My Friend's Enemy: How Split-Screen Debate Coverage Influences Evaluation of Presidential Debates

Abstract

Leading up to the 2004 presidential debates, there was considerable discussion about the mode of presentation on television, that is, debate coverage with simultaneous reaction shots of the opponent while a candidate was speaking or coverage with isolated shorts of each candidate only. In fact, many commentators argued that split-screen coverage of Bush's reactions to Kerry's statements hurt the president during the first debate. This study analyzes the impact of split-versus single-screen debate coverage in the 2004 campaign using a large-scale experimental design with about 700 participants, conducted at a large midwestern university. Consistent with explanatory models from political science and social psychology, findings show that split-screen coverage led Bush supporters to become more extreme in their positive and negative judgments about Bush and Kerry, respectively. Kerry supporters however, had strong views about Bush from the beginning and changed little based on the mode of coverage.