Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Issue Ownership for Non-Presidential Television Spots

2005; Routledge; Volume: 53; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/01463370500102137

1746-4102

William L. Benoit, David Airne,

Electoral Systems and Political Participation

Abstract Petrocik's (1996) theory of political party issue ownership predicts that candidates will emphasize the issues on which their own party is considered most effective. This prediction has been confirmed in presidential campaign messages, but it has yet to be tested with non-presidential campaign discourse. Computer content analysis of over 1100 political television spots from 1980 to 2002 (most spots were from 2002) discovered that overall, Democratic candidates discussed their own party's issues more than did Republicans, whereas Republicans discussed Republican issues more than did Democratic candidates. However, local ads and US Senate spots from 2002 did not follow issue ownership predictions (candidates did not discuss their own party's issues significantly more than the other party's issues). Unlike presidential spots, non-presidential advertising discusses Democratic issues more than Republican ones; the Republican Party owns more national or federal issues such as national defense and foreign policy. Keywords: Non-presidential television spotsIssue ownership theoryRepublicanDemocratic Notes 1. We would like to thank Amanda Brown, Joel Iverson, Melissa Marek, John McHale, and Roberta Kerr for video-taping political advertisements for us. 2. The ads are not distributed equally across these years; most spots are from more recent campaigns. 3. We agree with Beatty (2002 Beatty, M. J. 2002. Do we know a vector from a scalar? Why measures of association (not their squares) are appropriate indices of effect. Human Communication Research, 28: 605–611. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) and Rosenthal, Rosnow, and Rubin (2000 Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R. L. and Rubin, D. B. 2000. Contrasts and effect sizes in behavioral research: A correlational approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) that r is the most appropriate measure of effect size. Additional informationNotes on contributorsWilliam L. BenoitWilliam L. Benoit (PhD 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: Benoitw@missouri.edu)David AirneDavid 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: davidairne@hotmail.com)