Kevin Coe, University of Arizona (Table 2 moderator- Day 2)
Natalie Jomini Stroud, University of Texas at Austin (Table 2 moderator- Day 2 closing session)
William Benoit, Ohio University
Diana Owen, Georgetown University
Pamela Shoemaker, Syracuse University
Lynn Sanders, University of Virginia
Diana Mutz, University of Pennsylvania (gadfly)
Laura Silver, (Annenberg School for Communication graduate student)
Felicity Duncan, (Annenberg School for Communication graduate student)

Kevin Coe (Table 2 moderator)
We began by focusing on the issue of public scholarship more broadly, noting that academics are trained in the conventions of academe, and that these conventions don’t necessarily prepare us very well for communicating our scholarship to the broader public.

To improve this situation, three things might be needed:

1. Training: It would be useful to have more courses in graduate school that focus on teaching students how to translate their research findings into a language a broader audience can understand. Requiring a graduate student in political communication to write an op-ed might be one thing such courses could do.
2. Resources: Universities can facilitate the dissemination of our scholarship via their news bureaus, but the resources in this respect vary greatly. It would be useful if universities committed more resources to this, and faculty can help by working more closely with the news bureaus to ensure the information that’s produced is accurate and useful.
3. Incentives: The reality is that there is less incentive for faculty to attempt to make their scholarship available and accessible to the public if doing so is not valued by their universities or peers. Acknowledging public scholarship in promotion and tenure would be one place to start.

To the question of what insights the field has contributed to public understandings, two examples stood out:

1. The understanding that subtle cues in political messages can mobilize racial attitudes is something that was not widely understood when the famous “Willie Horton” ads aired in 1988. In subsequent campaigns, however, media commentators pointed out how similar ads might be doing this, in part perhaps because of scholarship on the topic that had emerged in the years following the Horton ads.
2. The reporting of public opinion polls in news coverage, which has long been problematic, has improved some in recent years, in part perhaps because of advice from scholars of political communication.

To the question of what insights from the field might surprise the public, two examples stood out:

1. People seem to have the sense that “new media” are dominant in elections. In fact, the public might be surprised that “old media” such as television are still far and away the most used.
2. Media producers might be interested to know that soft news formats and comedic formats can have the effect of teaching the public about political information and encouraging political engagement.

What should our normative expectations of political communication be? Borrowing from Bill Benoit, whose perspective I agree with: Political communication should not be intentionally deceptive, nor should it be coercive.