Dietram Scheufele, University of Wisconsin (moderator 1- Day 1); [respondent for Natalie Jomini Stroud]
Shanto Iyengar, Stanford University (moderator 2- Day 1); [respondent for Dietram Scheufele]
Patricia Moy, University of Washington (moderator 3- Day 1); [respondent for Shanto Iyengar]
Lynn Vavreck, University of California, Los Angeles; [respondent for Patricia Moy]
R. Lance Holbert, Ohio State University; [respondent for Lynn Vavreck]
Lauren Feldman, American University; [respondent for R. Lance Holbert]
Natalie Jomini Stroud, University of Texas at Austin; [respondent for Lauren Feldman]
Jon Krosnick, Stanford University (gadfly)
Rowan Howard-Williams, (Annenberg School for Communication graduate student)
Joshua Darr, (Annenberg School for Communication graduate student)


Dietram Schuefele (Moderator 1, Day 1, Group 3, Psychological Theories and Media Effects)
ADVERTISING:
The discussion started with the suggestion that a good framework for thinking about what is normatively desirable in advertising could be a scale anchored in “egalitarian” and “elitist” attributes.  The idea of sloganeering in political advertising, for instance, could be considered one of the most egalitarian outcomes of political advertising. 

At the same time, tailoring ads toward specific and often narrow segments moves political advertising toward more elitist form of political communication. Group 3 agreed that it was less useful to look at self-selection by audiences (based on ideology) or targeting of ads toward particular audiences by candidates (based on segments), and instead to look at four normative functions of ads, and two open questions related to normative aspects of political advertising.

At least four normative functions:

1. The press often doesn't do a good enough job monitoring false inaccuracies in campaign discourse. Political ads by other candidates can fill that void, and often do play that monitoring role.
2. Attack ads can play an important democratic function during election campaigns and in fact mobilize voters.
3. Ads may help build up the salience and perceived importance of elections during a campaign cycle.
4. Ads provide a means for candidates to reach audiences without going through the filter that traditional mass media impose on political communication (professional journalistic norms, biases, etc.).

Normative questions:

1. Source transparency: Who is behind the ad? Can source attribution moderate the tone of the ads?
2. Market vs. public service models: To which degree is advertising a democratic tool?

Should we have free air time (similar to what we have in Germany or other countries) in order to make it more of a democratic rather than elite tool? 


Patricia Moy (Moderator 3, Day 1, Group 3, Psychological Theories and Media Effects)
The implicit and explicit references to the temporality and permanency of our research questions were striking. Collectively they re-emphasized the need to identify processes and theoretical mechanisms, which have greater purchase than focusing on merely contexts of study. Eveland spoke to this when his group differentiated between unanswered questions and important questions.