The view of image as a transaction between all that a candidate says and does and the way in which voters compare that behavior to their personal vision of what a candidate should be inspires at least three questions important to campaign communication. First, although the ability or power of the media to affect the success or failure of political campaigns and candidates is popularly believed and has been documented by researchers, do the views of individual members of the media regarding the ideal qualities required of president candidates differ significantly from those of voters? Second, do the characteristics or criteria of the “ideal candidate” ascribed by the media and/or the electorate vary from election to election? And finally, do the evaluative dimensions of “idealness” differ by party affiliation, age, or gender? The answers to these questions were determined from the results of a survey of 388 professional journalists covering and 734 citizens attending rallies in New Hampshire during the presidential primaries of 1988, 1992, and 1996.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Atwood, L. E. , & Jarvis, D. (1976, April). Media use, candidate image and voting: A test of “new politics” emphasis on television. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Portland, OR.
2.
Bozell, L. B. III (1995, June 12). The official media versus the GOP. National Review, 47, 46-49.
3.
Czepiec, H. (1976). The impact of television news and party identification on candidate image adoption. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus.
4.
Doud, M. (1996, June 9). Bottomless and topless. The New York Times, p. 15.
5.
Edsall, T. B. (1996, April 22-28). A one-sided gender gap: An Emily's List poll finds women leaning toward Clinton and the Democrats. The Washington Post National Weekly Edition, p. 41.
6.
Fineman, H. , & Beals, G. (1996, November, 4). Inside the Dole meltdown: In the final, bitter days, the finger-pointing begins. Newsweek, 128, 26.
7.
Geyer, G. (1996, November 7). The Pulitzer for mindless bias. The Cincinnati Enquirer, p. A18.
8.
Graber, D. (1971). Press coverage patterns of campaign news: The 1968 presidential race. Journalism Quarterly, 48, 502-512.
9.
Harrison, T. M. , Stephen, T. D., Husson, W., & Fehr, B. J. (1991). Images versus issues in the 1984 presidential election: Differences between men & women. Human Communication Research, 18, 209-227.
10.
Hobbs, R. (1988). Liberal bias? [Review of the book The media elite: America's new power brokers]. Journal of Communication, 38, 154-157.
11.
Hofstetter, C. R. , Zukin, C., & Buss, T. (1978). Political imagery and information in an age of television. Journalism Quarterly, 55, 562-569.
12.
Kepplinger, H. M. (1982). Visual bias in television campaign coverage. Communication Research, 9, 432-446.
13.
Lichter, R. S. , & Rothman, S. (1981). Media & business ethics. Public Opinion, 4, 42-60.
14.
Louden, A. D. (1990). Image construction in political spot advertising: The Hunt/Helms Senate Campaign, 1984. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
15.
Masters, R. D. , Sullivan, D. G., Feola, A., & McHugo, G. (1987). Television coverage of candidates' display behavior during the 1984 Democratic primaries in the United States. International Political Science Review, 8, 121-130.
16.
Merida, K. (1997, January 20). The birth and growth of an extraordinary lawsuit: Paula Jones's action against President Clinton wouldn't have happened 30 years ago. Washington Post National Weekly Edition, p. 25.
17.
Miller, A. H. , Wattenberg, M. P., & Malanchuk, O. (1985). Cognitive representations of candidate assessments. In K. R. Sanders, L. L. Kaid, & D. Nimmo (Eds.), Political communication yearbook 1984 (pp. 183-210). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
18.
Miller, A. H. , Wattenberg, M. P., & Malanchuk, O. (1986). Schematic assessments of presidential candidates. American Political Science Review, 80, 521-537.
19.
Miller, M. (1992, November/December). The specter of scandal: Clinton nearly sank in an ooze of allegations [Special election issue]. Newsweek, pp. 32-36.
20.
Moriarty, S. E. , & Garramone, G. M. (1986). A study of news magazine photographs of the 1984 presidential campaign. Journalism Quarterly, 63, 728-734.
21.
Morin, R. (1996, April 22-28). Can't live with them, can't live without them: A new survey rates the media's performance in covering political campaigns. Washington Post Weekly Edition, p. 41.
22.
Parenti, M. (1995, January/February). The myth of liberal media. Humanist, 55, 7-9.
23.
Pike, G. R. (1985, May). Toward a transactional model of political images: Collective images of the candidate in the 1984 election. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Honolulu.
24.
Sanders, K. R. , & Pace, T. J. (1977). The influence of speech communication on the image of a political candidate “limited effects” revised. Communication yearbook, 1, 465-474.
25.
Stempel, G. H. (1961). The prestige press covers the 1960 presidential campaign. Journalism Quarterly, 38, 157-163.
26.
Stempel, G. H. (1965). The prestige press in two presidential elections. Journalism Quarterly, 42, 15-21.
27.
Stempel, G. H. (1969). The prestige press meets the third-party challenge. Journalism Quarterly, 46, 699-706.
28.
Trent, J. S. , & Friedenberg, R. V. (1995). Political campaign communication. Westport, CN: Praeger.
29.
Trent, J. S. , Mongeau, P. A., Trent, J. D., Kendall, K. E., & Cushing, R. B. (1993). The ideal candidate. American Behavioral Scientist, 37, 225-239.
30.
Trent, J. D. , & Trent, J. S. (1995). The incumbent and his challengers: The problem of adapting to prevailing conditions. In K. E. Kendall (Ed.), Presidential campaign communication: Strategic communication problems (pp. 69-91). Albany: State University of New York Press.
