Voice, Substance, and Cynicism in Presidential Campaign Media

This study evaluates the emphasis and tone of press coverage of the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign and explores the extent to which candidates were given the opportunity to speak for themselves in the media. A range of media were examined and compared on candidate voice, substance, and cynicism. Newspapers gave the most space to analysis of public policy issues in the campaign, although generally in a more cynical tone than other media. Network television news often was cynical but offered proportionately as much information about candidates' positions and issues as newspapers did. While less cynical, local television news contained the least substantive coverage of any of the media. Campaign ads and television interviews contained a proportionately large amount of information about candidates' policy positions and personal qualities and also gave candidates a chance to speak for themselves. However, the television interview provided the optimum combination of substance, opportunity for candidate voice, ...

[1]  S. Iyengar,et al.  News That Matters: Television and American Opinion , 1987 .

[2]  W. Bennett.  News, the politics of illusion , 1983 .

[3]  Steven H. Chaffee,et al.  CAMPAIGN ADVERTISEMENTS VERSUS TELEVISION NEWS AS SOURCES OF POLITICAL ISSUE INFORMATION , 1995 .

[4]  T. Crouse.  The Boys on the Bus , 1973 .

[5]  J. Cappella,et al.  Spiral of Cynicism: The Press and the Public Good , 1997 .

[6]  W. Russell Neuman,et al.  Common Knowledge: News and the Construction of Political Meaning. , 1993 .

[7]  Public Speaking in the Presidential Primaries Through Media Eyes , 1993 .

[8]  Kathleen Hall Jamieson,et al.  Dirty Politics: Deception, Distraction, and Democracy , 1992 .

[9]  Ann N. Crigler,et al.  Thirty Seconds or Thirty Minutes: What Viewers Learn from Spot Advertisements and Candidate Debates , 1990 .

[10]  Kathleen E. Kendall.  Presidential campaign discourse : strategic communication problems , 1995 .

[11]  M. J. Robinson,et al.  Over the wire and on TV , 1983 .

[12]  Ann N. Crigler,et al.  Crosstalk: Citizens, Candidates, and the Media in a Presidential Campaign , 1996 .

[13]  D. Hallin.  Sound Bite News: Television Coverage of Elections, 1968–1988 , 1992 .

[14]  R. Dworkin.  Tyranny at the two edges of life: a liberal view. Interview by Nathan Gardels. , 1994, New perspectives quarterly : NPQ.

[15]  T. E. Patterson.  Out Of Order , 1993 .

[16]  Charles D. Elder,et al.  Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda-Building , 1975 .

[17]  Richard A. Joslyn.  Mass Media and Elections , 1984 .

[18]  J. Fallows.  Breaking the news: How American Media Undermine Democracy , 1996 .

[19]  W. Lance Bennett,et al.  The Governing Crisis: Media, Money, and Marketing in American Elections , 1992 .

[20]  John H. Aldrich,et al.  Individual and Contextual Variations in Political Candidate Appraisal , 1994, American Political Science Review.

[21]  Edwin Diamond,et al.  Good News, Bad News , 1978 .

[22]  S. Iyengar.  Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. , 1991 .

[23]  Talk is Cheap , 1996 .

[24]  Nicholas A. Valentino,et al.  Does Attack Advertising Demobilize the Electorate? , 1994, American Political Science Review.

[25]  Thomas E. Patterson,et al.  The Mass Media Election: How Americans Choose Their President , 1980 .

[26]  Arthur H. Miller,et al.  Political Issues and Trust in Government: 1964–1970 , 1974, American Political Science Review.

[27]  Ann N. Crigler,et al.  Common Knowledge: News and the Construction of Political Meaning. , 1993 .

[28]  Benjamin I. Page.  Choices and echoes in Presidential elections , 1978 .

[29]  D. Graber.  Processing the News: How People Tame the Information Tide , 1984 .

[30]  Doris A. Graber,et al.  Media Power in Politics , 1990 .

[31]  Tom Rosenstiel.  Strange Bedfellows: How Television and the Presidential Candidates Changed American Politics, 1992 , 1993 .