Moderator Summaries

Group 1 - Candidate Discourse & Media Systems

2011-01-12T20:09:00Z

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:

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.
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?
Thinking about policy vs. character: such a blurry line policy and character. (e.g., leadership qualities).
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:

We should raise ethical concern about audience surveillance given the tracking characteristics of new media.
Public dialogue emerges in campaigns without sharing cultural experiences.
Advertising and marketing literatures should be useful in determining uses of niche media.
How are underlying principles of messaging consistent rather than different in new tech contexts?
In thinking about how to study this: what will become the central texts of analysis?
Specific skeins of text really matter.
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:

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

Comments for Aday:

It is important to think about definition of crisis, and who defines it.
Consider and incorporate temporal changes over lifespan of crisis
Cognitive mechanisms for effects on audiences during crisis (predispositions)
US media policy and audience dynamic on global media. Is the globalized media environment changing things.
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:

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

All of this said, there are problems:

In figuring out what is misleading (e.g., is a mistake borne of deadline pressure “misleading” or just an error)?
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:

candidate discourse and
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.

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.
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.
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.
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.

Table 1

2011-01-12T20:07:00Z

Ken Goldstein, University of Wisconsin-Madison (Table 1 moderator- Day 2)
Erika Falk, John Hopkins University (Table 1 moderator- Day 2 closing session)
David Birdsell, Baruch College (CUNY)
Dannagal Young, University of Delaware
Bruce Hardy, University of Pennsylvania
Miriam J. Metzger, University of California, Santa Barbara
Jon Krosnick, Stanford University (gadfly)
Rowan Howard-Williams, (Annenberg School for Communication graduate student)
Jin Kim, (Annenberg School for Communication graduate student)

Group 2 - Media Content & Effects

2011-01-12T20:02:00Z

Pamela Shoemaker, Syracuse University (moderator 1- Day 1); [respondent for Erika Falk]
James Hamilton, 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]
Oscar Gandy, University of Pennsylvania; [respondent for David H. Weaver]
Kim Fridkin, Arizona State University; [respondent for Oscar Gandy]
Erika Falk, John Hopkins University; [respondent for Kim Fridkin]
Larry Bartels, Princeton University (gadfly)
Felicity Duncan, (Annenberg School for Communication graduate student)
Jeff Gottfried, (Annenberg School for Communication graduate student

Pamela Shoemaker (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?

James Hamilton (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.

Bob Lichter (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.

David Weaver (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.

Table 2

2011-01-12T19:59:00Z

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:

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.
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.
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:

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.
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:

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.
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.

Group 3 - Psychological Theories and Media Effects

2011-01-12T19:55:00Z

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:

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.
Attack ads can play an important democratic function during election campaigns and in fact mobilize voters.
Ads may help build up the salience and perceived importance of elections during a campaign cycle.
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:

Source transparency: Who is behind the ad? Can source attribution moderate the tone of the ads?
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.

Table 3

2011-01-12T19:53:00Z

Kim Fridkin, Arizona State University (Table 3 moderator- Day 2)
Sean Aday, George Washington University (Table 3 moderator- Day 2 closing session)
S. Robert Lichter, George Mason University
Patricia Moy, University of Washington
John Gastil, University of Washington
Joseph Cappella, University of Pennsylvania
Fay Lomax Cook, Northwestern University
John Zaller, UCLA (gadfly)
Lori Young, (Annenberg School for Communication graduate student)

Kim Fridkin (Table 3 moderator, Day 2)
I was the moderator for the Saturday morning session and here is what I presented to the group at large:

How does our research about how news matters inform policymakers' decisions about whether government should subsidize news. Some of the research is comparative, showing countries with subsidized news has much higher levels of political information among citizens.

Research on ballot proposals shows us that deliberation can be effective and the information created by this deliberation can inform the electorate. Research on deliberation shows that people should expose themselves to non information.

Research is beginning to show us how groups can produce wise information, what factors are important. For example, is it the information, the discussion, the leader, etc. Research suggests there are lots of problems with presenting polling information to the public via the email because of framing effects, etc.

Group 4 - Group & Interpersonal Communication

2011-01-12T18:53:00Z

Fay Lomax Cook, Northwestern University (moderator1 - Day 1); [respondent for Robert Huckfeldt]
Lynn Sanders, University of Virginia (moderator 2- Day 1); [respondent for Fay Lomax Cook]
John Gastil, University of Washington (moderator 3- Day 1); [respondent for Lynn Sanders]
Andrew Hayes, Ohio State University; [respondent for John Gastil]
Brian Southwell, University of Minnesota; [respondent for Andrew Hayes]
Robert Huckfeldt, University of California, Davis; [respondent for Brian Southwell]
Diana Mutz, University of Pennsylvania (gadfly)
Jin Kim, (Annenberg School for Communication graduate student)

John Gastil (Moderator 3, Day 1, Group 4, Group & Interpersonal)
Theory notes
Typology of theories:

Meta-theories – abstract configurations of concepts and empirical content (e.g., structuration theory);
Empirical theories – predict, explain, and describe (e.g., attribution theory);
Interpretive theories – hermeneutic; interpret to provide meaning (e.g., social constructivism);
Normative theories – moral/philosophical models, ideals, and judgments (e.g., deliberative theory);

Unanswered questions;

Civility vs. respect – normatively different concepts;
what empirical differences do they yield?;
Publicness (dimensions include size of “audience,” diversity, and identifiability) – when is it desirable, and what effects does it have on pol comm behavior?;
What are the properties of full pol comm networks, beyond the two degrees of linkage typically studied?
How does information flow through such networks?;

Don’t know responses:

When is a “don’t know” during a social-political interaction a hiding of one’s actual attitude?;
When is saying “don’t know” to a pol knowledge question actually a sign of integrity and humility (as compared to reckless guessing or systematically distorted empirical beliefs)?;
What motivates people to initiate or seek out political talk?;

Stories/narratives – how are they used, and to what effect?;

Do they tend to drown out more generalizable information in news, networks, and deliberative spaces?

Normative framework — Dahl’s theory of democracy provides a good general framework for thinking about political behavior in polyarchies. When broadly construed and articulated differently at different levels of analysis, deliberative democratic theory provides a more useful framework for political communication because it focuses on the discursive dimension of democracy. The overwhelming majority of political communication theories and research can be understood as pertaining to one or more facets of deliberation (and, commonly, the absence or antithesis thereof).

Table 4

2011-01-12T18:51:00Z

Lynn Vavreck, University of California, Los Angeles (Table 4 moderator- Day 2)
Brian Southwell, University of Minnesota (Table 4 moderator- Day 2 closing session)
David H. Weaver, Indiana University
Ken Winneg, University of Pennsylvania
Dietram Scheufele, University of Wisconsin
Kathleen Hall Jamieson, University of Pennsylvania (gadfly)
Elizabeth Roodhouse, (Annenberg School for Communication graduate student)
Jonathan Pearson, (Annenberg School for Communication graduate student)

Brian Southwell (Table 4)
Regarding our interpersonal and small group section organization ideas:

We agreed that discussion of methods, if it arises at all in our section, is best left as an occasional theme (framed as useful to theory or as hampering progress) in some of our chapters.
We want to advocate for inclusion of some form of what's presently chapter 8 (the Yale work on field experiments) in our section as well as (or possibly in the form of) a chapter on the nitty gritty of door knocking as a campaign marketing strategy.

Beyond that, Huckfeldt suggested (and I agreed, along with the group) that a great structure for our section would be for my two-step flow piece to remain first, followed by his "taking networks seriously" piece. The two work well together and he will flesh his out with my full draft in mind.

Then we could have a piece from Lilach. We think it would be great if she changed her focus, though, from a general look at "flow" within "networks" to a more narrow look at the consequences of (viewpoint/ideological) heterogeneity in groups (or something like that). That will avoid duplication and also add something else substantive to the section.

Regarding useful insights from today: I was struck by our group's discussion of the distinction of civility versus respect and the potential for repression through imposition of civility standards and also by the notion that behavioral "publicness" or overtness might matter as a critical moderating factor.

David Weaver (Table 4)
The most important insight I gained from Friday's meetings was increased understanding of the work of many people in my group and how my own work connects with theirs. A very long, but intellectually rewarding day.

Group 5 - Political Information-processing & Processing Models

2011-01-12T17:38:00Z

Nicholas Valentino, University of Michigan (moderator 1- Day 1); [respondent for Milton Lodge]
Ann N. Crigler, University of Southern California (moderator 2- Day 1); [respondent for William P. Eveland]
William P. Eveland, Ohio State University (moderator 3- Day 1); [respondent for Nicholas Valentino]
Bruce Hardy, University of Pennsylvania; [respondent for Ann N. Crigler]
Milton Lodge, SUNY at Stony Brook; [respondent for Bruce Hardy]
John Zaller, UCLA (gadfly)
Alison Perelman, (Annenberg School for Communication graduate student)
Lori Young, (Annenberg School for Communication graduate student)

Nicholas Valentino (Moderator 1, Day 1, Group 5, Political Information-processing & Processing Models)
Subject: what's missing in the section — Preference for placement of measurement/method review is in the first chapter of the section, written by Milt. So this would only require a slight re-ordering of the chapters, where Milt goes first, then Ann, then Nick/Bruce/and Chip could come in any order.

Is there anything else to be commissioned, NO.

Do we want any additional chapters, NO.

Here are the theories we discussed yesterday for Group 5 on information processing. Ann Crigler asked me to send these along:

Dual cognitive process models, in particular implicit/explicit but also online versus memory based processing.
Also perhaps ELM and other “slow” versus “fast” distinctions.
Appraisal theories of emotion/ esp. distinguish between primary versus secondary appraisals or automatic versus deliberative processes.
Dual coding theory - processing of same info in multiple modes, way of structuring of information affects.
Motivated reasoning.
Affective intelligence.

Bruce Hardy on behalf of Ann Crigler (Moderator 2, Day 1, Group 5, Political Information-processing & Processing Models)
Chip Eveland (The Ohio State University) and I will spearhead the semantic analysis of the chapter texts that will produce a visual representation of the connections among the chapters in the handbook by key concepts. In this analysis each chapter will be represented by a node and the strengths of tie will be represented by the thickness of the line between them. This work will be completed before the editing in order to aide this process.

William Eveland (Moderator 3, Day 1, Group 5, Political Information-processing & Processing Models)
We considered how to weight “important” vs. “unanswered” since both concepts were modifiers of the “research questions” we were asked to develop. Importance and the degree to which a question has been answered fall on a continuum, and they are probably correlated such that maybe the most important questions are also those about which we know the most already, even if they are not yet fully answered.

It is also useful to note that some questions in our list tend to be heavily politically-oriented (i.e., deal with primarily political concerns for which communication may serve as one possible explanation), whereas others are questions about communication effects (which are applied to a political context but may also be applied to other contexts):

Why do some people know so much about politics and others so little?
Why are some people so interested in politics and other people not so much?
How do citizens behave competently with relatively low average levels of concrete information?
What causes the development of political habits of mind?
Does variation in communication forms alter the nature of emotional response and forms of information processing?
What causes individuals to vote against their self-interest?
How easy is it to for media to bias political decision-making?
How do we discriminate rationalizations and real attitudes?

We defined theory as a construct that enables one to predict, explain, and describe.

In the realm of political communication, we hope to describe the creation of content and the effects of media content. Theories we discussed can help predict content alone, effects alone, or both content and effects. Theories marked with * are those that chapter authors believe they will use in writing their handbook chapters.

Theories that explain both content and effects:

*Agenda setting
*Critical theory of unconscious ideology
*Framing
*Economics of information markets -- industrial organization Economics of information markets -- strategic communication and game theory Uses and gratification World system theory
*Social construction of reality Structural functionalism Diffusion theory
*Cognitive psychology and neuroscience theories of decision making;

Primarily content:

*Gatekeeping;

Primarily effects:

Priming;
*Persuasion.

Our group believed that there should be a chapter at the start of the volume which presents a rich tapestry of theories of political communication, and gives the reader a sense of what theories help predict or explain particular phenomena. We believe this should be a stand alone chapter rather than simply a roadmap to the conference volume.

Table 5

2011-01-12T17:35:00Z

R. Lance Holbert, Ohio State University (Table 5 moderator- Day 2)
Lauren Feldman, American University (Table 5 moderator- Day 2 closing session)
Oscar Gandy, University of Pennsylvania
Doris Graber, University of Illinois at Chicago
Milton Lodge, SUNY at Stony Brook, and co-author Dan Cassino, SUNY at Stony Brook
Nicholas Valentino, University of Michigan
Kate Kenski, University of Arizona (gadfly)
Tim Fallis, (Annenberg School for Communication graduate student)

Lance Holbert (Table 5)
How does what we know contribute to politics in the here and now? Specific cases were offered where our research has been used in public policy debates (e.g., negative advertising in campaign finance), how citizens can craft messages to achieve their goals, and the providing of details of whom citizens need to speak with in order to maximize their agency. Points were raised that our theories provide a means by which to organize the day to day practice of political communication engaged by journalists, professional political communicators, and citizens.

We feel all of these groups would be interested to see the larger organizational structure offered in our theories - see the forest through the trees, the bigger picture. However, there is public relations problem - a communication disconnect from these groups concerning the better part of our work. This is where the issue of public scholarship raised by other groups comes into play.

What insights from the field would make sense to the average citizens? We approached this question from the standpoint of which areas of our understanding laypersons would find make sense based on their personal experiences- empirical validation of their own observations of day to day political communication activities.

A few points were raised:

The agency and influence of social networks (especially among younger citizens and their understanding of social media).
The inequality of press coverage of male versus female candidates.

We also mentioned that journalists themselves would not be surprised by these details - may be surprised by the degree, but not the fact that the inequalities exist. Would any insights come as a surprise? The majority of points put forward by the group were in response to this query.

The points raised were as follows:

The role of social context/market level on what political information is made available to any one individual. The information made available to any one individual is determined in part by the demographic make-up of the market within which that individual resides;
role of instantaneous reactions to stimuli - role of implicit associations/implicit attitudes - the primacy of affect - this general line of insights would be surprising to the layperson;
the fact that rather large shifts in attitudes/attributions can derive from rather small shifts in message design;
the fact that so many people can walk away from the same message with different understandings/interpretations of that message;
getting past the third person perception - to come to a realization that citizens themselves are influenced by political communication (many of us mentioned that this is a major perception we seek to have our undergrad students overcome - that the effects described in our classes pertain to them, not just others). Citizens would be surprised in a similar fashion to find that they are affected by debates, ads, news, etc.

Oscar Gandy (Table 5)
The third question was less clear, something to do with the identification of normative questions. It was not clear whether this was supposed to be in response to some earlier survey.

I would suggest, however that for me, an important normative question relates to the extent to which strategic communication efforts, especially those designed to misinform political decision makers, should in some way be the basis for punishing their source.

Group 6 - Citizen Media Consumption

2011-01-12T17:31:00Z

Miriam J. Metzger, University of California, Santa Barbara (moderator1 - Day 1); [respondent for Dannagal Young]
Diana Owen, Georgetown University (moderator 2- Day 1); [respondent for Miriam J. Metzger]
Joseph Cappella, University of Pennsylvania (moderator 3- Day 1); [respondent for Diana Owen]
Ken Winneg, University of Pennsylvania; [respondent for Joseph Cappella]
Jennifer Stromer-Galley, SUNY, Albany; [respondent for Ken Winneg]
Michael X. Delli Carpini, University of Pennsylvania; [respondent for Jennifer Stromer-Galley]
Dannagal Young, University of Delaware; [respondent for Michael X. Delli Carpini]
Kate Kenski, University of Arizona (gadfly)
Jonathan Pearson, (Annenberg School for Communication graduate student)

Miriam Metzger (Moderator 1, Day 1, Group 6, Citizen Media Consumption)
From this morning's discussion about normative expectations, this is the summary from our table (Table 6: Citizen Media Consumption): We expect citizens to have at least some understanding of (very) basic political institutions, processes, and structures. We expect responsible media consumption, including exposing themselves to some public affairs information and exposing themselves to a diversity of viewpoints if possible. We expect citizens to have skills needed to find relevant political information (information seeking) and evaluate its credibility (information literacy). We expect that people have a "citizen identity" (i.e., what it means to be a citizen) that is activated at least some time(s). Of course, we should probably change the word "expect" in each of the above to the word "hope." I was struck by how little agreement there was in defining political communication across individuals and tables, yet at the same time there was a good deal of agreement on the important theories of political communication. All of the gadflies had really important insights.

Diana Owen (Moderator 2, Day 1, Group 6)
The discussion began with the observation that the state of theory related to new media is not in good shape. The group identified three categories of theory: normative theory, empirical/explanatory theory, and "modely theory". While theories that generate testable ideas and provide meaningful explanations are preferable, there are models that are less well developed that are prominent in the field that merit inclusion in certain chapters. Theories that will be given prominent treatment in the section include theories of the public sphere and deliberation (Habermas), social capital theory (Putnam and others), theories of influence flows in society (two step flow model), uses and gratifications, diffusion theory, explanations of selective exposure, and explanations of narrowcasting. Rather than having a separate chapter or introduction to the section, the group prefers to highlight particular theories within the individual chapters and cross- reference them where relevant.

Joseph Cappella (Moderator 3, Day 1, Group 6)
All are topics of special relevance to the new media environment and remain unaddressed or are addressed in scattered locations throughout the volume: Creation and advancement of social movements and political action through new media; Young people and political involvement: the role of new media in engaging the youth audience; Information seeking including especially; Dispositions toward consuming political information versus not; For consumers: Forms of political information consumed by medium and genre; “Opportunity spaces” How do media institutions structure information to enhance and reduce exposure; Selective exposure/avoidance by partisanship, attitude, value, and ideology; Do new media enhance or reduce the possibility of “inadvertent exposure” to uncongenial information; Political games and gaming: Using virtual political environments to teach and to experiment about politics, and social affairs

Table 6

2011-01-12T17:18:00Z

Andrew Hayes, Ohio State University (Table 6 moderator- Day 2)
Jennifer Stromer-Galley, SUNY, Albany (Table 6 moderator- Day 2 closing session)
Carol Winkler, Georgia State University
William P. Eveland, Ohio State University
Robert Huckfeldt, University of California, Davis
Larry Bartels, Princeton University (gadfly)
Joshua Darr, (Annenberg School for Communication graduate student)
Jeff Gottfried, (Annenberg School for Communication graduate student)

Andrew Hayes (Table 6)
Our discussion began with an observation of the challenge that results from the likelihood that a nontrivial fraction of the public perceives research on politics and political topics as inherently biased, i.e., that the investigators have a political agenda that influences their research and what they report publicly.

However, it was also acknowledged that such perceived bias may not be unique to political communication research. In other words, people often discount any research that is inconsistent with their own intuition, attitudes, or personal experiences. We then discussed what role political communication researchers can contribute to politics in the here and now. One important role researchers can play is to function as "empathic advisors" to the public. We can acknowledge that the task the public has--to make informed political decisions—is nearly impossible given the 'booming, buzzing confusion' that characterizes the information environment. We can give the public permission to feel confused.

But without telling the public what to think, we can steer them toward an understanding of what informational cues should matter more and what cues should matter less when it comes to making informed decisions. We also noted that our influence on the public is often indirect rather than direct, through our involvement in political campaigns as advisors — message design, mobilization efforts, and so forth — which influence voter turnout and so have impact on political
outcomes such as election results, policies, and so forth.

This may not always be a good thing, however, if the knowledge of communication scholars is used to malevolently manipulate rather than benevolently inform and persuade. Ideally, the advice we as political communication scholars offer should be consistent with normative theories of democracy.

We also should not shy away from government consulting. Many government agencies can benefit from the knowledge of political communication scholars, and when they ring the bell, we should be willing to answer the door.

Many people believe that social science findings are obvious and merely describe what we already know. Whether generally true or false, there are some things that the public probably does not know about the political process but that political communication research has shown. One example is the role of advertising in educating the public. Although many quickly grow tired of political advertising during the typical campaign, and even come to detest the negative advertising, there is evidence that people do learn facts from advertising, even negative ads, and in some cases may actually learn more than they do from the news, candidate speeches, and so forth.

Jennifer Stromer-Galley (Table 6)
The most important insight: we seem to generally agree on a core set of theories, which suggests that there likely is a canon of scholarship/theories to which we refer.