Content uploaded by Erik Bucy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Erik Bucy on May 21, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Taking Television Seriously: A Sound and
Image Bite Analysis of Presidential
Campaign Coverage, 1992–2004
Erik P. Bucy & Maria Elizabeth Grabe
Department of Telecommunications, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405-5501
This study updates and builds on Hallin’s landmark investigation of sound-bite news
by documenting the prevalence of candidate image bites, where candidates are shown
but not heard (as opposed to being shown and heard), in general election news over 4
election cycles. A visual analysis of broadcast network (ABC, CBS, and NBC) news cov-
erage of the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 U.S. presidential elections finds that image
bites constituted a greater percentage of total campaign coverage than sound bites, with
candidates appearing in image bites significantly more than sound bites. Even as candi-
date sound bites continue to shrink over time, image-bite time is increasing in dura-
tion—and candidates are being presented in image bites almost twice as much as
journalists. Sound bites are also found to be largely attack and issue focused. Based on
these findings, we call for greater appreciation of visual processing, nonverbal commu-
nication, and voter learning from television news in the study of media and politics.
doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00362.x
Since Adatto (1990) and Hallin (1992) documented the dramatic shrinkage of U.S.
candidate sound bites from over 40 seconds in the late 1960s to under 10 seconds by
the late 1980s, U.S. broadcast news has been persistently criticized for not giving
politicians enough verbal access to the public sphere—for forcing candidates and
officeholders to speak and act on television’s terms—and for the growing tendency
of reporters to voice over candidate statements with narrative commentary
(Farnsworth & Lichter, 2003; Griffin, 1992; Patterson, 2003). At the heart of these
concerns is an assumption ‘‘that as sound-bite length decreases, viewers of television
newscasts are provided a more distorted, filtered picture of the candidates, their
positions on key issues, and the race itself’’ (Russomanno & Everett, 1995, p. 408).
Though damning from a normative perspective of an idealized media system that
readily subordinates itself to political processes (see Bucy & D’Angelo, 2004), this
criticism ignores what viewers of the evening news do receive in ample supply during
Corresponding authors: Erik P. Bucy; e-mail: ebucy@indiana.edu, and Maria Elizabeth Grabe;
e-mail: mgrabe@indiana.edu
Journal of Communication ISSN 0021-9916
652 Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 652–675 ª2007 International Communication Association
presidential elections, namely, images of candidates frequently portrayed in close-up
and action shots that convey important cues about status, viability, and physical and
mental fitness for office. In this paper, we compare the prevalence of sound and
image bites in network news coverage over the past four general election cycles
and draw on research from cognitive neuroscience and behavioral biology to argue
that image bites—audiovisual segments in which candidates are shown but not
necessarily heard—are vastly underappreciated as a source of political information.
Our motivation for this study stems from two separate streams of research.
The first is the television news literature, which has documented a steady decrease
in sound-bite length—to 7.8 seconds in the 2000 election (Lichter, 2001)—while
repeatedly calling for increased analysis of other elements of news broadcasts, par-
ticularly visuals (see Graber, 1996, 2001; Griffin, 1992; Lowry & Shidler, 1995, 1998).
With rare exception, however (Barnhurst & Steele, 1997; Grabe, 1996; Kepplinger,
1982; Messaris & Abraham, 2001), scholars have not taken up this call. The second
stream involves research on the nonverbal display behavior of political leaders, which
has examined images aired on the nightly news from the perspective of behavioral
biology and cognitive neuroscience. Research conducted in the ‘‘biopolitics’’ tradi-
tion (see Somit & Peterson, 1998) has found that visual displays of political leaders
are efficiently processed and readily remembered by viewers, are judged for their
appropriateness in relation to the immediate news context (Bucy, 2000; Bucy &
Newhagen, 1999), and influence viewer emotions and evaluative appraisals—including,
potentially, voting decisions. With enhanced understanding about the processing of
visual information, it is possible to look more scientifically at the likely effects of
news coverage of campaigns rather than simply bemoan the faster-paced, more
visually gripping character of contemporary news (Griffin, 1992) and its purportedly
harmful impact on informed citizenship (Farnsworth & Lichter, 2003).
Despite the visual nature of television, research analyzing the content of presi-
dential candidate appearances on the news has focused almost exclusively on the
verbal side of the message, tracking the amount of time candidates are simulta-
neously seen and heard (Hallin, 1992; Lichter, 2001), the length and tone of their
statements (Lowry & Shidler, 1995, 1998; Robinson & Sheehan, 1983), and the
interpretive frames journalists use to package sound bites in televised reports (Levy,
1981; Steele & Barnhurst, 1996). An emphasis on the shrinking sound bite, which
treats the accompanying visual as a necessary but distracting element of televised
political speech, not only overlooks television’s single most distinguishing feature—
its ability to generate a real-time stream of images—but also fails to consider the
persuasive effects that images have on viewers (Newhagen, 2002, p. 730). As the
information processing literature has shown, these effects are considerable when
compared to the verbal component of the news. Moreover, an overemphasis on
sound-bite length assumes that the visual channel does not have an independent
effect on viewers and that the longer the sound bite, the greater the quality of news
coverage (Russomanno & Everett, 1995). The research presented below calls both of
these assumptions into question.
E. P. Bucy & M. E. Grabe Taking Television Seriously
Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 652–675 ª2007 International Communication Association 653
The biological basis of visual processing
Contrary to the normative preferences of political theorists for a rationally engaged
public that relies on reason and deliberation to make informed decisions, visual
experience remains the most dominant mode of learning (Barry, 2005); indeed,
visual processing is central to building synaptic connections in the brain and ulti-
mately forms the basis of extended consciousness (Damasio, 1999). Because vision
actually occurs within the visual cortex and not at the entry point of the cornea, the
eyes can be regarded as ‘‘a direct extension of the brain into the environment’’ (Barry,
2005, p. 48). ‘‘The last and most sophisticated of our senses to evolve, our eyes send
more data more quickly and efficiently through the nervous system than any other
sense.’’ In Descartes’ Error, Damasio (1994) refuted the idea that reason is the final
arbiter of perception and argued on the basis of neurological evidence that humans
are not primarily thinking beings who also feel but feeling beings who also think.
Verbal processing offers a case in point. The use of language and the act of reading
are relatively recent inventions in human culture, whereas vision played a key role in
the early survival and development of species (Parker, 2003). Verbal description is
more experientially remote and less directly involving than images, especially for
those with low levels of literacy. This is particularly the case for political information,
which requires an elaborated schema or existing base of knowledge to effectively
integrate for later use (see Converse, 1964; Lau & Sears, 1986).
The ease with which visuals are processed stems from a long evolutionary history
involving the development of vision and, in humans, specialized centers in the brain
dedicated to visual processing, particularly of faces (Kanwisher, McDermott, &
Chun, 1997; Parker, 2003). Interestingly, the careful observation of social develop-
ments has been integral to human advancement. Indeed, Masters (1981) has argued
that ‘‘the evolution of the large human brain is probably explained by the selective
advantages of this ability to monitor complex social behavior’’ rather than the pre-
sumed benefits of cognitive ability (p. 64). Although social life, including political
groupings, gradually incorporated verbal elements, visual information processing
predated verbal communication and requires less conscious effort than reading
(Gazzaniga, 1998). Textual literacy and the use of a symbolic language facility, on
the other hand, operates at a much higher level of abstraction and requires much
more deliberate cognitive effort than recognizing and deriving meaning from images.
‘‘Brains were not built to read,’’ Gazzaniga (p. 56) has noted, which ‘‘is why many
people have trouble with the process.’’ Images, widely regarded as ‘‘easy’’ to process,
are thus discounted in research because they seem so intuitively obvious.
Yet, nonverbal political communication, including gestures that serve as social
signals and facial expressions that accurately convey emotion across cultures
(Ekman, 1982), contains a great deal of important social information, including
reliable insights into the affective state and behavioral intention of the communica-
tor (Bucy & Bradley, 2004; Masters & Sullivan, 1993), as well as motivational cues
on how observers should react, particularly during crises (Bucy, 2003). Despite the
Taking Television Seriously E. P. Bucy & M. E. Grabe
654 Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 652–675 ª2007 International Communication Association
academic emphasis on policy debate and issue discussion in election campaigns,
expressive displays emitted by candidates do not lose their relevance to audiences—
or to journalists and other critics—when broadcast on the nightly news. Indeed,
owing to the close-up nature of television, they arguably take on added importance,
as the Howard Dean ‘‘scream’’ episode early in the 2004 U.S. Democratic primaries
aptly illustrated.
1
Given the rise of a more interpretive style of broadcast journalism
since the 1980s, with reporters and correspondents inserting more of their own
opinion and commentary into political coverage and candidates being verbally con-
fined to an ever-dwindling amount of airtime (Barnhurst & Steele, 1997; Hallin,
1992), news visuals have assumed an increasingly central yet largely unrecognized
role as a valid source of political information.
2
With enhanced consideration of news visuals, the question that has to be asked is
whether image bites now occupy more candidate airtime than sound bites—and
what the implications of this development might be for democracy. Anecdotally,
Griffin (1992, p. 133) has argued that image bites of politicians and other news-
makers ‘‘are far more common than the interview ‘sound bites’ that have been given
greater attention in news research.’’ But this statement has not yet been subject to
rigorous empirical scrutiny.
3
To document the extent to which presidential candi-
dates visually appear on the nightly news, this study draws on data from a longitu-
dinal content analysis of presidential news coverage from the 1992, 1996, 2000, and
2004 U.S. general elections. For each year, the political reporting of the main U.S.
broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) was coded for visual information. In this
paper, we summarize the frequency and duration of candidate image bites that were
broadcast, in which candidates were shown but their voices not heard, and compare
them to sound bites in which candidates were simultaneously seen and heard.
Darman’s hunch, or why seeing is remembering
When there is a conflict or lack of correspondence between the pictures shown and
words spoken during a news broadcast, viewers remember the images seen much
more readily than the verbal narration, which explains why memory tends to be
poor for news stories and content particulars but generally good for news images
(Newhagen & Reeves, 1992). This is particularly true for negative compelling images
that elicit anger, fear, or disgust (Newhagen, 1998). As confirmed by the audiovisual
redundancy literature (Drew & Grimes, 1987; Grimes, 1991; Lang, 1995), a mismatch
between the verbal message of a news report and the visuals shown on screen impairs
memory for verbal information. A similar phenomenon has been demonstrated in
studies investigating visual primacy or dominance—the tendency for visuals to
dominate awareness of stimuli of similar or greater intensity presented simulta-
neously in other modalities (see Noller, 1985; Posner, Nissen, & Klein, 1976).
In both cases, dissonance is caused by conflicting streams of information, which is
thought to increase complexity to the point of overloading attentional capacity
(Grimes, 1991). An analysis by Graber (2001) of 189 news stories from the three
E. P. Bucy & M. E. Grabe Taking Television Seriously
Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 652–675 ª2007 International Communication Association 655
major networks plus PBS found that 32% of all visual scenes added no information at
all beyond what was verbally conveyed; that is, about a third of the news images
analyzed were nonredundant.
In televised politics, mismatches between the audio and video tracks of a broad-
cast news report may work to a candidate’s benefit or detriment, depending on the
nature of the visuals. This came to light perhaps most famously during the 1984
presidential election when Lesley Stahl of CBS News aired what she thought
was a critical 5-minute, 10-second report of the Reagan campaign’s duplicitous
stagecraft—the public relations technique of using feel-good imagery to deflect
attention away from the president’s more controversial policies. Although the
report’s narration was sharply critical, the video track was highly flattering of
Reagan.
4
Expecting a barrage of criticism from the White House after the report
aired, she instead received a congratulatory call from Deputy Chief of Staff Dick
Darman. As Darman explained, ‘‘You guys in Televisionland haven’t figured it out,
have you? When the pictures are powerful and emotional, they override if not
completely drown out the sound. Lesley, I mean it, nobody heard you’’ (quoted in
Stahl, 1999, p. 211). Darman had it mostly right. The visuals probably did prevail,
but not just because the images were emotionally evocative; Stahl’s verbal narration
also conflicted with the video material shown.
Though surprising to Stahl, who thought she would surely anger the president’s
staff, Darman’s reaction was consistent with an understanding of visual primacy.
Stahl’s biting verbal commentary may have been apprehended by sophisticated view-
ers with an appreciation for irony or by liberal partisans with a distaste for the White
House’s tactics, but for politically inattentive or uninformed viewers—that is, the
vast majority of the viewing audience (Neuman, 1986)—the favorable images in all
likelihood did drown out the audio narration. Darman’s hunch has been borne out
by a series of political information processing studies conducted since the 1980s that
have examined the effects of televised leader displays on audiences across a variety
of conditions (see Bucy, 2000, 2003; Bucy & Newhagen, 1999; Lanzetta, Sullivan,
Masters, & McHugo, 1985; Masters & Sullivan, 1993). When forming impressions
of others, in social settings or more formal contexts such as election contests, indi-
viduals tend to rely heavily on information gathered through the visual channel
(Ekman, Friesen, O’Sullivan, & Scherer, 1980; Englis, 1994). Considered from this
point of view, television news is an ideally situated medium of candidate evaluation
that has the capacity to visually inform viewers about aspects of the candidates
that might remain unspoken—or only joked about on late-night television (see
Meyrowitz, 1985; Sella, 2000).
Although the news audience is fragmenting, the growth of cable news channels,
news magazine shows, and other soft news formats (Patterson, 2000) means that
news-related programming now occupies a greater share of airtime than ever before
(Griffin, 1992). Even in an era of online news and cell phone news feeds, network
newscasts still draw the largest audiences of any news organizations (Lichter, 2001;
Project for Excellence in Journalism, 2004). The continued prominence of televised
Taking Television Seriously E. P. Bucy & M. E. Grabe
656 Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 652–675 ª2007 International Communication Association
news and dependence of political campaigns on audiovisual media promotes
unprecedented viewer scrutiny of candidates. ‘‘Never before have leaders been in
such frequent, widespread, and close-up visual contact with followers’’ (Bucy &
Bradley, 2004, p. 61). Despite this, however, the sound-bite literature generally
ignores the experimental research relating to news visuals and focuses instead on
the length of candidate statements aired on the evening news.
Sound-bite news
Dramatic technological advances in editing and the rise of journalistic mediation led
to a more interpretive style of reporting between the late 1960s and 1980s (Hallin,
1992). The fundamental shift, Hallin noted, was a change in focus from what can-
didates were saying to what journalists were saying about the campaign. Rather than
setting the scene and letting candidate actualities dominate the report, correspond-
ents began to treat candidate statements as ‘‘raw material to be taken apart, com-
bined with other sounds and images, and reintegrated into a new narrative’’ (Hallin,
1992, pp. 9–10). This more aggressive posture toward the news narrative became
particularly evident in the 1980s as journalists struggled to assert editorial autonomy
and get out from under the manipulative grasp of image handlers and professional
operatives, particularly those of the Reagan–Bush campaigns (Bucy & D’Angelo,
1999). At the same time, economic pressures from cable and increased profit expect-
ations prompted by deregulation forced news executives to look for more effective
ways of maintaining audience attention. Campaign visuals, including both film and
graphics, were used much more extensively and news reports became faster paced,
more tightly structured, and shorter in length, reflecting the sensibility of advertising
(Hallin, 1992).
Although efforts have been made to offer presidential candidates more time on
the network evening news, as when CBS unilaterally decided in 1992 to maintain
a 30-second sound-bite minimum (which the network quickly revised downward to
20 seconds and subsequently abandoned), the average length of sound bites has
gradually continued to decline after leveling at under 10 seconds in 1988. In 1988,
average sound-bite length in seconds was 9.8; in 1992, it was 8.4 seconds; in 1996, 8.2
seconds; and in 2000, 7.8 seconds (Lichter, 2001). During this time period, with the
exception of the unusual 1992 campaign that featured three candidates, the total
number of campaign stories and minutes of news time devoted to general election
news decreased, whereas the frequency and proportion of journalists’ speaking time
increased (Lichter, 2001; Steele & Barnhurst, 1996; see also Grabe, Zhou, & Barnett,
1999). We would expect these trends to continue over our sample period; thus,
consistent with other analyses, it can be predicted that:
H1: The amount of news time devoted to candidates and campaign stories in general
election coverage will continue to gradually decrease from 1992 to 2004, such that:
H1a: The number and length of campaign stories will shorten over time; and,
H1b: Candidate sound bites will continue to shrink in average length.
E. P. Bucy & M. E. Grabe Taking Television Seriously
Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 652–675 ª2007 International Communication Association 657
The finding that anchors and correspondents now appear more frequently and
dramatically on screen, whereas candidates are confined to a dwindling amount of
speaking time suggests an additional hypothesis:
H2: Journalists will be seen speaking for a longer average duration than candidates in
general election campaign coverage.
Exclusively focusing on the length of soundbitesandcampaignstories,however,
ignores the content of candidate statements and overlooks the possibility that
even the briefest of comments or utterances can have sizeable political impact
(Russomanno & Everett, 1995). Take, for example, George Bush, Sr.’s 1988 con-
vention pledge to ‘‘Read my lips: No new taxes!’’ reprised by the Democrats to
detrimental effect during the 1992 campaign, or Howard Dean’s notorious scream
that was repeated incessantly by the news media in 2004. Blanket criticism of
shrinking sound bites also reflects the untested assumption that shorter candidate
statements invariably misinform voters, contribute to a distorted view of the cam-
paign, and negatively impact the speaker’s candidacy, whereas longer actualities
enhance news quality, increase voter learning, and improve a candidate’s prospects
for election. To move beyond concerns about length, sound-bite content should
also be considered. Candidate statements have been analyzed for their informa-
tional context or origin (Lowry & Shidler, 1995, 1998), but sound-bite substance
has not been explicitly examined in news analysis. Therefore, the following research
question is asked:
RQ1: What was the content of candidate sound bites in general election campaign
coverage from 1992 to 2004?
The biggest untold story of televised coverage of presidential elections, however, is
the prevalence of candidate image bites. Although scholars have called for greater
attention to candidate ‘‘video bites’’ (Lowry & Shidler, 1995, 1998) and systematic
investigation of news visuals generally (Graber, 1996, 2001), the visual aspect of news
remains underresearched. Research on ambient or background sound in television
news (e.g., cheering, jeering, music, natural sound) is perhaps even more overlooked
than visuals, despite its potentially powerful communicative outcomes. This is due in
part to a normative, social-scientific bias against audiovisual media and a tendency
to dismiss television as a superficial or entertainment medium that lacks the seri-
ousness of print. ‘‘The belief that audiovisuals are poor carriers of important political
information has become so ingrained in conventional wisdom that it has throttled
research,’’ Graber (2001, p. 93) has observed.
Yet, the myth that television is an ‘‘intellectual lightweight’’ is convincingly
countered by empirical findings that show television news to be an effective source
of political information consistently over time (Drew & Weaver, 2006; Putnam,
2000) and the experimental literature that has demonstrated how emotional displays
of political leaders are capable of influencing viewer attitudes even when embedded
in the background of a TV newscast during which the leader’s voice is not heard
Taking Television Seriously E. P. Bucy & M. E. Grabe
658 Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 652–675 ª2007 International Communication Association
(Bucy, 2000; Masters & Sullivan, 1993). Given that the nonverbal emotional displays
of leaders can serve as a potent vehicle for expression (whether intended or not), that
viewers readily distinguish between different types of televised displays, which are
frequently shown at close-up range, and that the resulting emotional reactions can,
under certain conditions, translate into lasting feelings, attitudes, and political
behaviors (Bucy, 2003; Lanzetta et al., 1985), investigation of image bites seems duly
warranted. Thus, the following research questions are posed:
RQ2: Compared to sound bites, what percentage of total campaign coverage did image
bites constitute (a) overall and (b) by election year?
RQ3: How does the total mean duration of candidate sound and image bites
(per individual story) compare across election years?
Anecdotal observation and qualitative analysis of television news formats (Griffin,
1992) suggests that candidate image bites are much more common than sound bites.
On the newscaster side of the equation, on-air shots of journalists have been increas-
ing in frequency and shortening in duration, contributing to the quickening pace
and increasing journalistic mediation of political news (Barnhurst & Steele, 1997).
However, the extant literature has not directly compared journalist and candidate
sound and image bites, offering no firm foundation for prediction. Thus, a final
research question is posed:
RQ4: How does the total mean duration of candidate and journalist image bites
(per individual story) compare over the course of the four elections?
Method
To investigate these questions, this study examined broadcast network (ABC, CBS,
NBC) news coverage of the last four U.S. presidential elections (1992, 1996, 2000,
2004), focusing on the sound- and image-bite content of all candidates who were
covered during the general election. These election years featured an assortment of
strong and weak incumbent office holders, third-party candidates who were well
funded or well known to the media, and pressing public issues, so they are repre-
sentative of a variety of election conditions.
Sample
The sampling frame stretches from Labor Day (i.e., the first Monday in September),
the traditional kickoff date for the general election campaign, to Election Day for
each election year. The sample contained a total of 178 newscasts—42 each for 1992
and 2004, and 47 each for 1996 and 2000. For each election year, composite weeks of
newscasts were constructed, with a different, randomly selected network recorded
each weekday. Network news coverage was analyzed for two reasons. First, it was the
most widely used source of presidential campaign information over the course of this
E. P. Bucy & M. E. Grabe Taking Television Seriously
Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 652–675 ª2007 International Communication Association 659
12-year sample frame. Despite declines in network viewership, neither cable nor local
television news content is consumed as widely as network news. The audience size of
the three networks combined is double that of cable and FOX News combined
(Project for Excellence in Journalism, 2004). Second, network news has remained
stable in popularity among television viewers who are likely voters (Pew Center for
the People and the Press, 2000).
Coding instrument
Three units of analysis were employed in this study. First, to assess the volume of
coverage, the individual newscast was used with campaign stories as a recording unit.
A campaign story was defined as one in which presidential and vice presidential
candidates were central to the narrative, including stories that focused on candidate
wives. A brief appearance of candidates in stories about election-related issues such
as voting machines, voter registration, or congressional debates about campaign
finance reform were not coded as campaign stories. The number of campaign stories
and their duration were recorded. The duration of each newscast and the number of
news stories overall were also recorded.
Second, to test hypotheses and answer the research questions related to sound
and image bites, individual candidates (for president and vice president) were used
as the unit of analysis. Sixteen candidates representing five political parties (Repub-
licans, Democrats, Independents, Reform Party, and Libertarian) were identified as
options within this category. The ‘‘other’’ option was included to make this an
exhaustive item.
Measuring sound bites
Four categories were developed to measure dimensions of sound bites. A sound
bite is defined as a piece of audio at least in part matching accompanying video
of a candidate talking. The bite can originate from a variety of settings, including
a candidate speech, sit-down interview, or press conference. An important defining
characteristic of a sound bite is the representation of a candidate in official talking
mode—comments are being made formally, to the press or a mass audience attend-
ing a rally, and the candidate is ‘‘wired’’ or miked for sound recording. Typically in
sound bites, the candidate wears a lapel microphone, holds a microphone in hand, or
is facing freestanding microphones.
On account of video editing techniques, candidates do not necessarily appear
visually uninterrupted for the full duration of time they are speaking. These varia-
tions in visual and verbal appearances differ in representational weight. Seeing a can-
didate for the duration of a featured bite offers more opportunity for evaluating
a candidate than hearing a candidate speak but seeing something else. To parse out
the visual and verbal nuances of sound bites, three categories were developed: bites in
which candidates were shown speaking, bites in which they were heard but not shown,
and bites in which they were shown but not heard.
Taking Television Seriously E. P. Bucy & M. E. Grabe
660 Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 652–675 ª2007 International Communication Association
To assess the average duration of instances where candidates were shown speak-
ing, the number of times and durations (in seconds) in which candidates were
portrayed in direct address with matching video were recorded. A shown-speaking
bite begins when the camera viewpoint features the candidate speaking as the pri-
mary sound. Such sound bites end when (a) the camera viewpoint cuts to something
other than the candidate speaking (e.g., an audience member) or (b) the candidate is
shown but what he says is not featured as primary sound.
The second sound-bite scenario is the heard-but-not-shown presentation mode.
This production technique is known in the industry as a ‘‘soft cut’’: viewers hear
but do not see the candidate. In a soft cut, the camera cuts away from the candidate
to something else, such as a journalist listening, an audience member at a public
speech, or video material related to what is being discussed. The duration (in
seconds) in which candidates were heard but not shown on camera was recorded
in seconds.
A third category was devised to capture the last sound bite possibility, the shown-
but-not-heard mode. Here, the audience sees candidates when they are not speaking
but are obviously engaged in conversation. These instances are typical in interview
situations where candidates are shown reacting nonverbally to a reporter’s question.
The duration of candidate shown-but-not-heard appearances was recorded in sec-
onds. Even though this category bears some semblance to sound bites, we contend
that it should be classified as an instance of image bites and do not include it with our
calculation of sound bites. The most accurate account of sound bites in network
news, therefore, can be determined by combining the shown-speaking and heard-
but-not-shown categories. An image bite is markedly different from a sound bite in
that it shows the candidate in full-motion video but the footage is used to visually
cover the voice-over narration of a reporter or a reporter’s question to a candidate;
the candidate is therefore not heard.
To document the substance of candidate sound bites, seven content categories
were specified: speaking time devoted to policy positions, reactions to the news,
attacks on opponents, defending one’s role in a controversy, predicting victory,
rallying the troops, and an other category for cases that did not fit. The duration
of sound-bite substance was recorded in seconds, with each sound bite assigned to
a single content category.
Measuring image bites
To document the different dimensions of image bites, three separate categories were
specified. The most common image bite scenario is the shown-but-not-heard pre-
sentation of candidates when they are not engaged in some form of public address.
These are shots that portray candidates outside of speech settings. Candidates might
be talking (perhaps while shaking the hand of a supporter), but the viewer does not
hear what they say as primary sound. Instead, the reporter’s narration dominates the
audio track. The candidate might also be shown engaged in an activity such as
walking his dog or exercising. Most importantly, these shots are accompanied by
E. P. Bucy & M. E. Grabe Taking Television Seriously
Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 652–675 ª2007 International Communication Association 661
the voice-over narration of a reporter. The duration of these shots was recorded in
seconds.
Another category was devised to capture a specific kind of shown-but-not-heard
appearance called ‘‘lip flap’’ among television news workers. Lip flap happens when
the candidate is shown in formal talking mode (during a speech, interview, press
conference) in a medium shot or close-up so that viewers clearly see the candidate’s
mouth moving but what he is saying is not heard as primary sound. In other words,
the reporter’s voice-over is heard while the candidate is shown in speech mode. Lip
flap occurs, then, when a sound bite is used as an image bite. Generally, instances of
lip flap are viewed as unflattering to candidates and are discouraged in industry
circles as a means to generate video material for voice-over narration (b-roll of
related events is preferred instead). Lip flap appearances were recorded in seconds.
The last image-bite scenario, referred to in the industry as a ‘‘sound up,’’ most
closely resembles a sound bite. This technique can be described as a very short (2–3
seconds) sound bite of a candidate talking—but not in formal speech-mode and not
wired for audio recording. These short segments typically include comments that are
recorded through directional microphones from long distance when candidates are on
the campaign trail interacting with supporters or the press. Sound ups might also entail
a brief response, of only a word or two, from the candidate to journalists in different
campaign settings. In a broadcast news report, sound ups occur when the reporter’s
voice-over is briefly paused to make the candidate’s informal response audible—that
is, the sound brought up—after which time the reporter narration continues. The
duration of sound-up comments from candidates was recorded in seconds.
News actors
To capture the prominence of news people (journalists and reporters) in campaign
stories, a third unit of analysis—the individual campaign story—was used and the
individual reporter and anchor served as the recording unit. Categories were devel-
oped to document dimensions of anchor/reporter appearances and used for com-
parison with candidate categories. The presence of an anchor/reporter exchange and
its duration was recorded in seconds, using the anchor’s first mention of the reporter
or first question as the starting point and the anchor’s ‘‘thank you’’ at the conclusion
of the exchange as the ending point. Using the same categories designed for candi-
dates, coders measured the number of times and duration of anchor and reporter
appearances in the following news bite scenarios: shown and heard, shown but not
heard, and heard but not shown.
Coders and reliability
Two primary coders collected the data for this study and two secondary coders
served as reliability checks for the pretest. Testing the categories and training coders
extended over several weeks. During this time, refinements were made to the coding
instrument. Overall, the pretest produced a reliable level of agreement (Krippendorff’s
alpha = .84) between the four coders. For the categories related to the individual
Taking Television Seriously E. P. Bucy & M. E. Grabe
662 Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 652–675 ª2007 International Communication Association
program as the unit of analysis, the reliability figure was 82.25%, whereas for the
individual campaign story as the unit of analysis the figure was 84.91%. For catego-
ries related to the individual candidate as the unit of analysis, Krippendorff’s alpha =
.84. Although the pretest produced acceptable reliability figures, more training,
specifically on how to accurately measure durations, ensued before the beginning
of data collection. A post hoc reliability check was performed on 20% of the sample.
Coders maintained a high overall level of agreement across variables (Krippendorff’s
alpha = .98), with a minimum score of 92% and a maximum of 100%.
Analysis strategy
Mean comparisons used for testing hypotheses and answering research questions
were subjected to homogeneity of variance analyses. When the Levene statistic indi-
cated a violation of the equal variance assumption in one-way analyses of variance
(ANOVAs), the Welch robust tests for equality of means was employed and post hoc
paired comparisons were computed using Dunnett Ctests (equal variance not
assumed). If the Levene statistic indicated homogeneity of variance assumption
violations in independent samples ttests, robust mean test figures were reported.
Results
Volume of coverage
The first hypothesis predicted that the amount of network news time devoted to
political news and general election campaign coverage would continue to gradually
decrease from 1992 to 2004. For this analysis, we examined all 178 newscasts in our
sample, totaling approximately 62 hours of program material. Overall there were
2,173 individual news stories in the sample, of which 20% (N= 437) were defined as
campaign stories. On average, there were 2.59 campaign stories per newscast. Nine
newscasts did not feature campaign stories. The total duration of all campaign
coverage was 906 minutes, with an average story length of just over 2 minutes per
story. Table 1 summarizes the volume of coverage by election year, amount of
speaking time allotted to journalists and candidates in sound-bite segments, amount
of visual airtime journalists and candidates were allotted in televised image bite
segments, and topical focus of sound-bite content.
Hypothesis 1a predicted that the number and length of campaign stories would
decline over time. As shown in Table 1, the number of campaign stories did vary
significantly, F(3, 169) = 12.10, p,.001, h
2
= .18, across elections. Post hoc Tukey
tests showed that there were significantly (p,.001) more campaign stories in 1992
than in any other year. There were no other significant paired comparisons. The
duration of campaign stories also varied significantly over time, showing a sharp
decrease at first, which then stabilized across the 2000 and 2004 campaigns, F(3, 169)
= 15.73, p,.001, h
2
= .25. In 1992, network news dedicated close to 8 minutes
per newscast to presidential campaign news. This figure dropped to about 3 1/2
minutes in 1996 and picked up to around 5 minutes in the 2000 and 2004 election
E. P. Bucy & M. E. Grabe Taking Television Seriously
Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 652–675 ª2007 International Communication Association 663
years. Post hoc Dunnett Ctests for the campaign story durations show significantly
(p,.05) longer coverage in 1992 than any other election year. Moreover, during the
1996 campaign, story durations were at a record low point and significantly (p,.05)
shorter than in 2004. Taken together, these findings offer qualified support for
Hypothesis 1a. The volume of coverage shrank sharply from 1992 to 1996,
but this trend did not continue toward the 2004 election. In fact, after the sharp
Table 1 Comparisons of Means Over Time
Variable Overall
Election year
1992 1996 2000 2004
Volume of coverage per newscast
Number of campaign stories 2.59 3.62 2.24 2.23 2.69
a
SD 1.40 1.32 1.51 1.24 1.00
Duration of campaign stories 321.70 475.76 214.48 298.23 298.93
a
SD 189.08 199.88 141.27 173.11 135.64
Audiovisual bites
Sound bites
Duration of individual
candidate sound bites
8.52 9.19 9.23 8.03 7.73
b
SD 5.24 6.03 5.17 5.15 4.34
Number of candidate
sound bites per story
2.31 2.20 2.35 2.40 2.33
SD 1.60 1.54 1.78 1.60 1.54
Total duration of candidate
sound bites per story
18.99 17.91 18.78 21.97 17.76
SD 19.68 12.35 12.70 31.51 16.71
Duration candidate is seen and
heard per story
18.59 17.73 18.27 21.53 17.27
SD 18.82 12.16 12.15 30.67 14.83
Duration journalist is seen and
heard per story
34.22 34.79 27.84 34.2 38.29
a
SD 22.12 23.14 16.16 18.99 26.33
Image bites
Duration of candidate
image bites per story
22.99 21.76 22.57 23.20 25.83
SD 18.23 17.57 17.97 18.04 20.19
Duration of journalist
image bites per story
9.13 13.46 5.00 6.49 9.43
a
SD 14.50 21.81 3.07 5.35 14.20
Note: Sound bites include footage where the candidate is shown speaking (seen and heard) plus
heard but not shown. Image bites include footage where the candidate is shown but not heard.
All durations are presented in seconds.
a
Significant.
b
Approaching significance.
Taking Television Seriously E. P. Bucy & M. E. Grabe
664 Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 652–675 ª2007 International Communication Association
decline in 1996, it picked up in 2000 and 2004 but remained significantly lower than
in 1992.
Hypothesis 1b predicted that candidate sound bites would continue to shrink
over time. Although not dramatically, the average duration of candidate sound bites
did continue to decline. In 1992 and 1996, the average duration of sound bites was
9.19 and 9.23 seconds, respectively. In 2000, they shrank to 8.03 seconds and waned
further to 7.73 seconds in 2004. These differences only approach significance, F(3,
408) = 2.42, p= .067, h
2
= .02,but there is a notable pattern of decline over time.
Post hoc Dunnett Ctests revealed no significant differences between pairs.
5
Further
analysis showed that the number of bites per candidate and the total duration of
sound-bite time per candidate did not increase significantly. Overall, there was
a convincing pattern of supporting findings for Hypothesis 1b but weak statistical
backing for it.
Candidates versus journalists
The shown-speaking measure (as opposed to average bite length or total bite
duration) was used in subsequent comparative analyses of candidates and journal-
ists. Importantly, sound and image bites are not conceptually comparable. A sound
bite may consist of several separate pieces of video and audio spliced together to
form a coherent statement from the candidate. By contrast, an image bite con-
stitutes a single uninterrupted piece of video material in which the candidate is
shown but not heard (i.e., an individual camera shot, which could be quite short).
Thus, individual sound-bite averages, because of inherent structural charac-
teristics, tend to longer than average image bite occurrences. Here, the logical
solution to make valid and fair comparisons between image and sound bites
again pointed to calculating total bite durations for each candidate across entire
election stories.
To test Hypothesis 2, that journalists would be seen speaking for a longer average
duration than candidates, the seen and heard variable was used. The reasoning here is
that candidates and journalists play substantially different roles in an election story
and there are structural conventions associated with their presentation. Journalists
narrate relatively long portions of election stories that would make average or total
sound-bite durations per story artificially longer for reporters than candidates.
As reported in Table 1, journalists dominated as visible talking heads at a statistically
significant level, t(407) = 15.04, p,.001. Reporters and anchors were seen speaking
at an average of 34.22 seconds per election story. In contrast, candidates were seen
speaking for an average of 18.59 seconds per story—about half the time allocated to
journalists. Hypothesis 2 was thus supported. One-way ANOVA tests for journalists
revealed significant, F(3, 411) = 5.51, p,.001, h
2
= .02, variation on the seen and
heard variable over time; there were no significant fluctuations for candidates. For
journalists, post hoc Tukey tests showed significant differences between 1992 and
1996 (p,.05), and between 1996 and 2004 (p,.001). Of the four election years
examined, journalists were seen and heard the least in 1996.
E. P. Bucy & M. E. Grabe Taking Television Seriously
Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 652–675 ª2007 International Communication Association 665
Bite content
Research Question 1 asked what the content of candidate sound bites was over the
course of the four elections. As Table 2 shows, the vast majority (40.79%) of sound-
bite time was spent on attacks against opponents, whereas only 3.52% of bite time
was defensive against attacks. Thus, the largest chunk of bite content was taken up by
attack and defense rhetoric. Another sizeable portion of bite time (29.88%) con-
tained candidate statements on political issues—either explaining their stances on
issues or responding to news events of national and international interest. Predic-
tions of victory and appeals for voter support—calls to ‘‘rally the troops’’—took up
11.09% of bite time. Another 14.72% of bite time was taken up by topics that did not
fit into the above categories.
The mean durations for these content categories remained stable over time,
without significant fluctuations across elections. As shown in Table 3, attacks on
opponents and issue-related bites were the two most prominent content categories,
followed by calls to rally supporters and defensive rhetoric. The 2000 election was
the only campaign in which the mean for sound bites about issues surpassed the
mean for attack-oriented bites. In stories that featured these bites, the overall mean
duration for issue discussion was 15.86 seconds per story, compared to 12.85
seconds per story of attack discourse. The 2000 election also featured the most
defensive rhetoric.
Sound- and image bite comparisons
The analysis next examined the percent of total campaign coverage devoted to image
bites as compared to sound bites. In answer to Research Question 2, sound bites
made up 14.28% of all election coverage, whereas image bites constituted 25.07%.
For the 1992 election, sound bites comprised 10.48% and image bites 22.88% of
campaign coverage. In 1996, the gap between sound (16.88%) and image bite
(30.32%) portions of election coverage opened slightly. The 2000 election data reveal
similar proportions, with sound bites taking up 16.07% and image bites 29.52% of
campaign story time. In 2004, sound bites (16.66%) and image bites (20.02%) were
proportionally the closest in size. These results are not summarized in table format.
Research Question 3 asked about the mean duration of candidate sound and
image bites over the four election years. Table 1 presents a summary of findings.
Overall, there was a significant difference between average sound- and image-bite
Table 2 Content of Sound Bites
Sound-Bite Content Percentage of Bite Time
Attacks on opponents 40.79
Defensive rhetoric 3.52
Issue discussion of policies or news events 29.88
Calls to rally supporters 11.09
Other 14.72
Taking Television Seriously E. P. Bucy & M. E. Grabe
666 Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 652–675 ª2007 International Communication Association
durations of candidates per story, t(343) = 6.82, p,.001. Candidates were featured
more prominently in image bites than sound bites. Although the average duration
of all sound and image bites within stories did not vary significantly over time,
a consistent increase in image bite lengths could be observed (see Figure 1). Sound-
bite durations per story show a less consistent pattern, increasing from 1992 to
2000, and then decreasing notably in 2004. Post hoc Tukey tests for the sound-bite
variable and Dunnett Ctests for image bites did not produce any significantly
paired comparisons.
Table 3 Comparisons of Means for Sound-Bite Content Over Time
Sound-Bite Content
Mean durations per elections year
Overall 1992 1996 2000 2004
Issue discussion of policies or
news events
14.13 13.93 14.12 15.86 12.76
SD 15.39 9.61 11.61 23.44 12.36
Attacks on opponents 14.71 15.40 15.61 12.85 15.07
SD 11.37 10.41 10.19 9.45 13.85
Defensive rhetoric 9.75 8.17 11.67 15.17 7.00
SD 5.55 2.85 6.5 8.51 2.08
Calls to rally supporters 11.32 12.61 10.05 11.88 10.47
SD 12.55 12.04 6.15 18.20 8.34
Other 10.29 11.79 11.52 10.30 7.00
SD 9.94 8.55 9.31 13.01 4.78
Note: All durations are presented in seconds.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1992 1996 2000 2004
Sound bite Image bite
Figure 1 Average duration (in seconds) of total candidate sound and image bites per story.
E. P. Bucy & M. E. Grabe Taking Television Seriously
Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 652–675 ª2007 International Communication Association 667
Research Question 4 asked how the total mean durations of candidate and
journalist image bites compared over the course of the four elections. The image-
bite data presented the direct opposite result of the sound-bite data: Candidates were
seen (not speaking) significantly more often than journalists, t(592) = 18.51, p,
.001. Indeed, whereas candidates were presented in image bites an average of 22.99
seconds per story, journalists were featured an average of just 9.13 seconds. Within
individual stories, journalists thus dominated candidates in talking-head mode,
whereas candidates were presented in shown-but-not-heard segments for longer
periods of time. As reported above, there were no significant differences for the
duration of candidate image bite means over time. But for journalists, there were
significant differences, F(3, 170) = 3.71, p,.019, h
2
= .05, over the course of the
four election years. Dunnett Ctests revealed significant variation between the 1992
and 1996 elections (p,.05), when there was a sizeable drop in journalist image bites.
As with the sound-bite comparison between journalists and candidates, the 1996
election also surfaces as the one in which journalists were the least visible (see
Table 1).
Discussion
Images are the lingua franca of politics; yet, they remain among the least scrutinized
and least understood aspects of political news. Devoid of rhetorical flourishes and
verbal content, image bites do not reveal the logic of candidate arguments or the
details of policy positions. However, for a critical component of the electorate, which
is only semiattentive to civic affairs (Neuman, 1986), political decisions may be based
more on affective attachments and nonverbal signals expressed by leading politicians
on television than careful consideration of issue positions (Bucy, 2000). Indeed, in
a political environment increasingly dependent upon electronic media, an awkward,
unappealing, or inappropriate communication style is becoming difficult to coun-
teract with policy proposals—and may become the focus of discussion about a can-
didate, as Howard Dean learned with his notorious scream. This sort of nonverbal
information is precisely what television excels at presenting. Appreciating the infor-
mation value of candidate displays, and therefore of the potential influence of image
bites, opens a window on research that did not appear to exist when the audio track
alone was treated as important.
Consistent with other research, this study documented a continued decline in
candidate sound-bite length over time, from 9.19 seconds in 1992 to 7.73 seconds
by 2004. At the same time, there was no significant variation in the number of
sound bites per news story (2.31 on average), so presidential candidates were
shown speaking with the same frequency but were heard for shorter periods of
time. Journalists do indeed claim a larger percentage of news story time, as docu-
mented by previous studies, particularly if sound and image bites are taken into
consideration. Although the total volume of campaign coverage decreased, a
trend surely destined to displease television’s critics, the average amount of time
Taking Television Seriously E. P. Bucy & M. E. Grabe
668 Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 652–675 ª2007 International Communication Association
dedicated to presidential campaign news per newscast remained responsive to
changing election conditions, dropping precipitously during the noncompetitive
and lackluster 1996 race to 3.5 minutes but rebounding somewhat during the close
2000 and 2004 elections to almost 5 minutes, or over 20% of the 22-minute nightly
newscast.
In terms of content, the substance of candidate sound bites revealed some inter-
esting patterns. The largest portion of sound-bite time was devoted to attack and
defensive rhetoric, but almost a third (29.88%) of bite time featured candidate
statements that were either issue oriented or responses to news developments. As
the political advertising literature has shown, political attacks are far more likely to
focus on salient issues—candidate views, policy positions, and qualifications for
office—than personal characteristics (Geer, 2006), so attack rhetoric could logically
be grouped with issue content. Combining the categories in this manner means that
over 70% of sound-bite content was essentially issue focused. During the 2000
general election (arguably the most important election of the four that we studied),
issue bites were slightly longer than attack-oriented bites, but not significantly so.
Defensive rhetoric was also most prominent in 2000. Sound bites may be short but
they are not devoid of verbal substance.
Perhaps most striking were the findings for candidate image bites, which con-
stituted a greater percentage of total campaign coverage than sound bites. This result
was expected, given television’s status as a visual medium. Consistent with this
pattern, candidates were featured significantly more in image bites (M= 22.99
seconds per news story) than they were in sound bites (M= 18.59 seconds). Even
as sound bites continue to shrink, the amount of time candidates are appearing
visually in newscasts is actually increasing in duration, rising gradually each election
year. This suggests that viewers of the evening news are receiving more direct visual
cues about candidates than verbal information. Because pictures are perceived as
firsthand knowledge about political actors and events, including presidential candi-
dates and campaign-related developments, news visuals are undoubtedly delivering
more information to viewers than previously acknowledged. With greater appreci-
ation for visual processing, nonverbal communication, and voter learning from
television news, research can begin to redress this oversight by investigating the
effects of image bites on political evaluations and outcomes (see, e.g., Benjamin &
Shapiro, 2006).
Given that presidential candidates were seen in image bites more than twice as
much as journalists over all election years (M= 22.99 seconds per story compared to
M= 9.13 seconds), the media domination of broadcast news is not as one sided or
complete as commonly argued. If using a verbal yardstick to measure candidate
appearances on the evening news, the airtime available to candidates has indeed
declined. However, if using the shown-but-not-heard visual standard, the amount
of time allocated to candidates relative to journalists is quite favorable. Granted,
candidates are speaking less, but this does not mean that viewers are therefore
receiving no useful political information.
E. P. Bucy & M. E. Grabe Taking Television Seriously
Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 652–675 ª2007 International Communication Association 669
Conclusion
Before a new era of more scientifically and less normatively based research on visual
communication can truly commence, two unfounded presumptions need to be
rethought. The first concerns the expedient commonplace that visuals merely serve
as window dressing for or decorative distraction from the verbal component of
television news, which is studied as the real content. Overlooking television’s visuals
treats the medium as if it were something else entirely, namely, radio, discounting the
unique contributions and persuasive influence that images have on political under-
standing (Newhagen, 2002) and misrepresenting the value that television has to
viewers—and democratic processes generally. Despite the ease with which electronic
transcripts can now be retrieved, studying only the text of an audiovisual message
while ignoring both the visuals and other nonverbal elements of newscasts, such as
vocal tone and ambient sounds, is insufficient. Thus, it seems highly premature to
characterize network television’s coverage of recent U.S. presidential elections as
‘‘nightmarish,’’ lacking both substance and quality content (Farnsworth & Lichter,
2003), without systematically taking images into account.
The second presumption, in vogue since the widespread use of image-based
propaganda during World Wars I and II, concerns the fear that political visuals
are, by their very nature, strictly emotional and tap an unknowable or ‘‘nonrational’’
aspect of experience, which makes audiences susceptible to manipulation. Drawing
on neuroscientific research on face processing, recent advances in understanding the
effects of leader displays and other aspects of nonverbal communication on audi-
ences show that viewers derive valuable information from televised display behav-
ior—even when the visuals are shown without the accompanying sound. Because
televised displays may serve as motivational cues, particularly in response to news
developments of national consequence (Bucy, 2003; Bucy & Newhagen, 1999), they
provide an accurate indication of a candidate’s electoral suitability and are politically
consequential. Like images of clear weather patterns or incoming storms, candidate
depictions are reliable forms of voter information.
Taking television seriously means that we need to reconsider whether, in an
increasingly ‘‘visual’’ and journalist-centered news environment, it makes sense to
ask if television impedes careful thought, discourages contemplation, or distorts view-
ers’ sense of political consequences, as many scholars have argued. A confluence of
political, organizational, technological, and economic factors has produced the com-
mercial media system that we have.
6
Rather than awkwardly fitting research questions
and assumptions that are more appropriate for a noncommercial, government-
controlled, or print-based media system onto network television, perhaps the medium
should finally be considered at face value for what it does deliver—a real-time stream of
images rich with social significance whose persuasive influence can be subject to
empirical examination. With regard to political news, this suggests a research program
focused on the character of candidate displays, the potential for visual forms of bias,
and the visual framing of election campaigns—topics worthy of further investigation.
Taking Television Seriously E. P. Bucy & M. E. Grabe
670 Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 652–675 ª2007 International Communication Association
Acknowledgments
This study was funded in part by a Goldsmith Research Award from the Shorenstein
Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard University, as well as by
research grants from the School of Journalism, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research, and Multidisciplinary Ventures and Seminars Fund at Indiana University,
Bloomington. The authors thank Leigh M. Moscowitz and Janis K. Cakars for their
careful and tireless efforts coding the newscasts in this study and their assistance with
data entry and formatting.
Notes
1 The ‘‘Dean scream,’’ as it came to be known, demonstrated the power of an inappro-
priate nonverbal display to undermine a frontrunner’s credibility and electoral viability
(for a discussion of expressive appropriateness in the context of politics, see Bucy &
Newhagen, 1999).
2 This is similar to Lehtonen’s (1988) argument that growing information complexity and
a widening imbalance between information supply and individual processing ability
(or ‘‘information discrepancy’’) places renewed emphasis on images to the point that
‘‘visual impressions will have a greater impact as stimuli than verbal language’’
(p. 104; see also Stephens, 1998).
3 In a study titled ‘‘Image Bite News,’’ Barnhurst and Steele (1997) examined the growing
visual presence of broadcast journalists and anchors in presidential election coverage
from 1968 to 1992. Ironically, they did not examine the frequency and duration of
candidate image bites. Earlier, Masters, Frey, and Bente (1991) did document the
prevalence of what they called ‘‘visual quotes’’—distinct shots in which ‘‘an identifiable
political actor is on the screen’’ (p. 380)—in a sample of newscasts from France,
Germany, and the United States from March 1987, but they did not report the
occurrence of sound bites for comparison.
4 The images consisted of a series of flattering portrayals showing Reagan juxtaposed with
an oversized American flag, smiling in a series of close-up shots, ably lifting weights and
tossing out one-liners, handing off the Olympic torch, cutting a ribbon on a new nursing
home, awarding medals to athletes with disabilities, and being cheered by supporters
waving handheld flags. Shortly after the report aired, a Washington Post reporter showed
the newscast to a group of 100 people visiting the Smithsonian Institution—first without
Stahl’s critical voice-over and then with. Even with the voice-over, ‘‘most of the audience
thought it was either an ad for the Reagan campaign or a very positive news story.
Only a handful heard what I said’’ (Stahl, 1999, p. 211).
5 This analysis was performed for comparison with existing research on the average
duration of individual sound bites. Yet, the average duration of a candidate’s individual
talking head appearances does not give a comprehensive account of their presence in
election stories—for that, both image bite and sound-bite appearances must be
tabulated.
6 Among other developments, these include advances in digital editing and satellite
transmission technology, growing pressures for profits, and the professionalization
E. P. Bucy & M. E. Grabe Taking Television Seriously
Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 652–675 ª2007 International Communication Association 671
of political advocacy, which has produced an increasing amount of media
management—and journalistic reclaiming of airtime for news interpretation and
analysis (see Bucy & D’Angelo, 1999; Hallin, 1992).
References
Adatto, K. (1990). Sound bite democracy: Network evening news presidential campaign coverage,
1968 and 1988 (Research Paper R-2). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Joan
Shorenstein Barone Center.
Barnhurst, K. G., & Steele, C. A. (1997). Image-bite news: The visual coverage of elections on
U.S. television, 1968–1992. Press/Politics,2(1), 40–58.
Barry, A. M. (2005). Perception theory. In K. Smith, S. Moriarty, G. Barbatsis, & K. Kenney
(Eds.), Handbook of visual communication (pp. 45–62). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Benjamin, D. J., & Shapiro, J. M. (2006). Thin-slice forecasts of gubernatorial elections. NBER
Working Paper No. 12660. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Retrieved February 9, 2007, from http://home.uchicago.edu/;jmshapir/
thinslice102306.pdf
Bucy, E. P. (2000). Emotional and evaluative consequences of inappropriate leader displays.
Communication Research,27, 194–226.
Bucy, E. P. (2003). Emotion, presidential communication, and traumatic news: Processing
the World Trade Center attacks. Press/Politics,8(4), 76–96.
Bucy, E. P., & Bradley, S. D. (2004). Presidential expressions and viewer emotion:
Counterempathic responses to televised leader displays. Social Science Information/
Information sur les Sciences Sociales,43, 59–94.
Bucy, E. P., & D’Angelo, P. (1999). The crisis of political communication: Normative critiques
of news and democratic processes. Communication Yearbook,22, 301–339.
Bucy, E. P., & D’Angelo, P. (2004). Democratic realism, neoconservatism, and the normative
underpinnings of political communication research. Mass Communication & Society,7,
3–28.
Bucy, E. P., & Newhagen, J. E. (1999). The emotional appropriateness heuristic:
Processing televised presidential reactions to the news. Journal of Communication,49(4),
59–79.
Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.),
Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York: Free Press.
Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason and the human brain. New York: Avon.
Damasio, A. (1999). The feeling of what happens. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Drew, D., & Grimes, T. (1987). Audio-visual redundancy and TV news recall. Communication
Research,14, 452–461.
Drew, D., & Weaver, D. H. (2006). Voter learning in the 2004 presidential election: Did the
media matter? Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,83, 25–42.
Ekman, P. (1982). Emotion in the human face. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., O’Sullivan, M., & Scherer, K. (1980). Relative importance of face,
body, and speech in judgments of personality and affect. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,38, 270–277.
Englis, B. G. (1994). The role of affect in political advertising: Voter emotional responses to
the nonverbal behavior of politicians. In E. M. Clark, T. C. Brock, and D. W. Stewart
Taking Television Seriously E. P. Bucy & M. E. Grabe
672 Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 652–675 ª2007 International Communication Association
(Eds.), Attention, attitude, and affect in response to advertising (pp. 223–247). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Farnsworth, S. J., & Lichter, S. R. (2003). The nightly news nightmare: Network news coverage
of U.S. presidential elections, 1988-2000. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Gazzaniga, M. (1998). The mind’s past. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Geer, J. (2006). In defense of negativity: Attack ads in presidential campaigns. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Grabe, M. E. (1996). The SABC’s coverage of the 1987 and 1989 elections: The matter of visual
bias. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,40, 1–27.
Grabe, M. E., Zhou, S., & Barnett, B. (1999). Sourcing and reporting in news magazine
programs: 60 Minutes versus Hard Copy.Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,
76, 293–311.
Graber, D. A. (1996). Say it with pictures. Annals,546, 85–96.
Graber, D. A. (2001). Processing politics: Learning from television in the Internet age. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Griffin, M. (1992). Looking at TV news: Strategies for research. Communication,13,
121–141.
Grimes, T. (1991). Mild auditory-visual dissonance in television news may exceed viewer
attentional capacity. Human Communication Research,18, 268–298.
Hallin, D. C. (1992). Sound bite news: Television coverage of elections, 1968-1988. Journal
of Communication,42(2), 5–24.
Kanwisher, N., McDermott, J., & Chun, M. M. (1997). The fusiform face area: A module
in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception. Journal of Neuroscience,
17, 4302–4311.
Kepplinger, H. M. (1982). Visual biases in television campaign coverage. Communication
Research,9, 432–446.
Lang, A. (1995). Defining audio/video redundancy from a limited capacity information
processing perspective. Communication Research,22, 86–115.
Lanzetta, J. T., Sullivan, D. G., Masters, R. D., & McHugo, G. J. (1985). Emotional and
cognitive responses to televised images of political leaders. In. S. Kraus & R. M. Perloff
(Eds.), Mass media and political thought: An information-processing approach (pp. 85–116).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lau, R. R., & Sears, D. O. (Eds.). (1986). Political cognition: The 19th annual Carnegie
symposium on cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lehtonen, J. (1988). The information society and the new competence. American Behavioral
Scientist,32, 104–111.
Levy, M. R. (1981). Disdaining the news. Journal of Communication,31(3), 24–31.
Lichter, S. R. (2001). A plague on both parties: Substance and fairness in TV election news.
Press/Politics,6(3), 8–30.
Lowry, D. T., & Shidler, J. A. (1995). The biters and the bitten: An analysis of
network TV news bias in campaign ‘92. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,
69, 341–361.
Lowry, D. T., & Shidler, J. A. (1998). The sound bites, the biters, and the bitten: A
two-campaign test of the anti-incumbent bias hypothesis in network TV news. Journalism
& Mass Communication Quarterly,75, 719–729.
E. P. Bucy & M. E. Grabe Taking Television Seriously
Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 652–675 ª2007 International Communication Association 673
Masters, R. D. (1981). Linking ethology and political science: Photographs, political attention,
and presidential elections. New Directions for Methodology of Social and Behavioral Science,
7, 61–80.
Masters, R. D., Frey, S., & Bente, G. (1991). Dominance and attention: Images of leaders in
German, French, and American TV news. Polity,25, 373–394.
Masters, R. D., & Sullivan, D. G. (1993). Nonverbal behavior and leadership: Emotion
and cognition in political information processing. In S. Iyengar & W. J. McGuire
(Eds.), Explorations in political psychology (pp. 150–182). Durham, NC: Duke University
Press.
Messaris, P., & Abraham, L. (2001). The role of images in framing news stories. In S. D. Reese,
O. H. Gandy, Jr., & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life (pp. 215–226). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Meyrowitz, J. (1985). No sense of place: The impact of electronic media on social behavior.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Neuman, W. R. (1986). The paradox of mass politics: Knowledge and opinion in the American
electorate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Newhagen, J. E. (1998). TV news images that induce anger, fear, and disgust: Effects on
approach-avoidance and memory. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,
42, 265–276.
Newhagen, J. E. (2002). The role of meaning construction in the process of persuasion for
viewers of television images. In J. P. Dillard & P. M. Dillard (Eds.), The persuasion
handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 729–748). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Newhagen, J. E., & Reeves, B. (1992). This evening’s bad news: Effects of compelling negative
television news images on memory. Journal of Communication,42(2), 25–41.
Noller, P. (1985). Video primacy—A further look. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,9(1), 28–47.
Parker, A. (2003). In the blink of an eye: How vision sparked the big bang of evolution.
New York: Perseus.
Patterson, T. E. (1993). Out of order. New York: Knopf.
Patterson, T. E. (2000). Doing well and doing good: How soft news and critical journalism are
shrinking the news audience and weakening democracy—And what news outlets can do about
it. Faculty Research Working Paper Series (RWP01-001). Cambridge, MA:
John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
The Pew Center for the People and the Press. (2000). The tough job of communicating with
voters. Retrieved January 15, 2006, from http://peoplepress.org/reports/
Posner, M. I., Nissen, M. J., & Klein, R. M. (1976). Visual dominance: An
information-processing account of its origins and significance. Psychological Review,
83, 157–171.
Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2004). The state of the news media 2004. Retrieved
January 15, 2006, from http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of American community.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Robinson, M., & Sheehan, M. (1983). Over the wire and on TV: CBS and UPI in campaign ‘80.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Russomanno, J. A., & Everett, S. E. (1995). Candidate sound bites: Too much concern over
length? Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,39, 408–415.
Taking Television Seriously E. P. Bucy & M. E. Grabe
674 Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 652–675 ª2007 International Communication Association
Sella, M. (2000, September 24). The stiff guy vs. the dumb guy. New York Times Magazine,
72–80, 102.
Somit, A., & Peterson, S. A. (1998). Biopolitics after three decades: A balance sheet. British
Journal of Political Science,28, 559–571.
Stahl, L. (1999). Reporting live. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Steele, C. A., & Barnhurst, K. G. (1996). The journalism of opinion: Network news coverage
of U.S. presidential campaigns, 1968-1988. Critical Studies in Mass Communication,13,
187–209.
Stephens, M. (1998). The rise of the image, the fall of the word. New York: Oxford University
Press.
E. P. Bucy & M. E. Grabe Taking Television Seriously
Journal of Communication 57 (2007) 652–675 ª2007 International Communication Association 675
Prendre la télévision au sérieux: Une analyse des clips sonores et visuels de la
couverture des campagnes électorales présidentielles, 1992-2004
Erik P. Bucy and Maria Elizabeth Grabe
Indiana University
Résumé
Cette étude met à jour et raffine l’enquête qu’avait faite Hallin sur les clips sonores
d’actualités en documentant la prévalence des clips visuels des candidats, dans lesquels
ceux-ci sont montrés mais non entendus (par opposition à être montrés et entendus), dans
les bulletins d’information sur les élections générales au travers de quatre cycles
électoraux. Une analyse visuelle de la couverture par les bulletins d’information des
réseaux de télédiffusion (ABC, CBS et NBC) des élections présidentielles américaines de
1992, 1996, 2000 et 2004 démontre que les clips visuels ont constitué un plus grand
pourcentage de la couverture électorale totale que les clips sonores, les candidats
apparaissant plus fréquemment (de façon significative) dans les clips visuels que dans les
clips sonores.
Alors que les clips sonores des candidats ne cessent de raccourcir au fil du temps, la durée
des clips visuels augmente — et les candidats sont présentés dans des clips visuels dans
une proportion presque deux fois plus grande que les journalistes. L’étude démontre
également que les clips sonores sont largement centrés sur les attaques et les enjeux.
D’après ces résultats, nous réclamons une plus grande compréhension du traitement visuel,
de la communication non verbale et de l’apprentissage que font les électeurs à partir des
bulletins de nouvelles, dans l’étude des médias et de la politique.
Fernsehen ernst nehmen: Eine Analyse der Sound und Bild Bites
der Präsidentschaftskampagnenberichterstattung 1992-2004
Diese Untersuchung basiert auf und erweitert die zentrale Studie von Hallin zu
Sound Bite Nachrichten, indem sie über 4 Wahlzyklen hinweg die Verbreitung von
Kandidaten Bild Bites dokumentiert. Bild Bites sind dabei Nachrichtenteile, in
denen die Kandidaten zwar sichtbar, aber nicht hörbar sind (im Gegensatz zu
sichtbar und hörbar). Eine visuelle Analyse der Nachrichtenberichterstattung zu den
Präsidentschaftswahlen von 1992, 1996, 2000 und 2004 auf ABC, CBS und NBC
zeigte, dass Bild Bites einen größeren Anteil der
Kampagnengesamtberichterstattung ausmachen als Sound Bites, und dass die
Kandidaten signifikant häufiger in Bild Bites erscheinen als in Sound Bites. Auch
wenn die Zahl der Sound Bites der Kandidaten über die Jahre hinweg abnahmen,
nehmen die Bild Bites in diesem Zeitraum zu - und Kandidaten werden in Bild
Bites fast doppelt so oft gezeigt wie Journalisten. Sound Bites konzentrieren sich
inhaltlich außerdem eher auf Angriffe und Themen. Basierend auf diesen
Ergebnissen, fordern wir eine Konzentration auf die Untersuchung von visueller
Verarbeitung, nonverbaler Kommunikation und dem Aspekt des Lernens von
Fernsehnachrichten in der Erforschung von Medien und Politik.
Tomando a la Televisión Seriamente: Un Análisis de los fragmentos de Sonido
e Imagen de la Cobertura de Campañas Presidenciales, 1992-2004
Erik P. Bucy and Maria Elizabeth Grabe
Indiana University
Resumen
Este estudio actualiza y extiende la investigación pionera de Hallin sobre los fragmentos de
sonidos de noticias a través de la documentación de la prevalencia de las imágenes
fragmentadas de los candidatos, en las cuales los candidatos fueron mostrados pero no
escuchados (en vez de ser mostrados y escuchados), en las noticias de las elecciones
generales durante 4 ciclos electivos. Un análisis visual de la cobertura de noticias de las
redes de televisión (ABC, CBS, y NBC) y de las elecciones presidenciales de los Estados
Unidos de 1992, 1996, 2000, y 2004 encontró que los fragmentos de imágenes, más que los
de los sonidos, constituían un gran porcentaje de la cobertura total de la campaña, con los
candidatos apareciendo más significativamente en los fragmentos de imágenes que en los
fragmentos de sonido. Aún cuando los fragmentos de sonidos de los candidatos continúan
reduciéndose a través del tiempo, el tiempo del fragmento de la imagen está incrementando
en duración—y los candidatos son presentados en fragmentos de imágenes casi dos veces
más que los periodistas. Los fragmentos de sonido, en su mayoría, se enfocan en ataques y
asuntos. Basados en estos resultados, hacemos un llamado a la apreciación del
procesamiento visual, de la comunicación no-verbal, y del aprendizaje del votante por
medio de las noticias televisivas en el estudio de los medios y la política.
严肃对待电视：1992 年至 2004 年总统竞选报道的声音片断和图像片断分析
Erik P. Bucy
Maria Elizabeth Grabe
印第安纳大学
通过分析总统竞选报道中候选人图像片段（候选人在电视中出现但没有声音，相对
于候选人既出现又发声），本论文更新了哈林（Hallin）对声音片断的标志性研
究。对 1992、1996、2000 和2004 年美国总统大选期间 ABC、CBS 和NBC 的大选
报道进行视觉分析，我们发现所有大选报道中图像片断的比重比声音片断要大；候
选人出现在图像片断中的次数比出现在声音片断中的次数也要多。即使候选人的声
音片断在继续减少，图像片断的长度却在增加：候选人在图像片断中出现的频率几
乎是记者的两倍。声音片断大部分是攻击性的内容，并集中在议题讨论。根据这些
发现，我们呼吁媒介和政治研究应更多的关注视觉处理、非言语传播和选民从电视
新闻中认知等方面的问题。
텔레비젼을 심각하게 받아들이기: 1992-2004년 기간동안의 대통령 선거 보도에서의
사운드 바이트와 이미지 바이트의 분석
Erik P. Bucy and Maria Elizabeth Grabe
Indiana University
요약
본 연구는4번의 선거 주기에서의 일반 선거에 있어 선거후보자들의 이미지 바이트,
즉 후보자들이 보이기는 하지만 그들의 목소리가 들리지 않는 상황 (후보자들이
보이면서 음성도 들리는 것과 반대되는 개념으로), 가 지배적이었다는 것을
기록하는 것에 의해 Hallin의 기념비적인 사운드 바이트 뉴스 연구를 새롭게하고
발전시킨 것이다. 1992, 1996, 2000, 20004년의 미국 대통령 선거에 있어 미 방송국들
(ABC, NBC, 그리고CBS)들의 뉴스 보도에 대한 시각연구는 이미지 바이트가 사운드
바이트보다 더욱 큰 정도로 전체 캠페인 보도를 구성했음을 보여주고 있다.
후보자들의 사운드 바이트가 지속적으로 줄어들면서 이미지 바이트 시간은
지속적으로 증가하였다. 사운드 바이트는 주로 상대방 후보를 공격하거나 이슈들이
중심이될때 발견되었다. 이러한 발견들에 근거하여, 우리는 미디어와 정치 연구에
있어 시각화과정, 비언어 커뮤니케이션, 그리고 텔레비젼 뉴스를 통한 시청자
학습등에 대한 평가가 더욱 필요하다는 점을 요구하고 있다.
