an important gap. It would be helpful to have an essay about the ways that content are collected and analyzed (e.g., human coding, machine coding). This might include a discussion of methods from other disciplines (e.g., NLP approaches) that are starting to be used in political science.
(Moderator 3, Day 1, Group 2, Media Content & Effects)
Important unanswered research questions:
- Policy framework affecting pol. comm.;
- Political socialization in the digital age;
- Motivations of content producers;
- Influence of money on content and effects of campaign communication;
- Relationship between public opinion and political behavior;
Today's important insight:
We don’t know anything about what people know about politics, but it doesn't matter, because we don’t know whether what they know affects how they behave.
(Group 2, Media Content & Effects)
After the Friday morning plenary with Michael Schudson, Group 2 was assigned the task of responding to his normative requirements for journalism in a democracy in terms of political debates. We decided that political debates at various levels should try to provide information, analyze and interpret, provide a public forum, mobilize advocates, be non-deceiving and transparent, and use facts that have been checked. We doubted that debates could fulfill the other desirable functions of journalism described by Michael such as investigate centers of power, engage in empathetic reporting, and work to enable the will of the people.