DOCENT RESUME

ED 114 879 CS- 501 1.65,,

.,;

AUTHOR Marti-1;% Howard H. . .

TITLE Broadcast Political Advertisements and the PublicPolitical Debate.

PUB DATE Dec 15 ,

,Norlj .13p.; Paper presented at the Annual :Meeting of theSpeech Communication AssoCiatj,on (61st, HOuston,Texas, December 27-30, 1975)

4 'EDRS PRICE NF-$0.76 HC-$1.58 Plus .Postage-DESCRIPTORS *Elections; *Information Dissetination;_ Persuasive

Discourse; Political Influences; *political Issues;Politics; Propaganda; *Publicize; *Teievision;---Television CoMMercials .

ABSTRACT %. - .

4The method of campaigning politically on-television

has changed markedly between 1952, when Speeches)py Candidates were .

the prevalent mode of television campaignims, and 1972, when60-second and 30-second spot announcements had almost replacedbroadcast addresses. .However, studies show- th.at spots do notConstitute an important source of political information for anysignificant number of eligible miers, nor do Spots affect voter ,

turnout, A variety of factors suggest the &eSirebility of prohibitihgpolitical advettiSing- or televislcn end-radio-(as in-pritaiu) and ofrequiting publicly licensed broadcasters to make free time availablefor all major candidates to appear in an uncontrolled format. (Graphsillustrating variouS points ate interspersed throughqut,the paper.)-prl. y

..,

Documents acquired by ERIC include manycinformalitinpublishedItiAaterials not available from other sources. ERIC. makes every effott-*

obtain the best copy available. NeVertheless, items of marginal *

reproducibility are often encountered and this affects' the qualitY-

*. of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available *

* via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS)-. EDRS is notresponsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions *.

supplied by EDPS are the best that can be made from the .originai. ,****************************************************************

4

.1

U S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,EDUCATION a WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT HAL, OE rN ETEP40DUCE° EWA( TT. kECEff-0 *RCMTHE PEPSUN OR ORT,LN,EATtONOkTotETATTNLT .T PoiNTS. Of LHCOT Ok OFA,NiONSTATED DO NOT. Nt'CL,."-.Akti. RE-PRESENT OF-c T(tAL NAT$ONtH .TO-CEEDUCATION POST T+ON Ok POLICY

Broadcast Political Advertisements

and the Public Political_Debate

noward-H. Martin

The University of Michigan

--PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS COPY-RIGHTED MATERIAL HAS.BEEN GRANTED BY

Howard H. Martin-

TO ERk AND RGANIZATIONS OPERATINGUNDER AGREEMENTS WITH THE NATIONAL IN,STITUTE OF EDUCATION, FURTHER REPRO-DUCTION- OUTSIDE THE ERIC' SYSTEM ,RECLIMES PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHTOWNER

It is no secret that, since 05a, when television first played d-a

part in political campaigning, candidates' use of broadcast media

has turned increasingly toward the 60-second and 30-second 'spot'

announcement and the 5-minute 'trailer'- during prime time and sway-

from the broadcasting of candidates' speeches. In 1952 there were

almost no other broadcasts than those of the candidates' speeches.

By 1960,-exclusive of the four televised debates, of 48 Nixon-speeche'S)

4 were- nationally televised, .and .of 78 Kennedy speeches; only one--0

the election eve speech - -was nationally televised. In 1964, both

loldwater and Johnson-televised only one speech apiece. by 1972,

announcements had nearly driven,out broadcaqt addresses:

Nixon broadcast only one speech on prime time teleVision

and,McGovern brloadcast no 'live' addresses. Nixon did give 13,radid

addresses on 4 range of issues, under the auspices of CREP, usually

-.scheduled just after noon, chiefly to get his' views on record and have

the speeches repov-ted in the press._ McGovern pumhase&trme for a

small number of half -hour discussions of issues.

A-quantitative measure has been provided by Stanley Kelley of

this remarkable shift.1

6

2

'Mean length of party telecasts:

1952 n , 29 fainutes

1956 13 minutes

1960 M. minutes

Modal .:ength of televised broadcasts:

1952 30 minutes

1956 5 minutes0

r960 5 minutes

Decline in the use of the 5-minute 'trailer' probably had reduqed the

modal length-to less than 60 seconds by 1972.

-A corollary measure of the .increasing use of .'spots' is provided

by the increased expenditures for television (and radio) time which,

ap broadcast speeches have declined and 'spots' increased, display

ever heavier use of advertising ' cpots' heavily concentrated in prime

time

Comparison of TV/Radio Network and Local Charges, General Election.

196 1.960 196L. 1968

GOP. $ 5:38 M $ 7.56 M $13.03 M $22.51 M

DEMO 4,12 6 '.21 11,01 15,45-, .

OTHER: .32 .43 .56 . 2.45

TOTAL 9,80 14,20_ -.24.60 40.40',

By 1968, total broadcasting* expenses by parties bad reached $ 55.73

million, with $ 27.86 Million spent by Republicans and $ 27.73 million

spent by Democrats,. an overall increase from 1964 of 70%. 3

Alth9ugh.theyederal Election, Campaign Act of 1971 limited,

spending for media advartisingy outlays were still substantial; 1972o

time-chartes fOr network and...local broadcasts were ahead 9f 1956

-a

b.

totals. The Republicans spent for all media advertising their leg.*

limit of $ 14.3 million, of which 4.3 million was spent for broad:

caseads in the general election. Dembcrats spent $ 6.2 million.of

their $ 14.3 million limit on broadcast ads during the same period.4

Who is reached by this swollen quantity of television tspots1?-

Potentially, 'spots' reach a substantial majority of the yotin.g7age

population. A.C. Nielsen has reporked in 1972 publications that

96:4. of United States households have television receivers, and that.

nearly 7054 of these households watch television betWeen 7:30 p.m.

and 9:30 p.m. on an average day. When 'spots' are used in saturation

during the last two-weeks of'a campaign nearly maximum exposure is

possible. Moreover, 'spots' reach a cross-section of the'votingrage=

n selective exposure is apparently overcome. A study of

exposure to television ads during gubernatorial campaigns in Wiscon7

rin,and Colorado in 1972 displayed nearly equal exposure of.partisans

to ads of major party "candidates .5

Favor GOP Undecided/DST .Favor DEMO

Seen more GOP ads

.Seen. equal number

Seen more DEMO'ads

31 °4

48

21

27 V',

-53

20

32>,

-37

31

Finally, 'spots' reach people who expect to be entertained, It was

discovered as early as 1952.that audiences for political telecastsOr"

shrank when entertainment programs were also available.6 That is

.

hardly surprising; prime time, television is a vehicle.for entertainment.

Moreover, judgments of the quality._ of political 'spots' have employed

entertainment standards;- viewers were asked to rate_ads as "generally

entertaining,," "generally boring, " or in between. "7 The expectation

of being entertained obviously qualifies the impact of political.

information upon. an audience otherwise very large and containing

opposite- partisans and the uncommitted.

Although the potential audience for 'spots' is immense, for

whom do they constitute an important source of political information?

The question is simpler 'so answer in the negative. 'Spots' are not

an important source of information for people of.strong partisan

affiliations; such people make up their minds about their vpte"15efore

the campaign begins.8

, . 1952 1956 .

Knew their vote all alongp

30 44 4",

Decided when candidates- chosen 35 1 32

TOTAL 65:%, 76

Nor are 10.pots' an important source of information for people who are

strongly interestedi,p,the campaign; they, too, make up their mindS-

early. Moreover, the highly interested depend upon a mix,of Many

information Medianewspapers, magazine4 television and radio; in

such, a mix, television ads appear insiffiTicipt. The following table

indicates also that people who care little about the.cdmpdign'also

are muchless exposed to media sources of political information of

'any- kind. 9

as

,

5

Media Exposure and Levels of Political Involvement

Involvement

t.

High 4.

'3

2

1

. Media Exposure

LoW0

5

13 .

33

49

y

Io

24

35

31

2'

2-3

32

27

18

3

41 °X

30

21

8

High4

46

31

17

6

Nor, are 'spots, important for ,those

ticket-splitter is a highly motivated voter, not similar to

who split their votes. The

styled "independents voter who is re.

tickdt-splitter rates televised ad

ally a di

very low

the follOwing table shows. For him, importan

which candidates exert the least contro1.1°

the self:-

sinterested voter. The

on an 11 -point scale, ,as

t sources are those oVer,

Rating 'of _Sources of Campaign jnformatibn

Undecideds Ticket-splitters

Interpersonal

Talk with family

Contact with candidate

Talk with friends

Audio-Visval

5.5

5o

4.8

5:6'

5.2

5.0.

TV news 6.7 6.8

TV documentaries/Specials 6.5 6.6

TV editorials. 5.7 5.6

TV talk shows 5.6

TV educational programs 5.9'

TV ads 3.6

,! 6

Undecideds Ticket-splitters

News stories and editorials . 5.8 5.9+

Newspaper ads, 3.8 3.7

?inboards 2.1L

If not political partisans or t`hose highly interested in llolitcs

or tick;t-splitters, then .who are those for whom 'spdts' are an. .

. . .

important source of political information? Apparently, the answer

.is: -those who do not care much about theegMpaign, those who do not

care.muchaSOut the Outcome, those who are; therefore-,Tersistent

non-Voters, those who do not know about the issues and inaccurately

pereive.candidates' stands, those who are vote "changers" (Switoh

,parties from one election to the .next) or ".Floaters" (those who change. . . -

-theirminds at least once.durini; the campaign. Although potentially... - ;

this 7rou could be as lar-e as $tof eliEible voter,,,who express

an intentiorp to vote, their numVersare alway:s seriously eroded by

.-nan-votin, Eoreover, because of their.fundamental.disintereSt,

pay, close attention to the ads. Tkm study in lisconsin and4

COlarado%found,that only 2P % of those exposed to 'spots' paid close

..attention to-them; /2 paid_vsome" attention; 29 %' paid no att(..ntion.11

Although television political 'spots' do not onstitute an

important source of political information for any si.;nificant numLeri

of voters, what direct-evidence have we of the effect of

ispo* ':? First, the increase in 'spot'= announcements- -and of teleirision

generally--ha- not affected voter turnout as television ownershi!ip has3

b.ecome almost universal, as the following graph illustrates.I2

O

Y

7-

Turnout rate 3efoi4ead,After Television Saturation

.100 %90fp706o50PQ302010

-0

-I/o

T

62-.1 4.0.7%53.c Vo--

-0 0

45.-s 49a, % 45%4

0

1950. 32' 56 ,5P 60 '62 6L 66 :68 7o 72 7In-fact, there'is'a higher correlation between newspaper readinzand

turnout =than between television use and turnoutril

TV Newspaper VOt-ed

own read 83 % 1,073

don't own read 73 Yo. elL,27-;

oVI, don' t read -61 0 '. 167

don't own .,don't read bl -% , 103

jhat inauence do 'spots' e::ert upon the low interest voters for

whom they may, presumalay, provide an important source of political

information? .ie.,may reaSon that.tfspotsYmay provide such_voters_with,

-information that would tend,to influence a preference-only if the

information were uniformly.fayaizable to a sinle party candidate.4g,,;

11.9.s already been shown, oxposure to 'spots' is nat uni-partisan;

:loreover, attention paid to ',spots' is not seriously skewed by

partisan prefe!.renCe4F

Attention laid to Televised fOlitical Ads-

-Favor GP2 UnD/bST. Favor-Dethe

Closer attention to :.;-0:.' as '' 22 % , /!-% 2 %.. .

. .

. _

Equal72' j 91 81---.

Closer attention to p, 4:x7: ads 5 ' '17 --

1.)

8

-. And, iin all the studies I have seen, it has proved impossible, --i . .,.

,,separate the effect of television ads from the effect of t9 -Vision

exposure enerally,.therefore it is impossible to know wh ther

. .i- Candidate=controlled exposure ('spots') or uncentrolle e,,pospre news)Y/ ,.

., ,.., . -

. .affects low-interest ,roters. For example, a study o.: the effects of

O

the "democrats for Idxon" 'spots' in ,l972,' which idiculed

positions on.defense spendin.1,, welfare and his 11e4ed inconsistency,

showed ,that ovr the last six weeks of, the c moai::,-n voters became more

aware of Idxon's and ;:c:overn's beliefs o4

spending and consistency,

but could not directly attribute that anze to 'spots.'

7-ercent Ivorovemen in Und.erstandin9:

:.*.c77 on Defense Nixon en aefense i4oa ConsistencyA

- Hj.:11 interest,-(hiTh exposure)

+2? +19 -3

Low Interest, +12 ,

e:To.svre)

`:oderate Intere-st, +30 +1exposure)

Low interest . +12 +8(loexposure)

^

.Hic.,11 Interest +e +27-(Inw PTy1,--1111^P),_

reover, when we subtract the ohan -,e that occurred without exposure,!

thrdiffemince between hi h interest and low interest \Fitters is small

indeed_, orobatly within the error marin for a sample,df.this size

.(45 ) and therefore insi:nificant.iD It does not follow,Qthen, from

"what empirical evidence there is, that low interest voters are more.

,influenced by"spets' than other- segments Of the -votin,,

"

public.

,

I

Aa'thouh there .is no evidence that"spdts''have so far exerted

important-effect ppon.the political decision process, there ,are still'

reasons for concern about their continued Use. First, persistent ',

.

employment of ''spots' reinforces the notion that an electoral decision

is no more important than selection of an antacid. Such a. .

.cultural inipact, is' predictable and undesirable. *ia)reover, most" .

memorable 'spots'-haveemployed fear-appealsZand/or over=EUmDlification,

of an 6pponent's,position in orderto arouse doubts that cannot

be allayed in the short ,term of a. campaiTn. For e::ample, the Democratic,

Tarty ad in 19,1- picturin a Tirl licking an ice-cream cone while a

voice-explainea that strontium' 90 was budding up in-milk :gupplies

d6 to nuclear -Cestin,-, and that carry :;oldwater opposed the test

ban treaty. ,r, idxon supporters'. law and order 'spots' in 196Z,

.of the Connally 7roun's ads in 1972 for Nixon .that Showed a hand

sveeping toy ships and planes off a table-tor'while a voice explained

that ilcovern planned to emasculate American defenses., Such ads seem,

' to fall into the category of thing,s..euphemistically labelled "dirty

tricks." ;inally, continued use of4-spots''.may render the electoi-a1

decisionmcrrpirrationalif false cemisleadin information. is given to

people -who do not bare enough to chec.4 its accuracy.

Thereforp., althou741 my,worries°about_the effects or political, .

del-,ate and decision::makin7 of the dbcaihe and near - disappearance of

, broaMst di.stourse appear to-be unounded in terms meaSurable

consequences-to date, there dO seem to bg some reasons for takinT,

action; That 'action?.

television arid radio,

the prohibition of all pbliticial advertisin..; on

which has been repeatedly proposed and is the

ex

statusquo in is still desirable. such a prohibition ought

.17

.10

linkedwith..a 'requiiement that publicly licensr broadcasters

make available free tirie for all major candidates to appear in an

,..uncontroll4d,fornat preemptin7'M bther teleyibion oro-Tamift

simultaneously. 1 ..)uah arran-ements wouldL

abloiThensions man7 have had thattelev.sed-

subvert, t& full discussion of issues ha

candidate tom*:tence.

r

(1.

.

IN

4

1

,

I

11,

le

C

pf,stantially remove the

Political 'spots' may, f

he 'full disclosure ofe

..'

;

1.

af

-.4

I

.-4

. 5

L

.1

0 ..

.2ndnote6:

11

ad.

1"Campni-n Zel-ates:. Some la.cts and Issues," -ublic Lpinion

(..,11, 1062) , 7.5.

217i7ures have E'.en rounded to 2ronortion of millions of dollar

frol FCC data r,Lort,,,d in Con-ressional keuarterl!! %eeklv Report, 27-.

. ,

(Septenl,er 12, l!'60), 1702.

eid., ;1. 1701.

-Conzressiona1.4uarterieeklv Report, (Iay 12, 1°73) , 1131'.

SCharles . E.tkin et at, "quality versus .,,uantity in Televised

'olitical ,," :ullic rrninion .4uarterlv, 37 (Sumner, 1073), 216.

"Campai-n.Decates: Some Facts and issues,'" p. 756.

1.1tkin, ;:tersug :4uantitzr," p. 216.

Ca'nlote1.1;-_hillip 2. Converse, Jarren J. tiller and

72)onald 2. Stoker, Th;) American Voter, !In .1brlid7ment

ill and Sons, inc.,.120) pip. /1-2.

V. . Jr., :111-,lic.ninion and American Democracy (1.ew

'llfrPd p. "5P.

Yo-k!:. John

10 .alter 1.Xries an ,Y Tari-ance, Jr. , The Ticket-Splittr

,-

,4)rand Rapids, A chion: . Erdmanns :ublishinz Co., 1P7P), DD. 75- .

-,11-1-1i

t1,... n .4ualtity," p. 216.

12Th data on turnout rate is adap Inmn a chart in An;-1.,,

"a7 sielevision Reshaped Columl7ia "Journalism

ReieT, up=dated with fi7tires.fr,'m Conzressional quarterly

illmanacs for 1070 and 1072..

1": n 31as ero "Television and :/otin-.- Turnout," .ullic

pinion quarterlv, 2 (Zprim, 1065), 7P.

1' tkin,uality versus ,pantityt" 4a. 21e.. -

41.

12

15ThomasE. i-atterson'and Robert D. McClure, Iolitical Advertising.:'

Voter Redction to Televised ol.itical Commercials. Citizen's research

.Foundation Study:, No. 23 (197P).'

16Twentieth Century Puna', loter's Tiiiiev Report . ; . on_r;ampaian

Costs in the Electronic__T,ra (::ew York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1962),_0..

developed thepe proposals, .

, .

ai

p.

1'

ts2