Political Television Advertising in Campaign 2000

Political Television Advertising inCampaign 2000David Airne & William L. Benoit

Most studies of political advertising focus on presidential television spots. However, farmore commercials are broadcast for other races. This study applies the functional theoryof political campaign discourse to 584 television spots from presidential, gubernatorial,senatorial, house, and local races in the 2000 election. The most common functions wereacclaims (67%) followed by attacks (32%) and defenses (1%). When non-presidentialads are examined, incumbents acclaimed more and attacked less than challengers. Party-sponsored ads employed more attacks than ads sponsored by the candidates. Thesemessages emphasized policy more than character (62% against 38%). Democraticcandidates discussed policy more than Republicans. Presidential and gubernatorial ads(executive offices) discussed policy more than ads for other offices.

Keywords: The functional theory of political campaign discourse; Political advertising

The 2000 election year offered a multitude of political races. The Senate races

included a sitting First Lady, a man who spent his family fortune on his campaign,

and a deceased man. Races in the US congress, state governor races, and countless

local offices provided candidates for elective office an opportunity to produce and air

political television spots*/an opportunity they seized with vigor.Candidates and consultants agree that TV spots are an important element of a

successful campaign at the state level (Jenkins, 1997; Sinclair, 1995). Sinclair (1995)

revealed that over $225 million was spent in 1988 on congressional television

advertising. Research confirms that television spots influence election outcomes at all

levels (Joslyn, 1981; Mulder, 1979; Wanat, 1974). However, political advertising is

David Airne (MA, 1998 North Dakota State University; Graduate Candidate University of Missouri*/

Columbia) is an Instructor at the University of Alabama College of Communication & Information Services,Department of Communication Studies, University of Alabama, Box 870172, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0172, USA(Tel: !/1-205-348-5995; Fax: !/1-205-348-8080; Email: [email protected]) William L. Benoit (Ph.D.1979, Wayne State University) is Professor of Communication at University of Missouri*/Columbia,Department of Communication, 115 Switzler Hall, Columbia, MO 65211-2310, USA (Tel: !/1-573-882-0545;Email: [email protected]).

ISSN 0146-3373 print/1746-4102 online/05/040473-20 # 2005 Eastern Communication AssociationDOI: 10.1080/01463370500168765

Communication QuarterlyVol. 53, No. 4, October 2005, pp. 473"/492

probably even more important in non-presidential races because the news lavishesmost attention on the presidential contest. Political advertising, which has beenshown to inform the electorate (e.g., Holbert, Benoit, Hansen, & Wen, 2002; Brians &Wattenberg, 1996), probably has more impact in non-presidential races where thereare fewer alternative sources of information about the candidates and their issuepositions.This paper will examine the television spots from the multiple offices in the 2000

election. First, we begin with a review of the literature on political television spots.Then we identify hypotheses and research questions and develop the method, thefunctional analysis of political discourse. Finally, we will provide the implications andconclusions of the research.

Literature Review

By far most research into political advertising investigates commercials bypresidential candidates (see, e.g., Benoit, 1999; 2001; Diamond & Bates, 1992;Jamieson, 1996; Johnston & Kaid, 2002; Kaid & Johnston, 2001; Kern, 1989; West,1997). The power of the presidency, surely the single most important elective office inAmerica (if not the world), makes this race particularly exciting to study. However,there is but a single presidential race every four years. The USA is the scene forliterally thousands of other political campaigns, some of which occur every two years.Clearly, non-presidential political advertising can be considered significant from thesheer number of candidates and offices involved.Most content analytic research into the nature of political advertising focuses on

two key dimensions of advertisements. First, scholars are concerned with under-standing the functions of television advertising (i.e., positive, negative; acclaims,attacks, defenses). Second, research has investigated the topics of political commer-cials (i.e., issue or image, policy or character). We review the extant research in eacharea. Then we will describe the functional theory of political campaign discourse,explain the hypotheses and method, and report and discuss our results.

Functions of Political Advertising

Several studies concerning congressional spot advertising examined the function ofpolitical commercials. Negative advertising was used frequently in the North CarolinaSenate race between Helms and Hunt (Kern, 1989). Challengers frequently usedattack ads in the Maryland Senate race between Mikulski and Chavez (Sheckels, 1994)and in the Boschwitz-Wellstone race (Pfau, Parrott, & Lindquist, 1992). Benze andDeclerq (1985) found that congressional candidates attacked nearly half the time*/

47% for male candidates, and 44% for female candidates. Johnston and White (1994)investigated advertising by female candidates in the 1986 Senate races. They foundthat females tended to emphasize ‘‘issues more than image in their ads’’ (p. 325).Kahn and Kenney’s (1999) study of the 1988, 1990, and 1992 Senate campaigns found

474 D. Airne & W. L. Benoit

that 18% of the ads in their sample criticized the general policy priorities of the

opposing candidate, while 17% criticized a specific policy position, and a full 20%

blamed an opponent for a negative policy outcome. Benoit (2000), analyzing a variety

of races in the state of Missouri in 1998, reported that candidates acclaimed 67% of

the time and attacked 31% of the time (2% of utterances were defenses against

attacks) in their television spots. Brazeal and Benoit (2001) analyzed 80 House and

Senate ads from 1984 to 2000. They found that acclaims (positive statements)

constituted 64% of the statements in these ads, attacks (negative) were 35.5% of

statements and defenses (refutation of attacks) were rare (0.5%). However, most of

this work investigates congressional advertising (rather than gubernatorial or local

spots).It is difficult to summarize this diverse work, in part because articles use different

categories when they report results (e.g., Kahn & Kenney do not report total attacks,

but only attacks on various aspects of policy). Still, attacks in non-presidential races

seem to range from about 30 to 50%, with acclaims constituting most of the

remaining ad functions. One important limitation is that most of this research

focuses on US congressional advertising, ignoring advertising for gubernatorial and

other non-federal offices.

Topic of Political Advertising

Research has also investigated the occurrence of policy (issues) and character (image)

in congressional advertising. Earlier studies seemed to support the contention that

character is discussed more often than policy. Joslyn (1980) reported that 24% of

Senate spots mentioned policy positions and 40% of those spots mentioned the

candidates’ character. Benze and Declerq’s (1985), who analyzed California congres-

sional commercials, found that ads usually discussed policy (68%) but they discussed

character even more frequently (82% by female candidates, 90% by male candidates).

A study by Payne and Baukus (1988) investigated 81 Republican Senate ads. They

found roughly equal emphasis of policy and character. Kahn and Kenney (1999)

reported that 80% of their ads mentioned, and 36% emphasized, policy. Benoit’s

(2000) analysis of non-presidential television advertising found that 66% of

utterances concerned policy and 34% addressed character. Brazeal and Benoit

(2001) found that congressional ads from 1984 to 2000 focused on policy (70%)

more than character (30%).Summarizing this work is a challenge because of the diverse ways they report

results (e.g., some report separate figures for mentioning or emphasizing a topic). It

appears, though, that research which uses ads as the unit of analysis indicates that

character or image ads predominate; studies using themes as the unit of analysis

suggest that policy comments outnumber character remarks (Benze & Declerq’s study

of California ads is an exception). Again, most of this research focuses on US

congressional advertising, ignoring campaign advertising for other offices.

Communication Quarterly 475

Most voters probably do not avidly seek out information about candidates foroffice. Voters probably expend even less effort investigating candidates for office‘‘below’’ the presidency. This means that most voters rely on whatever infor-mation they happen to encounter prior to election day. Accordingly, politicaltelevision spots are one important means for disseminating information to voters.However, currently we know relatively little about the content of non-presidentialspots.

Functional Theory of Political Discourse

Functional theory was utilized as the foundation for this analysis. This theory wasdeveloped by Benoit and his associates through a series of studies centered primarilyon Presidential campaign discourse (see Benoit, 1999, 2001; Benoit, Blaney, & Pier,1998; Benoit & Harthcock, 1999; Benoit, McHale, Hansen, Pier, & McGuire, 2003;Benoit, Wells, Pier, & Blaney, 1999). This theory argues that citizens vote for thecandidate who appears preferable on whatever criteria are most important to eachvoter, that voters employ an individualized, pragmatic set of criteria when makingvoting decisions. For example, Page (1978) explained that Downs’ (1957)

economic theory of democracy calls for a candidate’s policy stands to echothe policy preferences of the public, and many spatial models*/especially thoseof the public opinion variety*/predict that the midpoint of public opinionon issues has an important influence upon the stands that a candidate takes.(p. 29)

Page presents evidence from the 1968 campaign that ‘‘across a wide variety of issues,then, both Humphrey and Nixon took positions which corresponded fairly closelywith what the average American favored’’ (p. 47). Candidates attract votes byportraying themselves and their policy stands as desirable to voters (more desirablethan their opponents).Given this need to appear desirable to voters, Popkin (1994) explains that ‘‘each

campaign tries hard to make its side look better and the other side worse’’ (p. 232).Specifically, candidates can use campaign messages to demonstrate their preferabilityin three ways. First, the candidate can engage in acclaiming or self-praise (Benoit etal., 1998). The more benefits or advantages to one candidate, the more likely thatpolitician will appear preferable to opponents. Second, a candidate can attackopponents; as voters become aware of more costs or disadvantages of othercandidates, those opponents should appear less desirable to voters (so an attackcan increase a candidate’s net preferability by decreasing the desirability ofopponents). Finally, candidates who have been subjected to attack can defend againstthose attacks. Candidates with fewer costs or disadvantages should appear preferableto voters (Benoit et al., 1998). These three options comprise an informal form ofcost"/benefit analysis, providing information that can help persuade the voter toprefer one candidate (note that functional theory does not assert that voters explicitly


perform cost"/benefit analysis, only that campaign messages contain these three

functions which can influence perceptions in a way that is similar to cost"/benefit

analysis).These three functions (acclaims, attacks, and defenses) can occur on two topics,

policy or character. Policy utterances concern governmental action or problems that

are amenable to governmental action. Character comments concern the candidates as

individuals (e.g., their personal traits and leadership ability).Like all theories, this one has limitations. For example, functional theory was

developed exclusively through the analysis of presidential discourse; thus far,

applications to non-presidential discourse are few (Benoit, 2000; Brazeal & Benoit,

2001). Second, although it speculates about voters (a citizen votes for the candidate

who appears preferable on whatever criteria are most important to that voter), thus

far research has focused on content analysis of campaign messages rather than on the

cognitive processes of voters. With this understanding in hand, we will present the

hypotheses and research questions that drive this research, organized by functions

and topics of television spots.

Functions of Political Advertisements

Based on previous research on political spots (Benoit, 1999, 2000, 2001; Brazeal &

Benoit, 2001), we advance two predictions about the functions of spots:

H1: Television spots acclaim more than they attack and attack more than they defend.H2: Television spots from incumbents use more acclaims and fewer attacks than spotsfrom challengers.

We will also answer five research questions related to ad functions:What are the proportions of the functions (acclaims, attacks, and defenses) in

television spots for:

RQ1: Incumbents, challengers, open-seat candidates?RQ2: Republican versus Democratic spots?RQ3: Political party versus candidate sponsored spots?RQ4: Winners versus losers?RQ5: Offices at different levels (president, Senate, House, governor, local)?

Topics of Political Advertisements

Based on again on previous research on political spots (Benoit, 1999, 2000, 2001;

Brazeal & Benoit, 2001), we advance two predictions about the topics of spots:

H3: Television spots discuss policy more than character.H4: Television spots from winners discuss policy more, and character less, than spotsfrom losers.


We will also answer four research questions related to spot topics:What is the proportion of the topics (policy, character) in television spots for:

RQ6: Incumbents, challengers, open-seat candidates?RQ7: Republican versus Democratic spots?RQ8: Political party versus candidate sponsored spots?RQ9: Offices at different levels (president, Senate, House, governor, local)?

Method

This study employs the functional approach to content analyze political television

spots from candidates seeking a variety of offices in the 2000 campaign. Television

spots were obtained by downloading transcribed commercials from National

Journal’s database (this webpage provides video for the television spots it provides).

Other spots were recorded off the air from various markets around the country:

Chicago, IL; Columbia, MO; Fargo, ND; Kansas City, MO; Milwaukee, WI;

Minneapolis, MN; New York City/New Jersey; Phoenix, AZ; St. Louis, MO. All

spots were transcribed for this study. Ads were then grouped into presidential,

US Senate, US House of Representatives, gubernatorial, and local offices (we

included presidential ads as a point of comparison because they are studied most

frequently). The local group consisted of such offices as secretary of state, state house

and senate, state supreme court, tax commissioner, and other state offices. This

sample comprised a total of 584. We also identified the political party affiliation,

incumbency status, and outcome of the election for each candidate represented

in the sample (the n varies somewhat from analysis to analysis; e.g., there were

no party sponsored ads in this sample for gubernatorial or local offices, so all

spots for those offices were omitted from the analysis of candidate versus party

sponsored ads).

Coding Procedures

Our content analysis employed three steps. The first step was to divide each

advertisement into themes, or utterances that address a coherent idea. Benoit (2000)

described the theme as ‘‘the smallest unit of discourse that is capable of expressing

a complete idea’’ (p. 280). Similarly, Berelson (1952) indicated that a theme is ‘‘an

assertion about a subject’’ (p. 18) and Holsti (1969) defined a theme as ‘‘a single

assertion about some subject’’ (p. 116). Themes can vary in length from a short

phrase to several sentences, as long as the textual excerpt focuses on a single idea. We

used the theme (rather than the entire spot) for the unit of analysis for several

reasons. Many political ads are mixtures of acclaims and attacks (and occasional

defenses) and/or policy and character. For example, Newt Gingrich in 1992 ran an

advertisement that acclaimed himself and attacked his opponent:


Compare the candidates on the issues. The balanced budget amendment?Newt Gingrich yes. Tony Center, no. Line item veto? New Gingrich, yes. TonyCenter, no. Lawsuit reform to stop abusive lawsuits that add $20 billion yearly tohealth costs? Newt Gingrich, yes. Tony Center, no. Voting for new leadership forchange in Congress? Newt Gingrich, yes. Tony Center, no. A clear choice. NewtGingrich.

Clearly, this commercial functions to simultaneously attack Tony Center and acclaim

New Gingrich. Classifying it as either acclaiming (positive) or attacking (negative)

misrepresents the content of this message. Similarly, this spot from John Holmes

congressional campaign in 1986 declared that:

I have talked to thousands of you over the past six months, and I believe we sharethe same views on federal spending and taxes, drug abuse, and equal rights forwomen. But most of all, I think we agree on the need for honesty and integrity ingovernment. If you elect me to Congress on Tuesday, I give you my word I willnever do anything to betray your trust.

This ad addresses both policy (federal spending, taxes, drug abuse, women’s rights)

and character (honesty, integrity, trust): It should not be counted as either policy

(issue) or character (image) but as both.Furthermore, political ads vary in length from 15 seconds to 5 minutes (although

most ads in recent years have been 30 and 60 second spots). We believe that treating

ads of different lengths equally*/i.e., every ad counts as ‘‘one’’ positive, negative,

issue, or image spot*/does not accurately represent the content of political

advertising. Of course, twice as much content can be covered in 60 seconds as in

30 seconds. Longer ads tend to include more themes, so using themes rather than

spots as the coding unit provides a more accurate representation of content. Finally,

using the theme as the coding unit for ads facilitates comparisons with other message

forms (would one consider a stump speech as the coding unit just as one codes an

entire spot to be one coding unit? would the coding unit in a debate be the entire

debate, or the entire response to a question?).Thus, using the theme as the unit of analysis provides a more precise measure of

the functions or topics in an advertisement than coding the entire spot or than

reporting results for ‘‘mentions’’ of a topic. Even adding the category ‘‘comparative’’

only provides somewhat more accuracy because ads which contain both positive and

negative elements vary in emphasis on attacks and acclaims (i.e., all comparative

spots are not conveniently divided into 50% positive and 50% negative statements).The second step in the coding process, after themes are identified, was to identify

each theme’s function using the following rules:

. Acclaims portray the sponsoring candidate favorably.

. Attacks portray the opposing candidate unfavorably.

. Defenses explicitly respond to a prior attack on the sponsoring candidate.


Virtually all of the utterances in the texts of the advertisements in our sample served

one of these functions, but a very few other (non-functional) utterances were not

analyzed. For example, some statements can allude to current or past events without

advancing either a positive statement about the sponsoring candidate or a negative

statement about the opponent.The third step in the coding procedure was to classify the topic of each theme

according to these rules:

. Policy remarks concern governmental action and problems amenable to suchaction.

. Character remarks address properties, abilities, or attributes of the candidates.

The two coders analyzed the spots and intercoder reliability was calculated from 20%

of each of the five groups of spots. Cohen’s k was calculated to control of agreement

due to chance (function 0.96, topic 0.93). Landis and Koch (1977) explain that a k of

0.81 or higher reflects almost perfect agreement between coders.To illustrate how these texts were coded (and to clarify the nature of our coding

categories) we offer examples of the three functions and two topics from the texts in

our sample. North Dakota’s Democratic candidate for governor, Heidi Heitkamp

stated she would help the children remain in North Dakota by ‘‘expanding the

beginning farmer fund to help young farmers.’’ Presumably most voters in this state

would view favorably government programs to assist farmers, so this utterance was

considered an acclaim. A spot from Representative Shelley Berkley’s (D"/NV) told

voters that ‘‘She understands that to get something done in Congress, you have to

work in a bipartisan manner.’’ This statement functions as an acclaim because

members of congress should have the ability to work with members of the opposing

party in order to function effectively.Republican gubernatorial candidate James Squires (NH) attacked his opponent

with the statement, ‘‘Gordon Humphrey won’t tell you his plan for education.’’ This

could lead voters to think that Squires’ opponent either did not have a plan for

education or was unwilling to disclose it to voters. Either conclusion reflects

unfavorably on Humphrey, which makes this remark an attack. Illinois state

representative candidate Harry Jankowski explained that his opponent Dan ‘‘Reitz

took $5200 from chemical and petroleum industries. Then Reitz blocked the banning

of a deadly fuel additive.’’ These utterances function to attack Jankowski’s opponent:

Not only did Reitz accept money from special interests, but he also voted against

banning a ‘‘deadly fuel additive.’’ Clearly this comment is designed to reduce Reitz’s

apparent desirability.Finally, candidates can also defend themselves against attacks levied by their

opponents. Gubernatorial candidate Jim Talent (R"/MO) stated simply, ‘‘What Bob

Holden is saying about my education record is wrong.’’ This defense was short and to

the point. If accepted by voters, it should restore damage to Talent’s desirability.

Another example of a defense occurred in Congressional candidate Bill Federer’s


(R"/MO) campaign: ‘‘None of these acquisitions [from Rep. Dick Gephardt] are

true.’’ Again the candidate denied the attack from his opponent in a straightforward

fashion.Senator Spencer Abraham (R"/MI) offered an example of a policy utterance in a

spot that stated; ‘‘He’s written a new bill to create teacher competency testing.’’

It should be obvious that education (teacher competency testing) is a policy topic.

An advertisement for Tom Harkin (D"/IA) attacked his opponent’s stand on

abortion: ‘‘Jim Ross Lightfoot wants to make all abortions illegal. Even in cases of

rape and incest. Think about it. Lightfoot wants the government, not women, to

make the decision. Even in cases of rape and incest.’’ This is another example of a

theme devoted to policy (abortion).Candidates also discuss character in their political advertisements. For example,

Dan Daly in 1992 declared that he offers ‘‘Straight answers,’’ an acclaim of his

character (honesty). Charlie Bass, who ran for Congress (NH) in 2000, attacked his

opponent’s character: ‘‘Barney Brannen. So desperate he’ll say anything*/anything.

Even when he knows it’s not true.’’ By the same token, a candidate’s dishonesty is

character trait. These excerpts illustrate how political advertisements can address

character.

Results

We will divide the reporting of our results into two sections, one concerning the

functions of political advertising and one for the topics of these messages.

Functions of Political Advertising

Hypothesis one predicted that candidates acclaim more than they attack and attack

more than they defend. Political television advertising in 2000 acclaimed (67%) over

twice as often as it attacked (32%); the least common function utilized by the

candidates was defense (1%). This relationship (more acclaims than attacks and more

attacks than defenses) occurred in political ads at every level (only party sponsored

ads attacked more than they acclaimed). These data appear in Table 1.The second hypothesis predicted that incumbents would acclaim more, and attack

less, than challengers. Incumbents acclaimed only slightly more (65% to 64%) and

attacked at about the same level (35%) as challengers (see Table 2). These differences

were not statistically significant (x2[df#/1]#/0.5, ns). However, inspection of Table 2

reveals that the presidential ads for 2000 bucked the historic trend of more acclaims

and fewer attacks from incumbent party candidates (Benoit, 1999). Removing

presidential ads reveals that the remainder of the ads were consistent with the

hypothesis: Non-presidential incumbents acclaimed in 70% and challengers in 64%

of their themes; incumbents attacked in 29% and challengers in 35% of spot

utterances (x2[df#/1]#/5.05, pB/.05). This pattern occurred in all three offices.


The first research question addressed the distribution of functions in advertise-

ments for open-seat elections. Statistical analysis reveals that there is a significant

difference in functions for non-presidential ads (x2[df#/1]#/6.6, pB/.05; defenses

were excluded because of infrequency). Table 2 reveals that open-seat candidates

(in non-presidential races) employed about the same number of acclaims (71%) as

incumbents (70%). Challengers, however, produced fewer acclaims (64%) and more

attacks (35%) than incumbents (30%) or open-seat candidates (29%).

Table 2 Functions of 2000 Television Spots: Incumbency*

Spots Acclaims Attacks Defenses

Presidential incumbent 47 174 (53%) 151 (46%) 1 (0.3%)Presidential challenger 42 154 (64%) 85 (35%) 3 (1%)Senate incumbents 68 296 (70%) 123 (29%) 3 (1%)Senate challengers 63 275 (68%) 123 (31%) 4 (1%)Senate open-seats 61 242 (73%) 89 (27%) 0House incumbents 38 112 (63%) 63 (35%) 3 (2%)House challengers 24 65 (50%) 65 (50%) 1 (1%)House open-seats 40 128 (63%) 76 (37%) 0Governor incumbents 16 71 (85%) 13 (15%) 0Governor challengers 10 33 (72%) 13 (28%) 0Governor open-seats 53 199 (73%) 68 (25%) 4 (1%)Incumbent 169 653 (65%) 350 (35%) 7 (0.7%)Challenger 139 527 (64%) 286 (35%) 8 (1%)Open-seat 154 569 (71%) 233 (29%) 4 (0.5%)Total 462 1749 (66%) 869 (33%) 19 (1%)Non-presidential incumbents 122 479 (70%) 199 (29%) 6 (1%)Non-presidential challengers 97 373 (64%) 201 (35%) 5 (1%)Non-presidential open-seat 154 569 (71%) 233 (29%) 4 (0.5%)

*Local spots were excluded due to the inability to determine incumbency of all candidates; primary spots wereexcluded from incumbency.

Table 1 Functions of 2000 Television Spots: Party


Presidential Democrat 47 174 (53%) 151 (46%) 1 (0.3%)Presidential Republican 42 154 (64%) 85 (35%) 3 (1%)Senate Democrats 107 528 (69%) 233 (30%) 6 (1%)Senate Republicans 131 475 (73%) 178 (27%) 1 (0.2%)House Democrats 60 175 (65%) 95 (35%) 1 (0.4%)House Republicans 61 186 (61%) 120 (38%) 3 (1%)Governor Democrats 46 182 (76%) 59 (25%) 0Governor Republicans 33 121 (76%) 35 (22%) 4 (3%)Local Democrats 25 94 (72%) 35 (27%) 2 (2%)Local Republicans 25 92 (66%) 47 (34%) 1 (1%)Democrats 285 1153 (66%) 573 (33%) 10 (0.6%)Republicans 292 1028 (68%) 465 (31%) 12 (0.8%)Total 577 2181 (67%) 1038 (32%) 22 (1%)


The second research question investigated use of functions in Republican and

Democratic spots. Republicans in this sample acclaimed only slightly more than

Democrats (68% to 66%). Attacks were roughly equal (Democrats: 33%; Repub-

licans: 31%) as were defenses (see Table 1). The difference between the two parties

was not statistically significant (x2[df#/2]#/2.1, ns).RQ3 concerned the functions of spots sponsored by the political parties and

individual candidates. Only the Senate, House, and Presidential races supplied data

for this hypothesis (neither the gubernatorial nor the local ads in our sample

included party-sponsored commercials). In advertisements for these three offices,

candidates emphasized acclaims (75%) more than attacks (24%); in sharp contrast,

the political parties used attacks (64%) more than acclaims (36%). Defenses were

slightly more common in candidate than party sponsored ads (see Table 3). The

differences between the sponsorship were statistically significant (x2[df#/2]#/315.2,

pB/.001). We also note that this pattern (more attacks and fewer acclaims in party

ads) occurs in the sports from each office in our sample.The fifth research question concerned the functions of ads from winners and losers.

Both groups of ads employed acclaims at about the same rate (winners: 68%;

losers: 66%); their use of attacks (winners: 31%; losers: 33%) and defenses were

also relatively close (0.6%; 0.8%). These differences were not statically significant

(x2[df#/2]#/2.8, ns). See Table 4.The proportion of functions in ads for different offices was examined in research

question five. Acclaims were the most common function overall in 2000, followed by

attacks and then defenses (acclaims 67%, attacks 32%, defenses 1%). This allocation

of functions occurred in each level of office. A x2 indicated that the distribution of

functions were significantly different across level of office (x2[df#/4]#/52.8, pB/.001;

defenses were excluded from this analysis because of infrequency). Inspection of the

means suggests that the differences were probably at the presidential level (more

negative) and the gubernatorial level (more positive).

Table 3 Functions of 2000 Television Spots: Sponsor*


Presidential candidate 40 221 (73%) 79 (26%) 2 (1%)Presidential party 49 107 (40%) 157 (59%) 2 (1%)Senate candidate 191 927 (78%) 255 (21%) 5 (0.4%)Senate party 47 76 (32%) 156 (67%) 2 (1%)House candidate 94 318 (70%) 135 (29%) 4 (1%)House party 17 23 (30%) 54 (70%) 0Candidate 325 1466 (75%) 469 (24%) 11 (0.5%)Party 113 206 (36%) 367 (64%) 4 (0.7%)Total 438 1672 (66%) 836 (33%) 15 (1%)

*Governor and local spots were excluded because there were no party sponsored spots.


Topics of Political Discourse

Next we turn to analyses of the topics, policy and character, of the advertisements in

our sample. The third hypothesis predicted that more comments would address

policy than character. This was confirmed, as 62% of the themes in these

advertisements addressed policy and 38% concerned character (see Table 6). This

result was consistent across office (and, indeed, in every grouping of ads).H4 predicted that ads from winners would discuss policy more, and character less,

than ads from losing candidates. This prediction was confirmed: Winners discussed

policy more than losers in these spots (64% to 60%), whereas losers focused more on

character (40%, 36%) (x2[df#/1]#/10.9, pB/.001). We do note that this relationship

held true only for certain offices (President, US Senate, and gubernatorial, but not US

House or local spots). These data are displayed in Table 7.The sixth research question investigated the topics of spots by incumbency status.

Each group of advertisements discussed policy in about two-thirds of utterances

(incumbents and challengers: 65%; open-seat: 63%). This meant that character

was addressed in about one-third of the themes (incumbents and challengers: 35%;

Table 5 Functions of 2000 Television Spots: Level of Office


Presidential 89 329 (58%) 236 (41%) 4 (0.7%)Senate 238 1003 (71%) 411 (29%) 7 (0.5%)House 121 361 (62%) 215 (37%) 4 (0.7%)Governor 79 313 (76%) 94 (23%) 4 (1%)Local 50 186 (69%) 82 (30%) 3 (1%)Total 577 2181 (67%) 1038 (32%) 22 (1%)

Table 4 Functions of 2000 Television Spots: Outcome


Presidential winner* 47 174 (53%) 151 (46%) 1 (0.3%)Presidential loser 42 154 (64%) 85 (35%) 3 (1%)Senate winners 91 446 (76%) 141 (24%) 2 (0.3%)Senate losers** 139 527 (66%) 268 (34%) 5 (1%)House winners 59 168 (62%) 102 (37%) 3 (1%)House losers 62 193 (63%) 113 (37 %) 1 (0.3%)Governor winners 44 178 (77%) 54 (23%) 0Governor losers 35 125 (74%) 40 (24%) 4 (1%)Local winners 27 97 (72%) 34 (25%) 3 (2%)Local losers 25 93 (65%) 50 (35%) 0Winners 268 1063 (68%) 482 (31%) 9 (0.6%)Losers 303 1092 (66%) 556 (33%) 13 (0.8%)Total 571 2155 (67%) 1038 (32%) 22 (1%)

*We treated Gore as the winner because he garnered more of the popular vote.**Eight spots were not included because two candidates dropped out before the election.


open-seat: 37%). Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference in topicemphasis (x2[df#/2]#/1.48, ns). See Table 8.RQ7 investigated the functions of television commercials from Republicans and

Democrats. Democrats discussed policy more (66% to 58%) and character less (34%to 42%) than Republicans. Statistical analysis revealed that these differences weresignificant (x2[df#/1]#/20.2, pB/.001). This relationship (Democrats discussedpolicy more, and character less, than Republicans) occurred consistently, arising inadvertisements for every office or level in our sample (see Table 6).The eighth research question concerned the topics of ads sponsored by the political

parties and the candidates. Three levels of office included both groups of ads.Candidate-sponsored ads stressed policy less (60% to 68%) and character more (40%to 32%) than ads paid for by the political parties (see Table 9). These differences were

Table 7 Topics of 2000 Television Spots: Outcome

Spots Policy Character

Presidential winner* 47 236 (73%) 89 (27%)Presidential loser 42 160 (67%) 79 (33%)Senate winners 91 393 (67%) 194 (33%)Senate losers** 139 461 (58%) 334 (42%)House winners 59 138 (51%) 131 (49%)House losers 62 178 (58%) 128 (42%)Governor winners 44 158 (71%) 65 (29%)Governor losers 35 104 (62%) 64 (38%)Local winners 27 61 (44%) 78 (56%)Local losers 25 86 (64%) 49 (36%)Winners 268 986 (64%) 557 (36%)Losers 303 989 (60%) 654 (40%)Total 571 1975 (62%) 1211 (38%)

*We treated Gore as the winner because he garnered more of the popular vote.**Eight spots were not included because two candidates dropped out before the election.

Table 6 Topics of 2000 Television Spots: Party


Presidential Democrat 47 236 (73%) 89 (27%)Presidential Republican 42 160 (67%) 79 (33%)Senate Democrats 131 499 (66%) 262 (34%)Senate Republicans 107 373 (57%) 280 (43%)House Democrats 60 152 (56%) 119 (44%)House Republicans 61 163 (53%) 143 (47%)Governor Democrats 46 164 (71%) 68 (29%)Governor Republicans 33 98 (62%) 61 (38%)Local Democrats 25 70 (58%) 51 (42%)Local Republicans 25 76 (52%) 71 (48%)Democrats 309 1121 (66%) 589 (34%)Republicans 268 870 (58%) 634 (42%)Total 577 1991 (62%) 1223 (38%)


significant (x2[df#/1]#/10.9, pB/.001). This pattern occurred in both Senate

and House races; spots for the presidential candidates were essentially the same

(71% policy in candidate ads; 70% in party ads).RQ9 examined the distribution of topics in advertisements for different levels

of office. The distribution of topics differed by level of office (x2[df#/4]#/43.1,

pB/.001). Two races emphasized policy more than the norm (the mean across all

races of 62%). Presidential spots discussed policy in 70% of utterances (and character

in 30%); candidates for Governor addressed policy in 69% of their themes (and

character in 31%). The distribution of topics in Senate spots was the same as the

norm (62% policy, 38% character). Advertisements in two kinds of races discussed

policy less than the norm. Policy was discussed in local ads in 54% of themes

(character was 46%) and policy comprised 55% of House remarks (and character was

45%). See Table 10 for these data.

Table 9 Topics of 2000 Television Spots: Sponsor*


Presidential candidate 40 212 (71%) 88 (29%)Presidential party 49 184 (70%) 80 (30%)Senate candidates 191 711 (60%) 471 (40%)Senate party 47 161 (69%) 71 (31%)House candidates 94 238 (53%) 208 (47%)House party 17 49 (58%) 36 (42%)Candidates 325 1161 (60%) 767 (40%)Party 113 394 (68%) 187 (32%)Total 438 1555 (62%) 954 (38%

*Governor and local spots were excluded because there were no party sponsored spots.

Table 8 Topics of 2000 Television Spots: Incumbency*


Presidential incumbent 47 236 (73%) 89 (27%)Presidential challenger 42 160 (67%) 79 (33%)Senate incumbents 68 253 (60%) 166 (40%)Senate challengers 63 252 (61%) 164 (39%)Senate open-seat 61 212 (64%) 119 (36%)House incumbents 38 97 (55%) 78 (45%)House challengers 24 78 (60%) 52 (40%)House open-seat 40 91 (55%) 74 (45%)Governor incumbents 16 62 (74%) 22 (26%)Governor challengers 10 24 (52%) 22 (48%)Governor open-seat 53 176 (67%) 85 (33%)Incumbents 169 648 (65%) 355 (35%)Challengers 139 514 (65%) 317 (35%)Open-seat 154 479 (63%) 278 (37%)Total 462 1641 (63%) 950 (37%)

*Local spots were excluded due to the inability to determine incumbency of all candidates.


Implications and Conclusions

This study moved beyond the presidency to apply functional theory to televisionadvertisements in the 2000 races. We will note both consistencies and differences inthese campaign messages, again discussing functions before topics.

Functions of Political Spots

Television advertisements emphasized acclaims over attacks and attacks over defenses.This relationship is also true at every level of office and in every grouping of ads saveone (ads sponsored by political parties, which consistently attacked more than theyacclaimed). All three functions are capable of persuading voters that a candidate ispreferable to one’s opponent. However, acclaims have no drawback. Most votersreport that they dislike mudslinging (Merritt, 1984; Stewart, 1975), which may leadcandidates to rely less on attacks to avoid a backlash from voters (we do not arguethat candidates entirely eschew attacks; just that they have a drawback that makesthem less attractive than acclaims). Defenses have three drawbacks. Opponents arelikely to attack a candidates’ weaknesses, so responding to an attack takes a candidate‘‘off-message.’’ Defenses sound reactive rather than proactive. Third, one mustidentify an attack to refute it; when a candidate mentions an attack in preparation forthe defense he or she may inform or remind voters of a potential weakness. Thus, itmakes sense for acclaims to be more frequent than attacks, which in turn ought to bemore common than defenses.In our sample of advertisements in the 2000 campaign, incumbents did not

acclaim more, and attack less, than challengers. Previous research on presidentialtelevision spots (Benoit, 1999, 2001), Acceptance Addresses (Benoit et al., 1999) andgeneral debates (Benoit et al., 1998; Benoit & Brazeal, 2002; Benoit & Harthcock,1999; Benoit et al., 2003; Wells, 1999) ads in Missouri in 1998 (Benoit, 2000) and theearlier study of congressional ads (Brazeal & Benoit, 2001) consistently confirmedthis relationship. Our data appear to be anomalous"/and attributable to only twocandidates (Bush and Gore). Removing the data from the two presidential candidatesin 2000 reveals that the remaining (non-presidential) ads show the predictedrelationship: Incumbent ads acclaimed more and attacked less than ads fromchallengers. Incumbent candidates by definition have a record in the office sought,

Table 10 Topics of 2000 Television Spots: Level of Office


Presidential 89 396 (70%) 169 (30%)Senate 238 872 (62%) 542 (38%)House 121 315 (55%) 262 (45%)Governor 79 262 (69%) 119 (31%)Local 50 146 (54%) 122 (46%)Total 577 1991 (62%) 1223 (38%)


which is arguably the best evidence of how they will perform if re-elected. The betterparts of the record can be used for acclaims by the candidate; undesirable aspects arefodder for attacks. Note that challengers may have a record in another office, whichcan serve as evidence for acclaims (by the challenger) and attacks (by the incumbent).Still, the best evidence of how one will perform in office probably comes from theincumbent’s record.Why was the 2000 presidential race inconsistent with other levels (and with

previous presidential races)? We suspect that Gore attacked more than mostincumbents because he was behind in latter part of the campaign and Benoit(1999) found that candidates who trailed tended to attack more than leaders.Furthermore, Gore was not a ‘‘true’’ incumbent, a sitting president running for asecond term in office (Presidents George Bush in 1992 and Bill Clinton in 1996 areexamples of ‘‘true’’ incumbents).Previous research has overlooked the discourse of open-seat candidates. We found

that they acclaimed more, and attacked less, than challengers. Previous research hassuggested that challengers often attack the incumbent’s record in office. In an open-seat election, neither candidate has a record (at least not in the office sought), whichmeans an important resource for attacks in not available to either contender. Thiscould account for the lower frequency of attacks in these contests.Benoit’s research on presidential television advertising (1999, 2001) found that

Republicans acclaimed more and attacked less than Democratic candidates. Incontrast, Republican advertising in Missouri in 1998 was more positive thanDemocratic spots (Benoit, 2000). Democrats produced more acclaims than Repub-licans in acceptance addresses (Benoit et al., 1999) and in general debates (Benoit etal., 1998; Benoit & Brazeal, 2002; Benoit & Harthcock, 1999; Benoit et al., 2003; Wells,1999). Thus, it appears that political party does not exert a consistent influence onfunctions of campaign discourse. It is not surprising to find no significantrelationship between political party and function in these ads.The 2000 spots provided support for the notion that sponsorship influences the

functions of the spots. As noted earlier, the only group of spots with more attacksthan acclaims were those sponsored by the political parties. This effect occurredconsistently, in ads for every office that included party-sponsored spots. We believethis emphasis is a conscious choice to spare candidates the brunt of voter backlashfrom negative advertising: More attacks are made by the political party rather thanthe candidate representing that party (if protecting the candidate from backlashagainst too many attacks is the reason for this difference, we believe that this effort isin vain: we doubt viewers pay attention to who sponsors television spots).These data do not reveal that a difference in function by outcome. This result is

consistent with prior research on presidential television spots (Benoit, 1999, 2001).Each function is capable of increasing a candidate’s favorability. Acclaims do sodirectly; attacks increase a candidate’s net favorability by reducing an opponent’sdesirability, and defenses repair damage to preferability from attacks. There is noreason to expect differences in function between winners and losers.


In the 2000 campaign, presidential ads employed the most attacks (althoughacclaims still outnumbered attacks by almost 50%). Gubernatorial and Senate adshad the highest percentages of acclaims. It is possible that candidates for non-presidential offices fear voter backlash from negative advertising more than Bush andGore, which could explain why the presidential ads attacked more than ads for otheroffices.

Topics of Political Spots

Candidates in our sample discussed policy more than character (63%, 37%). Thisfinding was very consistent, occurring in ads for all levels of office (and for all groupsof ads) and is consistent with past research on presidential television spots (Benoit,1999, 2001), Acceptances (Benoit et al., 1999), and debates (Benoit et al., 1998; Benoit& Brazeal, 2002; Benoit & Harthcock, 1999; Benoit et al., 2003; Wells, 1999). Publicopinion poll data reveals that, in every campaign in which this question was asked(1976"/2000), more voters reported that policy was a more important determinant oftheir vote for president than character (Benoit, 2003). Brazeal and Benoit (2001)located public opinion poll data that indicates that policy is a more importantdeterminant of vote choice (than character) in congressional elections as well. Thus, ifmost voters believe policy is more important, this could lead candidates to emphasizepolicy more than character in their ads.Television commercials from winners discussed policy more (and character less)

than ads from losers. This effect occurred overall and in ads for president, Senate, andgovernor, but not in messages for house or local races. Functional theory posits thatcitizens vote for the candidate who appears preferable on whatever criteria are mostimportant to that voter. Benoit (2003) reported that in five presidential messageforms (primary spots, primary debates, acceptances, general spots, and generaldebates), candidates who discussed policy more (and character less) than losers weremore likely to win the election. As just noted, this preference occurs at thecongressional level as well (Brazeal & Benoit, 2001). Most voters value policy, and socandidates who discuss policy more than their opponents are likely to be advantaged.We suspect that policy might be particularly important for races at higher levels(president, governor of a state, senators who represent the entire state); in contrast,character might be more important in local and House races.In the 2000 election, no difference was found in discussion of policy and character

by incumbents and challengers. This is consistent with past research on presidentialtelevision spots (Benoit, 2001). Although there is a reason to expect differences inhow certain forms of policy are used (e.g., incumbents are likely to acclaim theirrecord in office whereas challengers attack the incumbent’s record), there is no reasonto expect a difference in topic distribution. Nor is there a reason to expect a differencein topic emphasis in ads from open-seat candidates.We found that Democrats discussed policy significantly more than Republicans

(see also Kaid & Johnston, 2001). This was a consistent effect, one that occurred in


advertising at each level of office. Republican ideology tends to advocate a smaller

role for government; for example, lauding private charity over government welfare

programs. Democrats, on the other hand, frequently offer proposals for solving

problems through governmental action. This could mean that Democrats devote

more time to policy as they develop and defend their proposals for governmental

action.Overall, advertisements sponsored by (paid for by) candidates discuss policy less,

and character more, than spots from the two major political parties. This effect

occurred in two of three levels of office where it could be tested. This relationship

may be a function of two factors. First, advertisements from the parties (soft money

ads) purport to concern policy rather than candidates. That is, many party-sponsored

ads do not end with appeals to vote for (or against) a candidate; but to call the

candidate and express their attitudes about his or her stand on an issue. For example,

this spot from the Republican Party of Minnesota primarily consisted of acclaims of

the Republican candidate, John Kline. Note how the ad stresses policy (the tax code)

rather than character:

John Kline knows that Americas workers and families, not Washington areresponsible for today’s economic prosperity. That’s why he’s committed to usingthe budget surplus to save Social Security, pay down the debt, and cut taxes onworking families, John Kline wants to abolish the death tax, eliminate the unfairmarriage tax penalty, and overhaul the tax code, so families will be rewardedinstead of punished. Call John Kline tell him that you to are concerned about thetax code on Minnesota’s families.

A second reason for these results is that the candidate (or the candidate’s friends and

family) might be expected to tell you more about his or her character than the party

organization. The only exception to this pattern occurred at the presidential level,

where both groups of ads devoted about the same attention to policy (candidates:

71%; parties: 70%).Finally, we found topical differences by level of race. Although advertisements at

every level emphasized policy more than character, presidential and gubernatorial ads

focused even more on policy than other races. This could be because these races are

for the executive branch of government. Congress may pass legislation, but the

executive branch of government implements it. This could encourage candidates for

executive branch offices (president, governor) to stress policy more than candidates

for legislative offices (House, Senate).

Conclusion

This study is limited to the campaign ads in a single election year. However, it extends

our understanding in a new direction by systematically studying political television

advertisements at multiple levels of government.


We found both similarities and differences in these advertisements. Politicalcommercials acclaim more than they attack and defend least often (except for party-sponsored ads, which consistently attack more than candidate-ads). Political adsfocus more on policy than character and, at several levels, an emphasis on policyappears to favor the winners. Democratic ads discuss policy more (and character less)than Republican ads. Presidential and gubernatorial spots focus more on policy thando commercials for other offices. Future research should extend this work to includemultiple races from different election years.

References

Benoit, W. L. (1999). Seeing spots: A functional analysis of Presidential television advertisements,1952"/1996 . Westport, CT: Praeger.

Benoit, W. L. (2000). A functional analysis of political advertising across media, 1998.Communication Studies , 51 , 274"/295.

Benoit, W. L. (2001). The functional approach to presidential television spots: Acclaiming,attacking, defending 1952"/2000. Communication Studies , 52 , 109"/126.

Benoit, W. L. (2003). Presidential campaign discourse as a causal factor in election outcome.Western Journal of Communication , 67 , 97"/112.

Benoit, W. L., & Brazeal, L. M. (2002). A functional analysis of the 1988 Bush"/Dukakis presidentialdebates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38 , 219"/233.

Benoit, W. L., & Harthcock, A. (1999). Functions of the great debates: Acclaims, attacks, anddefenses in the 1960 Presidential debates. Communication Monographs , 66 , 341"/357.

Benoit, W. L., Blaney, J. R., & Pier, P. M. (1998). Campaign ’96: A functional analysis of acclaiming,attacking, and defending . Westport, CT: Praeger.

Benoit, W. L., McHale, J. P, Hansen, G. J., Pier, P. M., & McGuire, J. P. (2003). Campaign 2000:A functional analysis of presidential campaign discourse . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Benoit, W. L., Wells, W. T., Pier, P. M., & Blaney, J. R. (1999). Acclaiming, attacking, and defendingin Presidential nominating addresses, 1960"/1996. Quarterly Journal of Speech , 85 , 247"/

267.Benze, J. G., & Declerq, E. R. (1985). Content of television political spot ads for female candidates.

Journalism Quarterly, 62, 278"/283, 288.Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities . Reading, MA: Addison-

Wesley.Brazeal, L. M., & Benoit, W. L. (2001). A functional analysis of Congressional television spots,

1986"/2000. Communication Quarterly, 49 , 437"/453.Brians, C. L., & Wattenberg, M. P. (1996). Campaign issue knowledge and salience: comparing

reception from TV commercials, TV news, and newspapers. American Journal of PoliticalScience , 40 , 172"/193.

Diamond, E., & Bates, S. (1992). The spot: The rise of political advertising on television (3rd ed.).Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Holbert, R. L., Benoit, W. L., Hansen, G. J., & Wen, W.-C. (2002). The role of communication in the

formation of an issue-based citizenry. Communication Monographs , 69 , 296"/310.Holsti, O. (1969). Content analysis in communication research . New York: Free Press.Jamieson, K. H. (1996). Packaging the presidency: A history and criticism of presidential campaign

advertising (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Jenkins, K. (1997). Learning to love those expensive campaigns. US News and World Report

[On-line] , 122 , 9.


Johnston, A., & Kaid, L. L. (2002). Image ads and issue ads in U.S. presidential advertising: Usingvideostyle to explore stylistic differences in televised political ads from 1952"/2000. Journal ofCommunication , 52 , 281"/300.

Johnston, A., & White, A. B. (1994). Communication styles and female candidates: A study of thepolitical advertising during the 1986 Senate elections. Journalism Quarterly, 71 , 321"/329.

Joslyn, R. A. (1980). The content of political spot ads. Journalism Quarterly, 57 , 92"/98.Joslyn, R. A. (1981). The impact of campaign spot advertising on voting defections. Human

Communication Research , 7 , 347"/360.Kahn, K. F., & Kenney, P. J. (1999). The spectacle of U.S. Senate campaigns . Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.Kaid, L. L., & Johnston, A. (2001). Videostyle in presidential campaigns: Style and content of televised

political advertising . Westport, CT: Praeger.Kern, M. (1989). 30-second politics: Political advertising in the eighties . New York: Praeger.Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.

Biometrics , 33 , 159"/174.Merritt, S. (1984). Negative political advertising: Some empirical findings. Journal of Advertising ,

13 , 27"/38.Mulder, R. (1979). The effects of televised political ads in the 1975 Chicago mayoral election.

Journalism Quarterly, 56 , 335"/341.Page, B. I. (1978). Choices and echoes in presidential elections: Rational man and electoral democracy.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Payne, J. G., & Baukus, R. A. (1988). Trend analysis of the 1984 GOP Senatorial spots. Political

Communication and Persuasion , 5 , 161"/177.Pfau, M., Parrott, R., & Lindquist, B. (1992). An expectancy theory explanation of political attack

television spots: A case study. Journal of Applied Communication Research , 20 , 235"/253.Popkin, S. L. (1994). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns

(2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Sheckels, T. F. (1994). Mikulski vs. Chavez for the Senate from Maryland in 1986 and the ‘‘rules’’ for

attack politics. Communication Quarterly, 42 , 311"/326.Sinclair, J. (1995). Reforming television’s role in American political campaigns: Rationale for the

elimination of paid political advertisements. Communications and the Law [On-line] , 17 , 1.Stewart, C. J. (1975). Voter perception of mud-slinging in political communication. Central States

Speech Journal , 26 , 279"/286.Wanat, J. (1974). Political broadcast advertising and primary election voting. Journal of

Broadcasting , 18 , 413"/422.Wells, W. T. (1999). An analysis of attacking, acclaiming, and defending strategies in the 1976"/1984

presidential debates . PhD Dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia.West, D. M. (1997). Air wars: Television advertising in election campaigns, 1952"/1996 (2nd ed.).

Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.


Political Television Advertising in Campaign 2000

Documents

Transcript of Political Television Advertising in Campaign 2000