A book for devout campaign watchers.Kathleen Hall Jamieson Kathleen Hall Jamieson (1946 - ) is Director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, which runs FactCheck, a nonprofit devoted to examining the factual accuracy of US political campaign advertisements. pokes some significant holes in conventional wisdom about American political campaigns with her latest report from the academic front. Her findings aren't as startling star·tle v. star·tled, star·tling, star·tles v.tr. 1. To cause to make a quick involuntary movement or start. 2. To alarm, frighten, or surprise suddenly. See Synonyms at frighten. as the book's playful title suggests, but the book undercuts many commonly held assumptions perpetuated in the media and by politicians. If it reaches enough people, the book has the potential to redefine Verb 1. redefine - give a new or different definition to; "She redefined his duties" define, delimit, delimitate, delineate, specify - determine the essential quality of 2. the terms of discussing and reporting about negative advertising and campaign ads. Before tackling the big picture, editorial writers will want to go directly to Chapter 19, titled, "Do Newspaper Endorsements Really Matter? Do Politicians Speak for Themselves in Newspapers and On Television?" Jamieson, dean of the Annenberg School for Communication There are two schools named Annenberg School for Communication.
"Even assuming that no one who correctly reported a paper's endorsement simply guessed, our estimate is that no more than 29% of registered voters knew whom a newspaper endorsed," Jamieson reports. The news is better on the local front. Jamieson cites a survey on endorsements in Philadelphia's 1999 mayoral election and estimates about 41% of registered Democrats knew which candidate their paper of choice endorsed. With falling readership, "the unmagnified newspaper endorsement alone will be a less important element in determining a candidate's success," Jamieson concludes. Back to the big picture: Jamieson emphasizes the differences in purely negative ads and those that offer negative information about a political foe along with contrasting messages about the ad's sponsor. Voters respond positively to the comparison ads while dismissing unsubstantiated and purely negative attacks, research from the 1996 presidential campaign shows. Jamieson even defends much-maligned negative advertising. "Indeed, despite the low repute in which they are held, supposedly negative advertisements actually contain more relevant issue content than ads containing no information about the sponsor's opposing candidate," she writes. Ads that include contrasting information about candidates provide voters with significant policy information that the media's strategy-obsessed reporting too frequently fails to deliver. As long as attacks are accurate and provide policy contrast, they serve a positive purpose, Jamieson maintains. And amusingly, researchers' analyses of all-positive advocacy ads, which tout Tout To promote a security in order to attract buyers. tout To foster interest in a particular company or security. For example, a broker might tout a security to a client in the hope that the client will purchase the security. the sponsor and don't mention the opposition, usually contain more inaccuracies than so-called negative ads. In a major blow to conventional wisdom that commonly holds that negative advertising depresses voter turnout, Jamieson's research shows that different types of attacks have different results. Contrast ads, which are partially attacks, are "the most effective in mobilizing mobilizing, v 1. freeing or making loose and able to move. 2. observing any ongoing movements in a client's body, whether small or large, assisted or not, that identify strengths and weaknesses, as well as the client's physical and voters." Hardcore all-attack advertising "can demobilize de·mo·bil·ize tr.v. de·mo·bil·ized, de·mo·bil·iz·ing, de·mo·bil·iz·es 1. To discharge from military service or use. 2. To disband (troops). the electorate." Another noteworthy finding: Political campaigns have not become more negative as commonly assumed. She also addresses subjects such as the gender gap in political knowledge and local television news. The book includes an examination of issue ads, most notably the tobacco industry's $40 million 1998 advertising campaign, which influenced public attitudes about legislation that would have allowed the Food and Drug Administration to enact regulations to reduce smoking by youths. This is Jamieson's ninth book on American politics, and it shows that she remains on the cutting edge of political research. Realistically, the academic book will be a dry read for those who aren't passionate about politics. Those who love the game will find it worthwhile. Best of all, it concludes with the optimistic op·ti·mist n. 1. One who usually expects a favorable outcome. 2. A believer in philosophical optimism. op assessment that the American political system is "self-correcting." NCEW NCEW National Conference of Editorial Writers member Bruce Davidson Perhaps you mean:
Everything You Think You Know About Politics ... And Why You're Wrong KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON Basic Books, 256 pages ISBN ISBN abbr. International Standard Book Number ISBN International Standard Book Number ISBN n abbr (= International Standard Book Number) → ISBN m 0465036279, $15 Paperback |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion