Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

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

“Who Won?”: A Critical Examination of Newspaper Editorials Evaluating Nationally Televised... While mediated reaction to presidential debates assumes many forms, one dominant strain of commentary involves the declaration of “who won.” While there is no shortage of opinion about the utility of the press's interest in picking debate winners, we have little understanding of the kinds of arguments employed to make these cases. The paper examines the types of arguments used in one form of media commentary about television debates and advances three claims about the argumentative criteria media analysts employ in declaring winners in presidential debates: (1) editorials are guilty of the same flaws which media critics assert are problems in the debates themselves, (2) the press uses debate criteria which it admits are flawed, and (3) ineffectual argumentative criteria, not the decision to declare debate winners and, losers, demeans the role that presidential debates assume in the political process. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Argumentation and Advocacy Taylor & Francis

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

Morello, John T.
Argumentation and Advocacy , Volume 27 (3): 12 – Jan 1, 1991
Download PDF

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

Abstract

While mediated reaction to presidential debates assumes many forms, one dominant strain of commentary involves the declaration of “who won.” While there is no shortage of opinion about the utility of the press's interest in picking debate winners, we have little understanding of the kinds of arguments employed to make these cases. The paper examines the types of arguments used in one form of media commentary about television debates and advances three claims about the...
Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/who-won-a-critical-examination-of-newspaper-editorials-evaluating-000h9hR7cJ
Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
© 1991 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
ISSN
2576-8476
eISSN
1051-1431
DOI
10.1080/00028533.1991.11951516
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

While mediated reaction to presidential debates assumes many forms, one dominant strain of commentary involves the declaration of “who won.” While there is no shortage of opinion about the utility of the press's interest in picking debate winners, we have little understanding of the kinds of arguments employed to make these cases. The paper examines the types of arguments used in one form of media commentary about television debates and advances three claims about the argumentative criteria media analysts employ in declaring winners in presidential debates: (1) editorials are guilty of the same flaws which media critics assert are problems in the debates themselves, (2) the press uses debate criteria which it admits are flawed, and (3) ineffectual argumentative criteria, not the decision to declare debate winners and, losers, demeans the role that presidential debates assume in the political process.

Journal

Argumentation and Advocacy – Taylor & Francis

Published: Jan 1, 1991

References

  • Editorial Page Changes—But Too Slowly
  • Media Rhetoric, Criticism, and the Public Perception of the 1980 Presidential Debates.
  • Summary and Conclusion
  • Issue Coalitions, Issueless Campaigns: The Paradox of Rationality in American Presidential Elections
  • Carter 110, Ford 108
  • Semi-Requiem for Semi-Debates
  • Presidential Debates: An Empirical Assessment
  • The Charismatic Norwegian
  • And a Whimper: the Televised Debates Degrade Democracy.
  • Television and Political Debates
  • The Debate.
  • The Debate: Chapter I
  • The Debate Windup.
  • Debates, Domesticated
  • Election Issues Sharpened.
  • Rationality and Campaigning: A Content Analysis of the 1960 Presidential Campaign Debates
  • The Final Debate.
  • The Final Presidential Debate.
  • Finally, the Caboose.
  • George Bush's Race.
  • A Good Look at the Candidates.
  • Good Show.
  • The Personal, Technical, and Public Spheres of Argument: A Speculative Inquiry into the Art of Public Deliberation
  • Gov. Dukakis: Trapped.
  • Heat, No Light.
  • A Closer Look at the Great Debates
  • It Could Have Been Worse.
  • Evaluating the ‘Great Debates
  • Kansas City Forum.
  • The Great Debates in a New Perspective.
  • How Reagan ‘Won’ the Cleveland Debate: Audience Predispositions and Presidential Debate ‘Winners.’
  • A Lively Debate.
  • Mondale's Scorecard.
  • Mr. Kennedy's Round.
  • 90-Minute Wonder.
  • No Winner, But a Start.
  • Now It's Up to You.
  • Theory of Political Ambiguity
  • Television and Election Strategy
  • Debatable Thoughts on Presidential Debates
  • The 1980 Presidential Debates: A Content Analysis of the Issues and Arguments
  • Round Two.
  • Round Two.
  • Round 2: Style vs. Facts.
  • The Substance of the 1980 Carter-Reagan Debate
  • Ambiguity and Unequivocation in the Kennedy-Nixon Television Debates
  • Ambiguity and Unequivocation in the Kennedy-Nixon Debates: A Rhetorical Analysis
  • Scoring the First Debate.
  • The Second Debate.
  • The Carter-Ford Debates: Some Perceptions from Academe
  • So We Know Them a Little Better Now.
  • Standoff.
  • Sure Loser in the Debate: The Format.
  • That Great Debate.
  • There are Two—Count ‘em.
  • There's Still Time.
  • TV Debate—Chapter Two.
  • Winning Presidential Debates: An Analysis of Criteria Influencing Audience Response
  • The Voters Won.
  • Weak, Dumb or Afraid?
  • The Presidential Debates in Their Political Context: The Issue-Image Interface in the 1980 Campaign
  • Words, and Music, in the Debate.
  • Zing Up the Next Debate.