 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Media coverage and “spin” in the 2000 Presidential election
Section
I – Introduction of topic:
In recent years, politics has become a form of entertainment for the
American public.
As a response to this increased public interest in elections and politicians,
the media
has begun to cover the political arena rather intensely. Many viewers
tune in to shows
such as CrossFire in order to learn about what’s going on in Washington.
Obviously,
scandals such as the Gary Condit/Chandra Levy affair or President Clinton
and Monica
Lewinsky have added to this public interest. As media coverage of politicians
and
elections grows, it becomes more obvious that the media is not always
unbiased. One
example of this is the 2000 Presidential election. Vice-President Gore
was often
portrayed as boring and condescending, while President Bush was attacked
for seeming
unintelligent. What role does this type of media “spin”
play in the election outcome? I
hope to discover whether the public’s perception of the candidates
is significantly
affected by media coverage and whether or not these perceptions in turn
affect voter’s
choices at the polls. These findings will be very helpful to many audiences,
specifically
politicians and their staffs. In considering how much media influences
the public’s
perception of a candidate, politicians can gain great insight into how
much attention to
pay to media coverage.
Section
I-B - Keywords:
UNC Library Catalog
1. Media AND 2000 presidential campaign
2. Al? Gore AND George W. Bush
Lexis
Nexis Academic Universe
1. Media w/10 presidential election (date range 9/00-2/01)
2. George Bush and Al! Gore w/20 media (date range 9/00-2/01)
Search
engine on Web < http://www.google.com >
1. Media and 2000 presidential campaign
2. Media coverage Bush and Gore
Section
II – Books, Videotapes and CD-ROMs from UNC libraries:
Two print sources from UNC libraries
1. Denton, Robert E., ed. The 2000 Presidential Campaign: a Comunication
Perspective.
Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2002.
UNC Libraries call number: JK5262000q
2. Simon, Roger. Divided We Stand: how Al Gore beat George Bush and
Lost the
Presidency. New York: Crown Publishers, 2001.
UNC Libraries call number: E889.S56 2001
One
non-paper source from UNC libraries
1. The New York Times current affairs series. The 1988 presidential
election. Random
House Media, 1988. Videocassette.
UNC Libraries call number: JK526 1988
Section
III – Electronic Indexes and Database sources:
1. Teepen, Tom. “Candidates were mediocre, media was worse.”
Cox News Service,
2 November, 2000, Commentary section. Database on-line. Available from
Lexis-Nexis
Academic Universe. [22 January, 2003].
2. Allen, Mike and Terry M. Neal. “Tennessee Taunt; Bush radiates
confidence on
opponent’s turf.” The Washington Post, 7 September, 2000,
Section A (Campaign 2000). Database on-line. Lexis Nexis Academic Universe.
[22 January, 2003].
3. Kurtz, Howard. “On PBS, Nattering Nabobs of Positivity.”
The Washington Post, 23
October, 2000, Section C (Style-Media Notes). Database on-line. Lexis
Nexis Academic Universe. [22 January, 2003].
4. Lambro, Donald. “Shifting kinetics in the debate.” The
Washington Times, 16 October,
2000, Section A (Commentary). Database on-line. Lexis Nexis Academic
Universe.
[22 January, 2003].
5. The Washington Post. “Serving Up Sound Bites and Slant.”
30 September, 2000,
Section A (Op-Ed). Database on-line. Lexis Nexis Academic Universe.
[29 January, 2003].
6. Kurtz, Howard. “Gore's Media Bombs Hit Their Mark; Bush Finds
His Message Obscured
as Democrats Follow Calculated Strategy of Distraction.” The Washington
Post, 16
September, 2000, Section A (Campaign 2000). Database on-line. Lexis
Nexis Academic Universe. [29 January, 2003].
Section
IV – Five best Web sites:
1. TITLE: Media Research Center Campaign 2000: One Stop Shopping for
Bias in Campaign
Coverage
WEB ADDRESS: http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/projects/camp2000/welcome.html
BRIEF DESCRIPTION: This site is based on the conservative idea that
“liberal bias in the media
does exist and undermines traditional American values.” It clearly
has a conservative bias,
but the underlying idea of how media influences political races was
helpful for my research.
The page discusses several events covered by the media throughout the
2000 Presidential race
and discusses the possibility of bias in the coverage and how that could
affect the outcome of
the race.
SOURCE OF WEB SITE: Media Research Center
2.
TITLE: Election 2000: FAIR Resources
WEB ADDRESS: http://www.fair.org/issues-news/election.html
BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Archive of several FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In
Reporting) articles
about the 2000 Presidential race and links to other helpful sites. This
site discusses a wide array
of media issues in the several articles about the 2000 election.
SOURCE OF WEB SITE: Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, a media watchdog
group
3.
TITLE: Journalism.org – Reports and Surveys – Campaign 2000
– A question of character
WEB ADDRESS: http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/campaign2000/character/default.asp
BRIEF DESCRIPTION: This site contains a rather extensive report on a
variety of media issues that arose in the 2000 election. It discusses
research on how the media handled the election and how that coverage
affected the American public. The site even goes into detail with several
specific issues, such as “Gore as a Liar” and “Bush’s
Intelligence.”
SOURCE OF WEB SITE: Committee of Concerned Journalists
4.
TITLE: MediaChannel.org – In Depth Election Coverage
WEB ADDRESS: http://www.mediachannel.org/originals/election.shtml
BRIEF DESCRIPTION: This site has a variety of articles dealing with
media bias in the 2000
Presidential election. It also addresses proposals for journalists on
how to improve election
coverage along with other criticism of coverage and other media issues.
SOURCE OF WEB SITE: MediaChannel
5.
TITLE: Citizens for Legitimate Government
WEB ADDRESS: http://www.legitgov.org/linksPmedia.html
BRIEF DESCRIPTION: This is a site from a liberal group whose mission
is to “expose the Bush
coup d’etat.” While this is clearly not a neutral site,
I thought it balanced the Media Research
Center’s site well. From this site, I got the opposite perspective
of anti-Gore bias in the media,
while the Media Research Center site focused on anti-Bush bias. By looking
at both sites, I could
see a total picture of the media bias during the election.
SOURCE OF WEB SITE: Citizens for Legitimate Government