Book Review: American Political System
Dr. Kathleen Hall Jamieson is a well respected and award winning professor of political communication. She is the Elizabeth Ware Packard Professor of Communication at the Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania. She has written and co-authored fifteen books about political discourse. The titles of her two most recent books give a good idea of the theme she writes about The Obama Victory: How Media, Money, and Messages shaped the 2008 Elections (2010) and unSpun: Finding Facts in a World of Disinformation (2007). Dr. Jamieson has spent her career evaluating election campaigns for the accuracy of their campaign statements. Her work is focused on encouraging fair campaigns that are based on offering results to problems that really matter to voters.
Dr. Jamieson’s book Dirty Politics was published in 1992. It is the book chosen for this review. Although the book was written a decade ago her foundational arguments are consistent. What is interesting is how the issues in 1992 have been turned inside out in the last four years. This book review will introduce the reader to Dr. Jamieson’s discussion on what happens in the media during political election campaigns. Her main themes are (a) the use of attack campaigning, (b) how ads are used to shape the news, (c) what is up with news coverage on the campaign trails, and (d) what do accountability and engagement have to do with democratic government. Examples from the book will be shared and the importance of Dr. Jamieson’s arguments discussed.
Drama Rules over Facts and Data
Chapter One is titled ‘The Role of Drama and Data in Political Decisions.’ Campaign messages sent are then filtered through the beliefs and experiences of the receivers of those messages. Not only that but unless the voting public is at a campaign rally listening to the candidate speak in person, the political messages are filtered through media outlets including the radio, newspapers, television and cable television. Jamieson explains what she wants to accomplish in her book by setting the stage
(Chapter One) sets a context for the book by examining how voters and reporters came to know what they know of politics. It argues that, in politics as in life, what is known is not necessarily what is believed, what is shown is not necessarily what is seen, and what is said is not necessarily what is heard. (16)
In 1988 the two major parties ran Michael Dukakis (Democrat) and G.H.W. Bush (Republican) for president. Dukakis was a two term governor of Massachusetts from 1983 to 1991. During that time the crime rate had decreased in Massachusetts due to changes made by the Governor. Yet Dukakis became branded as soft on crime because of one instance when a parolee had committed murder while on parole. The most interesting part of the chapter is the discussion on how the reporters assigned to the story did not bother to do any research or follow up on statements that were made to indict Dukakis. For example Republican former Senator Arlen Specter stated that up to five other murders had taken place because of Dukakis’ handling of crime. None of the reporters fact-checked those accusations and the media took Mr. Specter’s comments and ran them prominently in news reports (38–41). By the end of the smear campaign it seemed as if Dukakis was responsible for the crime. Dukakis’ name became almost synonymous with the name of the perpetrator of the crime who was Willie Horton. Although Mr. Dukakis laid out the facts and the data, Dr. Jamieson proposes that because facts and data lack drama, no one was particularly interested. She ends the chapter very interestingly “Abetted by news reports, amplified by Republican ads, assimilated through the cognitive quirks of audiences, William Horton came to incarnate liberalism’s failures and voter’s fears: (42)
The last sentence of Chapter One repeated above could in other cases be read this way ‘Abetted by news reports, amplified by Democratic ads, assimilated through the cognitive quirks of audiences (choose your news topic) came to incarnate conservatism’s failures and voter’s fears. What becomes clear from the examples given in the book the voters’ fears which are the most important ingredient of the calculation.
Attack Tactics
The most important thread running throughout the book is the different tactics used to belittle a competitor or turn them into a villain. Voters who are able to recognize the tactics in commercials and campaigns should not be so gullible to the messages. Identifying a candidate with something or someone negative is a very popular tactic. The tactic seems to be the same as branding and it can be done for positive or for negative results. That is what happened to Dukakis with the example in the first chapter. The issues that are most important to the voters never seem to be part of the campaign that reaches the media.
Even television ads that are silent have been shown to be effective just as voice-over cues that do not necessarily match the visuals also have a strong impact. For example in the 1968 presidential campaign the Republicans ran an ad against Hubert Humphrey that had no voice over, but effectively linked him to violence, poverty and war (57). The book is a lesson in disinformation, sneakiness and tricks that voters should learn to identify during presidential campaigns.
Democracy needs Honest Communication
Dr. Jamieson’s belief that a democracy must have transparency plus honesty, open discussion on issues becomes very clear as the book progresses. She does not take satisfaction from candidates who treat reporters as enemies that need to be ignored, silenced or misled. Also she does not approve of complicity between candidates and reporters who cajole each other along and take it as a game (181). The book not only points out that the candidates, their election team, and the media are part of the problem, she also takes the voters to task. The politicians and media would not be able to get away with their avoidance of useful debate without an audience (the voters) who accept their misinformation for truth.
Use of Social Security
For a few years now the arguments for changing Social Security seem to be overwhelming during campaign season. During the 1964 and 1988 campaigns Democrats use irony, visually coupled with a voice over which said “By making participation in it voluntary, Goldwater would destroy your social security” (51). The visual part of the ad showed a ripped Social Security card (52). The Democrats used the same strategy in 1988 to imply that G.H.W. Bush wanted to cut Social Security benefits (53). In this ad a corner of a Social Security card was ripped off. What G.H.W. Bush had voted for was to delay a cost of living adjustment by freezing the increase. Dr. Jamieson continues to explain
Whether that constitutes a vote to cut is open to debate. What is not debatable is the inference suggested by the shredded Social Security card. If one believes the visual, Bush tried to cut seven-eighths of Social Security. The announcer, of course, never said that. But associating the word “cut” with the rapidly diminishing card invites that inference. (62)
Quality of Writing and Analysis
The organization of the book is very well done and the chapters follow a logical sequence of the techniques and tactics that flood the country during presidential campaigns. The points the author wants to make are accompanied by plenty of examples. Her analysis is not so professorial that it is difficult to understand. In fact she writes very well about a subject that could be very boring and dry. The book also includes the results of her research which should be very interesting especially to political science students and researchers. Not only that but by including the methodologies and results her arguments become stronger.
For example Appendix II prints frames from television news and ads are explained as to their underlying purpose or the message that is received by the viewer. Dr. Jamieson is also very down-to-earth about election campaigns. For example she explains the reasons that
Campaigns simply reinforce themes resonating in the country in non-campaign times. . . . First, it would be difficult to engender new attitudes in the short span of a campaign. By contrast, it is simple and effective to reinforce existing ones. Second, a campaign is loathe to try the untested. (100)
Conclusion
The manipulation of voter fears’ are the key to making the drama of ‘not-really-news’ seem like news to voters. This is the way news stories become more important than the facts. There is evidence that scaring people can drive a campaigns successes and losses more than whether or not facts are available to the voters. Dr. Jamieson has written an important book for anyone interested in democracy. She has added information on research that is of special interest to political scientists. A person interested in the way voters are manipulated during presidential elections will learn a lot from the discussion and examples in the book.
Reference
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. Dirty Politics: Deception, distraction, and democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 1992.
