last updated 10/14/2010

How Campaigns Seek to Control Candidate Images

I.  Controlling News Coverage of the Campaign.  Campaigns seek to ...

• Control Media Access to the Candidate (and his team

• Influence the Media Agenda (and the public agenda) - Campaings can shift emphasis because only a few issues can receive attention at one time.

• Create Credible Pseudo-events (see II, p. 320)

• Use ads to contextualize news (Can candidates or opponents set the media's theme for a story? - schemata)

• Blur the distinction between news and commercials (use news style visuals, clips of actual news stories, reality show style ads, etc.)

II. Recognize and Adapt to "Media Concepts of Campaigning"

• The Campaign itself

  • as battle ("Bringing in the heavy artillery") No common ground

  • as game  ("Hail Mary, "4th down") It's all tactics.

  • as horse race (who's in the lead, "by a nose")

• The Candidate -- IMAGE = policy positions, competency, and character (a composite perception of the voter)

  • Typing candidates by expectations (front-runners, third-party, minor candidate, contenders) impacts popularity and support

  • Comparisons to previous 'similar?" candidates - stereotyping (recent examples: comparisions of conservative women candidates to Sarah Palin,

• Attacks

  • Responding / Preventing

    • don't ignore attacks!!

    • preempt attacks by getting out there first.

    • tell all and tell it fast

    • apologize

    • don't stonewall unless you can win the argument

  • Backlash - Negative ads can harm the attacker

    • If you attack, be seen as fair and relevant

    • link attackers to your opponent (PACs etc.)

    • last minute attacks can work since there is little or no time to respond

  • The public hates negative campaigning but responds to attacks anyway

    • fact based attackes work best

    • comparison ads (negative) aren't so much disliked

    • exageration, if caught, hurts ("Al Gore invented the internet.")

    • holding candidates accountable for attacks helps accuracy.

    • pundants can make attacks seem more legitimate.

    • if attacks seem to come from non-campaign sources (e.g. media figures) they have much more impact - thus, media reported gaffs can really hurt.

    • humorists can have a major impact through jokes as implicit attacks on policies, competency, or character (and whose team the candidate is seen as being with).
       

III.  Adwatching

• Little fact checking now occurs (CBS and NBC do some, others only occasionally)

• Corrections may reinforce the ad (and its falesehoods)

• The U of Penn. Annenburg Public Policy Center (Jamieson's home) does operate a fact checking web site, FactCheck.org

Discussion Questions:

1. What sorts of campaign ads and techniques do you like? What ones might influence your vote?

2. What sorts of campaign ads and techniques do you dislike? What ones might influence your vote?

3. If you could write rules of campaign ads to improve campaigns, what rules would you propose?

4. How would you alter presidential or other candidate debates' rules, format, etc.?

5. What constitutes "fact checking" and "accurate" objective news and "honest" advertising?