Split-Screen Debate Coverage Benefited Bush in 2004, Research Shows

[LiberalFighter]

UW-Madison: Split-Screen Debate Coverage Benefited Bush in 2004, Research Shows

Conventional wisdom about the pitfalls of reaction shots during presidential debates was turned on its head in a study conducted by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Although Republicans argued against allowing split-screen images of both candidates during the first presidential debate in 2004 at the University of Miami, a study of viewers' opinions shows that President George W. Bush - and not Democratic challenger John Kerry - reaped most of the benefits of the coverage.

"Republicans thought they knew what they were doing by asking for single-screen, and the Democrats and all the pundits argued that it had hurt Bush because of the split screen. But the data shows that's not true," says Dietram Scheufele, a UW-Madison journalism professor. "It hurt Kerry quite a bit and didn't hurt Bush at all. The pundits didn't live up to reality."

Although both camps agreed before the debates not to allow split-screen coverage, some networks broke the ground rules insisting that there was no evidence that split-screen shots affected viewers' judgments.

[fedupinBushcountry]

1. Split Screen ?

The hell with what was said. Geez, who are these people. :crazy:

[LittleClarkie]

2. Watching "Blinky" didn't effect the viewers opinions?

Who did they poll?

[Rebellious Republican]

3. Should'nt that headline read.......

Touch-Screen Diebold Coverage Benefited Bush in 2004, Research Shows

:shrug: