Brewer, SigelmanWinter 2002 Press/Politics 7(1) / Media Campaign Coverage

Political Scientists as Color Commentators

Framing and Expert Commentary in Media Campaign Coverage

Paul R. Brewer and Lee Sigelman

The prevalence of the game frame in media coverage of politics is well known. We seek to broaden our understanding of the medias use of this frame by examining expert commentary on political campaigns quoted in stories in major U.S. newspapers. Content analysis of quotations from the experts in question, political scientists, establishes that the game frame pervades their statements. Thus, political science commentary reinforces the dominant frame within media campaign coverage, rather than providing alternative perspectives on campaigns. The predominance of the game frame in political scientists quoted comments in newspaper stories appears to be a result of two sets of forces:selection biases and a preoccupation with the game among scholars themselves.

The mass media provide the public with story lines,or frames,for understanding the news. For example, the media can cast a political campaign as a referendum on competing policy proposals, a comparative assessment of the candidates leadership abilities, or a game to be won or lost through tactics and maneuvers (Brady and Johnston 1987; Patterson 1993). To help tell these stories, the media often solicit statements from expert observers, whose role in the framing process has received little scholarly attention to date. We investigate how one group of experts, political scientists, frame campaigns when they are quoted in the media. In light of the decidedly negative portrayal of media campaign coverage by political scientists (e.g., Cappella and Jamieson 1997; Patterson 1993), it seems appropriate to establish what sorts of campaign frames political scientists themselves convey to the mass public. Jamieson (2000) argued that the media should be able to look to scholars to evaluate contemporary campaigns with an eye toward increasing the amount of
Press/Politics 7(1):23-35 2002 by the President and the Fellows of Harvard College

23

24

Press/Politics 7(1) Winter 2002

substanceand the degree of accountabilityprovided by candidates and the media that cover them (p. 71). But do political scientists actually provide alternative perspectives when they serve as expert commentators for the media, or do they largely reinforce dominant media frames? We address this question via content analysis of what political scientists have been quoted as saying about campaigns in stories published in major American newspapers. Now, suppose that when they serve as expert commentators for the media, political scientists generally frame campaigns in much the same way as the media themselves do. This would raise the question of whether expert commentators truly employ the same frames as the media or whether selection biases filter expert campaign commentary so that it fits the medias preferred frames. To address this question, we compare what political scientists are quoted as saying about campaigns in newspaper articles to what they say in the research they report to their professional peers in scholarly journals.
Frames and Campaigns

Those who study media framing of campaigns have distinguished between frames that highlight issues or leadership and those that accentuate the strategic or horse-race elements of campaigns. Patterson (1993), for example, differentiated policy stories, which frame campaigns within the context of policy and leadership problems and issues (p. 74), from game stories, which frame campaigns within the context of strategy and electoral success. Cappella and Jamieson (1997) drew a similar distinction between issue and strategy frames. Of the two, the game frame is unquestionably dominant. Today, Patterson (1993:69; see also Patterson 1980) argued, the strategic game is embedded in virtually every aspect of election news, dominating and driving it. The game sets the context,even when the issues are the subject of analysis.Cappella and Jamieson (1997; see also Craig 2000; Fallows 1997) reached much the same conclusion,even suggesting that reporters are so habituated to the game frame that they simply ignore information that does not fit into it. Many observers see the dominance of the game frame as bad news for American democracy (e.g., Fallows 1997; Patterson 1993). Patterson (1993) argued that although ordinary citizens are concerned about what government has done before the election, what it will do after the election, and how this will affect them (p. 88), what they get from the media is information about the maneuvering of the candidates and the likely outcome of the campaign. There are even indications that the dramatic growth of political cynicism since the 1960s (e.g., Hetherington 1998; Rosenstone and Hansen 1993) may be attributable, in part, to the tenor of campaign coverage. The end result of the medias framing of campaigns, Cappella and Jamieson (1997) argued, is a spiral of cynicism that seduces candidates into concentrating their efforts on playing the game, traps

Brewer, Sigelman / Media Campaign Coverage

25

reporters into focusing ever more narrowly on that game, and alienates the public from politics. Does campaign commentary by political scientists in media coverage play up what Patterson (1980:24) considered the substance of politicsissues and leadershipor does it, too, primarily emphasize the game? Despite the criticisms that political scientists have levied against game framing, two sets of forces may lead to heavy use of the game frame in their statements as expert commentators. For one thing, theory and data may lead political scientists to engage in game framing of their own accord. For example, game theorists who model electoral competition may begin with the same premise that journalists donamely, that candidates are strategic actors whose every move is significant (Patterson 1993:58)and then proceed in the same direction that journalists do, namely, examining what strategies candidates might use to win (albeit in a considerably more elaborate and sophisticated manner). Similarly, the availability of polling data that has abetted the game focus among journalists may have the same effect on political scientists, leading them to concentrate on strategy and electoral success when they study campaigns. Moreover, the features that make games good mass entertainment tend to appeal to scholars as well. Political scientists are by no means immune to the drama and fun that the game frame offers. The other set of forces that may tip political scientists media commentary toward the game frame consists of selection biases of various sorts. Most obviously, journalists may winnow out expert commentary that fails to include the game frame. Reporters tend to ask candidates and campaign workers questions and select answers that cast politics in terms of tactics and electoral advantage (Cappella and Jamieson 1997; Fallows 1997; Patterson 1993). Following similar practices in their dealings with expert commentators would lead them to contact political scientists who are known for their willingness to talk about the game, to ask them questions that elicit game-oriented answers, and to choose quotations that discuss who is winning, who is losing, and which strategies are paying off (Jamieson 2000). Moreover, the interviewees may aid and abet this selection process. The political scientists who choose to provide campaign commentary to the media may be predisposed to focus on strategy and the horse race. Those who are interviewed may also choose to focus on the game aspects of campaigns in the belief that this is what the media want to hear. Either or both of these selection factors would further skew mediated political science commentary toward the game frame. Thus, even though political scientists have generally provided negative assessments of the medias use of the game frame in campaign coverage, we expected the comments by political scientists that appear in media stories to be dominated by the game frame. We were less certain whether this tendency would be more attributable to a predisposition among political scientists to talk about politics as

26

Press/Politics 7(1) Winter 2002

a game or to the operation of various selection biases in the process by which political scientists interpretations find their way into media stories.
Data and Methods

We used a three-step content analysis procedure to profile the frames invoked by political scientists in media stories about campaigns. First, as part of a larger project, one of us extracted every story in which the term political scientist appeared during a recent year from the LEXIS-NEXIS general news database, which covers the fifty top-circulation newspapers in the United States (n = 961 with duplicate stories discarded). The same researcher then compiled every direct quotation or close paraphrase1 attributed to a political scientist in these stories (n = 1,167 after duplicate quotations were eliminated) and categorized them according to substance. By far the largest single subset pertained to campaigns, an especially noteworthy pattern in that the stories were all published in 1997, neither a congressional nor a presidential election year. Obviously, campaigns constitute a major and ongoing portion of the phenomena about which the media seek out political scientists for expert commentary. After discarding a few quotations that discussed campaigns outside of the United States, the other member of the research team coded the 247 that remained. To avoid being unduly influenced by the context in which quotations were embedded, the coder was blinded, wherever possible, to the story in which the quotations appeared. When contextless coding proved impossible (approximately a quarter of the cases), the coder read the article before deciding. The coding scheme distinguished among the three basic themes of issues, leadership qualities, and the game, but was expanded to allow for a more detailed depiction of framing. Three categories represented pure instances of these themes:

Issue. The speaker discusses a specific campaign issue (e.g., the economy, crime, affirmative action, scandals) and/or a candidates policy stance. Leadership. The speaker discusses a candidates leadership qualities (e.g., competence, integrity, ethics, courage, leadership experience). Game. The speaker discusses a campaign in terms of strategy and tactics (including game, war, and sports metaphors) and/or electoral success (e.g., handicapping candidates chances, who is winning, who is losing, what the poll results show).

Four other categories represented combinations of the three basic frames:

Issue-leadership. The speaker discusses a specific campaign issue or candidates policy stance and a candidates leadership qualities.

Brewer, Sigelman / Media Campaign Coverage

27

Issue-game. The speaker discusses a specific campaign issue or a candidates policy stance, but in the context of strategy, tactics, or electoral success. Leadership-game. The speaker discusses a candidates leadership qualities, but in the context of strategy, tactics, or electoral success. Issue-leadership-game. The speaker discusses both a specific campaign issue or a candidates policy stance and a candidates leadership qualities, but in the context of strategy, tactics, or electoral success.

Finally, we included a miscellaneous other category for quotations that did not invoke any of the three basic frames. As a gauge of the reliability of the coding procedure, a check coder independently coded 74 (30 percent) of the 247 quotations. The first two columns of Table 1 show the category-by-category frequencies for the subsample of 74 quotations coded by the main coder; the third and fourth columns provide the same information for the check coder; and the fifth and sixth columns report the frequencies for all 247 quotations, as coded by the main coder. Overall, the two coders placed 73 percent of the quotations they both coded in the same one of the eight categories, far above the concurrence that would be expected on the basis of chance. The substantial kappa coefficient at the bottom of Table 1 provides strong evidence of measurement reliability, an impressive performance in light of how finely grained the coding categories were. Reflecting this reliability, the frequencies of the eight categories varied little from one coder to the other; indeed, the difference between the two distributions fell well short of statistical significance.
Results

What comes through most clearly in our content analysis of newspaper stories about campaigns is the prevalence of the game frame in the remarks of the political scientists who were quoted. In more than half of these quotes (127 of the 247, or 51 percent) the game frame stood alone. The following examples convey the flavor of these quotations.2
[Speaking of the Houston mayoral campaign] The debates level the playing field somewhat for candidates who have the least amount of campaign money for television advertising. Greanias, shown by the polls to be trailing Brown and Mosbacher, may use the debates to sharpen his criticism of his opponents. George will be much more attacking, aggressive.3 [Speaking of the same campaign] Tactics are changing in the nonpartisan race for a few reasons. The candidates saved their venom for the final stretch of the campaign because this is when some voters start to focus on the Nov. 4 election. People are beginning to sort the race out, so it probably makes sense to start using

28
Table 1

Press/Politics 7(1) Winter 2002

How political scientists framed campaigns: quotations in newspaper articles (1997) Subsample Main Coder Frame n % Subsample Check Coder n % Entire Sample Main Coder n 8 2 1 127 58 9 4 38 247 % 3 1 0.4 51 23 4 2 15 100

Issue 4 5 4 5 Leadership 1 1 3 4 Issue-leadership 0 0 1 1 Game 41 55 40 54 Issue-game 16 22 14 19 Leadership-game 3 4 5 7 Issue-leader-game 2 3 2 3 Other 7 10 5 7 Total 74 100 74 100 Intercoder agreement = 73% Intercoder reliability () = .58 (standard error = .08; z = 6.77, p < .05) Difference between subsample distributions (2, 7 df ) = 4.3 (n.s.) Note: Due to rounding, percentages do not add up to 100.

some of your ammunition. Also, candidates like Mosbacher have already used TV advertisements and other outlets to paint positive images of themselves. They feel they have sufficiently established themselves so that they can start throwing a few punches at their opponents.4 [Speaking of the Wisconsin gubernatorial campaign] Garvey, despite a razor-sharp wit and oratory skills, must run at almost a miracle-a-day pace to be the next governor. Theres always the unknown that might happen. In professional football, theres one team favored to win. But you never call it (off ); you go ahead and play the game. Thompsons strong popularity, which a recent statewide poll estimated at 60 percent or more, may not reflect great voter loyalty.5

References to tactics and poll results permeated these remarks, as did war and sports metaphors. By sharp contrast, only eight instances of pure issue framing emerged, including the following:
[Speaking of the Atlanta mayoral campaign] These challenges are questions of the survivability of the central city. I discount much of the rhetoric issued by agents for change, such as Fulton Commission Chairman Mitch Skandalakis and Northside business leaders who are backing Arrington. But theres a kernel of truth in critics assertions that the election is a crossroads for the city and the region. I believe certainly this is a very crucial election. No matter who wins, he has to take control of these problems and take advantage of whatever is presented.6

Brewer, Sigelman / Media Campaign Coverage

29

This does not mean that, as expert commentators, political scientists simply ignored policy issues. It was not at all unusual for political scientists to be quoted about candidates positions on issues, but in the great majority of these instances issue positions were treated as strategic tools or liabilities. Almost a quarter of the quotations (58 of 247, or 23 percent) fell into the issue-game category, including these three:
[Speaking of several gubernatorial campaigns] The micro-politics in the governors races suggests people are satisfied with the big issueseconomic prosperity and peace abroad. We may see candidates for governor in 98 looking around for some irritant they can ride into office. But if Whitman loses, it sends a special message to moderate Republicanstheyll have a tough time in that party.7 [Speaking of the Virginia gubernatorial campaign] Gilmores remarks could hurt his campaign. It is off-message, it is off-text . . . . Theres nothing politically to be gained by adding another very complex dimension to an emotional issue such as abortion. It reinforces the perception that somehow hes anti-child and anti-woman, so yes, its a strategic mistake.8 [Speaking of the same campaign] I am surprised that Beyer is telegraphing the likelihood of bold new initiatives. That normally means increased revenues from a tax increase. I dont know whether that makes political sense or not. But it obviously makes him more of a political target.9

Leadership frames were even rarer than issue frames. The following pure leadership quotation, one of only two of its type, is more an example of what we did not find than what we did find:
[Speaking of the New Jersey gubernatorial campaign] People really cant tell you what [Whitmans] agenda is. I think she gets more credit as a good manager than a good leader.10

Overall, only 16 of the 247 quotations (6 percent) referred to candidates leadership qualities, either alone or in conjunction with the other frames, as this one did:
[Speaking of the Illinois gubernatorial campaign] Burris might lead early public opinion polls of Democrats because of name recognition but would be an unlikely nominee. Nobody says he is a bad guy, but nobody can remember anything hes done that will stick. He is an honorable man who achieved credibility by running a decent office but without any substantial accomplishments.11

In short, the comments by political scientists that appeared in newspaper stories about campaigns fit comfortably within what has been established in previous studies as the broader pattern of media coverage. The game frame appeared

30

Press/Politics 7(1) Winter 2002

either by itself or in conjunction with the issue or leadership frame in 80 percent of the 247 quotations considered here. Clearly, then, the game frame dominated in political scientists expert commentary, just as it typically does in media coverage of campaigns. Quotations from political scientists thereby reinforced journalists emphasis on strategy and the horse race, rather than redirecting readers attention to issues and leadership. A secondary finding bears on prior reports that when journalists write campaign stories, they often treat issues as game pieces (Cappella and Jamieson 1997; Patterson 1993). Our content analysis indicates that journalists frequently quoted political scientists who did the same thing.
Comparing Frames in Newspaper Quotes to Frames in Scholarly Articles

How can we account for the dominance of the game frame in political scientists media commentary? One possibility is that political scientists were quoted so often discussing campaigns from a strategic standpoint because that is the way political scientists generally think about campaigns. Another possibility, though, is that selection processes of various sorts filtered the flow of expertise from the political science community to the mass media in such a way as to highlight game-framed comments and winnow out issue- and leadershipframed comments. To gain a clearer perspective on of how closely framing in mediated expert commentary resembles framing within an expert communitys internal dialogue, we conducted a second content analysis, with this one focused on how political scientists frame campaigns within scholarly journal articles. The procedures for this analysis paralleled those of the earlier content analysis. First, one researcher identified every article that focused on campaigns and elections in the 199597 volumes of American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, and Journal of Politics. We used these three journals because they are widely recognized as the leading outlets for article-length research on campaigns and elections by political scientists. Accordingly, what is published in these journals represents the best research being done on campaigns and elections, as judged by political scientists themselves through the peer-review process. After discarding articles that did not specifically discuss at least one election in the United States, the other researcher classified the remaining sixty-eight articles, using the same eight coding categories. He began by examining only the title and abstract of an article, but if the decision remained in doubt, he went on to read the introductory portion of the article. A check coder followed the same procedure for all sixty-eight articles. This coding task was more difficult because the items being coded were longer and more complex than the newspaper quotations. Nevertheless, the two

Brewer, Sigelman / Media Campaign Coverage

31

coders agreed on 68 percent of the articles, almost as high as the rate of agreement for the newspaper quotations and significantly above the rate that would be expected by chance ( = .58, p < .05). Also as before, the frequencies with which articles were assigned to the various categories varied little from coder to coder, though in this instance the intercoder difference was marginally significant (p = .04). As Table 2 indicates, the game received considerable attention in scholarly accounts of campaigns: About one article out of every three in the sample of journal articles fell into the pure game category (28 percent by one coders reckoning, 34 percent by the others). These articles focused on explaining electoral consequences in terms of strategic factors such as negative advertising, war chests,and even horse-race coverage itself.Another 16 to 18 percent of the articles focused on issues within the context of campaign strategy and electoral success (the issue-game frame). Overall, political scientists invoked the game frame, either exclusively or in combination, in 48 to 58 percent of the journal articles we coded. Thus, political scientists made heavy use of the game frame not only when addressing the public in newspaper articles, but also when addressing one another in journals. On the other hand, the game frame was less dominant in the political science journals. Of the 247 newspaper quotations, 80 percent featured the game frame, while 20 to 30 percent fewer of the journal articles did so. The lesser emphasis on the game in journal articles was due in part to the greater frequency of other frames. However, the contrast would remain even if quotations and articles in the other category were excluded: In that case, 95 percent of the remaining newspaper quotations, but only 70 percent of the journal articles, would invoke the game frame. What filled the gap? It certainly was not attention to the candidates leadership qualities. Rather, a focus on issues devoid of a game slant accounted for much of the difference. Whereas only 3 percent of the newspaper quotations fell into the pure issue category, some 16 to 18 percent of the journal articles fit this category. Thus, political scientists could and did use a frame other than the game frame to discuss campaigns and elections, at least when they addressed one another. Taken as a whole, the results provide support for both explanations of why the game frame so dominated expert commentary by political scientists in newspaper stories. To some extent, the dominance of this frame in quotations from political scientists reflected the importance that political scientists accord this theme in their internal discourse about campaigns. However, the political science commentary quoted in the media focused on the game to an even greater extent and on issues to an even lesser extent than the articles in political science journals. Thus, various selection processes seem to have winnowed out issue-framed commentary from political scientists while allowing game-framed

32
Table 2

Press/Politics 7(1) Winter 2002

How political scientists framed campaigns: journal articles (199597) Main Coder Frame n % Check Coder n 11 0 0 23 12 4 0 18 68 % 16 0 0 34 18 6 0 27 100

Issue 12 18 Leadership 1 1 Issue-leadership 1 1 Game 19 28 Issue-game 11 16 Leadership-game 1 1 Issue-leader-game 2 3 Other 21 31 Total 68 100 Intercoder agreement = 68% Intercoder reliability () = .58 (standard error = .07; z = 8.60) Difference between the two distributions (2, 7 df ) = 14.5 (p < .05) Note: Due to rounding, percentages do not add up to 100.

commentary into the pages of newspapers, thereby exaggerating the already pronounced game emphasis within political scientists professional discourse.
Conclusion

When they serve as expert commentators whose remarks are intended for a mass audience, political scientists play a variety of roles. Sometimes (though not often) they explain what issues are at stake in an election and where the candidates stand on those issues. At other times (but even less often) they comment on candidates leadership qualities. Most often, they serve as color commentators on the game of politics. By and large, mediated political science commentary does not contribute frames that challenge the dominant emphasis of media campaign coverage. Instead, what political scientists say about campaigns when they are quoted in newspapers typically provides building blocks for the pervasive gaming of election campaigns by the mass media. To a considerable extent, political scientists are probably witting participants in the gaming of campaigns. As we have shown, they evidently find the strategic and horse-race elements of campaigns worthy of study, so it is not surprising that they also discuss these topics when they talk to reporters about campaigns. However, the full range of the scholarly consideration of campaigns is not represented within political scientists media commentary. In particular, whereas political science journal articles sometimes focus on issues for their own sake (and not as

Brewer, Sigelman / Media Campaign Coverage

33

game pieces), political scientists comments in newspaper articles almost never do so. We have suggested that several selection factors underlie this contrast. Political scientists themselves may place a greater emphasis on the game when they talk to reporters than when they address one another in professional journals. Reporters may select game-framed quotations from what political scientists tell them while discarding points about issues and candidates leadership qualities. Reporters may seek out political scientists they know or suspect are willing to talk about the game, and these may be the very political scientists who are who most adept at delivering the punchy one-liners that reporters prize. Our findings suggest two broader implications. The first is that mediated political science commentary reinforces a mode of campaign coverage that many find profoundly troubling. If critics of game framing are correct, those who contribute to it may unintentionally be fostering a breakdown in the type of communication that should occur during the course of an election (Patterson 1993:88) and making the American public even more cynical about campaigns than it already is (Cappella and Jamieson 1997). On the other hand, the situation could be more complicated. Some research suggests that horse-race coverage may promote political learning, particularly among casual newspaper readers, presumably because such coverage sparks political interest among the politically apathetic (e.g., Broh 1980; Steenbergen et al. 1998). Moreover, game frames may contain useful information, because politics is often about battle and strategy and winning and losing, and the motives of politicians are at times cynical (Lawrence 2000:111). If these accounts are correct, then media game framing in general and mediated political science campaign commentary in particular may have beneficial rather than (or in addition to) baneful consequences for American democracy. Our second major findingthe discontinuity between the framing of campaigns in political scientists media commentary and their professional journals also has implications for the study of public discourse and public opinion. Although Page and Shapiro (1992:359) voiced particular concern about partisan and ideological biases in media coverage of expert commentary, Iyengar and Kinder (1987:133) observed that even politically objective coverage may be far from neutral. In the case at hand, the media tended to publicize commentary by members of an expert community who shared an emphasis on the game frame. Thus, aspects of the process by which experts opinions are disseminated by the mass media may lead to rather different sorts of biasones that are neither partisan nor ideological but may yet be politically consequential.
Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank Jason MacDonald for research assistance.

34 Notes

Press/Politics 7(1) Winter 2002

1. For example, According to X, this appears to be shaping up as a close race was recorded as Xs statement that This appears to be shaping up as a close race. 2. All the examples presented in the text come from the subsample of seventy-four quotations that both coders placed in the same category. 3. Alan Bernstein, Mayoral Candidates Joust on Prime Time TV, Houston Chronicle, Oct. 23, 1997:A33. 4. Alan Bernstein, Mayors Race a Spittin Match, Houston Chronicle, Oct. 16, 1997:A1. 5. Steven Walters, Garvey Begins Daunting Quest, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Nov. 4, 1997:1. 6. Kathey Alexander, Suburbs Loom Large for Atlantas Mayor, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Nov. 23, 1997:D5. 7. William March, GOP Keeps Virginia, New York, Tampa Tribune, Nov. 5, 1997:1. 8. Spencer Hsu,Gilmore Shifts on Spousal Notification,Washington Post,Oct.15,1997:A1. 9. Mike Allen, His Big Ideas Could Make or Break Beyers Campaign, Washington Post, March 9, 1997:A1. 10. Ron Scherer, A Clash of Rising Stars in NJ, Christian Science Monitor, Oct. 17, 1997:3. 11. Patrick Gauen, Burris Brings Well-Known Name to Governors Race in Illinois, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Sept. 4, 1997:A5.

References
Brady, Henry E., and Richard R. Johnston. 1987. Whats the Primary Message: Horse Race or Issue Journalism? In Media and Momentum:The New Hampshire Primary and Nomination Politics, ed. Gary R. Orren and Nelson W. Polsby. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House. Broh, C. Anthony. 1980. Horse Race Journalism: Reporting the Polls in the 1976 Presidential Election. Public Opinion Quarterly 44(4):51429. Cappella, Joseph A., and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. 1997. Spiral of Cynicism. New York: Oxford University Press. Craig, Richard. 2000. Expectations and Elections: How Television Defines Campaign News. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 17(1):2844. Fallows, James. 1997. Breaking the News. New York: Vintage. Hetherington, Mark J. 1998. The Political Relevance of Political Trust. American Political Science Review 92(4):791808. Iyengar, Shanto, and Donald R. Kinder. 1987. News That Matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. 2000. Everything You Think You Know about Politics . . . and Why Youre Wrong. New York: Basic Books. Lawrence, Regina G. 2000. Game-Framing the Issues: Tracking the Strategy Frame in Public Policy News. Political Communication 17(2):93114. Page,Benjamin I.,and Walter Y.Shapiro.1992.The Rational Public:Fifty Years of Trends in Americans Policy Preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Patterson, Thomas E. 1980. The Mass Media Election. New York: Praeger. Patterson, Thomas E. 1993. Out of Order. New York: Vintage. Rosenstone, Stephen J., and John Mark Hansen. 1993. Mobilization,Participation,and Democracy in America. New York: Macmillian.

Brewer, Sigelman / Media Campaign Coverage

35

Steenbergen, Marco R., Timothy Vercelotti, Philip E. Meyer, and Deborah Potter. 1998. Media Signals and Political Learning: Traditional versus Civic Journalism. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, St. Louis, MO, May.

Biographical Notes
Paul R.Brewer is an assistant professor of political science at the George Washington University. Address: Department of Political Science, the George Washington University, 2201 G Street, NW, Suite 507, Washington, D.C., 20052; e-mail: pbrewer@gwu.edu. Lee Sigelman is Columbian Distinguished Professor of political science at the George Washington University. He has written extensively on issues related to mass communication and public opinion. He currently serves as the editor of American Political Science Review.