“Who Won?”: A Critical Examination of Newspaper Editorials Evaluating Nationally Televised Presidential Debates

Works Cited

• Abramson, Paul R. , John H. Aldrich and David W. Rohde . Continuity and Change in the 1984 Elections. Washington: Congressional Quarterly, 1986.
   Google Scholar
• Arterton , F. Christopher . Media Politics: The News Strategies of Presidential Campaigns . Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1984.
   Google Scholar
• Bagdikian, Ben H. “Editorial Page Changes—But Too Slowly.” Masthead 19 (1967): 96–100.
   Google Scholar
• Berkman, Ronald and Laura W. Kitch . Politics in the Media Age . New York: McGraw Hill, 1986.
   Google Scholar
• Berquist, Goodwin F. and James L. Golden , “Media Rhetoric, Criticism, and the Public Perception of the 1980 Presidential Debates.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 67 (1981): 125–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishop, George F. , Robert G. Meadow and Marilyn Jackson-Beeck . Summary and Conclusion. The Presidential Debates: Media, Electoral, and Policy Perspectives. Eds. Bishop, Meadow and Jackson-Beeck . New York: Praeger, 1978. 197–202.
   Google Scholar
• Carmines, Edward G. and J. David Gopoian . “Issue Coalitions, Issueless Campaigns: The Paradox of Rationality in American Presidential Elections.” Journal of Politics 43 (1981): 1170–89.
   Google Scholar
• “Carter 110, Ford 108.” Wall Street Journal 8 Oct. 1976: 8.
   Google Scholar
• Cater, Douglass . “Semi-Requiem for Semi-Debates.” Washington Post 4 Nov. 1980: A21.
   Google Scholar
• Chaffee, Steven H. and Jack Dennis . “Presidential Debates: An Empirical Assessment.” The Past and Future of Presidential Debates. Ed. Austin Ranney . Washington: American Enterprise Institute, 1979. 75–101.
   Google Scholar
• “The Charismatic Norwegian.” New York Times 9 Oct. 1984: A32.
   Google Scholar
• Commanger, Henry S. “And a Whimper: the Televised Debates Degrade Democracy.” Los Angeles Times 2 Nov. 1980, sec. VI: 1.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, Dennis K. “Television and Political Debates.” Critical Studies in Mass Communication 4 (1987): 201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• “The Debate.” New York Times 28 Sep. 1960: 38.
   Google Scholar
• “The Debate: Chapter I.” Washington Post 28 Sep. 1960: A16.
   Google Scholar
• “The Debate Windup.” Washington Post 22 Oct. 1984: A20.
   Google Scholar
• “Debates, Domesticated.” New York Times 27 Sep. 1988: A34.
   Google Scholar
• Denton, Robert E. and Gary C. Woodward . Political Communicationin America . New York: Praeger, 1985.
   Google Scholar
• “Election Issues Sharpened.” Christian Science Monitor 14 Oct. 1960:20.
   Google Scholar
• Ellsworth, John W. “Rationality and Campaigning: A Content Analysis of the 1960 Presidential Campaign Debates.” Western Political Quarterly 18 (1965): 794–802.
   Google Scholar
• “The Final Debate.” Washington Post 24 Oct. 1976: B6.
   Google Scholar
• “The Final Presidential Debate.” Chicago Tribune 23 Oct. 1984, sec. 1: 14.
   Google Scholar
• “Finally, the Caboose.” Los Angeles Times 26 Sep. 1976, sec. VI: 2.
   Google Scholar
• “George Bush's Race.” Christian Science Monitor 17 Oct. 1988: 15.
   Google Scholar
• “A Good Look at the Candidates.” Los Angeles Times 30 Oct. 1980, sec. II: 6.
   Google Scholar
• “Good Show.” Wall Street Journal 30 Oct. 1980: 30.
   Google Scholar
• Goodnight , G. Thomas . “The Personal, Technical, and Public Spheres of Argument: A Speculative Inquiry into the Art of Public Deliberation.” Journal of the American Forensic Association 18 (1982): 214–27.
   Google Scholar
• “Gov. Dukakis: Trapped.” Washington Post 16 Oct. 1988: C6.
   Google Scholar
• Greenfield, Jeff . Playing to Win: An Insider's Guide to Politics . New York: Simon and Schuster, 1980.
   Google Scholar
• Greenfield, Jeff . The Real Campaign: How the Media Missed the Story of the 1980 Campaign. New York: Summit Books, 1982.
   Google Scholar
• “Heat, No Light.” Los Angeles Times 23 Oct. 1984, sec. 11:4.
   Google Scholar
• Highlander, John P. and Lloyd I. Watkins . “A Closer Look at the Great Debates.” Western Speech 26 (1962): 39–48.
   Google Scholar
• “It Could Have Been Worse.” Los Angeles Times 8 Oct. 1976, sec. II: 10.
   Google Scholar
• Jamieson, Kathleen Hall and David S. Birdsell . Presidential Debates: The Challenge of Creating an Informed Electorate . New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
   Google Scholar
• Kane, Peter E. “Evaluating the ‘Great Debates.”’ Western Speech 30 (1966): 89–96.
   Google Scholar
• “Kansas City Forum.” Christian Science Monitor 23 Oct. 1984: 19.
   Google Scholar
• Kerr, Harry P. “The Great Debates in a New Perspective.” Today's Speech 9.4 (1961): 9–11.
   Google Scholar
• Kraus, Sidney . Televised Presidential Debates and Public Policy . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988.
   Google Scholar
• Leuthold, David A. and David C. Valentine . “How Reagan ‘Won’ the Cleveland Debate: Audience Predispositions and Presidential Debate ‘Winners.’” Speaker and Gavel 18 (1981): 60–66.
   Google Scholar
• “A Lively Debate.” Christian Science Monitor 8 Oct. 1976: 32.
   Google Scholar
• Martel, Myles . Political Campaign Debates: Images, Strategies, and Tactics . New York: Longmans, 1983.
   Google Scholar
• Merrill, John and Harold Fisher . The World's Great Dailies . New York: Hastings House, 1980.
   Google Scholar
• “Mondale's Scorecard.” Wall Street Journal 9 Oct. 1984: 28.
   Google Scholar
• “Mr. Kennedy's Round.” Washington Post 9 Oct. 1960: E4.
   Google Scholar
• Newsom, Doug and James A. Wollert . Media Writing: News for the Mass Media . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1985.
   Google Scholar
• “90-Minute Wonder.” Washington Post 30 Oct. 1980: A22.
   Google Scholar
• “No Winner, But a Start.” New York Times 26 Sep. 1976, sec. IV: 14.
   Google Scholar
• “Now It's Up to You.” Christian Science Monitor 30 Oct. 1980: 24.
   Google Scholar
• Page, Benjamin I. “Theory of Political Ambiguity.” American Political Science Review 70 (1976): 742–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patterson, Thomas E. The Mass Media Election: How Americans Choose Their President . New York: Praeger, 1980.
   Google Scholar
• Patterson, Thomas E. “Television and Election Strategy.” Academy of Political Science Proceedings 24 (1982): 24–35.
   Google Scholar
• Polsby, Nelson W. “Debatable Thoughts on Presidential Debates.” The Past and Future of Presidential Debates. Ed. Austin Ranney . Washington: American Enterprise Institute, 1979. 175–86.
   Google Scholar
• Rieke, Richard D. and Malcolm Sillars . Argumentation and the Decision-Making Process , 2nd ed. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman, 1984.
   Google Scholar
• Riley, Patricia and Thomas A. Hollihan . “The 1980 Presidential Debates: A Content Analysis of the Issues and Arguments.” Speaker and Gavel 18 (1981): 47–59.
   Google Scholar
• “Round Two.” New York Times 9 Oct. 1960: E10.
   Google Scholar
• “Round Two.” Washington Post 8 Oct. 1976: A24.
   Google Scholar
• “Round 2: Style vs. Facts.” Chicago Tribune 9 Oct. 1976, sec. 3:2.
   Google Scholar
• Rowland, Robert . “The Substance of the 1980 Carter-Reagan Debate.” Southern Speech Communication Journal 51 (1986): 142–65.
   Google Scholar
• Samovar, Larry A. “Ambiguity and Unequivocation in the Kennedy-Nixon Television Debates.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 43 (1962): 277–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samovar, Larry A. “Ambiguity and Unequivocation in the Kennedy-Nixon Debates: A Rhetorical Analysis.” Western Speech 29(1965): 211–18.
   Google Scholar
• “Scoring the First Debate.” Chicago Tribune 9 Oct. 1984, sec. 1: 16.
   Google Scholar
• “The Second Debate.” Wall Street Journal 23 Oct. 1984:28.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, Raymond G. “The Carter-Ford Debates: Some Perceptions from Academe.” Central States Speech Journal 28 (1977): 250–57.
   Google Scholar
• “So We Know Them a Little Better Now.” Chicago Tribune 27 Sep. 1988: 14.
   Google Scholar
• “Standoff.” Washington Post 26 Sep. 1988: A14.
   Google Scholar
• Stonecipher, Harry W. Editorial and Persuasive Writing: Opinion Functions of the News Media . New York: Hastings House, 1979.
   Google Scholar
• “Sure Loser in the Debate: The Format.” New York Times 15 Oct. 1988: 30.
   Google Scholar
• “That Great Debate.” Christian Science Monitor 27 Sep. 1960: 18.
   Google Scholar
• “There are Two—Count ‘em.” Los Angeles Times 9 Oct. 1984, sec. II: 4.
   Google Scholar
• “There's Still Time.” Los Angeles Times 27 Sep. 1988, sec. II: 6.
   Google Scholar
• Trent, Judith S. and Robert V. Friedenberg . Political Campaign Communication. New York: Praeger, 1983.
   Google Scholar
• “TV Debate—Chapter Two.” Christian Science Monitor 8 Oct. 1960: 18.
   Google Scholar
• Vancil, David L. and Sue D. Pendell . “Winning Presidential Debates: An Analysis of Criteria Influencing Audience Response.” Western Journal of Speech Communication 48 (1984): 62–74.
   Google Scholar
• “The Voters Won.” Wall Street Journal 27 Sep. 1988: 32.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, Eileen . For the Sake of Argument: Writing Editorials and Position Papers . Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1979.
   Google Scholar
• Wayne, Stephen J. Road to the White House: The Politics of Presidential Elections . 2nd ed. New York: St. Martin's, 1984.
   Google Scholar
• “Weak, Dumb or Afraid?” New York Times 23 Oct. 1984: A32.
   Google Scholar
• Weiss Robert O. “The Presidential Debates in Their Political Context: The Issue-Image Interface in the 1980 Campaign.” Speaker and Gavel 18 (1981): 22–27.
   Google Scholar
• “Words, and Music, in the Debate.” New York Times 30 Oct. 1980: A26.
   Google Scholar
• “Zing Up the Next Debate.” Christian Science Monitor 27 Sep. 1976: 32.
   Google Scholar