The voter news service and the 2000 election night calls

Claire Wardle, Kate M Kenski, Dan Orr, Kathleen Hall Jamieson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

After examining the rhetoric of the network broadcast coverage on election night 2000, it is concluded that although individual "decision desk" call times were not identical across networks, there was a consistent pattern of correct and incorrect calls. The language of the election night broadcasts undercut network credibility on two counts. First, the networks largely failed to acknowledge their common reliance on the Voter News Service for their information, creating the impression that independent research by the five different networks was producing identical calls. Second, the networks failed to adequately describe how the calls were being made and the limitations of predictive models in a close election.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2306-2313
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Behavioral Scientist
Volume44
Issue number12
StatePublished - Aug 2001
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Information Services
voter
news
Language
election
Research
broadcast
predictive model
credibility
rhetoric
coverage
language

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)
  • Clinical Psychology
  • Social Sciences(all)

Cite this

Wardle, C., Kenski, K. M., Orr, D., & Jamieson, K. H. (2001). The voter news service and the 2000 election night calls. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(12), 2306-2313.

The voter news service and the 2000 election night calls. / Wardle, Claire; Kenski, Kate M; Orr, Dan; Jamieson, Kathleen Hall.

In: American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 44, No. 12, 08.2001, p. 2306-2313.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wardle, C, Kenski, KM, Orr, D & Jamieson, KH 2001, 'The voter news service and the 2000 election night calls', American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 44, no. 12, pp. 2306-2313.
Wardle, Claire ; Kenski, Kate M ; Orr, Dan ; Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. / The voter news service and the 2000 election night calls. In: American Behavioral Scientist. 2001 ; Vol. 44, No. 12. pp. 2306-2313.
@article{bea79522337d4e268df0f7403e6e470a,
title = "The voter news service and the 2000 election night calls",
abstract = "After examining the rhetoric of the network broadcast coverage on election night 2000, it is concluded that although individual {"}decision desk{"} call times were not identical across networks, there was a consistent pattern of correct and incorrect calls. The language of the election night broadcasts undercut network credibility on two counts. First, the networks largely failed to acknowledge their common reliance on the Voter News Service for their information, creating the impression that independent research by the five different networks was producing identical calls. Second, the networks failed to adequately describe how the calls were being made and the limitations of predictive models in a close election.",
author = "Claire Wardle and Kenski, {Kate M} and Dan Orr and Jamieson, {Kathleen Hall}",
year = "2001",
month = "8",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "44",
pages = "2306--2313",
journal = "American Behavioral Scientist",
issn = "0002-7642",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The voter news service and the 2000 election night calls

AU - Wardle, Claire

AU - Kenski, Kate M

AU - Orr, Dan

AU - Jamieson, Kathleen Hall

PY - 2001/8

Y1 - 2001/8

N2 - After examining the rhetoric of the network broadcast coverage on election night 2000, it is concluded that although individual "decision desk" call times were not identical across networks, there was a consistent pattern of correct and incorrect calls. The language of the election night broadcasts undercut network credibility on two counts. First, the networks largely failed to acknowledge their common reliance on the Voter News Service for their information, creating the impression that independent research by the five different networks was producing identical calls. Second, the networks failed to adequately describe how the calls were being made and the limitations of predictive models in a close election.

AB - After examining the rhetoric of the network broadcast coverage on election night 2000, it is concluded that although individual "decision desk" call times were not identical across networks, there was a consistent pattern of correct and incorrect calls. The language of the election night broadcasts undercut network credibility on two counts. First, the networks largely failed to acknowledge their common reliance on the Voter News Service for their information, creating the impression that independent research by the five different networks was producing identical calls. Second, the networks failed to adequately describe how the calls were being made and the limitations of predictive models in a close election.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=24944542931&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=24944542931&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:24944542931

VL - 44

SP - 2306

EP - 2313

JO - American Behavioral Scientist

JF - American Behavioral Scientist

SN - 0002-7642

IS - 12

ER -