LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE II RETURN BOX to romovo this checkout from your rooord.
TO AVOID FINES roturn on or botoro onto duo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU In An Affirmative ActionlEqual Opportunity instituion

 

FATAL DETRACI'IONS: THE
ROLE OF GAFFES IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

By

DanaElizabeth DiBiaggio

ATHESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

College of Communication Arts and Sciences
Department of Telecommunication

1994

ABSTRACF

FATAL DETRACI'IONS: THE
ROLE OF GAFFES IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

By

Dana Elizabeth DiBiaggio

Considerable academic study and attention has been devoted to the evaluation of
presidential candidates on the basis of partisan affiliation, issues and most recently personal
attributes. Little academic study and research, however, has been devoted to the evaluation
of candidates on the incidents and handling of their negative behaviors (gaffes, blunders,
loss of control, character flaws). Due to the lack of recognition of this method of
evaluation, the primary objective of this study was to determine whether political
practitioners acknowledge the concept of gaffes and believe the resulting degradation or

initiation process is a primary purpose of modern presidential campaigns.

Both the literature and the program provide considerable support for the idea that gaffes
(blunders, slips, flaws, mistakes, loss of control, political problems) are a political reality
to be acknowledged and a force to be contended with during presidential campaigns. The
program interviewees were in remarkable agreement as to when these incidents are
legitimate campaign issues and with respect to the meaningful information that the handling
of them generates. The program findings, however, also suggest that many believe that

gaffes are often a trivial preoccupation of the media.

Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Telecommunication of
Communication Arts and Sciences, Michigan State University, in partial fulfilhnent

of the requirements for the Master of Arts degree.

 

I irector of Thesis

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Bob Albers for his production advice and his participation in the
program evaluation, Dr. Gretchen Barbatsis and Dr. Charles Atkin for providing endless
advice and guidance and investing considerable time and energy into this study and
program, and Dr. Bradley Greenberg for his support, encouragement and mentoring
throughout my entire Master’s program.

I would also like to thank the following individuals for their contribution to the program:

Interviewees Production Assistance
Jonathan Alter David Fleig (Cameraman)
Richard Armstrong William Richards (Editor — Video)
Christopher Arterton Don Kemp (Audio Consultant)
Rob Engle

Geraldine Ferraro Program Evaluators
Wilma Goldstein

Rev. Jesse Jackson Donovan Reynolds

Mark Lotwis Lisa Whiting

Michael Murphy

Ron Nesson

Jody Powell

Charles Press

Kenneth VerBurg

And finally, I would like to extend a special thanks to Dr. James Taylor and James Turley
for their unmeasurable contribution to p2, and of course, my mother and father.

II.

VIII.

Eases

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Bax:

Introduction—Importance of Issue ...................................................... 1
Review of Literature ....................................................................... 3
0 Taking it Personally ................................................................... 3
0 Specific Attributes: The Importance of Performance

and Character-Related Traits ......................................................... 5
0 The Personal is Meaningful ......................................................... 8
0 The Need to Test What is Wrong With the Picture ............................. 11
- Blaming it on the Tube ............................................................... l4
0 Television Can Also Bring Life and Meaning to

Political Candidates ................................................................... l9
0 The Role of Candidate’s Flaws or Negative Behaviors:

Does Something Positive Result From a Focus on the Negative? ......... 21
0 Problem Statement .................................................................... 27
Methodology ................................................................................ 29
Program Results ........................................................................... 47
Program Evaluation ....................................................................... 58
Discussion ................................... _ ................................................ 68
Appendices
- Appendix A - Final Script ......................................................... 73
- Appendix B - Information Provided to Program Evaluators ................ 98
Bibliography .............................................................................. 104

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Figure 1 .............................................................................................. 39
Figure 2 .............................................................................................. 41

INTRODUCTION—IMPORTAN CE OF ISSUE

The voting public is expressing considerable concern and disillusionment with the
presidential selection process. This may be attributed, in part, to confusion about its
purpose and a lack of understanding as to what criteria are being used to evaluate
candidates.

Disillusionment and confusion became increasingly clear during the 1988 election year, and
the importance of that issue was reflected in the numerous articles and commentaries about
the purpose and nature of election campaigns. The unprecedented attention and press given
to the candidates’ personal attributes or character during the 1988 campaign probably
contributed to much of the public discourse about and newly found interest in the purpose

of presidential elections.

The critical issue that the political analysts and the popular media failed to address

during that campaign as well as others, is why the voting public as well as the media have
become increasingly focused on candidates’ negative behaviors or gaffes and what purpose
this focus serves. The same case can be made for most of the academic literature to date,
which has devoted much study and discourse to the increasing focus on candidates’
personal attributes and character and neglected to address why we are placing increasing

importance on the incidence and handling of their gaffes.

A need exists, therefore, to examine the role of gaffes (mistakes, blunders, slip ups, loss of
control) in the presidential selection process. In examining the role of gaffes in election

campaigns, some critical issues which need to be explored include:

2

Due to the fact that issues today are so numerous, complex and ever—changing,
does the voting public assess the capabilities of candidates primarily in terms of
character, leadership, judgment, and accountability?

With the remarkable degree of fieedom candidates have been given to define and
project an image, is a very important and often unrecognized purpose of election
campaigns to test the validity of a candidate’s projected public image through an
assessment of the incidence and handling of gaffes? (Implicit in this premise is the
assumption that the purpose of election campaigns is not just to serve as a serious

policy-making forum.)

Have the electronic media, particularly television with its entertainment nature and
focus on image, facilitated and encouraged the persona/image testing aspect of

campaigns and thereby increased the focus on gaffes? By focusing on storytelling
and characters, has television shifted the primary focus of campaigns from issues

to individuals, and more specifically to their negative behaviors or actions?

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The 1988 Presidential election will most likely be remembered as the character campaign
The character issue dominated the headlines and nightly news; new phrases such as
character cops, character test, and character assassination were coined almost on an hourly
basis. At the time, many were arguing that the disclosure of Democratic contender Gary
Hart’s extramarital affair was what triggered our culture’s obsession with candidates’
personal attributes and character. History and scholarly studies and research, however,

prove that proposition to be much too simplistic.

Taking it Personally

Much of the recent academic research on the evaluation of presidential candidates has
focused on the increasing importance or weight given to candidate’s personal attributes-—

especially since the emergence of television as the medium of politics.

As early as 1966, Stoke’s (1966) analysis revealed that the physical attractiveness of
candidates could either cause voters to maintain or change their current partisan affiliation,
and thereby provided evidence that the personal attributes of candidates play a critical role

in the evaluation of candidates.

It was not until the late 70s or early 80s, however, that a larger body of research emerged
regarding the increasing focus on candidates and their personal attributes and character.
Markus and Converse (1979) suggested that voter’s evaluations of the candidates’ personal

attributes significantly influence how they vote. Numerous other studies suggested that the

4
consideration of the personal attributes plays a central role in candidate perception and voter

behavior (e.g. Kinder et al, 1980; Conover, 1981; Kinder and Abelson, 1981; Miller et al,
1982).

A 1980 study concluded that in every election since 1952, candidate and issue attitudes
have been much more salient and important in voting choices than party attitudes.
Candidate references concerned attitudes about their experience, performance-related traits
as well as character-related traits. Using date from SRC/CPS Election Studies (1952-

197 6), the study found that the salience of candidate attitudes has fluctuated between 34
and 45 percent of the total and the salience of issue attitudes had fluctuated between 43 and

57 percent (Kessel, 1980; pgs. 201-219).

Data from the 1970s also suggest the importance of a candidate’s personal qualities. Late in
the 1976 primaries, for example, one survey reported that 57 percent of US. residents
chose their favorite candidate more on the basis of personal qualities than on specific issues
positions (Marshall, 1981; pg. 139). According to Marshall, personalities and personal
qualities were important in the 1980 race—an election in which Senator Edward Kennedy’s
personal misfortunes and flaws cost him widespread support that he might otherwise have
received (Marshall, 1981; pg. 140).

Prior to the mid 1980s, however, most formaljhegdes assumed that voting choices were
made primarily on the basis of party or issues. Sandra Davis (1987) discussed the turning

point of formal theories of voting behavior in her review of literature:

“A recent formal theory (Enelow and Hinich, 1982) has incorporated nonissue
factors which make it possible for citizens to logically choose the candidate who is
farther from their own ideal point if their evaluation of the candidate is sufficiently
positive. Enelow and I-Iinich’s inclusion of candidate evaluation makes their model
more consistent with American campaigns. Empirical studies indicate that both
issues and candidate attributes are an important determinant of the vote (Steeper and

S
Teeter, 1976; Popkin et al, 197,6 Kessel .1980). W

aura: ‘d‘ r- QLL! !:-.V a.-. 501;, Ll. nigh-a.-.”

r. rt. 0°'- Lacy Lie-‘ nu i ou‘u, -.--ur “WW? -r‘

0:50 w'llr 0u110lC' u ms, n.,,"'t‘4. an unfit .3 r ‘r'
.. “E I l . ,,

In Evaluating Presidential Candidates: Who Focuses on their Personal Attributes, Glass
(1985) examines the public’s perception of presidential candidates’ personal attributes and
discredits the belief that the better educated are less concerned with the personal attributes
of presidential candidates than the less educated. In fact, the study found that highly
educated individuals are more concerned with personal attributes than the less educated and
that both groups expressed interest in the trivial (a candidate’s physical appearance,
personality, family background and religion) as well as the more meaningful and
substantive aspects (experience, leadership, and performance capabilities) of candidate

attributes.

This point is driven home by social researcher Daniel Yankelovich who says there are three
facets of American politics—one of which is a “politics of values.” George Will elaborates

on one of these facets in a newspaper column:

“ ‘The first is that we have a politics of values, not issues.’ He (Yankelovich)
means that voters define issues in terms of candidates articulations of fundamental
values. Carter perfected it, emphasizing post-Watergate honesty; Reagan continued
it, promising post-Carter strength” (Detroit News 2/12/88).

Specific Attributes: The Importance of Performance and Character-Related
Traits

Glass (1985) also presents evidence that between 1952 and 1984 the American public
usually expressed greater interest in the candidates’ W than in their
personal attraction and this applies to both the less and the more educated voters. Using

data from the National Election Study gathered between 1952-1984 (University of

6
Michigan), it was found that 50 percent of all comments on personal attributes concerned

character and 33 percent focused on candidates’ competence.

Many other studies have attempted to determine the specific attributes which are important
in the evaluation of a candidate. These studies and other literature reveal an amazing
consensus on the general categories of traits which appear to be of the greatest importance

to voters as they evaluate candidates.

Using data from a national study undertaken by the Center for Political Studies at the
University of Michigan to develop an ideal president prototype, it was found that the most

important qualities for a president to possess are WW
.- .Withregardto

 

competence, the results indicated that an ideal candidate is not only technically competent
and knowledgable, but also capable of facing formidable challenges and making difficult
decisions. It was also found that an ideal president must be honest and not motivated by
political power and that these attributes are desired by individuals with all levels of
education (Kinder et a1; 1980). What the study failed to provide is evidence that these
prototypes provide standards by which real presidential candidates are evaluated.

Presidential scholar James David Barber also contends that a candidate’s trustworthiness
weighs heavy in voters’ evaluations: “The public cannot handle intricate political issues; it
can handle relatively clear questions. Is this guy honest? Is this guy moral?” (Time,

5/18/87; pg. 33).

As early as 1976, Nirnmo & Savage (1976) found that the particular attributes that are used

to judge candidates vary greatly across individuals and elections, although there are some

7
enduring qualities that are sought in presidential candidates—namely, competency and

trust.

In Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections, Benjamin Page notes that electoral choices
involve not only what candidates stand for, but also what they are or what they seem to be

and that personal traits, including -.- r 0 "LL! -

 

0m; ‘r a.” u'vu at! tar..- -' -r‘ 1:1! In- Our” 3 1.4:; :4! .--__5 enter

into voters’ evaluations of presidential candidates (Page, 1978; pgs. 232-277).

Like Page, others find performance and character-related traits to be most important in
evaluating candidates. According to Thomas Marshall, traits such as leadership, honesty,
morality, and candor are often reported by voters in explaining their vote choice. He also

notes that a survey of the 1972 New Hampshire primary found that personal attributes such

 

Meagan) were rated as more important by the voters and proved to be better predictors

of vote choice than were issues, and that throughout the 1980 primaries, voters named

W) as the most important factors in their choice
(Marshall, 1981; pg. 140).

In The Presidential Campaign, Stephen Hess summarizes necessary Presidential qualities

 

More recently, a 1987 U. S. News and World Report study, conducted in conjunction with
the Roper organization, found that only 25 percent of those polled believed that a
candidate’s political party was of crucial importance. In sharp contrast, 74 percent

8
identified compassion and 62 percent of those polled identified W as

attributes of critical importance (U .S. News and World, 12/28/87: pg. 29).

And finally, in his concluding remarks, (of his analysis of the 1984 NES Survey), Markus
(1988) writes: “The consistent finding that positive emotional response to the candidates is
more influential than negative emotional response suggests that elections turn more on
W and W and less on issues. Issue appraisals do not
seem to have much, if any, influence on the emotional enthusiasm created by candidates”

(Markus, 1988, pg. 755).

The Personal is Meaningful

In reviewing this literature, the following question needs to be answered: Why are the
voting public—the highly educated as well as the less educated—and the media so

interested in the personal attributes of candidates?

One explanation that Glass presents is, “ That many of the better educated, recognizing the
nature of presidential campaigns, view policy pronouncements with skepticism and
accordingly place more weight on the candidate’s personal attributes...because they feel
that this is a subject on which they can obtain more accurate and meaningful information

about the candidates” (Glass, 1985; pg. 531).

“Even when the focus of a campaign appears to switch from personalities to issues, it is
often what the issue reveals about “the man” rather than the issue itself which is in the
spotlight. Thus in 197 6 when Gerald Ford blundered by saying that Poland was free of

Soviet domination, interest was aroused less because Ford’s statement implied a new

9
reality or shift in policy than for what the statement was thought to imply about Ford’s

intelligence” (Glass, 1985; pg. 517).

Benjamin Page (1978), like Glass, holds there is a reason and a rational explanation for

why we are focusing on these personal attributes:

“As we have suggested, voters who pay attention to the personal characteristics of
candidates should not be dismissed as irrational. While the ambiguity of candidates
makes it costly to find out in any detail exactly what policies they stand for,
information about their personal characteristics is relatively cheap and abundant.
Moreover, the information is relevant. A flaw like rigidity or impulsiveness in
presidential character may affect behavior in foreign policy crisis and could
conceivably lead to nuclear catastrophe” (Page, pg. 262).

Stephen Hess, a senior fellow in governmental studies at The Brookings Institution,

presents a similar argument in The Presidential Campaign:

“What you need in office is a man who can cope with situations as they arise,
situations that no one even thought of. Since circumstances change, crisis arise, our
dilemma becomes how to judge without certified knowledge...So in place of a
checklist we insist that our potential president run an obstacle course. A candidate in
1972 suddenly discovers that his running mate has a record of serious mental
illness; a candidate in 1952 suddenly discovers that his running mate has a secret
fund of $18,000 contributed by wealthy supporter. The candidates must make a
decision, quickly, in full public view. And in watching the candidates in the act of
making decisions we are given the opportunity to learn something about them,
something that is useful in trying to assess how they might respond to sudden crisis
if they were in the White House” (Hess, 1978; pgs. 44-45).

This explanation reflects a trend that emerged in the mid ‘80’s in academic and popular
literature which contends that the evaluation of candidates on the basis of their personal
attributes is not necessarily trivial, irrational or without meaning. The literature argues that
voters may focus on the personal attributes of a candidate to gain meaningful information to

help them assess how that person will perform in office.

10
Presidential scholar James David Barber dedicated much of his energy in the ‘80s to the

study of character and provides significant insight into why candidates’ personal attributes
play such a critical role in voters’ evaluations. In The Presidential Character: Predicting

Performance in the White House, Barber writes:

“To understand what actual presidents do and what potential Presidents might do,
the first need is to see the man whole—not as an abstract embodiment of civic
virtue, some scorecard of issue stands, or some reflection of a faction—but as a
human being like the rest of us, a person trying to cope with a difficult
environment. To that task he brings his own character, his own view of the real
world, his own political style. If we can see the pattern he has set for his political
life we can, I contend, estimate much better his pattern as he confronts the stresses
and chances of the Presidency...The President is not some shapeless organism in a
flood of novelties, but a man with a memory in a system with history. Like all of
us, he draws on his past to shape his future” (Barber, 1985; pgs. 3, 4, & 14).

The media have also recently acknowledged that the focus on personal attributes is a
meaningful rather than a trivial exercise in our assessment and evaluation of presidential
candidates. Jonathan Alter, a senior writer with Newsweek, offers a similar explanation for
this focus on candidates’ personal attributes and character: “While it is true that this year’s
emphasis on character has been frivolous and excessive at times, at least, it is an attempt to

address the question of what a candidate would be like in office” (Alter, 2/1/88; pg. 25).

Some members of the media even go so far as to hold that not only does the evaluation of
candidates’ personal attributes provide meaningful information—such an evaluation
provides more meaningful information than an evaluation of candidates’ issue or policy
positions. In a column titled “Issues are Secondary to Candidate’s Honesty”, Andy Rooney
argues, “The basic integrity of a public official is more important than what he thinks about
the mining of the Persian Gulf, taxes or the national debt” (Detroit News, 9/30/87). And
while William Schneider does not say this outright, he certainly implies it in one of his

syndicated columns:

11

“During 1987, a certain correlation became noticeable in both political parties. The
candidates who gained the most—Bush, Dole and Dukakis—-were selling
competence and professionalism. The candidates selling ideas—Kemp, Babbit and
DuPont—stayed at the back of the pack...Two Democrats who started
experimenting with big ideas—Gephardt and Simon, ended up getting burned”
(Detroit News 1/15/88).

The Need to Test What is Wrong with the Picture

“No wonder Campaign ‘88 has acquired a cheap, hollow feeling. Even when candidates
manage to craft a clear message, their pitch seems to have trouble passing a reality test ”

(Kaus & Fineman 2/ 15/88; pg. 25)

In addition to suggesting that meaningful information—relevant to assessing how a person
will perform in office—can be obtained by focusing on candidates’ personal attributes, this
literature also suggests (although more indirectly) that presidential elections have a dual
purpose. The purpose of elections, therefore, is not just to test candidates’ issue positions
and policy pronouncements but to also test their person—which in politics happens to be

more often a candidate’s publicly-projected image or persona.

The political reality of a candidate’s personal qualities is a matter of the image that candidate
projects (Rosenberg and McCafferty, 1987). According to Nimmo, “To most people the
very word image suggests political leaders, because journalists regularly publicize such
notions as image merchants, candidates, and projection” (Nimmo, 1974, pg. 97). Through
the use of symbols leaders persuade people to follow them by identifying with the images
their potential followers have of themselves or with the images those same people have of
an ideal president or other public official (N immo, 1974). While politicians have long
recognized this and used imagery and images throughout time to win public approval, with
the professionalization of politics (pollsters and political consultants) and the emergence of
television, the voting public has become increasingly concerned with image making and

manipulation by presidential candidates.

12

This has proven to be a valid concern. A 1987 study found that a candidate’s image can be
shaped to manipulate voters’ preferences The study demonstrated that by using different
presentations (photographs) of the same person, one could produce quite different images
of that person’s likableness, integrity, competence, and general fitness for public office.
“This suggests that, with appropriate pretesting and adequate control over a candidate’s
public appearance, a campaign consultant should be able to significantly manipulate the
image projected to the voting public” (Rosenberg and McCafferty, 1987; pg. 44).

Much of this recent literature also suggests that voters address this concern by focusing on
the personal attributes of candidates in an attempt to determine the validity of their publicly-
projected image. In Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections, Benjamin Page alludes to
this method of candidate evaluation:

“The first is the problem of image making and manipulation. What if the man who
is elected is not what he seems? What presidential candidates are, what images they
try to project, and what the voters actually perceive are not necessarily identical. At
the same time, however, we would argue that there are limits to manipulation and
confusion and that voters can judge candidates’ personalities, just as they judge the
government’s past performance, with reasonable accuracy” (Page, 1978; pg. 263).

In Politics By Humans, J arnes David Barber suggests the need for such a test or method of
evaluation and presents the following case: Nixon and LBJ stories made it clearer than ever
before that candidates and the president could fool the people, and that we had better be

careful whom we crowned as the most powerful person in the world. He elaborates with an

analysis of Carter the campaigner and Carter the President:

“However one rates recent Presidents, there is no denying this fact: President after
President has been picked for virtues he turned out not to have. In 1976, an
important dimension of Jimmy Carter’s image, in addition to his morality, was his
competence; he seemed a political engineer, a systematic operator. From the start,

13

the Carter White House was a font of fumbling, especially with Congress, paving
the way for the Reagan replacement” (Barber, 1988; pg. 443).

And, others have addressed the need:

“The original idea behind character reporting is perfectly legitimate. Why find out
about a person’s flaws after he has reached the White House? Even if minor in
itself, does an incident fit into a familiar pattern that illuminates more serious
shortcomings? If a candidate does something out of keeping with his public image,
is it a small miscue or a sign of hyprocrisy? (Alter, 10/19/87; pg. 79).”

“Though the American electoral method falls short of perfection, alternative systems
would be equally flawed. If the system cannot equally test the personal, political,
and executive talents that are necessary in the White House, the process should give
priority to testing the personal. For they are the most immutable, the least likely to
be changed by experience in office. Presidents can become politicians and
executives; they are not likely to become better persons” (Hess, 197 8; pg. 52).

The importance of this method of candidate evaluation has also been acknowledged by

members of the media, most notably by Daniel Schorr:

“At a time when public figures appear to be inventing themselves for television,
there is an iron law that you must live by the image you create for yourself.
Americans have come a long way in tolerance for departures from traditional norms;
just two decades ago, divorce could be a barrier to election. But there is less
tolerance for departure from your own portrait of yourself. Gary Hart’s trouble was
not so much his extramarital affairs as that they violated his depiction of himself as
a good family man. Senator Joseph Biden’s problem was not so much his
borrowing of speech lines and his enhancement of his resume as that these things
contradicted the image of candor and breezy spontaneity he had fashioned for
himself” (Schorr, 1987).

The following quotes from various sources provide further evidence of the pervasiveness
of this method (image testing) of candidate evaluation and the seemingly universal
acceptance and acknowledgment of it:

“As candidates depend increasingly on slick media advisors and image campaigns,
the press takes a greater role in trying to illuminate the person behind the facade”
(Zoglin, 5/18/87; Pg. 28).

14

“Neil Postman who wrote Amusing Ourselves to Death, a highly critical look at the
television culture, thinks television has changed modem perceptions in the most
basic way and offers Ronald Reagan as a prime example: ‘ When he took over,
reporters checked his statements and found them wanting. After a while they gave
up because they felt it was irrelevant. People were judging him by another
standard—by the credibility of the image they saw’ “ (McLoughlin et al, 7/27/87;

pg.l8)

“But there was more than the rosy-glow syndrome to explain why people originally
saw a Dukakis who seemed different from the one they are seeing now. The sheer
magnitude of the artifice involved in campaign presentation produces a prettified
picture. Hon/ever, you can prettify some of the picture all of the time, and all of the
picture some of the time, etc. With constant, prolonged appearances, the authentic
nature of the candidate begins to peek through...Usually (though not always) a
candidate can’t make it by faking. Americans have pretty good scenting capacities
and instincts” (Newsweek, 9/19/88; pg. 90).

Blaming it on the Tube

“The age of television campaigns began with the presidential election of 1952 and by I 968
American presidential elections had become a spectator sport. The players in the game were
the candidates, with their teams of pollsters and media consultants, and a press corps which
not only described but explained and judged what the candidates were doing. By the last
third of the century, American presidential elections had become almost entirely candidate
and media-centered events” (Salmore and Salmore, 1985,: pgs. 41-45).

Concurrently, with the heightened interest in and the increasing weight being given to
candidates’ personal attributes in the presidential selection process, a body of literature
emerged regarding the role of the medium of television in influencing candidate image and

subsequently voting behavior.

“As early as 1958 critics began voicing concern over the shift in emphasis from issues to
images in political campaigns because of television, arguing that the preoccupation with
both physical appearance and personality traits had usurped the once important place of
expressed issue stances by candidates running for political office,” (Shyles ,1984; pg.
406).

15
Since its emergence, television’s image-making power is thought to have been influential in

most elections, particularly in the Nixon-Kennedy debates and in Carter’s campaign of trust
and honesty (Barber, 1987; White, 1987 ; Marshall, 1981). In fact, many claim the outcome
of the Presidential election of 1960 was dramatically influenced, if not determined, by the
televised debates between Richard M. Nixon and John F. Kennedy (Rubin, 1967; pg. 19).

In Mass Media and Elections, Richard Joslyn writes:

“In fact, much of the concern about modern campaign practices has revolved
around the so—called image-making practices of candidates and the effect television
news has on the public’s perceptions of candidates. Because of the visual
component of television news, the fact that film shots of campaigning candidates
are a prevalent part of television news, the use of dramatic and thematic elements in
television news stories, and the presumed ability of the television audience to use
such fare to form judgments about the personal traits of candidates, television’s
image making capability is often thought to be greater than the print media” (Joslyn;
1984;pg.183)

The impact of television on our political process is well—documented by historians and

others. In America In Search of Itself, Theodore White comments on its impact:

“American politics and television are now so completely locked together that it is
impossible to tell the story of the one without the other. All politics have changed to
fit this stage. The entourages of presidential candidates have become personal
courts where the magicians and wise men are those who know the use and reach of
television...Television has made the personality of the candidate central; his quirks,
hair, style, skin color, voice tone and apparent sincerity are as important as his
themes and programs. It was on television that Ronald Reagan was to be displayed
in 1980 as a master of the new stage”(White, 1982; pgs. 164-167).

In The Election of 1984: Reports and Interpretations, Gerald Pomper describes television’s

image-making power and its resulting impact on the outcome of the 1984 campaign:

“The most common explanation of Reagan’s victory is Reagan himself. The
President’s success is not due to his record or his philosophy, but to his image. In
this interpretation, tens of millions of Americans voted for a likable individual, who
successfully combined stirring if vague rhetoric, a confident personality, an actor’s

16

communication skills, and a verbal commitment to religion and family...In an
extension of this emphasis on personality, Mondale gets the personal blame for the
Democrats defeat. The former Vice-President was seen as dull ‘Norwegian Wood,’ a
poor performer on television. The problem for the Democrats was not the message,
but the messenger” (1985; pg. 79).

Many others have noted that the very nature (entertainment/story-telling/visual) of the
medium of television has facilitated and encouraged vote choices based on the personal
qualities of candidates. In Nominating A President: The Process and the Press (a series of
roundtables held February 1-3, 1988), Christopher Lydon, a news anchorman and one of

the participants, describes politics as entertainment:

“But television is now the medium of politics as entertainment series. You introduce
a character. You hope to have your man in that spot in this conflict series, in which
the public and the political world will say, hey that’s good, strengthen that
character, double his part, bring him forward, make him a star”

(1980;pg.60)

And similar words come from another member of the media in an article titled “But will he,

she, or it Play in Peoria? ”:

“The ascension of Oliver North to instant stardom dramatizes if nothing else how
profoundly television has transformed our politics and our public morality. The
theatricalization of our political life is inevitable. We go to the same source for news
and entertainment” (Zimmerman, 7/27/87; pg. 22).

Several academic studies also have revealed television’s proclivity to center on the personal

attributes of candidates and image.

In examining the role of television on changing voting behavior (namely, the increased
candidate-orientedness of the public), Keeter (1987) provided empirical evidence for the
proposition that television has facilitated and encouraged vote choices based upon the
personal qualities of candidates. Using data from eight presidential election studies
conducted by the Center for Political Studies at the University of Michigan, Keeter found

17
that a candidate’s personal qualities and traits have been more important for the television

group than for the newspaper group in every election since 1964. Conversely, the weights
for personal qualities for the newspaper group since l960—with the exception of 1972—
have remained at a relatively low level, smaller than those reported for the television group.
(V oters’ chief source of information was determined by asking respondents to identify the
medium they “got the most (campaign) information fi'om” ( 1956-1968) or “rely on most for
news about political events” (1976 and 1980).

With respect to the interpretation and meaning of these findings, however, Keeter cautions:
“No simple argument is advanced here that television has caused a politics of personality.
Without comparable measures of voting criteria prior to 1952, we cannot know if

candidate-orientedness was higher or lower in elections before television.”

An earlier study by Hofstetter and Strand (1983) produced similar but slightly more
detailed findings. They found that media exposure is associated with a tendency to perceive
each of the major candidates as holding specific positions on issues. Associations are
strongest for exposure to newspaper stories, television specials, and personal discussions.
Associations are relatively weak between exposure to television news programming and

advertisements and perception of candidates’ positions on multiple issues.

Another study compared the coverage by wire services with the coverage by network news
during the 1972 presidential campaign; results suggested that the structural differences
between the media may be associated with the kind of coverage each typically provided
during presidential campaigns. The study found that AP wires focused more on issues than
did CBS television and AP wires included comprehensive issue coverage. Malaney and

Buss (1979) suggested that this might be the case because the newspapers subscribing to

18
the wires deal more heavily with issues. CBS news, by contrast, focused more on the

campaign itself and on candidate image than did AP wires.

It has also been suggested by some that the new technologies in television have helped to
augment this focus on personal characteristics. Political television is now cheaper, more
plentiful and much more immediate than ever before: This is a direct result of new video
production technologies, new distribution technologies, and new technologies in polling—
all of which have made television more reactive especially on a personal level. According to
Richard Armstrong (1988), “When candidate A makes a gaffe by saying, for example, he
doesn’t think Poland is under Soviet domination, Candidate B can record an indignant
rebuttal to that point of view, complete with many pious references to the brave Polish

people” (Armstrong, 1988; pg. 21).

Some other significant events which coincided with the emergence and domination of
television also influenced the medium’s coverage of political campaigns: Richard J oslyn

summarizes these events:

“Campaign coverage was altered after 1960 as a result of the first of Theodore
White’s Making of the President books. White wrote about the campaign as a
novelist would, complete with good guys and bad guys, conflict and suspense, and
rich in detail concerning the political decisions and personalities of the candidates.
The media’s response to White’s series of books was chagrin at having been
scooped and a commitment to prevent it from happening again...Joumalists have
also become more attentive to the campaign strategies and communication
techniques of candidates, and have begun depicting and analyzing them in their
news stories. Joe McGinniss’s Selling of the President, 1968 demonstrated to the
media that they ought to pay more attention to the media strategies of the candidates.
And the Watergate episode in 1972-73 contributed to a general movement to
adversarial or investigative reporting” (Joslyn, 1984; pg. 112).

19

Television Can Also Bring Life and Meaning to Political
Candidates

Studies immediately following the 1988 campaign, found that media, including television,
were not just focusing on the trivial or more superficial traits such as physical appearance
and personality. When analyzing more than 1500 news stories from the 1988 campaign,
Buchanan (1991) concluded that while candidate-qualification stories constituted the third
largest category—with nearly 20 percent of the story allocations—these stories represented
sound journalistic efforts to explain the qualifications of the candidates. According to
Buchanan, an ideal often expressed in assessments of media campaign coverage is that it
ought to convey information about presidency-relevant qualifications (e. g. character,
competence, and issue information); the coding system measured the extent to which the
1988 coverage implemented that ideal. By character Buchanan means “the kind of person
the candidate is, particularly in moral and temperamental terms ;” and by competence he
means, “the skills, abilities or capacities that television or news stories mention as relevant
to the candidate’s ability to lead, work with Congress, devise foreign policy, etc.” With
respect to the distribution of stories across qualification categories, it was found that
candidates’ issue positions received the most (51 percent) and that the remaining 49 percent
were divided almost evenly between character (24 percent) and competence (25 percent)
(Buchanan; 1991; pgs. 49-50).

In a similar vein, in discussing various perspectives on the purpose and function of
campaigns, Richard J oslyn points out that there is considerable evidence in support of one
of these appmaches—-the “selection-of-a—benevolent leader approach”—and that current
campaign communication is more consistent with this approach than others. By introducing
and describing this approach, Joslyn lends some additional credibility to the manner in

which the media, and particularly television, cover campaigns:

20

“When elections are seen as a exercise in leadership rather than policy selection, our
attention is directed toward the nonpolicy aspects of electoral communication, and
behavior. This perspective requires us to consider instead the desirable leadership
attributes in cultures like our own. The benevolent leader approach, first, asserts
thatafairamountofthe ., ._ , , - . - -
focuses on the non programmatic personal characteristics of candidates for public
office. This recognizes that a candidate represents not only past and future policy
decisions, but also a personality and character to which other people respond.
Second, the approach assumes that citizens are willing and able to form perceptions
concerning the nonprograrnmatic attributes and character traits of candidates. Third,
this approach argues that the evaluation of the character traits or personalities of
candidates is an important determinant of the citizen’s candidate choice and vote”
(Joslyn, 1984; pgs. 285-86).

 

J oslyn adds:

“Despite the uncertainty regarding the nature of candidate coverage provided by
campaign news coverage, there is considerable evidence that voters do evaluate
candidates as people rather than bundles of issues. In general, people tend to form
personal impressions of candidates in a way similar to how they respond to any
human being who attempts to persuade them to do something” (Joslyn, 1984; pg.
288).

Moreover, some believe that the all-encompassing power of television is an all-
encompassing myth. In The Real Campaign, Jeff Greenfield sets out to prove that
television and the media made almost no difference in the outcome of the 1980 Presidential
campaign. He contends that the victory of Ronald Reagan was a political victory; a victory
of more coherent—not necessarily correct—ideas, better expressed, more connected with
the reality of their lives, as Americans saw it; a victory vastly aided by a better-funded,
better-organized, more confident and united party. He argues his case:

“From the primary season through the general election, the political events of 1980
were powered by factors far more fundamental and far more consequential than the
images and the daily data of television and the political press...Up and down the list
of basic rules of political media coverage, myth after myth was shattered by what
happened in 1980: The early triumphs of a candidate are supposed to create
irresistible momentum; but 1980 demonstrated that momentum means nothing if an
opponent has a long standing political base. Charisma is the key ingredient of the
age of television; but 1980 demonstrated that a charismatic candidate who cannot

21

explain what he means to do with the power of the Presidency faces an enormous
obstacle. The dark skills of media manipulators are supposed to be able to bend the
passive viewers’ sense of reality; but 1980 demonstrated that some fundamental
issues cannot be appreciably moved by image making and that image makers
themselves risk great damage in attempting to move beyond what the voters believe
deeply to be real” (Greenfield, 1982; pg. 14).

While the strength of Greenfield’s argument could be disputed, his premise should, if
nothing else, convince his readers that the process of evaluating and selecting presidential
candidates is very dynamic, complex and multidimensional. And while the impact of

television on this process has been significant, it should not be overstated.

The Role of Candidate’s Flaws or Negative Behaviors: Does

Something Positive Result From a Focus on the Negative?

As demonstrated in the literature review, while considerable attention and study have been
given to the increasing weight and importance of personal attributes in voters’ evaluations
of candidates, little has been devoted to the media and the voting public’s increasing

emphasis on candidates’ gaffes.

A powerful argument is made for “taking gaffes seriously as central objects of electoral
discourse,” by Lance Bennett (1981) in an academic article titled Assessing Presidential
Character: Degradation Rituals in Political Campaigns. Bennett contends that when gaffes
are viewed this way and taken seriously, they can “be shown to be the basis of clearly
identifiable ‘degradation rituals’ in campaigns.” He takes his argument a step further by
stating that, “Gaffes and the degradation sequences they can initiate may well constitute the

last predictable form of democratic accountability in our electoral process” (1981; pg. 310).

According to Bennett, degradation rituals literally certify that an individual’s public persona

meets the standards of the group or institution. “This certification is granted when

22
individuals are alerted to any features of their behavior that violate standards for their roles,

and when the offending member is able to repair the breach in ways that indicate mastery of
the role” (Bennett, 1981; pg. 313).

The degrading nature (image or character test) of campaigns has been noted by others,
many of which were cited in the literature review of this paper. This method of evaluation
also was frequently cited throughout the 1988 campaign. In a US. News & World Report
article, it is noted that “running for president is in every sense a test of stamina, poise and
character; and that it is the outcome of the test—more than controversy over issues—that
determines who will win the nominations and beyond that the presidency” (US. News &

World Report, 2/29/87; pg. 20).

Moreover, according to Bennett, the popular histories of campaigns are often written
around gaffes and their consequences. And while he mentions a few such incidents,
numerous others have been documented throughout history and as far back as 1884. In that
year, for instance, when James G. Blaine won the Republican nomination and the
Republicans discovered that Grover Cleveland—the reform-minded Democrat—was the
likely father of an illegitimate child, a Republican victory seemed inevitable. But Cleveland
won the voters’ respect by candidly admitting that the child might be his. He went on to

win that election.

Bennett also contends that the handling of such actions or incidents is also critical in our
evaluation of candidates and he factors this into his perspective and description of
W. This sequence and the communication process through which
gaffes are defined and addressed is as follows:

23
El Gaffes are identified and either formulated into complaints or dismissed as trivial

incidents. Gaffes become legitimate campaign issues when they can be defined in terms
of general norms about leadership and democratic accountability. Voters determine the
validity of such an action or behavior by examining whether the act is inconsistent with
the known norm of the campaign conduct. For example, they attempt to determine if
there is a crack or fatal flaw in a candidate’s publicly projected image. Not all gaffes are
legitimate campaign issues; and it is therefore important to distinguish gaffes that violate
important political norms or the publicly-projected image from those that represent

minor slips of little or no political importance.

“Carter’s 1976 remarks about the ethnic purity of neighborhoods was formulated as a
possible violation of major norms about race relations in America. A president’s failure
to adhere to such norms would undermine his credibility as a national leader. As a
result of the serious nature of this violation, Carter was forced to engage in an elaborate
series of attempts to demonstrate his commitment to social equality and integration”
(Bennett, 1981; pg. 315). It also, however, was a test of the validity of his publicly

projected image—who he was claiming to be, a compassionate liberal.

D The handling of gaffes or other such incidents also generates meaningful information
which is used to make practical judgments about the candidate. To the extent that
candidates can respond to these concerns in ways that minimize the gap between
expectation and perception of action, the issue can be resolved with a minimum of

damage to the candidate’s image and credibility.

The media apparently are beginning to go through a similar process of ascertaining when a

gaffe or flaw is a legitimate campaign issue, lending some credibility to Bennett’s premise.

24
This process is articulated in a Newsweek article titled, The Search For Personal Flaws:

Where to draw the line:

“The original idea behind character reporting is perfectly legitimate. Why find out
about a person’s flaws after he has reached the White House? Some journalists,
sensitive to the pitfalls in judging character, try out tests for what should be
reported. Can current or recent activity be expected to continue in the White House?
Even if minor in itself, does an incident fit into a familiar pattern that illuminates
more serious shortcomings? If a candidate does something out of keeping with his
public image, is it a small miscue or a sign of hypocrisy?” (Newsweek, 10/19/87;

pg.79)

Yet, most of the discussion to date has simply dismissed gaffes as trivial preoccupations of

a frustrated press or a bored public.

“The routine campaign coverage does not, however, fulfill the media’ 3 desire for

 

, , .. .. , or when a reporter
uncovers some newsworthy incident m a candidate’ 8 past. The newspapers and
newscasts may be filled with the incident for several days" By focusing on these
occasional dramatic incidents, the media adds drama to an otherwise unexciting
routine” (Marshall, 1981; pg. 72).

 

“We understand the problem. News is entertainment—ratings depend on it. Issues
are boring, not near the fun of candidate gaffes or campaign dissension” (Kamber,
6/15/87; pg. 8).

“And in 1976, as in 1968 and 1972, another apparent consequence of television’s
coverage emerged: the enormous significance of Wander. Shortly
before the opening of the 1968 campaign, Michigan Governor George Romney—
considered a major contender for the nomination—observed on a Detroit interview
show that he had been “brainwashed” on a trip to Vietnam. The wide dissemination
of that quote effectively destroyed Romney’s bid for the Republican nomination . In
1972, Senator Edmund Muskie denounced New Hampshire Union Leader editor
William Loeb in fiont of the newspaper’s offices; news film caught the emotionally
affected senator with what appeared to be tears on his cheeks. The incident was
widely blamed for Muskie’s disappointing showing in the New Hampshire
primary. And in the second 1976 debate, President Ford declared that Poland,
among other East European nations, dide not consider itself under Soviet
domination. e hea li 'c

on ‘Mt 10 r H 0 .s or": _r: --‘tt'r ..1"J.l-- 0

W” (Greenfield, 1982, pg. 18).

25

In describing the formulation of the “Ethnic Purity” gaffe into a campaign issue and the
handling of the it, Barber writes:

“The substance was not big news. The language was made big news...The
reporters smelled blood; the press was picking up on the language—too emotional
and controversial...The press, now tuned for verbal nuances, returned to the
subject ..Ethnic purity had acquired a life of its own—a symbolic life...The key
question became not what Carter had done or would do but who he was...Jody
Powell thought the press was more interested in how—whether he could handle the
problem than they were in whether he was a racist or not" .The staff got busy on
the strategy.. .The press would not let him alone until he took it back" .W

'DO'. 101“.” iaf'..".'|t’ Otto. -.Ob J”! 30040}:

“But in the age of the long campaign, the dash from primary to primary, and media
saturated politics, the odds that an exhausted and loquacious candidate would say
something silly had risen radically. So had the odds that the press, bleary- eyed
with boredom from listening to the same old speeches, would pick up on the
markedly unusual turn of phrase Wm

- hos" , kal’l or mro .0 .._-. ”k.....rr-rrt

mafia” (Barber, 1980; pgs. 197-198).

Some, however, have acknowledged the importance and usefulness of gaffes or mistakes
in the evaluation of a candidate. In Presidential Elections: Strategies of American Electoral
Politics, Polsby and Wildavsky argue:

“The campaign is about choosing a president. Since most issues are complex, and
most voters aren’t interested, the media seek issues that do double duty,
illuminating an area of interest and displaying a candidate’s fitness to govern.
Unfortunately a candidate’s mistakes can fall into this category, though what counts
as a mistake depends on what doubts about the candidate exist in voters’ minds.
President Ford’s advisors told him, based on considerable interviewing that many
voters who otherwise liked him thought he was not smart enough or sufficiently
competent or commanding. His remark about Poland not being under Soviet
domination, which he kept repeating because he did not want to seem to be
acquiescing to the fact on behalf of the United States, was a serious mistake and
hurt him so much because it hit him where he was vulnerable. His opponent,
Jimmy Carter, was vulnerable to charges of being arrogant and devious. This is
why the Playboy interview hurt him” (1984; pgs. 174-75).

26
And while Jeff Greenfield in one breath dismisses gaffes as a hungry media phenomenon,

in another breath he provides a powerful argument for why these incidents are important
and meaningful:

“Kennedy’s political wounds inflicted by the Chappaquiddick issue were not
created by “CBS Reports,” or by the flood of newspaper and broadcast questions
about the 1969 accident at the dike bridge. The wounds were a result of the incident
itself and the impression given by Ted Kennedy’s conduct, which no amount of
media manipulation or political rhetoric could erase. And the inarticulate Ted
Kennedy of “CBS Reports,”(1979) unable to talk sensibly or convincingly about
Chappaquiddick, was not the creation of Roger Mudd or of the CBS producers and
executives. The voters’ doubts about Ted Kennedy’s fitness for presidency did not
begin with the Mudd interview or the critical press that followed. W

0- ‘S'iW.i thug! ’ 11' .3 It 01:45... r ..H. .2 gr

" (1982. pg. 55).

 

In a interview about Reagan’s tussles with truth, James David Barber discusses Reagan’s
gaffes. While Barber does not discuss mistakes as they relate to a candidate’s performance
and evaluation in a presidential election, he alludes to their importance by suggesting the
danger of ignoring them. Barber, like Bennett, also apparently believes gaffes are
distinguishable and vary in their degree of severity:

“His gaffes are legendary. Did you know that there is more oil in Alaska than in
Saudi Arabia? Or that trees cause dangerous air pollution? Or that missiles launched
from submarines are recallable? These are just a few of the claims made by Reagan
that are patently false. And these are not just itsy-bitsy slips of the tongue, but
rather an indication of Reagan’s indifference to the facts in significant areas of
public policy. More insidiously, Reagan repeatedly has announced one policy in
public, while pursuing an opposite one in private” (People, 3/9/87; pg. 40).

27
Problem Statement

In reviewing the literature, it becomes quite clear that some aspects of Bennett’s theoretical
construct have been discussed at great length, and therefore, their significance has been
confirmed. Bennett’s contention about the prominence of gaffes and the image test in
presidential campaigns, for example, is well documented in the literature. Moreover, like
Bennett, many scholars and members of the media argue that a primary purpose of a
presidential campaign is to test the validity of a carefully-crafted, publicly projected image.
This popular perspective on candidate assessment explains the voters and media’s

increasing focus on candidates’ personal attributes and gaffes.

Yet, even with this increased focus and the significant amount of energy and time
candidates spend in efforts to repair their images by explaining their mistakes, few
recognize the important role that these degradation sequences play in our evaluation of
candidates. Few have analyzed, questioned or studied what these incidents and the
handling of them might reveal about candidates and how they will perform in office.
Bennett contends that because so much attention is paid to gaffes, they must reveal some

meaningful and useful information.

Recognizing the voter’s lack of understanding of this degradation process, we set out to
determine whether political practitioners (individuals directly or indirectly involved in the
process) actually acknowledged the concept of gaffes as a political reality and an evaluative
device in presidential campaigns. In addition, we wanted to ascertain whether they
differentiated gaffes in terms of their level of severity and whether they were in agreement
with the notion that the handling of gaffes also “provides meaningful information on which

to base and reformulate assessments of character” (Bennett, 1981; pg. 319).

28
Our rationale in doing this was the following: By first interviewing people who have

experienced or witnessed this degradation process, we would be better able to determine
whether this theoretical construct has meaning in the “real world.” If we determined that the
premise rang true to these professionals, it would lay the groundwork for further study;
perhaps the next step would be to perform a more scientific study of the premise that a very
important and often unrecognized purpose of presidential campaigns is to test the validity of
a candidate’s projected public image through an assessment of the incidence and handling
of gaffes.

The objectives of this research (interviews of practitioners) are as follows:

E . 'v Q] . . :

D To clarify what criteria are being used by the voting public to evaluate candidates, and
by doing this, to provide a better understanding of the purpose of presidential election
campaigns.

Cl To convince the viewer that the focus on candidates’ personal attributes and gaffes
reveals meaningful information which helps in assessing how a candidate will
perform in office.

Cl To demonstrate the media’s role and impact on how we evaluate candidates.

5 EE . D! . . :

D To make the public feel more positive about our selection process.

CI To increase the public interest about this as well as other political issues.

Behayioral Qbimfivesz

Cl To encourage the intention to discuss political issues.

D To encourage the public to participate in local and national politics.

C] To encourage the intention to vote.

METHODOLOGY

Identification of Issue of Importance

11 ’fi 15 11 [I E 1..” 1

Issue identified was the role of gaffes in the Presidential selection process. Interest in issue
was sparked by the increased focus on candidates’ personal attributes and gaffes during the
1988 presidential campaign and the voting public’s resulting disillusionment.

This disillusionment with the presidential selection process and the confusion regarding the
criteria being used to evaluate candidates became very apparent during the 1988 presidential
campaign and was reflected in numerous articles and commentaries by members of the
media at that time, including the following: The Shallow Sounds of Campaign ‘88 (U .8.
News & World Report 1/4/88); A Growing Sense of Disillusion (U .S. News, 5/18/87); A
Penny-Ante Game (Newsweek 2/15/88); What Makes a Candidate Presidential (Detroit
Free Press, 3/ 13/88); The Campaign Trail is Swarming with Locusts (James Kilpatrick,
syndicated columnist, 2119/88); Packaged Candidates Headed for Doom (James Gannon,
syndicated columnists, 10/5/87).

-. -_ {'1' o .i' 1' 'Vg 11211 or it. 0‘
Determined and analyzed what had been discussed, studied
matter by reviewing the following materials:

" U-.l'

and concluded about the subject

     

Ci Academic articles and studies;

0 Historical perspectives and accounts on past presidential campaigns by political
historians;

Cl Analysis and commentaries by members of the media; and

Cl Articles and books by practitioners—people who have been or are actually involved
in the process.

29

 

The framework for the production was determined after completing the literature review
and identifying a significant issue which had received little attention and warranted
additional study. The framework was based on a theory developed by Lance Bennett
(1981) in an article titled, “Assessing Presidential Character: Degradation Rituals in
Political Campaigns” (see description of his theoretical construct on pages 21-23).
Bennett’s theory was selected as the basis for the project primarily because of its
uniqueness and profoundness. Most of the academic literature - at least up until that time
(1987) — had addressed the focus on candidates’ personal attributes and character, but
neglected to explore why there was an increasing emphasis being placed on candidates’

negative behaviors or gaffes.

Bennett’s theory held some additional intrigue because it was also being alluded to in
articles written by members of the media. In an article titled “The Public Image and Public
Figures”, Daniel Schorr, a senior news analyst for National Public Radio, presented the
following argument: “At a time when public figures appear to be inventing themselves for
television, there is an iron law that you must live by the image you create for yourself”

(Schorr, 1987).

01--..1‘1 ' 0 #41143 O sn'ecv -. n c: t .I! ".9 -r' a. u n o o r. -' 117.94.! I u. A

With the issue of significance fairly well-defmed, the next step involved identifying the
most appropriate and effective method of exploring and testing Bennett’s theory. The
conclusion was reached that while his theory sounded rational and appeared to be well-
founded, it needed to be tested in the “real world.” In other words, while Bennett had
provided us with an interesting theoretical construct, its accuracy and applicability in the

actual evaluation of presidential candidates, however, had yet to be determined.

3 1
It was decided that the best way to determine the relevancy of this theory would be to

interview individuals who were or who had been directly or indirectly involved in the
process, but not limited to them. Through these exploratory interviews, an attempt was
made to determine whether practitioners acknowledged the concept of gaffes as an
evaluative device in presidential campaigns and whether they conceptualized these negative
behaviors on a continuum of severity. This in turn would help determine if there was an
informed common understanding of the term and, more importantly, if the interviewees
believed that gaffes should be “taken seriously as central objects of electoral discourse and

not as trivial preoccupations of a frustrated press” (Bennett, 1981; pg. 310).

In addition to these interviews, coverage of these incidents in previous presidential
elections would be examined to gain a better understanding of how members of the media

handled such incidents.

Selected Research Instrument and Presentation Format

Due to the exploratory nature of the research and with the cognitive, affective and
behavioral objectives in mind (see page 28), it was decided that the most effective method
of inquiring, documenting and presenting the material would be through the format of a
documentary. The complexity and intricacies of subject matter and the theoretical construct
also, to a great degree, determined the appropriate research instrument—which in this case

was again the documentary.

The following aspects or nature of the documentary outlines in greater detail the reasons

why this was selected as the preferred research instrument for this project:

32
W - The very nature of the research—to test a theoretical construct

and premise in the real world—demanded a research instrument with the best capacity to
accomplish the objective. According to Rabiger, “At its best, the documentary reflects a
fascination with, and a profound respect for, actuality” (1992; pg. 5). Wolverton presents
similar thoughts and comments, “ From the beginning the moving picture camera seemed a
natural instrument for mankind to discover itself. It was mobile and could look at reality
with unprecedented intimaCy” (1983; pg. 2). '

But Wolverton cautions, “ “The documentary does not describe and explain reality; it is part
of the interplay of beliefs and perception we call reality. What we observe and put on reels
is not reality itself, but reality exposed to our method of questioning... Documentary is a
container, it is not a content. The basic ground rules for producing documentaries must
revolve around intent and not around content that might be called reality. Reality comes into
the picture as a corollary of our intent” (1983; pgs. 25-26). Perhaps Rabiger puts it best
when he says, “ To me the value of the documentary process is that it affirms the
importance of imagination and empathy while simultaneously probing the depths of real life
for its meaning” (1992; pg. 11).

WW — In contrast to a rigid research instrument, such as a survey with a
standard set of unalterable questions, the documentary allows for greater flexibility and
observation. It allows for the exploration of a complex subject without forcing yes/no or
close-ended responses for the sake of quantifiable results and measurability. While a
standard set of questions was developed for the research particpants in this project, the
interviewing process allowed for great flexibility to tailor the line of questioning to each
participant and to probe on unexpected responses and angles. In addition, it was
determined that the documentary, would uncover nuances and intricacies of the theoretical

construct being tested that might otherwise be overlooked or unrecognized.

33

Simply put, the documentary allows for an in-depth study or analysis of important issues; it
goes beyond simply stating facts and findings and gives a perspective to events. And
because the subject matter being addressed was not cut and dry or black and white—tire

survey instrument, therefore, could not afford to be either.

W - The desired audience reach (the voting public ) and the

persuasive, move-to-action program objectives presented a stronger case for the use of
documentary as the research instrument. Rabiger distinguishes documentary from literature:
“ Because of the way literature is experienced, it is a contemplative medium. Reading is a
reflective and intellectual activity in which the reader, at his own pace and alone, shares the
mental and emotional processes of either the author or his characters. Film on the other
hand, is a dynamic experiencing in which cause and effect are inferred by the spectator
while the events are happening. This is not to imply that literature is less powerful, but
simply to assert the existential insistency with which the medium grasps the spectator’s
mind” (1992; pg. 13). In simpler terms he argues, “ Documentaries exist not just to act on
us intellectually but also to create a change in the way we feel about something” (Rabiger,

1992;pg.38)

Wolverton echoes the same sentiment, “The power of the visual medium allows for the
documentation of emotions as well as intellect. What we produce and then label
documentary must have a heart; it must have emotion as well as intellect” (1983; pg. 26).
While the issue being explored in this project was not as emotionally charged as, for
instance, programs addressing issues such as abortion, rape or AIDS, the intent of the
research was to still change the way people feel and think about a political issue—an area

people often have strong opinions and feelings about.

34
mm - The old adage—seeing is believing—provides perhaps the strongest

argument for the use of the documentary. Early in the process, it was decided that the
visual component of this vehicle/medium would enhance the message and material being
presented. Many of the incidents discussed in the literature review and the interviews had
been recorded by news organizations or documented for historical purposes and provided

concrete evidence of the degradation process in presidential campaigns.

Clqsmeflemmsnts

It is important to note that a decision about the specific documentary approach (narrative vs.
cinema) was not made until the editing process began. With respect to the approach, the
only decision made at the time was to phrase the questions and videotape the interviews in a

manner that would allow flexibility in the final decision.

Pre-Production
{rt-at... -. -n u 1,‘ 0, Hz ‘ -l: 0...! r‘ i '.9 or drto 21.1-0! 1.3... u‘.¢--.
IV'r=_"v 'LJ. 1:. it .' -I‘ ‘u' "i .‘ 0 -' vi '1 a- i‘ It)--." 0 0.0 'I'

The summary included the date and location of the incidents as well as an identification of
their severity (e.g. silly mistakes/remarks, legitimate campaign issues, major political
problems). The intent of this exercise was to determine if there had been considerable
attention paid to gaffes in past campaigns and if there was a correlation between the
perceived link of a gaffe to a crack in a candidate’s image and its severity and impact on the

candidate’s campaign effort. Some representative examples from this summary include:

Muskie ’s Crying Incident (New Hampshire, 1972)

Muskie was reported to have broken into tears during a speech in which he blasted a New
Hampshire newspaper editor/publisher for criticizing his wife. According to James David
Barber, until this incident, the image Muskie had with the great American public was

35

“Lincolnesque.” Barber also contends that reporters knew otherwise and many thought he
was emotional and had a roaring temper (Barber, 1988; pg. 338).

This gaffe could be categorized as major since it reveals a significant flaw and
inconsistency with publicly projected image. The loss of control by Muskie raised
questions about whether his tendency toward emotional outburst could potentially endanger
the country if he were elected.

Ford ’s Poland Blunder (I 976 — Presidential Debate with Jimmy Carter)

Ford insisted that Poland was not under Soviet domination. Broadcasters and columnists
played up the incident and interpreted it as a major blunder.

This was considered a major blunder because it put Ford’s intelligence and credibility in
further question.

Ford ’s Numerous Slips of the Tongue and General Clumsiness

Ford’s leadership capabilities and competence were constantly questioned because on
numerous occasions he had problems articulating and communicating his thoughts. These
minor slip ups, along with his general Clumsiness, became a major issue because of their
frequency and as Bennett notes, “they exceeded what many observers regarded as normal
and tolerable levels in a leader.”

Carter’s Ethnic Purity Comment (Interview with New York Daily News, April 1976)

In an interview with the New York Daily News, Carter said that low-income housing
projects ought to go mainly “where the housing is needed most—downtown areas of
deteriorating cities. Then in responding to a question regarding whether a black center city
could survive surrounded by all-white neighborhoods, Carter said he thought so and said:
“Provided you give people the freedom to decide for themselves where to live. But to
artificially inject another racial group in a community? I see nothing wrong with ethnic
purity” (Barber, 1978; Pg. 69).

This was considered to be a major blunder and a legitimate campaign issue because it raised
questions about whether his liberal talk was merely covering up his real reactionary nature.
It raised doubts about the validity of his publicly projected persona.

Kennedy ’s Criticism of Shah of Iran (1980)
Kennedy criticized the former Shah of Iran during hostage crisis and spent several days

clarifying his comments. This was considered to be a major blunder because it raised
questions once again about his judgment.

36
Geraldine Ferraro ’s Family ’s Personal and Financial Afi‘airs (1984)

Geraldine Ferraro’s troubles began when it was disclosed that she and her husband, New
York real estate entrepreneur John Zaccaro, inadvertently underpaid their joint 1978 income
taxes. The disclosures also detailed Zaccaro’s participation in a complicated real estate deal
that raised new questions about the already controversial financing of Ferraro’s first
congressional campaign” (Shapiro, 1984; pg. 20). This was to be a major gaffe, or
campaign issue because it put her integrity and honesty in question; and perhaps more
significantly, it put Mondale’s judgment in question.

Moreover the handling of the incident—the reaction to the degradation process—further
damaged the Mondale/Ferraro campaign. The following describes the unfortunate chain of
events that followed: “Along with the detailed financial disclosure statement mandated by
law, Ferraro had promised to provide the family’s tax returns. Then, little more than a
week ago, Zaccaro reneged on the deal. Ferraro then compounded her problems by using
an ethnic stereotype to explain Zaccaro’s turn about; ‘If you have ever been married to
Italian men, you know what it’s like’ “ (Shapiro, 8/27/84; pg. 20).

Biden ’s Bout with Plagiarism (I987)

Biden’s borrowing of words, without crediting sources—Robert Kennedy, Hubert
Humphrey and others—was considered to be a major gaffe because it went against the
grain of what he was purporting to be. His campaign image was that of an open, candid
candidate. And also because it underscored existing concerns about him being more style
than substance. Biden’s handling of the incident and his public confession did not help to
alleviate the problem because he only partially admitted to being in the wrong.

Gary Hart’s Extramarital Afiair(1987)

This was considered to be a major gaffe or character flaw. The issue was not so much his
extramarital affair, as that it revealed a crack or a fatal flaw in his publicly-projected image
of a “good family man.” Moreover, it confirmed the belief that his womanizing was chronic
and that the judgment be displayed was clearly relevant to his potential performance as
president.

ral vi i e
The initial treatment was intentionally general to maintain the exploratory nature of the
work. It provided enough of a framework, however, to help identify the groups which

needed representation to ensure for a balanced, objective program. The four primary

groups identified were: current or former presidential candidates; members of the media;

37
political consultants (campaign strategists/media consultants/pollsters/former press

secretaries); and academicians (political scientists & political historians).

Il 'filS 'fill"ll ll .1

To ensure for varying perspectives, an attempt was made to secure interviews with experts
from each of the four primary groups identified above. The initial “wish list” of potential
interviewees included the individuals in Figure 1. Their titles and affiliations as well as the

reason they were selected are also summarized in Figure 1.

WWW
Before making initial calls to targeted participants to determine their receptivity to being
interviewed, a strategy was developed to increase the probability of their involvement. The

key elements of this strategy were as follows:

C] Attempted to secure interviews with a couple of prominent individuals. This was a
critical aspect of the strategy because securing even one prominent individual would
lend instant credibility to the project and help convince targeted interviewees that the

documentary was an important issue worthy of their involvement.

Cl Contacted and generated interest in the program with a senior level professional with
PBS in Detroit who also had good contacts with National PBS. PBS expressed an
immediate interest in subject matter because of its relevance and timeliness and asked to
be kept informed of the progress of the program. PBS’s interest became part of our

sales pitch to the potential participants.

Ci Developed a concise, scripted explanation of the proposed program’s key issues and
objectives to increase the effectiveness of the pitch. The script included the academic

framework for the issue to be studied, but also included ideas and issues being

38
presented by members of the media. By blending academic theory with a “real world”

perspective, the issue would seem sexier and would increase its commercial appeal and,

therefore, the potential participants’ interest.

Researched each individual’s background and read significant materials they had
authored. By doing this, it was easier to communicate to each prospective ‘participant
specifically why they were selected and that significant thought went into their being
selected. This required very little effort since most of these individuals were selected
because of something significant they said, wrote or did.

Made a concerted effort to get a firm commitment and interview date and followed-up

with more detailed information about the program’s intent and issues.

39

.020... 800.80... 0... ..o 02808.2. 0... 3.88.8”.

.5895... .2815 ..0 08.83 2.3 830...... 302.2. 08.5000. 5:30.82

..ebOum
0... ..0 02m .050 2...... .00.. a... 2 3.80.0... 0280......2. me...08.... .5080... 8.0...
0 2... 330...... 5.....an 0 8 2.0 8:08. a 0.. I 00.8.. 0... .0 82. 53 ..e .80.. 8...

630.. mm0 8.. 3028...»..8 00820.0.
0 0.. 2.0 0...... 2 8.88. a 0d .8383 8.. 60.13.... .3390 .30.. .08... 0 8..

2.2.00.8 .8 ma bee .9. totem .020... 0... .0 8.28:. a 0.0 .05 .8880. an»... a an .830.
.53.an a 2 02.22.00 128200... 0 00880.00. 9.2.... 03.02.82. 02...... «meta

.3000... 00.8.8800 .23 8.8.830 80.5
..0>..00..m.0.. 028.80.. 2... 2.8... 3:08.50:

8.00.2.0
2.0 8.02.20 3.8.8.. ..o 2.00.. 0... 2... «.800... 00.8.8800 0... .23 8.8.89.0 80.5

8.00.2.0
2... 832...... 1000.2. .8 300.. 0... 2... 0.0.000... 3.8.8.300 0... .23 8.8.89.0 80.5

8.00.2.0
2.0 832...... 1:88.. ..o 2.0.... 0... 2.0 .0000... 520330.. 0... .23 8.8.89.0 80.5

8808.8
28 852...... 1:88.. ..o «:08 0... 2.0 .0000... 00.83300 0... .23 8.8.89.0 825

...003.302 2 8.1.8 82.0.0 .8 .0 ..5 .50.. ..e 85.3.80 8 «.00..
+w 8.. .0020. 9.20.. 8.8280... 0 2.0 08> .0 80808.82 .0 .028 2... 80.5880

8.. 5.3 888850 .250

..aeo.mm0.o...
1.02.9. .8883 .E00. .5..an0 .20.... ..0 8.28.2 88......

use... .838 .582...
.8 8028.. .2... 0.5.0.5... 20... 90.02.80 8.. 8.9385 102.9.

.880 has... 2 b.3088 30.... 8.50...

.2:202 023. 0.5 13.02.83
.8 .302 ....> 805.0 2... 20... 2800 9 588m 30.... 88.0..

0822.00 32.0200... 88.0..

5.8%.: .822... .853. 32.0.5.2.

802.0... 2... 0822.00 32.02.05 88.0..

2.0000

EB. 50.03.00.800 2... 0822.00 83.82.25.003 8.50..

.828... 2... 0.02.050 3.82.0... 85.0...

2.028... 2... 0822.00 1282.0... 85.0...

03.83 .3.
8.00... :33.

5.5.0.5 >283

:35. .8.

.8807. com
5.. 5..

538...... 225
so... 2220
08.8.... 022080
.050 8......

5.5 02000

 

00.8.8 102.9. .23 E098... 028.800 1.82.8... 0 50.. 8 02.02.82. 00.2.... 3...... 80.89.82 802—0.. .e .028 0.02.0.0 .500 .38.? 8:02.50
88.... 008.0. 2... 0.... ..o 8.09.80
an. 0... 9.2... 8.020 2.088.... 08.3 2.0 020... 0... .0 0282.300 0... 8.8.8.8... 0.003.302 .02.? .o...0m 8..< 5530..
3.2.28 .3. £2... 2. 5.9.58 >9 8. ..eeez 8.8.220 ..a 8.8%.
.0 8.0.. a uEEooon 83 0.3.2.00 a 9.28 .8...» 20... 0... .8880 88.3.80 00.8.08 83.8.50 22.00.00.550 2.0 .32.... 8.2 8&3.
.8803 3:080: 333.533.... 1.2.5...—

. MMDOE

40
UV] 11' “.112”

After these initial calls were made, a list of likely participants was prepared and submitted
to a committee for review. The individuals on this list can be found in Figure 2. It is
important to note that because of the nature and timeliness of the our subject matter as well
as the national prominence of many of the targeted interviewees, there were unique
challenges that had an impact on the final group of selected participants. These challenges

included accessibility issues and time and budgetary constraints.

E E l E. l I . [E . .
Confirmed targeted participants’ willingness to participate. The likely list of participants
became the final or actual list of program participants. The list included all individuals on
Figure 2.

v e e
Once the list of likely participants and the general television treatment had been approved
and finalized, the next step was to begin researching past television network coverage of
the issue and to contact national archives and networks to secure video footage of the

relevant incidents.

I! 'fil IE] 19] Vi “.1
At this time, the identification and gathering of other visual aids (other relevant video) was
necessary. Relevant movies, past magazine covers, general historical video, etc. were
identified and the process of obtaining rights to some of these aids was initiated. A more
concrete decision regarding the necessary, supporting video footage obviously could not be
made until most of the interviews had been completed and a rough draft of the script had
been prepared.

1..
4.

080.00 030 ..0... 0000.60 0. ..000080000 000.00»:

0. 8.050. ..83 .0... 30.. 000 0.0... 880 0...... 8.00080. 0... 000 80.02.00 .0 0000000000
.0080. 0... 88000.0 00...... 0.00.. ..0... .3 000.80.. .888. 9.0000080 0.080000 A0008.00”.

.200.» 0... .0 00.» 8.00 00...: ..000 a... 0. 00.008... 2.0000080 »008.0.0. 000.080..
08.0 0 000 850.0... 5.00.000 0 m0 000 8.800. 0 8 I 0000. 0... .0 80... .00.. .8 000.. .0...

.0300 »00 .0. 800808.80

00.00.08. 0 m0 000 0.00. 0. 8.800. 0 8 03.83 8.. 60.0 .00 .00000.00»8 .300 8.0.0.
0 .0. 2.00008 00 00 ..00 .00 00.8» 0.000. 0... .0 8.0000. 0 8 000 0.0.080. 08.0 0 .0 09.8..
000 5.00.000 0 0. 0.00.0000 .00000.8.0 0 00.88.00. »0.>0.. 30000.80 000.00 50....

050.0... .8280 .00.. .00 »0.m...0>00 0. 000050.000 .0».00.000 »». »0....0 80.0
8.0000 .3 ....8000.. 00.000 0.0020000 .00000.8.0 w». 0.0.00 000 »0.0...00. 8.00.0000
8.00. .088... 02008.00. 00.. 000 0.000. 0... .23 »0..000 000 »00.00. 50.... 0. 00>.0>0.

0.00... .000000 000 0.0... 0.000.. 0.

00.. 8.. 000 8..0» 0002 0.00.0000 .00000.8.0 0 »0.0... .0 ..8».. 0.0 .23 0000.808 82.0

850.0... .8280 00250022200000: .008008. :03

880.000

.0 8.00.0.0 0.00.80 00 .000. 0... 000 8000.0 000000500 0... .23 0000.808 .00..0
808.0800 5.00800 .0 03800.80 0... 3008.00. .0808 .23 m<

0.003.302 0. .9205. 00000.0 000 «:00 00 8000.000 8
0.00.. +» .0. 03.0.. »0.>0.. 88280.0 0 000 30> .0 80850002 .0 .0000» 000 80008000
0000.0» .3280 .23 0.8.0.0.. 0.080000 0.000.000 0 .00.. .0 30000.80 000.00 50....

8000.. 00000.0( 0. 08...... 08.0 000 00.... .. .30.00000. 0.... 30..
.0 0.00. 00.8. .....»0.00..00. 50.00.00 300 0... .0 .0000.00... 0.00.50. 0... .0 02800.80...
.800» 058.000 0.0 2.0080 80.02.00 .00... I 8.0030... 9.00008... 0 80.8.0 ..000

.808. 00.0.0. 000 0.... 00

5.00.000 m». 0... »0.0..0 8.00.0 808.000 0.0.... 000 0.000. 0... .0 30000.80 0... $008.00..

........00...0.. 000 80.02.00
00000.0(... .0 20.00000 .080008» .000000 0»:

8:00 .000... 0. 00.0.00» .8... 8.08..

0.83.02 0.00... 000 .0802 .83 .0. .302
.0.> .0280 .08.... 0.080 0. E0880» 80.... 8.0.0...

0...". »0..08>0<
0.02.00 .23 80.8800 0.003. 000000000
0.00.0000 00000.8...

8.00000.
5.00.000 000.80... .0 882.0 850.00» .000000

80000 .00.. 00803085000
0.00.0000 .00000.8...-00.> 80.8..

30.00080 .0. ...»0.0..» 000 .00....800 0.002

80850002 .8280 .0 .0000» 08000.0 .0000

00...... .82 0.... .0 8.03.

803.302 8.03 8.00»

.8... 8.800
000 »...0.0> 0.00000.

:03... .8.

00802 00..

0.0.02 .88.:
008.00.. 0.8.. 50..
0.2.0.00 00...?
0.0.8". 00.20.00
0.»0m. 00.. .

00.8.2. 8000......0

»00.....0.< 0.000...

.004. 000.000..

 

0800.0» 0.000000.—

00..0.....<\0....—.

N .0030...

100.20..—

 

This was one of the most critical steps in the process due to the specific, focused nature of
the subject matter and the fact that there was only one opportunity to get the necessary
information from the interviewees. In preparing the questions, the first conclusion reached
was that there would be a general. line of questioning used for all the interviews and
additional tailored questions for most of the participants. One general line of questioning
was prepared on the defining, incidence and handling of gaffes and a second one was

prepared on the media’s role and impact.

W (The defining, incidence and handling of gaffes.)

1. How do you define a political gaffe or blunder?
2. When does a gaffe become a legitimate campaign issue?
3. What determines the severity of a gaffe?

4. What is the normal, tolerable level of gaffes, blunders or slip-ups in a presidential
campaign?

5. If any, what sort of useful information do gaffes convey or reveal?

6. What is the most appropriate response strategy to a gaffe or slipcup?

7. Do different situations warrant different response strategies? If yes, why?

8. Can a candidate minimize the damaging effects of a slip-up? If so, how?

9. What is the optimal method or strategy for recovery?

10. What types of useful information does a candidate’s handling of a gaffe provide?

1 1. Are there different tolerance levels or expectations for different types of candidates?

43
WW (Media’s role as referee.)

1 . Often the media serve as referee and expose flaws or cracks in a candidate’s publicly
projected image. Is this an appropriate role? If yes, why?

2. What do you believe the media’s role should be?
3. Do the media ever get out of bounds? If yes, how?

4. What is television’s influence on this kind of coverage/evaluation?

Specific media-related questions were also developed for former and current presidential

candidates and former press secretaries. They included questions such as the following:

For Candidates:
Do you feel the media treated/treats you fairly?

For Press Secretaries; (Jody Powell interview example)

In your book, The Other Side of the Story, you state, “Perhaps more important the media
also fails to provide the nation with the quantity and quality of reasonably accurate
information its citizens need to make the decisions necessary for self-govemment.” Yet
according to Mr. Wooten of ABC, Carter managed to give the perception of being an
issues-oriented candidate while avoiding taking a real substantive position on most issues.
Do the campaign strategists and the candidates, themselves, encourage the media’s focus

on the personal?

E 1 E .1 l I. 1'
To keep production on schedule, a timeline was prepared for all phases of production.

Production

If I 1 3 I] S '1]
As soon as materials (old magazine covers/recent newspaper headlines/color photographs
of candidates/etc.) were obtained, they were videotaped so they would be available when
the editing process began. Different techniques were used to record the images to allow for
flexibility in the editing process. For example, some shots panned across the image, while

others zoomed in or out from the image.

W

All interviews were taped over a two week period in either New York or Washington. The
crew included a interviewer, a camera/audio professional and a production assistant. The
set-up for each interview took approximately thirty minutes, and the crew made very effort

to keep work disruption to a minimum.

Post Production

I .1 1 9 11 I . w
All interviews were transcribed word for word to ensure that all thoughts were recorded.
When the tapes had been transcribed they were shared with some members of my thesis
committee for review. They reviewed the transcribed interviews and identified the

comments they thought had the most relevance and were the most compelling.

W
This exercise was undertaken to determine the delivery quality of some of the quotes/sound

bites identified. Areas focused on included the audio quality, the speed of delivery, the

general physical appearance and the energy-level of the individual delivering the message.

45
After these sound bites were analyzed, all interviews were viewed several times, to gain a

better sense of the overall material and the keys points captured in each interview.

W

This provided a quick reference point for easy access and gave us a general sense of the
program time, with each draft of the script. Logging all significant comments was critical
since the goal was to get the production aired and the program, therefore, had a set time
limit of 27 minutes. In addition to the actual interviews, it was also necessary to log all the
supporting video (B-roll) we had obtained from Vanderbilt Television News Archives and
Channel 50 as well as any other video obtained.

The Vanderbilt material included video such as the Ford ethnic blunder; coverage of the
Gary Hart and Donna Rice drama; Biden’s plagiarism of a Hubert Humphrey speech;
Jimmy Carter’s “ethnic purity” and “lust in my heart” blunders; Muskie crying; etc. The
Channel 50 material included video of the following: past Democractic and Republican
National Conventions; Dukakis campaigning and appearing ridiculous in an army tank;
Patricia Schroeder crying; a news story on the commercial packaging of George Bush, etc.

WWW

Again, the goal was to avoid developing any pre-determined conclusions about the subject
matter. This being the case, the specific program content was not outlined until all the
interviews were conducted and studied closely. If, for instance, it was determined that
these practitioners did not acknowledge the concept of gaffes or blunders, and more
specifically, their role in American presidential campaign politics, the program content and
its overall message would change significantly. The final program outline was the

following:

46
1. Open.

11. Definition of Gaffe of Blunder.

III. Exploration/Determination of whether voting public and the media are looking for
candidates who are perfect are merely straightforward and consistent.

IV. Exploration/Determination of why the voting public is giving more weight to
candidates negative behaviors in their evaluation of presidential candidates. The
following reasons are presented:

0 The professionalization of politics. (With the emergence of media consultants,
political strategists, and pollsters perhaps the voting public have become
suspicious and skeptical about flawless or perfect appearing candidates.)

0 The nature of the medium of politics (presidential campaigns) which is television.

0 The relationship of gaffes to character.

V. Focus on the incidence and handling of gaffes in presidential elections.

VI. Providing of perspective by categorizing gaffes and placing them on a continuum of
severity.

[E15 ]V' [5.

E. l. 15 .
(See Appendix A.)

PROGRAM RESULTS

Introduction—Gaffes: Theoretical Concept or Political Reality?

Both the literature and the program interviews provide considerable support for the idea that
gaffes are a political reality to be acknowledged and a force to be contended with during
presidential campaigns. While other terms may be used to describe these incidents
(blunders, slips, flaws, mistakes, loss of control, negative behaviors, political problems,
etc.), the concept or notion is captured quite frequently (especially in academic literature) by
the term gaffe.

What was particularly interesting in the interviews is that while all the participants initially
defined the term differently, it became apparent as each of the discussions progressed that

most were in agreement with respect to when such incidents are legitimate campaign issues.

In addition to the universal acknowledgment of the political reality of gaffes, the
degradation process or sequence that usually accompanies these incidents is also widely

recognized and understood.

However, the purpose of this degradation process and its importance in voters’ evaluation
of candidates is not as well understood. While the interviewees identified some instances
when this process provides meaningful information on which to evaluate candidates, it was
clear that most believe the process is primarily a result of scoop—hungry media and the

nature of today’s political stage (television)—-entertainment.

47

48
The following section highlights the points made by the interviewees in the program. It also

includes some of their comments that were not part of the program. Anasterjskfli)
. 1° w] l . . l .

Differentiating Gaffes: Silly Slips-Ups, Legitimate Campaign
Issues or Major Political Problems?

When asked when a gaffe becomes a legitimate campaign issue, Jody Powell (Former
Press Secretary for President Carter) responded: “If it seems to fly in the face of what is
being projected by the candidate, then it needs to be examined to see if it is telling us
something about this person that has been kept hidden.”

And while Jonathan Alter (Senior Writer for Newsweek) uses different terminology, he
also places these negative actions or behaviors on a similar continuum of severity. “I think
that some political problems, if you want to use a broader term, resonate and have nine
lives because they cut to a character issue. In the case of Ted Kennedy, people thought
Chappaquiddick raised a character issue. It was not a temporary consideration; a temporary

slip of the tongue.”

Michael Murphy (Media Consultant for Republican Candidates including Bob Dole)
“Well I think gaffes are often loose remarks. They can be a harmless loose remarks or
something silly like Carter speaking at the Democratic convention and saying ‘Hubert
Horatio Homblower’. I think that is an honest legitimate slip-up. I do not think that is an
issue or a story. On the other hand, if somebody makes a racist comment by mistake, or
something that is cruel or vindictive, I think that is an issue. I think the Hymie town remark

Jesse Jackson made was more than a gaffe. I think that was a legitimate issue.”

49
Geraldine Ferrarro (Vice-Presidential Candidate)

“1 think a gaffe becomes a serious political problem when it puts the person’s ability to lead
in question. A gaffe like Joe Biden’s using Neil Kinick’s speech doesn’t really say much
about his ability to lead...and when I said, ‘oh you know how Italian men are’, meaning
that we are very private people. And oh, what a reaction people had to it. I found the
reaction absolutely surprising. I think if it is something like the discussion of President
Ford not realizing that Poland was a communist state or George Bush toasting Marcos as a
great defender of democracy, I think those are gaffes that have much wider implications. I
mean these two guys who were either President or running for President of the United
States, do not have the slightest idea what foreign policy is all about.”

Sam

The interviewees (practioners) all defined the term gaffe a bit differently and had a tendency
to discuss these incidents in broader terms. It appears that the term “gaffe” has broader
meaning, acceptance and use in academic circles. Yet, at the same time, the program
participants acknowledged the importance of these negative incidents and behaviors in the
assessment of candidates and were able to differentiate them by placing them on a
continuum of severity. Simply put, they acknowledge, accept and confirm the existance
and importance of the degradation process in the presidential selection process if not the use
of the term gaffe.

Handling Gaffes: Part of the Degradation Sequence?

Ron Nessen (V.P. Mutual Radio Network and Former Press Secretary to President Ford)
“We have a ritual in the press and that is any public figure who makes a mistake or gaffe,

or what they think is a gaffe, is required to go through this ritual of public confession. You
have to admit it publicly. If you acknowledge publicly that you made a mistake, apologize,
and then the story goes away. Ford had his problem of Poland and Jimmy Carter had his

50
problem with the Playboy magazine, saying that ‘I’ve lusted in my heart’. And he had to go

through the same ritual which is to stand up in public and say: I am sorry I made a mistake

and then it goes away.

“In Ford’s case, there was a late night press briefing after the debate in San Francisco
where he made the gaffe. Brent Scocroff, who was the National Security Council Advisor,
was the briefer at that time. If he had said the president made a mistake and asked me to
apologize and tell you that he understood. It was a slip of the tongue. He said the wrong
thing. He is really sorry, and of course he understood that the Soviet Union dominates
Poland. That’s really the only way to minimize these problems—acknowledge them
quickly and immediately.”

Mark Lotwis (Assistant Director, Campaign Management Institute) *

“Candidates have to respond when they make a mistake or slip-up. They have to come back
and tell the voters and the media what the explanation for the action is. Either they have to
deny it, or if it is something they did do and it’s serious enough, usually I would
recommend to admit to it and provide an explanation. They have to come out and say: I did

it. I am sorry and I am not going to do it again.

“Because I think the voters are smart. They will determine whether it is important enough
to them to make them not vote for the candidate. One thing we try to emphasize at the
institute is that you should never underestimate the voter. They are real people, they not

what is going on and they are really into the character issue.”

Wilma Goldstein (Political Consultant & Director/The American Campaign Academy)
“The recovery process from that shows a lot more about the person, usually at that point,

than the actual mistake. I mean we all, everybody knows you make mistakes. The fact that

5 l
the Ford campaign, during the 1976 campaign, took two to three days to make a statement

about the incident, I think showed some qualities that made people feel uncomfortable
about his leadership...When Geraldine Ferraro had that news conference and said, ‘I want
to talk to you about these accusation and charges.’ She met them head on and got a whole
lot of credit.

“It’s sort of letting people know what kind of stuff are you made of. Are you gutsy? Are
you going to be straight? Are you going to be tough? Are you going to deal with issues
quickly? That is what I think is really most important about mistakes—how you recover
from them, because that is what people really test—what you are going to be like in a job

that takes tough, quick decisions.”

m

In both the literature review and program findings, there is considerable support for the
premise that the handling of these negative incidents and behaviors (the degradation
process) generates meaningful information on which to evaluate and assess a candidate. In
the literature review (see page 9) perhaps Stephen Hess articulates it best by stating, “What
you need in office is a man who can cope with situations as they arise...So in place of a
checklist we insist that a potential president run an obstacle course...The candidates must
make a decision, quickly in full public view. An in watching the candidates in the act of
making decisions we are given the opportunity to learn something about them, something
that is useful in trying to assess how they might respond to sudden crisis if they were in the

White House.”

With respect to the interviewees, all parties represented (former press secretaries, current

political consultants and strategists as well as analysts and members of the media) are in

52
agreement with respect to the importance of the handling of such incidents. They also agree

that often the handling generates more meaningful information than the actual incident

itself.

Focus on the Negative: Partially a Result of Image Making and
Manipulation and the Subsequent Need to Test Publicly-
Projected Images?

Ron N essen

“A lot of public figures will tell you the way to make the public stop and re-exarnine your
image, to stop and say hey wait a minute, is do something that is completely out of keeping
with that little package that was presented on television. Do something totally out of
keeping with that and then people have to stop and re-examine you, and in that re-

examination, maybe they get a more accurate picture.”

Jonathan Alter

“I think there are a couple ways gaffes can resonate and take on larger importance. One
way is if a candidate does something completely out of character, seemingly different than
everything that he or she has been preaching or projecting (image). And then it resonates,

because it cuts against the grain about what people understand about that candidate.”

Rob Engle (Media Consultant and Strategist for Democrats)

“Image in politics. For candidates or for political consultants that try to construct images
from people that aren’t real, what happens is they become false in front of the public. That
does not mean every candidates does it. We have a saying and that is: Do not underestimate
the intelligence of the American voters or over-estimate their interest in the American
political process. Voters are smart. They will see through any armor, shield, image that is
projected by a candidate.”

53

Richard Armstrong (Author of The Next Hurrah: The Communications Revolution In
American Politics)

“This whole concept of image is nothing new either. It goes back hundreds of years. Look
at Lincoln, for example, who ran in 1860, as a man right out of the Frontier, ‘Old Abe the
Log Splitter’, who just walked right out of the woods and right into the White House. That
is the way he was portrayed to the American people. But, he was a professional lawyer and
had run for office many times. So, we have been creating false images in politics for some
time now. The effect of television interestingly enough is that we can’t get away with that
stuff the way we used to. Much has been said about the power of television; about the
power of the eye that is looking at me right now; about it’s ability to see into my soul and

determine whether I am a decent person or not.”

Mark Lotwis

“I think that when you talk about what kind of image you are going to create for a
candidate, you are talking about highlighting mainly what qualities they have already. And
anytime you try to gloss over, you try to define somebody in a way that they are not truly,

it will catch up to you later in the campaign.”

Other Reasons for Degradation Process and Focus on the
Negative?

W

Mark Lotwis *

“I think in many ways these matters are more important to them than specific issues——
because of their character. And by looking at these things, you can determine whether they
are going to do the right thing and not go off and do something wacky.”

54

Jonathan Alter

“The Presidential selection process has become an initiation, a marathon, a series of tests,
or a rite of passage. All of us are placing our lives in the hands of a President. And in the
reality of modern day politics, we should scrutinize them as intensely as possibly. But, I
think it also reflects experience with previous Presidents, where reporters say to
themselves: Why should we and our readers and viewers find out about this guy’s
character flaws after he is president? Why not try to find out about them before he is
President?”

“Having been through Nixon, Johnson, even some of the lesser character flaws of Carter
and Reagan, there was a sense that it was important to find out as much as possible before
the person is elected. I would say that the question that most voters ask themselves before
they go into the voting booth is a variation on: Do I trust this guy to land the plane safely?
Do I think that if there is a rainstorm, he can bring it down safely and we can walk off into

the night safely?”

Jody Powell

“Well I think that it was almost inevitable. We had a very turbulent decade and a lot of the
controversy had to do with questions about candor and truthfulness and so forth for the
high office. And so, in the 1976 election, people were going to be concerned about how a
President would behave in circumstances that were above and beyond simple questions of
policies. I would also argue that character, in its broadest sense, has been a major part of
American elections, particularly in presidential elections...And so, voters, I think to a great
extent, basically ask a fairly simple question, but a difficult one which is: Is this the sort of

person that I want to turn my business over to and all that it implies.”

55

Jonathan Alter “It is very hard to get a scoop in presidential politics. You essentially
have too many reporters chasing too few stories and with too little time and space to

explore them in their proper context.”

Ron Nessen “It is much easier to spend your minute on television showing a guy falling
down, than it is to spend your minute on television analyzing why we have suddenly
dropped into a recession...or what we’re going to do about the energy problems—you

know those complex issues.”

“Ford went to deliver his major agricultural speech at Iowa State University and when he
began the speech, he said: “I’m really glad to be here at Ohio State,” and then be corrected
himself. And that night on television, all the networks showed that trivial slip of the

tongue, instead of even a single sentence about his farm policy.”

Jody Powell “And journalists when they are honest, and sometimes we are, will admit
that on the whole journalists find issues to be boring. And they also believe with some
justification that the American voters find issues boring. And despite all we say as
Americans about how we want more information; we want it to be more substantive; we
want it to be more specific. When they start to do that, our eyes glaze over, we switch the

channel, we flip the page and go on to the next story.”

Michael Murphy “1 think it’s to some extent, the specter of entertainment news. If you
are in that situation, let’s say you are senior producer for a news network, national news.
And you have got a choice between doing a piece of Mike Dukakis slipping on a banana

peel today or tripping down the stairs of the campaign plan—you are going to look at the

56
footage, and you are going to know that ratings determine whether or not your parent

company makes money, which is whether or not you get advanced to being executive
producer of the news, and you are going to get the banana peel story ready to go. Because
news is still the news business. And while the other issues do get some coverage, because
there is a lot of journalist ethics involved, there is a show business aspect to it. It is
television. There must be funny pictures and gaffes. And gaffes offer good funny

pictures.”

Rob Engle “The nature of the medium of politics, which is television, has changed the
focus of campaigns more towards the individual than towards the issue. Not just television

as in paid media but also in earned media”

Jesse Jackson “Sometimes the media is not a watchdog, it’s a bulldog. Sometimes it

bites people. And, sometimes it does so with blinders on its eyes.”

Richard Armstrong “Satellites are enabling smaller television stations to cover
presidential campaigns, where in the past they would have to depend on a network feed.
Nowadays, satellites with minicams, with the ability to have what they call a mobile up-link
truck in order to film something on the spot, and send it up to the satellite and then back to
your local television station...in a small town like San Jose, California or something like
that. Enables them to send reporters on the bus with the candidate, enables them to send
reports to the presidential campaign. The up-shot, indeed, is that you have got a lot more
reporters in this game. And I think that probably does have an effect on them all chasing

these little stories.”

57
Summary

Again, the program observations and findings support the reasons suggested in the
literature review for this focus on the negative and the resulting degradation process. The
reasons put forth can be summarized in three broad categories, which are all really

somewhat interrelated and include:

D The professionalization of politics (e.g., the emergence of political consultants and
image makers) and the resulting need to assess the credibility of a candidate’s publicly
projected image or persona and to ask ourselves whether or not this person can
simply be trusted. In presidential campaigns today the media and the voting public
constantly challenge the credibility gap between what candidates say and what they
do.

D In a similar but slightly subtler vein, the increasing importance placed on candidates’
character in the evaluation process. Both the literature and the program suggest the
importance of finding out about candidates’ character flaws before they are elected,
and that this focus generally generates more meaningful information about the

candidates’ than do their issue stands and policy pronouncements.

D The medium of politics——television.

PROGRAM EVALUATION

Background of Evaluations

An objective, diverse committee of professionals was assembled to evaluate how
effectively the program tested and explored Bennett’s theoretical construct in the “real

world.” This committee included the following professionals:

Robert Albers is Executive Producer of local programming at WKAR-TV, Michigan
State University (MSU) Public Television, and is the Video Specialist on the faculty of the
university Department of Telecommunication. He has extensive experience in television
production as a producer, director, cameraperson, writer and editor. Mr. Albers also
teaches television production at MSU and manages the video production facilities for the
Telecommunication Department. He has produced and directed documentaries, directed
multi-camera orchestra programs, and worked extensively in public affairs programming.
In addition, he has served as the executive producer of governmental affairs programs as
well as programs concerning sports and the arts—with many programs receiving awards
and widespread distribution, both nationally and internationally. His awards include two
regional Emmy nominations and a PACEmaker Award of Excellence in 1990. He has
received numerous others over the past decade including recognition at the American Film
Festival and the Athens Film and Video Festival. He also is active as a consultant and

independent producer/director.

Donovan Reynolds is the Executive Producer of Michigan At Risk, a public television
series exploring key issues affecting the state. The series is now in its fourth season.
Reynolds is also the Executive Director and chief political correspondent for MPRN. As the
first Executive Director of the network, he has provided leadership in guiding its rapid

growth. Organized in 1984, MPRN has expanded from a one-person operation to a
' 58

59
full-fledged news organization with bureaus in Detroit and Lansing and special reporting

units covering the arts, humanities, business and economics.

Before retuming to Michigan, Mr. Reynolds was the Executive Director of California
Public Radio in San Francisco. He has won several major media awards, including the
Armstrong Award for Excellence in PM Broadcasting, local program awards from the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting and United Press International awards from

investigative and feature reporting.

Lisa Whiting is a producer/director with WKAR-TV - a public television station
affiliated with Michigan State University. In this role, she serves as the producer/editor for
Michigan At Risk - A documentary series developed by Michigan Public Broadcasting and
distributed to public television stations throughout the state. She also is the
producer/director of numerous other programs for broadcast on WKAR-TV. Many of her
programs have received national awards. Ms. Whiting has a MA. in Telecommunications

with an emphasis on video production.

g...‘ n; 3‘ or '. .n' 9 Montana. -_ fiat-nos tar '4 'r in -__.'.0_ o r' r.-
H', 0V' ° I .r' in r-..” H u. 0 Dr .' :er .I’ ”10...; 1.1.. gunk-J

H‘ _'V o 1‘ Lu amt. an ‘ 1-.-'._.l '4..0‘ -r‘ 11'. mgr: ‘vr‘ angry. .,)

60
General Comments Regarding Program Content and Message

Observation

It was apparent that the subject matter was WWW. A well-
thought out and founded historical perspective was provided. The quantity and quality of
examples (candidate’s gaffes and blunders) helped to enhance and support this perspective.

Beams:
Every attempt was made to identify, locate, and obtain concrete examples of the types of

incidents to be discussed to help the audience better understand the program content.

Observation

The existence of the gaffe and the press’ emphasis on it is clearly presented, but the actual
impact on the campaign is never discussed. What happened to Ford after the Poland
gaffe—did he lose ground on the polls? Has the impact actually been assessed? In which
cases did the gaffe or gaffes make a difference? Why? In which cases did the candidates

control the impact and move forward? How did they do it?

Response
While there are indirect references to the impact of specific gaffe’s on campaigns (e. g. the

many references to Ford’s Poland blunder, the handling of that blunder, and the fact that it
became a major campaign issue), the program would have been enhanced by the use of
concrete examples and such an analysis. While the decision to limit narration partially
impacted our ability to include such an analysis, this aobservation lso reveals an area of

weakness in our pre-production reserach and preparation.

6 1
Observation

Overall, the program content was fairly clear—to examine/explore the role of gaffes in our
evaluation of presidential candidates and how the media have facilitated and encouraged the
voters’ interest in and focus on these incidents. The message became somewhat blurred
with the introduction of image manipulation and consultants and the new technologies in

television.

Perhaps the program tried to address too many issues. While the link of image making and
manipulation to gaffes is understood, it introduces a topic which warrants additional and
separate study. The medium of television is not suited for exploring issues in any great
detail and demands a simple storyline. Realistically, a program should not attempt to

achieve too many objectives.

W
More narration throughout the program might have helped to more effectively communicate

the intended program content and message. In addition, perhaps a longer program (one

hour versus 30 rrrinute program) would have better accommodated the issues to be covered.

Observation
The program does a good job of presenting and weaving together various points of view

and personal reactions to mistakes and problems.

Resume

Every attempt was made to let the material tell the story and not to force our perspective or
interpretation on the viewers. The representation of the media, campaign consultants and
strategists, candidates and primary advisors to candidates contributed to the program’s

objectiveness.

62
Observation

The combination of archival footage and interviews with well know politicians is effective.
But two perspectives that are either missing or underrepresented are those of the voter and
the media, respectively. Questions which need to be addressed include: Why did the media
emphasize specific incidents? How did this emphasis impact voters?

W
With respect to the media, there is no doubt that this group should have been better

represented. While Jonathan Alter, a senior writer with Newsweek represented the print
media’s viewpoint, Ron Nessen (VP. for West Mutual One Radio Network and a former
reporter for a major network) probably better represented the perspective of a candidate’s
former press secretary than as a former member of the broadcast media. Attempts,
however, were made to secure interviews with prominent national broadcast media figures

but, unfortunately these attempts were unsuccessful.

Observation

All program evaluators strongly agreed the program was Wm
WM. One evaluator noted that he is a political junkie, and even with this
being the case, he still found the subject matter to be interesting and intriguing.

They all also strongly agreed that the program held their attention, was visually pleasing,

used archival video effectively and had a professional appearance.

63
Response

While the subject matter itself has much commercial appeal because it concerns political
characters and their flaws and is pictorially interesting, the interviewees also contributed
significantly to the entertainment value of the program. They represented diverse interests

and groups and most were very animated in their discussions.

Observation

Using a documentary format, you need to take a firm position and make a strong statement
at the onset of a program, and then you build a case to defend that position. The
exploratory nature—bringing in all viewpoints to ensure faimess-—is more suited for a

news program format. This program presented too many viewpoints.

Remus:
The primary goal of the program was to test and explore an academic or theoretical

construct in the real world and not to edit the material to construct a pre-conceived argument

or case. Perhaps a documentary was not the most appropriate format for the subject matter.

Observation

The introduction was too brief and abrupt. There needs to be a better defining of the issue
to be examined at the beginning of the program. A detailed example and description of one
such an incident or gaffe in the introduction would have helped viewers to better
understand the program content. By taking one gaffe, for example, and explaining what
occurred, how it was defined and formulated into a campaign issue, and how it was
responded to by the media and the candidate at the beginning of the program would

effectively communicate to the viewers the program content and intent.

64
As with the introduction, the close could have been much stronger. The narrator should

have closed the program by telling viewers what they had seen and the implications of the

information which was presented.

Resmnse

Again, our goal was to let the material tell the story and not to force our interpretation on

the viewers through the use of narration. Simply put, it was to use more of a cinema verite
documentary format. In retrospect, however, additional narration would have enhanced the
program by connecting ideas, providing more focus to the program, and generally guiding

the viewer more selectively through a rather complex issue.

Observation
The interviews were all excellent and it appeared that a good rapport had been established

with most of the participants. They obviously took the interviewer seriously.

Response

While there was not much time immediately before the interview (while we were setting-
up) to establish rapport with the participants, earlier communication and well-thought out
questions (with the assistance of a committee) helped us to gain credibility with these

individuals.

Evaluation of Program Objectives

The specific program objectives (cognitive/affective/behavioral) are outlined in the first

section of this document (see page 28). The program evaluators reviewed these objectives

immediately before viewing the program.

65
Observation

With respect to the cognitive, affective, and behavioral objectives of the program, the
evaluators concluded the following: the cognitive objectives were met but the affective and
behavioral objectives were not. They also concluded that an unrealistic number of
objectives were set for a half-hour television program and indicated that most programs are

fortunate to achieve one behavioral objective.

Remain:

The objectives for the program were identified early in the process and, unfortunately, were
never re-evaluated in a formal manner after that time—with the exception of the cognitive
objectives, which were constantly challenged and considered. Few would dispute the

contention that even one behavioral objective is ambitious.

Evaluation of Production Quality

Observation
Overall production quality was good. The program pace, the excellent shot composition
and the use of transitions enhanced the program and helped to hold viewers’ attention.

The use of archival video helped pacing and transitions.

mass
A deliberate attempt was made to keep the sound bites (quotes) brief, and generally no

longer than 30 seconds. We also obtained and used as much supporting video (B-roll) as
possible. Supporting video included archival footage, video obtained from a few news
stations and still shots. All these efforts were undertaken in an effort to enhance the pacing

of the program and to help create smooth transitions or edits.

66
Observation

The only major criticism of the production quality relates to some aspects of the audio. The
use of natural sound would have helped to make transitions more natural and less abrupt.
In addition, the audio levels were not matched properly and that also contributed to some of

the abruptness of the edits or transitions. And finally, there was some audio “hiss.”

Observation
It was difficult to read keys (chyron type/participants names and titles). Shading behind
keys could have solved this problem.

Response

To avoid awkward, obtrusive names and titles, we opted to use a light color, yellow, and
smaller fonts. We also were trying to create a production with commercial appeal that met
industry standards to increase our chances of getting it aired. At the time, most national
programs were using yellow and moving away from obtrusive colors like white. Several
attempts were made to use shading but the technology available to us created a rather

undesirable effect.

Observation

In the archival video shots, there was a pole through the talking heads.

67
Remus:

Unfortunately a graphic had to be designed to cover the time code at the top of the archival
video. Due to time and budgetary constraints, we were unable to secure original video from
the networks. We tried to create a graphic which would resemble a television screen and
that would make the camouflaging of the code less apparent. After investing much effort
and time into this task—and to little or no avail, we opted to use the graphic, as seen in the

program.

DISCUSSION

The primary purpose of this exploratory study was to examine the role of gaffes in
presidential election campaigns and thereby to test Bennett’s contention that gaffes are the
basis of clearly identifiable degradation rituals and that these rituals contribute to the

meaning and purpose of campaigns and to the information needs of voters.

The results of the program and the evaluations indicate that while the cognitive objectives
were met to some extent, none of the affective and behavioral objectives were achieved.
With respect to the cognitive objectives, the following can be concluded: While the program
clarified some of the criteria (including the incidents and handling of gaffes) that are being
used by the voting public to evaluate candidates, it by no means provided evidence of the
most frequently used or the most meaningful criteria for such evaluations. The program
also presented insight into the type of meaningful information that the focus on candidates’
gaffes and the handling of them can provide; whether other viewpoints presented in this
program dilute the strength of this case is debatable. And finally, while the program did
discuss the media’s role and impact on how we evaluate candidates, the findings are
somewhat skewed (due to factors discussed later in this chapter) and therefore any

interpretation of this information cannot be considered to be conclusive.

A general interpretation of the program findings suggest that while practitioners
(interviewees) do acknowledge the concept and role of gaffes and the resulting degradation
sequences and rituals they often initiate, they attribute greater blame than expected on the
media for the increasing emphasis on these gaffe incidents (blunders, loss of control,
negative behaviors, or revelation of character flaws) and the handling of them. This is not
surprising when it is coming from the mouths of those who have directly or indirectly

experienced this degradation process (former presidential candidates, press secretaries and

68

69
campaign consultants and strategists). It is, however, somewhat surprising to hear the

same sentiments echoed by some members of the media and the academic community.

The program results also indicate that some of these incidents are legitimate campaign
issues; and when they are, the degradation process that follows often provides meaningful
and useful information for the evaluation of candidates. While none of the interviewees
refer directly to the phrase “degradation process,” they refer to campaign stress and
character tests and the concept of being initiated into office or power. Further evidence of
this indirect acknowledgment of the degradation process is provided in the discussion of
the importance and significance of the handling of these incidents. One interviewee, Wilma
Goldstein, even goes as far to say that, “the recovery process shows a lot more about the

person, usually, than the actual mistake.”

Yet, at the same time, the interviewees suggest that gaffes are often a trivial preoccupation

of a scoop-hungry press. These conflicting views and opinions may be attributed in part to
the use of the term gaffe rather than approaching the issue from the broader perspective of

campaign issues/problems (offending behaviorsfrndiscretions) and degradation rituals.

Comments from both program participants and evaluators suggest that the use of the term
“gaffe” was limiting and confusing. Simply put, because the term has different meanings in
different circles (academic vs. political worlds), it probably confused the program issue and
skewed responses to some extent. Since the term gaffe frequently connotes a trivial slip of
the tongue or a silly mistake in the “real world,” it is highly likely that the use of the term
contributed to the universal finger-pointing at the media. The significant discussion of the
media’s impact and role prevented greater discussion on the meaning and purpose of the

degradation process and its usefulness in our evaluations of presidential candidates.

70
In addition to the decision to use the term gaffe, other possible influential factors on the

results include the following: the program format and the decision to limit narration; the
broad, complex subject matter and the medium’s ability to accommodate it; and most
importantly, the under-representation of members of the media—particularly members of

the broadcast media, and the voting public.

The limited media representation and the lack of the voter perspective dilute the program’s
effectiveness in providing a thorough and balanced analysis and program. By better
representing and including these perspectives, it is my belief that the program would have
provided greater insight into the meaning and purpose of contemporary presidential election
campaigns—and how great a role gaffes, and the degradation process they often initiate,
play in the casting of kingmaker.

Moreover, while much has been written about the media’s ability to manipulate voters
perceptions and beliefs about candidates, little has been written about the candidates’ ability
to directly manipulate and impact W (not just forms of paid media messages).
Since the 1988 presidential campaign, however, there has been greater discussion about the
candidates’ manipulation of the news media and the associated, inherent dangers. This is an
important perspective that strengthens the case for the need to carefully observe and
evaluate candidates on the basis of the validity of their publicly-projected images, through
an assessment of their actions and behaviors—especially their negative ones. This aspect of
modern presidential campaigns should be factored into any further study on the subject

matter.

The importance of this issue is reflected in the following remarks:

“More recently, at least one major network has announced plans to use its control
over the airwaves to influence how presidential candidates conduct their campaigns.

71

Disturbed at the manipulation of their campaign coverage by the 1988 presidential
candidates, ABC News announced that henceforth candidate “photo opportunities,”
such as Bush’s infamous visit to a New Jersey flag factory or Michael Dukakis’s
ride in an Army tank, will not appear on the television evening news unless the
candidate is willing to submit to reporters’ questions” (Buchanan, 1991; pg. 63).

“Political professionals have gotten media management down to such a science that
the form of the message is often all that distinguishes one information fragment
fi'om the another. All campaign messages have come to look and sound like political
advertisements. Staging, scripting, and directing have become the order of the day.
Morrow sums up this situation in a reaction to the 1988 presidential campaign: ‘The
year represents something close to a dismantling of the American presidential
campaign. The candidate perform simulations of encounters with the real world, but
the exercise is principally a series of television visuals of staged events created for
TV cameras’ “ (Owen, 1991; pg. 174).

To further diffuse the argument that the media is the only responsible party in determining
how and what information we use to evaluate our presidential candidates, Bennett argues
that people have a choice about where they get their information (which type of media) and
if they so desire they can shift their reliance from one source of information (medium) to
another; and that, “each individual has a personal stake in thinking critically about events
in the news and in fornring an independent perspective on the political world” (1988; pg.
208).

These political practitioners and the voting public might also be less cynical about the
process and more likely to view the selection criteria in a positive light if they reflected on
recent findings which suggest that, “A candidate’s rhetorical style and substance are
reflexively related: one reinforces the other and that issue and image are inseparable”
(Hinck, 1993; pg. 228). Particular exchanges or patterns of responses often reveal valuable
information about a candidate’s character and leadership ability. And this being the case, it
can be concluded that candidates’ gaffes and their response to these incidents, provide
meaningful and critical information about them. This perspective presented by Hian and
others should also be tested and explored further in any follow-up study on the issue.

72

With this perspective in mind, the following questions beg to be asked: If we had analyzed,
for example, Clinton’s rhetorical style more closely—his slick, evasive and non-committal
presentation manner—and his responses to gaffe incidents and problems, would we have
been better able to predict his handling of such difficult situations as the Near Waco
incident? If he was not straightforward about the draft and smoking of marijuana issues,
how could we expect him to be straightforward about Near Waco and accept responsibility
for his decision and the resulting loss of lives? And more critically, what does his rhetorical

response and handling of all of these incidents simply say about his character?

In concluding, the results of this program should be viewed as a first step in gaining a
better understanding of this form of candidate evaluation and as an initial confirmation of its
relevance in the “real world.” In addition to certain deficiencies of analysis already
discussed, it should be noted that the findings presented in this study (both the literature
review and the actual program) are grounded more on historical accounts and
interpretations and some hard data generated by polls and surveys, than on findings from
well-constructed, controlled studies. This method of evaluation and what it implies about

the purpose of presidential elections, therefore, deserves further analysis and study.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

Fatal Detractions:
The Role of Gaffes in Presidential Elections
Video Script

Eider:

Shot of crowd cheering at a National
Political Convention (B-ROLL)

Title superimposed over video:

“Fatal Detractions: The Role of Gaffes
in Presidential Elections”

Medium close-up of the narrator

Close-up of narrator:

73

Audio

Music full - Huey Lewis’ convention.
Title “Perfect World”

Music under Narrator: CAMPAIGN
ORGANIZATIONS OFTEN TRY TO
PRESENT THE IMAGE OF A
PERFECT CANDIDATE LIVING IN A
PERFECT WORLD. THEY PAY
POLITICAL CONSULTANTS
FXORBITANT FEES TO ACHIEVE A
PERFECT LOOK. THEY LEARN TO
SPEAK IN PERFECT 30-SECOND
BITES. AND GENERALLY, WE BUY
INTO THESE FEEL-GOOD IMAGES.
WE WANT TO BELIEVE OUR
KNIGHT IN SHINING ARMOR HAS
ARRIVED.

Narrator: BUT OFTEN THAT IMAGE
IS CRACKED OPEN WHEN A
CANDIDATE COMMIT S A GAFFE OR
REVEALS A CHARACTER FLAW.
AND THEN IT SEEMS AS IF THE
VOTING PUBLIC AND THE MEDIA
PULL OUT A MAGNIFYING GLASS
AND LOOK FOR EVERY TRIVIAL
MISTAKE AND EVERY SLIGHT
FLAW. WHY? WHAT PURPOSE
DOES THIS FOCUS SERVE? WE
ASKED OURSELVES THAT EXACT
QUESTION EIGHT MONTHS AGO

Shots of Dukakis and others dancing and
celebrating. Super of the title:

“Fatal Detractions: The Role of Gaffes in
Presidential Elections” (B-ROLL)

Medium close-up of George Bush
(B—ROLL) Super of same title

Close-up of Gerald Ford (B-ROLL)
Super of same title

Close-up of Jimmy Carter (B-ROLL)
Super of same title

Close-up of Pat Schroeder (B-ROLL)

Shot of Michael Dukakis riding in
army tank (B-ROLL)

74

WHEN WE SET OUT TO EXPLORE
THE ROLE OF GAFFES IN
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS.

Same music full

Music under

George Bush: “I MADE A GOOD
SELECTION. AND, I’VE NEVER
SEEN SUCH A POUNDING, AN
UNFAIR POUNDIN G ON A YOUNG
SENATOR IN MY ENTIRE LIFE.”

Gerald Ford: “1 DON’T BELIEVE
THAT THE RUMANIANS CONSIDER
THEMSELVES DONIINATED BY THE
SOVIET UNION. I DON’T BELIEVE
THAT THE POLES CONSIDER
THEMSELVES DOMINATED BY THE
SOVIET UNION.”

Jimmy Carter: “I HAVE NOTHING
AGAINST A COMMUNITY THAT’S
MADE UP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE
POLISH, OR WHO ARE
CZECHOSLOVAKIAN S, OR WHO
ARE FRENCH CAN ADIANS, OR
WHO ARE BLACKS, FROM TRYING
TO MAINTAIN AN ETHNIC PURITY
OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.”

Music full

Music under

Narrator: THESE ARE WHAT
CAMPAIGN ANALYSTS CALL
CAMPAIGN GAFFES, MISTAKES OR
BLUNDERS; AND WHEN A
CAMPAIGN FAILS, WHEN IT
COMES TO AN ABRUPI‘ END, TT-IE
BLAME IS OFTEN ATTRIBUTED TO
A FATAL GAFFE OR FLAW. YET.

Medium close-up of Ron Nessen (B-ROLL)
Super: Former Press Sec. Ford
Administration

Still picture of Ronald Reagan’s face

Medium close-up of Michael
Murphy Super: Michael Murphy]
Republican Media Consultant

Medium close-up of Ron Nessen

75

SOME MISTAKES OR BLUNDERS
EITHER BOUNCE OFF OR
ACTUALLY HELP CANDIDATES BY
MAKING THEM SEEM MORE
HUMAN.

Music out

Ron Nessen: “YOU LOOK AT
REAGAN’S MANY, MANY GAFFES
AND FAILURES OF MEMORY AND
MISSTATED FACTS AND SO FORTH,
AND THEY DIDN’T SEEM TO
CHANGE TIE AFFECITON IN
WHICH VOTERS HELD REAGAN.”

Ronald Reagan: “MY FELLOW
AMERICANS, I’M PLEASED TO TELL
YOU TODAY THAT I SIGNED
LEGISLATTON THAT WILL OUTLAW
RUSSIA FOREVER. WE BEGIN
BOMBING IN FIVE MINUTES.”

Michael Murphy: “HE’S WIRED-UP
FOR A MICROPHONE, JUST LIKE I
WAS TODAY, AND TIE FIRST
THING TIEY ASK YOU TO DO IS TO
SPEAK, YOU KNOW, COUNT
BACKWARDS TO TEST TIE
MICROPHONE. SO, IE WANTS TO
SAY SOMETHING FUNNY TO MAKE
EVERYBODY LAUGH...IE
SAYS,”WE BEGIN BOMBING IN
FIVE MINUTES.” IE SAID IT
HUMOROUSLY ‘CAUSE THAT’S
TIE LEAST, LAST THING IN TIE
WORLD YOU EXPECT TIE
PRESIDENT TO SAY.”

Ron Nessen: “PEOPLE REALLY LIKED
WHAT REAGAN WAS DOING IN
POLICY TERMS. YOU KNOW, THEY
LIKED HAVING TIIEIR TAXES CUT.
THEY LIKED STANDING UP TO THE
RUSSIANS. THEY LIKED LESS
GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF
THEIR LIVES. SO, AS LONG AS HE

Close-up of Jonathan Alter
Super: Jonathan Alter/Senior
Writer, Newsweek

Close-up of Wall Street Journal
headline and shots of magazine article
headlines

Three shot with Barbara Walters
and Jesse Jackson Courtesy
super: CBS News (B-ROLL)

Close-up of Jesse Jackson Jesse Jackson
(B-ROLL)

Close-up of Michael Murphy

76

MADE PROGRESS ON THESE BIG.
MAJOR POLICY ISSUES IN “ll-IICH
PEOPLE AGREED WITH HIM, TIEY
WERE WILLING TO FORGET TIE
GAFFES AND TIE MISTAKES.”

Jonathan Alter: “VOTERS ARE
CLEARLY NOT LOOKING FOR
PERFECITON, AND IN SOME WAYS.
A GAFFE CAN BE A BIT
HUMANIZING.”

Narrator. WHILE TT’S TRUE SOME
GAFFES HUMANIZE CANDIDATES.
OTIERS DELIVER A DEATH BLOW.
AND UNFORTUNATELY, TIE
IMPACT OF A GAFFE ON A
CAMPAIGN IS NOT YET KNOWN.
WHAT IS KNOWN, THOUGH, IS
THAT TIE VOTING PUBLIC AND
TIE MEDIA WILL JUMP ON A
GAFFE ALMOST IMMEDIATELY
AFTER IT’S BEEN MADE.

Barbara Walters: “DID YOU CALL
ANY NEW YORK OR NEW YORK
JEW S, HYMIES, OR NEW YORK,
HYMIETOWN OR ANYTHING LIKE
THAT?”

“I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF
THAT. AND FURTIIERMORE...”

Michael Murphy: “GAFFES ARE OFTEN
LOOSE REMARKS. IF IT’S A
HARMLESS LOOSE REMARK OR
SOMETHING SILLY...CARTER
SPEAKING AT THE ‘34 DEMOCRATIC
CONVENTION AND ‘HUBERT
HORATIO HORNBLOWER’. I THINK
THAT’S AN HONEST, LEGITIMATE
SLIP-UP. I DO NOT THINK THAT IS A
STORY.”

Medium close-up of Ron Nessen

Close-up of Geraldine Ferrarro
Super: Geraldine Ferrarro/Former
Vice-Presidential Candidate

Close-up of Ron Nessen

Shots of Michael Dukakis, George Bush

Al Gore and Paul Simon talking to the press

(B-ROLL)

77

Ron Nessen: “I THINK FORD HAD
TIE IMAGE OF A BUMBLER. THERE
WERE TIESE PICTURES OF IIIM
FALLING WHILE I-E WAS SKIING.
TRIPPING ON STEPS WIEN IE GOT
OFF A PLANE IN AUSTRIA.
SLIPPING ON TIE ICE IN TIE ROSE
GARDEN. MAKING VERBAL
GAFFES AND SO FORTH. AND I
THINK IE, ALSO, WAS SOMEWHAT
VICI'IMIZED BY LYNDON
JOHNSON’S FAMOUS CRACK
ABOUT GERRY FORD CAN’T WALK
AND CIEW GUM AT TIE SAME
TIME.”

Geraldine Ferrarro: “I WATCIED

PAT SCHROEDER WIEN SIE WENT
INTO TIE RACE. TIEY DIDN’T
SEEM TO TREAT IER ANY
DIFFERENTLY, EXCEPT WIEN SIE
MADE IER ANNOUNCEMENT AT
TIE END THAT SIE WAS GOING
TO WITHDRAW FROM THE RACE. I
WAS TERRIBLY FRUSTRATED. ALL
PEOPLE SEEMED TO DO WAS
FOCUS ON TIE TEARS.”

Narrator: BUT SOME SAY TIE
NATURE OF CAMPAIGNING TODAY
MAKES IT VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE
FOR A CANDIDATE TO REMAIN
GAFFE FREE.

Ron Nessen: “I MEAN, YOU

CON SIDER TIESE GUYS ARE OUT
TALKING EVERYDAY MAKING
SEVEN, EIGHT, TEN SPEECIES A
DAY. TTE CAMERAS ARE
CONSTANTLY RUNNING. TIE
MICROPHONES ARE CONSTANTLY
RUNNING . I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY,
EVERYBODY S GOING TO MAKE A
SLIP OF TIE TONGUE SOMETIME,
HAVE A LAPSE OF MEMORY.
UNDER THAT KIND OF

Close-up of Michael Murphy

Close-up of Joseph Powell
Super: Joseph Powell/Former Press
Secretary Carter Adrrrinstration

Shots of Jesse Jackson shaking
hands in a crowd (B-ROLL)

Close-up of Jesse Jackson
Super: Rev. Jesse Jackson]
Former Presidential Candidate

78

PRESSURE...TIERE’S A LOT OF
FATIGUE DURING A CAMPAIGN.
NOT ENOUGH SLEEP, NOT
ENOUGH PREPARATION TIME. IT’S
A WONDER TIERE AREN’T MORE
GAFFES, REALL .”

Michael Murphy: “YOU CAN GO UP
TO FIVE WEEKS OF ANSWERING
EVERY QUESTION PERFECTLY
FROM ALL ISSUES AND ALL AREAS
AND EVERYTHING, ONE LITTLE
TWO- SECOND SLIP-UP WITH FIVE
CAMERAS ON IT AND BING!,
THAT’S TTE ONLY NATIONAL
STORY THAT PEOPLE IEAR. SO,
TIE TEST IS ALWAYS HAPPENING
AND BECAUSE THE CAMERAS ARE
ALWAYS ON, IT’S HARD TO
ALWAYS PASS WITHOUT A GAFFE
OR A MISTAKE OR SOME KIND.”

Joseph Powell: “CLEARLY AMERICANS
DON’T EXPECT PERFECTION AND I
THINK TIEY TEND TO BE, ON TIE
WHOLE, REASONABLY TOLERANT
ABOUTTHISANDWEMAYBETOO
TOLERANT ABOUT SOME ASPECTS
OF PUBLIC BEHAVIO .”

Narrator: BUT CANDIDATES SAY
TIEY’RE ONLY HUMAN AND
TIEREFORE, TIEY WILL ERROR
AND FALL SHORT OF PERFECTION.

Jesse Jackson: “PEOPLE WHO ARE
RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE, AND
ASKING FOR PUBLIC TRUST MUST
HAVE INTEGRITY. TIEY MUST
LIVE A LIFE TIEY SING AND
PREACH ABOUT IN TIEIR SONG.
EVEN WITH YOUR IIIGIEST
INTENTIONS, ALL PEOPLE HAVE
SINNED AND COME SHORT OF
PERFECTION AND OF TIE GLORY
OF GOD. AND SO, I HAVE SEEN TIE

Close-up of Robert Engel
Super: Robert Engel/Democratic
Media Consultant

Still shots of magazine headlines

Close-up of Joseph Powell

Medium close-up of Jonathan Alter

79

PEOPLE FORGIVE CANDIDATES
WHO MADE ERRORS. I HAVE SEEN
TIE MEDIA FORGIVE WHAT IT
CHOOSES TO FORGIVE. I’M ONLY
SAYING TIERE MUST BE SOB/E
SENSE OF IEALTHY BALANCE. I
DO NOT KNOW OF ANY PERFECT
PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR PERFECT
VOTERS WHO VOTED FOR TIEM.”

Robert Engel: “PEOPLE ARE
HUMAN. I THINK THAT’S
SOMETIMES TIE BEST ASPECTS
AND ELEMENTS OF A CANDIDATE
IS TO SHOW TIEM AS TIEY
REALLY ARE.”

Narrator: REASON TELLS US THAT
TO BLUNDER OR GAFFE IS
HUMAN. YET WE DON’T ALWAYS
FORGIVE AND FORGET. WIIILE
WE’RE WILLING TO FORGET SOME
MISTAKES, WE CLEARLY
REMEMBER OTIE .”

Joseph Powell: “THIS IS A VERY
SUBJECTIVE SORT OF THING, BUT
IFITDOES SEEMTOFLYINTIE
FACE OF WHAT IS BEING
PROJECTED BY THAT CANDIDATE,
TIEN IT NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED
TO SEE IF IT IS TELLING US
SOMETHING ABOUT TIIIS PERSON
THAT’S BEEN KEPT IIIDDEN.”

Jonathan Alter". “TIERE ARE TWO
WAYS IN WHICH A GAFFE CAN
RESONAT‘E AND CAN TAKE ON
LARGER IMPORTANCE. TIE FIRST
IS, IF IT REFLECTS SOMETHING
THAT TIE PUBLIC AND TIE PRESS
HAS BELEVED TO BE TRUE ABOUT
A PARTICULAR POLITICIAN, BUT
TIEY DIDN’T HAVE A HOOK IN
WHICH TO HANG IT. AND
SUDDENLY, TIE POLITICIAN SAYS

Medium Shot of Gary Hart (B-ROLL)
Courtesy super: ABC News

Close-up of Hubert Humphrey (B-ROLL)
Super: Hubert Humphrey/Former
Vice President/ABC News/July 1976

Dissolve to a close-up of Joseph Biden
(B-ROLL)
Super: Nov. 1985

Close-up of Jonathan Alter

80

SOMETHING THAT ALLOWS TIEM
TO USE IT AS SORT OF A SHORT
HAND TO CONVEY A POINT THAT
TIEY HAVE BEEN TRYING TO
CONVEY IN A MORE GENERAL
WAY FOR A LONG TIME.”

Narrator: IN TIE CASE OF GARY
HART, FOR EXAMPLE, IE
PROJECTED TIE IMAGE OF TIE
GOOD FAMILY MAN. BUT AT TIE
SAME TIME, IE WAS CAUGHT
WOMANIZING. AND IN A SIMILAR
CASE, BIDEN, WIIILE PROJECTING
TIE IMAGE OF CANDOR AND
BREEZY SPONTANETTY WAS
FOUND TO BE TAKING LINES
FROM TIE MOUTHS OF OTIERS.

Hubert Humphrey: “FIRST, THOSE
WHO ARE IN TIE DAWN OF LIFE
ARE CIIJLDREN. SECOND, THOSE
WHO ARE IN TIE SHADOWS OF
LIFE ARE ELDERLY, ARE SICK, ARE
NEEDY, ARE HANDICAPPED. AND
THOSE, THIRD, IN TIE TWILIGHT
OF LIFE ARE ELDERLY...”

Joseph Biden: “...A NATION NOBLE
ENOUGH TO TREAT THOSE IN TIE
DAWN OF LIFE WITH LOVE, THOSE
IN TIE DUSK OF LIFE WITH CARE,
AND THOSE WHO LIVE IN THE
SHADOW OF LIFE WITH
COMPASSION.”

Jonathan Alter. “IF TIE CANDIDATE
DOES SOMETHING THAT IS
SEEMINGLY COMPLETELY OUT OF
CHARACTER, SEEMINGLY
DIFFERENT THAN EVERYTHING IE
OR SIE HAS BEEN PREACHING;
AND THEN IT ALSO RESONATES
BECAUSE IT CUTS AGAINST TIE
GRAIN OF WHAT PEOPLE
UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT
CANDIDATE.”

81

Medium close-up of Joseph Powell

Close-up of an ABC News anchor (B-ROLL)
Courtesy super: ABC News

Close-up of man (voter) giving his opinion
(B-ROLL)

Close-up of Tom Brokaw (B-ROLL)
Courtesy super: NBC News

Joseph Powell: “TIE CLASSIC CASE
OF THAT IN THE ‘76 CAMPAIGN
WAS TIE SO CALLED “LUST IN MY
IEART” QUOTE IN WHICH A TIEN
GOVERNOR CARTER WAS
ATTEMPTING TO EXPLAIN TO, OF
ALL PEOPLE, A PLAYBOY
REPORTER TIE BIBLICAL
INJUNCTION AGAINST BEING
SELF- RIGHTEOUS, WHICH I
SUSPECT IS A LESSON THAT
OUGHT TO BE EXPLAINED AT
EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO ALL OF
US. BUT IE USED TIE BIBLICAL
PHRASE ABOUT LUST IN ONE’S
IEART.”

Anchor: “CHRIST, IE NOTED,

SAID THAT LOOKING AT A WOMAN
LUSTFULLY CONSTITUTES
ADULTERY IN TIE IEART. ON
THAT BASIS, SAYS CARTER, IE
HAS COMMITTED MANY
ADULTERES IN HIS IEART, AND
IE HOPES IE’S BEEN FORGIVE .”

Man: “...AND TILE THING THAT
DISTURBS ME MORE THAN
ANYTHING ELSE IS THAT I’M
AFRAID THAT TIE LANGUAGE IE
USED IS GOING TO DISTRACT
FROM TIE POINT THAT IE WAS
TRYING TO GET ACROSS.”

Tom Brokaw: “WIEN FERRARRO
TOLD REPORTERS THAT IER

‘ HUSBAND, JOHN ZACCARO,

WOULD NOT DISCLOSE IIIS
INCOME TAX RETURN, SIE ADDED
AND QUOTE: “YOU PEOPLE
MARRIED TO ITALIAN MEN. YOU
KNOW WHAT THAT’S LIKE.”

Close-up of Geraldine Ferrarro

Shots of Geraldine Ferrarro
with her husband (B-ROLL) Still shot of
Ferrarro on the cover of a magazine,

and a USA Today headline.

Close-up of Michael Murphy

82

Geraldine Ferrarro: “WHAT A
REACTION PEOPLE HAD TO IT. I
FOUND TIE REACTION
ABSOLUTELY SURPRISING. I
FOUND IT MIND BOGGLING THAT
SOME ITALIAN MEN WOULD
ACTUALLY THINK THAT THAT
WAS AN INSULT.”

Narrator: THAT GAFFE, LIKE
CARTER’S “LUST IN MY IEART”
QUOTE, TOOK ON LARGER
IMPORTANCE BECAUSE IT CUT
AGAINST TIE GRAIN OF WHAT
PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD ABOUT
IER. ABOUT IER PRIDE IN IER
ETHNIC IERTTAGE AND IER
IMMIGRANT PARENTS. BUT
WIETIER AGAINST TIE GRAIN
OR TO TIE IEART OF TIE
MATTER, CAMPAIGN
ORGANIZATIONS WILL
INEVITABLY TRY TO CONTROL TIE
DAMAGE.

Michael Murphy: “IN PRESIDENTIAL
CAMPAIGNS NOW TIERE IS A
WHOLE JARGON; AND TIERE ARE
SPINNING ROOMS WIERE YOU
SEND YOUR CAMPAIGN ADVISORS
TO MEET WITH TIE MEDIA AND
GIVE TIEM YOUR SIDE OF TIE
STORY; AND SPIN PATROLS ARE
TIE PEOPLE YOU SEND AFTER AN
EVENT TO TALK TO TIE MEDIA
FROM YOUR CAMPAIGN. SO, IT’S A
WHOLE SCIENCE ON HOW YOU
DEAL WITH TIE PRESS.”

Close-up of Ron Nessen

Close-up of Michael Murphy

Close-up of Jesse Jackson (B-ROLL)
Courtesy super: CBS News

83

Medium close-up of Jesse Jackson (B-ROLL)

Courtesy super: CBS News

Full screen of “Paid by the
Kennedy for President Committee”
Super: CBS News and Kennedy
commercial

Dissolve to Medium close-up of the senator
(B-ROLL)

Ron Nessen: “GAFFES ARE ONE
THING. HOW YOU HANDLE
GAFFES ARE ANOTIER THING.
AND I THINK TIE FASTEST WAY
TO LMT TIE DAMAGE OF A
GAFFE IS TO SAY, “BOY, DID I
BLOW THAT ONE, WIEW! DID I
MAKE A MISTAKE! I’M REALLY
SORRY, BUT THAT WAS TERRIBLE.
I’M SORRY.” AND IT GOES AWA .”

Michael Murphy: “I TIIINK TIE
HYMIETOWN REMARK JESSE
JACKSON MADE WAS MORE TITAN
AGAFFE. ITIIINKTHATWAS A
LEGTTIMATE ISSUE. AND I THINK,
FRANKLY, IE HAD TO FACE IT, I
THINK IE HANDLED IT. AND I
THINK IE HAS BEEN ABLE TO
MOVE ON.”

Jesse Jackson: “FIRST OF ALL, I’M NOT
ANTI-SEMTTIC...”

Jesse Jackson: “TIE ONLY
RECOLLECTION I HAVE OF THIS
BEING USED AS A CHILD, WAS
USED IN A NON -DEROGATORY
FASHION. EVEN TIEN, IT WAS
NOT STANDARD OPERATING
PROCEDURE FOR NIB.”

Voice over Ted Kennedy: “1, ALONE,
FEEL IN MY CONSCENCE TIE LOSS
OF MARY JO KOPECHNE’S LIFE, AND
TIE FAILURE TO REPORT TIE
ACCIDENTI) IMMEDIATELYJ CARRY
THAT BURDEN WITH SORROW

AND REGRET.”

Shot of Gerald Ford giving a speech
(B-ROLL)

Shot of Jimmy Carter giving a speech
(B-ROLL)

Close-up of Wilma Golstein
Super: Wilma Golstein/Political
Strategist Director ACA

Close-up of Geraldine Ferrarro (B-ROLL)

Close—up of Wilma Golstein

Gerald Ford: “LAST NIGHT IN TIE
DEBATE, I SPOKE OF AMERICA’S
FIRM SUPPORT FOR TIE
ASPIRATION FOR TIE
INDEPENDENCE OF TIE NATIONS
OF EASTERN EUROPE. TIE UNITED
STATES HAS NEVER CONCEDED
AND NEVER WILL CONCEDE TIEIR
DOMINATION BY TIE SOVIET
UNION. WE DO NOT ACCEPT
FOREIGN DOMINATION OVER ANY
NATION, PERIOD.”

Jimmy Carter: “MOST OF TIE
PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN CAUSED
BY MY ILL-CHOSEN AGREEMENT
TO USE OF WORDS - ETHNIC
PURITY. I DO NOT, EVER...I THINK
THAT WAS A VERY SERIOUS
MISTAKE ON MY PAR .”

Wilma Golstein: "TIE RECOVERY
PROCESS FROM THAT SHOWS A
LOT MORE ABOUT A PERSON
USUALLY A THAT POINT, THAN
TIE ACTUAL MISTAKE. I MEAN .
WE ALL MAKE...EVERYBODY
KNOWS YOU MAKE MISTAKES.”

Geraldine Ferrarro: “...THOSE
STATEMENTS WERE TRUE IN 1978,
AND TIEY ARE TRUE TODA .”

Voice over Wilma Golstein: “WIEN
GERALDINE FERRARRO HAD THAT
NEWS CONFERENCE, WIEN SIE
JUST CALLED TIEM AND SAID,
“YOU KNOW, I WANT TO TALK
ABOUT TIESE ACCUSATIONS AND
CHARGES.” SIE MET TIEM IEAD-
ONANDGOTALOTOFCREDIT. IT
DIDN’T LAST FOR A LONG TIME,
OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE SIE’S
BEEN PLAGUED BY THINGS EVER
SINCE, BUT SIE GOT A LOT OF
POINTS FOR JUST STANDING UP

Shots of Jimmy Carter and Jesse Jackson
walking and talking with the press
(B-ROLL).

Close-up of Richard Armstrong
Super: Richard Armstrong] Author
The Next Hurrah

Medium close-up of Robert Engel

Shots of press covering candidates
(B-ROLL)

Medium close—up of Ron Nessen

85

TO PEOPLE, ANSWERING
QUESTIONS, AND TIEN FINALLY
SAYING: “I’VE ANSWERED THAT
QUESTION ENOUGH. I’M NOT
GOING TO ANSWER IT ANYMO .”

Narrator: YET, SOME MISTAKES
LINGER AND HAVE NINE LIVES;
AND TIE MEDIA AND TIE VOTING
PUBLIC’S TIIIRST FOR REVEALING
AND FOCUSING ON OTTER
GAFFES MADE BY CANDIDATES
DOESN’T APPEAR TO BE EASILY
QUENCIED. WHAT PURPOSE DOES
THIS FOCUS SERVE? SOME SAY
IT’S TIE NATURE OF TIE PRESS.

Richard Armstrong: “TIE PRESS , IS
SO INTERESTED IN FINDING
THOSE DEVIATION S, THOSE
GAFFES. TIEY’RE INTERESTED IN
TIE STRATEGY. TIEY’RE
INTERESTED IN TIE HORSE RACE
ASPECT, YOU KNOW, WHO’S
AIEAD, WHO’S BEHIND. TIEY’RE
INTERESTED IN TIE MECHANICS
OF TIE CAMPAIGN BECAUSE
TIESE ARE ALL TIE THINGS THAT
ARE DYNAMIC FROM TIEIR POINT
OF VEW. TIESE ARE TIE THINGS
THAT CHANGE FROM DAY TO
DAY.”

Robert Engel: “TIE NATURE OF TIE
MEDIUM OF POLITICS, WIIICH IS
TELEVISION, HAS CHANGED. TIE
FOCUS OF CAMPAIGNS MORE
TOWARDS TIE INDIVIDUAL, THAN
TOWARD TIE ISSUES.”

Ron Nessen: “IT’S MUCH EASER TO
SPEND YOUR MINUTE ON
TELEVISION SHOWING A GUY
FALLING DOWN, THAN IT IS TO
SPEND YOUR MINUTE ON
TELEVISION ANALYZING WHY

Medium close-up of Joseph Powell

Medium close-up of Michael Murphy

Shots of Michael Dukakis in army
tank, a cameraman, a pro-Dukakis rally
(B-ROLL)

86

WE’VE SUDDENLY DROPPED IN TO
A RECESSION IN TIE FALL OF

1974, WHICH WE DID, OR WHAT WE
ARE GOING TO DO ABOUT TIE
ENERGY PROBLEM. YOU KNOW,
THOSE COMPLEX ISSUES.”

Joseph Powell: “JOURNALISTS,
WIEN TIEY ARE HONEST, YOU
KNOW SOMETIMES WE ARE, WILL
ADMIT THAT, ON TIE WHOLE,
JOURNALISTS FIND ISSUES
BORING AND TIEY ALSO BELEVE.
WITH SOME JUSTIFICATION, THAT
TIE ANERICAN VOTER FINDS
ISSUES BORING.”

Michael Murphy: “I THINK IT IS TO
SOME EXTENT TIE SPECTER OF
ENTERTAINMENT NEWS, IF
YOU’RE IN A STTUATION...LET S
SAY YOU’RE A SENIOR PRODUCER
IN A NEWS NETWORK...NATTONAL
NEWS. AND YOU HAVE GOT A
CHOICE BETWEEN DOING A THREE
MINUTE PECE ON GEORGE
BUSH’S EDUCATION PROGRAM OR
A TIIREE MINUTE PECE ON
MICHAEL DUKAKIS SLIPPED ON A
BANANA PEEL TODAY, AND
TRIPPED DOWN TIE STEPS OF HIS
CAMPAIGN PLANE. YOU’RE GOING
TO LOOK AT TIE FOOTAGE AND
YOU ARE GOING TO KNOW THAT
RATINGS DETERMINE WIETIER
OR NOT YOUR PARENT COMPANY
MAKES MONEY, WIIICH IS
WIETIER OR NOT YOU GET
ADVANCED TO BE TIE EXECUTIVE
PRODUCER OF TIE NEWS, AND
YOU’RE GOING TO GET TIE

BANANA PEEL STORY READY TO GO.
BECAUSE NEWS IS STILL TIE NEWS
BUSINESS. THERE’S A SHOWBIZ
ASPECT TO IT. IT’S TELEVISION. IT

Medium close-up of Ron Nessen

Medium close-up of Richard Armstrong

Shots of John Kennedy (B-ROLL)
Courtesy super: ABC News
Shots of a Republican Convention

Medium close-up of Richard Armstrong

87

WANTS GOOD FUNNY PICTURES.
AND GAFFES OFFER A GOOD
FUNNY PICTURE.”

Ron Nessen: “YOU KNOW FORD
WENT OUT TO DELIVER HIS MAJOR
AGRICULTURAL SPEECH AT IOWA
STATE UNIVERSITY; AND WIIEN
IE BEGAN TIE SPEECH, IE SAID:
“I’M REALLY GLAD TO BE IERE AT
OIIIO STATE.” AND TIEN IE
CORRECTED HIMSELF. AND THAT
NIGHT ON TELEVISION, ALL TIE
NETWORKS SHOWED THAT
TRIVIAL SLIP OF TIE TONGUE,
INSTEAD OF EVEN A SINGLE
SENTENCE ABOUT IIIS FARM
POLICY.”

Narrator: BUT RICHARD
ARMSTRONG SEES THINGS A BIT
DIFFERENTLY. IE BELEVES THAT
TIE ADVEN'T OF TELEVISION AND
ITS IMPACT ON TIE

PRESIDENTIAL SELECTION
PROCESS IS AN OLDSTORY; AND
WHAT IS NEW ABOUT POLITICAL
TELEVISION IN TIE EIGHTES IS
THAT IT IS CHEAPER, MORE
PLENTTFUL AND MORE
IMMEDIATE.

Richard Armstrong: “SATELLITES ARE
ENABLING SMALLER TV STATIONS
TO COVER PRESIDENTIAL
CAMPAIGNS. WIERE BY
THEMSELVES...WHERE IN TIE
PAST TIEY WOULD HAVE TO
DEPEND ON A NETWORK FEED.
NOWADAYS, WITH SATELLITES,
WITH MINI-CAMS, WITH TIE
ABILITY TO HAVE A MOBILE UP-
LINK TRUCK IN ORDER TO FILM
SOMETIITNG ON TIE SPOT AND
SEND IT UP TO TIE SATELLITE

Shots of small station crews covering
candidates (B-ROLL)

Shots of press bounding candidates
(B-ROLL)

Close-up of Jonathan Alter

Shots of a production crew setting up
with Ronald Reagan at a supermarket
filming TV commercial (B-ROLL)
Courtesy super: CBS News

88

AND SEND IT BACK TO YOUR
LOCAL TELEVISION STATION IN A
SMALL TOWN LIKE SAN

JOSE, CALIFORNIA, OR OMETIIING
LIKE THAT, SENABLES TIEM TO
SEND REPORTERS ON TIE BUS
WITH TIE CANDIDATE. ENABLES
TIEM TO SEND REPORTERS TO
TIE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.
TIE UP-SHOT IS, INDEED, THAT
YOU HAVE GOT A LOT MORE
REPORTERS IN THIS GANE. AND I
THINK, PROBABLY, THAT DOES
HAVE AN EFFECT ON TIEM ALL
CHASING TIESE LITTLE
STORES.”

Jonathan Alter: “IT’S VERY HARD TO
GET A SCOOP IN PRESIDENTIAL
POLITICS. YOU ESSENTIALLY
HAVE TOO MANY REPORTERS
CHASING TOO FEW STORES WITH
TOO LITTLE TIME AND SPACE TO
REALLY EXPLORE TIEM IN ANY
PROPER CONTEXT.”

Narrator: SOME SAY THIS FOCUS ON
CANDIDATES’ FLAWS AND
MISTAKES IS AN ATTEMPT TO
BATTLE TIE PROFESSIONAL
IMAGE MAKERS. A CRUCIAL
MAINSTAY IN MODERN POLITICS.

Crewman: “THREE, TWO, ONE...AND
CUE, PLEASE.” Ronald Reagan: “I’VE
BEEN CAMPAIGNING TODAY IN
WESTERN OHIO, AND I’M
SPEAKING TO YOU NOW FROM
LIMA. A COMMUNITY OF ABOUT
50-THOUSAND PEOPLE.”

Crewman: “CUT, PLEASE.” Ronald
Reagan: “WHAT?”

Crewman: “60-THOUSAND INSTEAD
OF 50-THOUSAND,
GOVERNOR...TIE POPULATION OF
LIMA.”

Slate: “The Packaging of George
Bush” (TV commercial). Shots of
5-6 men Sitting around a table
(B-ROLL)

Still pictures of George Bush,
Jesse Jackson, and Bob Dole

Medium close-up of Joseph Powell

Shots of newspaper headlines

Medium close-up of Michael Murphy

89

Ronald Reagan: “OH, TIE SCRIPT I
SAW ORIGINALLY SAID FIFTY. I...”
Crewman: “SDITY. IT’S RIGHT ON
TIE PROMPTER, SIR.”

Man #1: “TIE CONflVIERCIAL IS
GOING TO MAKE BUSH LOOK LIKE
A STRONG, EXPERIENCED LEADER.”
Man #2: “Okay.”

Man #3: “YEAH.”

Man #4: “I CAN SEE IT NOW. IEAD
OF TIE PRESIDENT’S TASK FORCE
ON DRUGS...DRUG TRAFFIC GOES
UP 400%”

Man #5: “AND GENERAL NOREGA
WAS ON TIE PAYRO .”

Man #1: “IIMM...VERY AMUSING.”
Man #4: “BUSH WAS IEAD OF TIE
TASK FORCE ON TERRORISM TOO.
WHILE TIEY MADE DEALS TO
SEND MISSILES TO TIE
AYATOLLAH.”

Man #5: “GEORGE BUSH. STRONG,
EXPERENCED LEADERSIIIP.”

Voice over Joseph Powell: “DESPITE
ALL IT’S BEEN SAID ABOUT
CANDIDATES SORT OF CREATING
TIEMSELVES FROM WHOLE
CLOTH. GENERALLY SPEAKING,
IT’S QUITE DIFFICULT FOR A
PERSON SEEKING TIE
PRESIDENCY, WHO IN ALMOST
EVERY CASE IS WELL INTO TIE
MIDDLE YEARS OF LIFE, TO
RECREATE ONESELF. YOU JUST
CAN’T DO THAT.”

Narrator: AND TIE PROFESSIONAL
IMAGE MAKERS DENY TIEIR
POWER TO DECEIVE.

Michael Murphy: “ONE OF TIE
MISCONCEP'TIONS ABOUT OUR
BUSINESS IS THAT WE COME WITH
SPECIAL LENSES AND SPECIAL

Medium close-up of Robert Engel

Shots of M. Dukakis playing baseball,
a crowd cheering, George Bush with
his fitness guru (B-ROLL)

Medium close up of Richard Armstrong

MAKE UP AND TRICKS SO WE
CHANGE PEOPLE. WIEN IN
REALITY WHAT WE DO IS AMPLIFY
PEOPLE. WE TRY TO FOCUS ON
TIEIR STRENGTHS, THINGS THAT
WE KNOW THAT APPEAL ABOUT
TIEM, AND TRY TO CONTROL TIE
ELECTION DIALOGUE, SO TIE
ATTRIBUTES OF TIE CANDIDATE
THAT ARE ATTRACTIVE, ARE
WHAT PEOPLE FOCUS ON TIEN.
WE AMPLIFY TIIHNJGS. WE POLISH
TIEM. WE DON’T CHANGE A
WHOLE LOT BECAUSE YOU CAN’T
GET AWAY WITH THA .”

Robert Engel: “IMAGE IN POLITICS
FOR CANDIDATES OR FOR
POLITICAL CONSULTANTS THAT
TRY TO CONSTRUCT IMAGES FOR
PEOPLE THAT AREN’T REAL, WHAT
HAPPENS IS TIEY BECOME FALSE
IN FRONT OF TIE PUBLI .”

Narrator: AND OTIERS CONTEST
TIE IDEA THAT IMAGE MAKING IS
NEW.

Richard Armstrong: “THIS WHOLE
CONCEPT OF IMAGE IS NOTIIING
NEW EITIER. I MEAN, IT GOES
BACK HUNDREDS OF YEARS.
LOOK AT LINCOLN, FOR EXAMPLE,
WHO RAN IN 19...I MEAN 1860 AS A
MAN RIGHT OUT OF TIE
FRONTER. OLD ABE, TIE LOG
SPLITTER. IE JUST KIND OF, SORT
OF WALKED OUT OF TIE WOODS
AND RIGHT INTO TIE WHITE
HOUSE, YOU KNOW. THAT’S TIE
WAY IE WAS PORTRAYED TO TIE
AMERICAN PEOPLE. BUT IE WAS A
PROFESSIONAL LAWYER. IE WAS
A SUCCESSFUL ONE. IE HAD RUN
FOR OFFICE MANY TIMES. IE
HADN’T WON THAT OFTEN, BUT

Still shot ofa 1841 Almanac with
William Henry Harrison on its cover

Still Shots of a newspaper headlines

Medium close-up of Jonathan Alter

91

IE HAD RUN FOR OFFICE MANY
TIMES. IE WAS NOT SOME GUY
WHO HAD JUST FINISIED
SPLITTING LOGS AND DECIDED TO
RUN FOR TIE WIIITE

HOUSE, THAT WAS AN IMAGE-
BASED CAMPAIGN. TIE EFFECT OF
TELEVISION, INTERESTTNGLY
ENOUGH, IS THAT WE CAN’T GET
AWAY WITH STUFF TIE WAY WE
USED TO. YOU COULDN’T PUT
TOGEIIER A CAMPAIGN LIKE
LINCOLN ’5 OR WILLIAM HENRY
HARRISON’S NOWADAYS. YOU
COULDN’T CREATE AN IMAGE
THAT WAS FUNDAMENT ALLY
FALSE IN THAT WAY OR PEOPLE
WOULD CATCH IT TOO EASILY.
TIE MEDIA WOULD CATCH IT. AND
IT’S TOO DIFFICULT WITH THIS
POWER OF TELEVISION...”

Narrator: OUR FOCUS ON GAFFES,
MISTAKES AND BLUNDERS, AND
OUR APPARENT ABILITY TO
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THOSE
WHICH ARE FATAL AND THOSE
WHICH ARE EXCUSABLY HUMAN,
MAY REFLECT INSTEAD A
LEGITIMATE PROCESS OF TESTING
TIE CHARACTER AND ABILITY OF
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES.”

Jonathan Alter: “I THINK IT ALSO
REFLECTS EXPERENCE WITH
PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS WIERE
REPORTERS START TO SAY TO
TIEMSELVES: “WHY SHOULD WE,
AND OUR READERS AND VEWERS,
FIND OUT ABOUT THIS GUY’S
CHARACTER FLAWS AFTER IE’S
PRESIDENT? WHY NOT TRY TO FIND
ABOUT TIEM BEFORE IE’S
PRESIDENT?” HAVING BEEN
THROUGH ND(ON, JOIINSON, AND
EVEN SOME OF TIE LESSER KIND OF
CHARACTERS FLAWS, BUT NONE

Medium close-up of Michael Murphy

Medium close-up of Jonathan Alter

Medium close-up of Geraldine Ferrarro

92

TIE LESS, IMPORTANT POLITICALLY
OF JIMMY CARTER. IT WAS A SENSE
IN REAGAN ON ANOTIER LEVEL. IT
WAS A SENSE THAT IT WAS
IMPORTANT TO FIND OUT AS MUCH
AS POSSIBLE BEFORE IE GUY
BECOMES PRESIDENT.”

Michael Murphy: “TIE Tv MEDIA
WANTS To TEST THE CHARACTER
OF TIE PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATE. THEY WANT To PUT
HIM ON A GRILL. LET THEM
SIZZLE, TO SEE IF THEY POP. IT’S
THAT SIMPLE. IT’S PART OF THE
RITUAL WHEN IT GOES DOWN TO
BECOMING PRESIDENT.”

Jonathan Alter: “HOW DOES A GAFFE
BUILD OVER A FEW WEEKS, OR
MONTHS OR YEARS? IN THAT
CASE, IT REALLY HAS TO CUT TO A
CHARACTER ISSUE. SO, IN TIE
CASE OF TED KENNEDY, PEOPLE
THOUGHT TIE CHAPPAQUIDDICK
RACE A CHARACIER ISSUE. IT
WASN’T A TEMPORARY
CONSIDERATION. TEMPORARY
SLIP OF TIE TONGUE.”

Geraldine Ferrarro: “BUT I
HONESTLY...I MEAN, SOMETIIING
LIKE THIS DISCUSSION OF
PRESIDENT FORD NOT REALIZIN G
THAT POLAND WAS A COMMUNIST
STATE, OR GEORGE BUSH
TOASTING MARCOS AS A GREAT
DEFENDER OF DEMOCRACY ...I
THINK THOSE ARE" GAFFES THAT
HAVE MUCH BROADER
IMPLICATIONS.”

Narrator: THIS FOCUS ON GAFFES
AND MISTAKES MAY VERY WELL
SERVE AS A LEGITIMATE TEST OF
CANDIDATES’ CHARACTER AND
ABILITY. STILL, FEW WOULD
ARGUE THAT IT IS NOT WITHOUT
POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE.”

Close-up of Edward Muskie crying and
handling of incident (B-ROIL)

Close-up of George Bush (B-ROIL)
Courtesy super: CBS News

Close-up of Dan Rather (B-ROLL)

Medium close-up of Dan Rather (B-ROLL)

Medium close-up of Jesse Jackson

93

“FOR THREE YEARS, I’VE BEEN TOLD
THAT I HAVE NO EMOTIONS. I WAS
TO COOL. SO, ON TIE ONE
OCCASION I SHOW EMOTION
ABOUT TIE ATTACK UPON MY
WIFE. YOU KNOW, IF I CAN’T
SHOW EMOTION IN THAT
INSTANCE TIEN I GUESS TIE
CONCLUSION IS THAT I GOTTA BE
AN ICEBERG ALL OF TIE TIIVE.
AND I DON’T REALLY THINK THAT
PEOPLE WANT AN ICEBERG AS
TIEIR PRESIDENT.”

Dan Rather: “VICE-PRESIDENT

TIIIS QUES...”

George Bush: “...WHOLE CAREER.
IT’S NOT FAIR TO JUDGE MY
WHOLE CAREER BY A REHASH ON
IRAN. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF
I JUDGED YOUR CAREER BY THOSE
SEVEN MINUTES WIEN YOU
WALKED OFF TIE SET IN NEW
YORK? WOULD YOU LIKE THAT?”

Dan Rather: “INTERVEWS SUCH AS
TIE ONE LAST EVENING ARE IN
SOME WAYS UNCOMFORTABLE
FOR TIE QUESTIONER, FOR TIE
SUBJECT, AND FOR SOME
VEWERS. WE UNDERSTAND THAT
AND ONLY HOPE, FOR MUTUAL
UNDERSTANDING, THAT IT IS AN
ESSENTIAL PART OF OUR
DEMOCRATIC PROCESS FOR
CHOOSING OUR PRESIDE .”

Jesse Jackson: “SOMETIMES TIE
MEDIA IS NOT A WATCHDOG, IT’S
A BULLDOG. SOMETIMES IT BITES
PEOPLE. SOMETIMES IT’S A
HOUND DOG. IT CHASES PEOPLE.
AND SOMETIMES DOES SO WITH
BLINDERS ON IT’S EYES.”

Medium close-up of Geraldine Ferrarro

Medium close-up of Pat Robinson
(B-ROLL)

Close-up of Jonathan Alter

94

Geraldine Ferrarro: “I THINK TIE
PRESS HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO
TIE PUBLIC, NOT TO CENSOR
NEWS, (GOD, NO, THAT’S NOT
WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT), BUT
TO MAKE SENSE OUT OF WHAT
TIEY ARE DOING. GUYS THAT
LOOK AT TIEMSELVES AND SAY,
“WHAT AM I REPORTING TIHS
STORY FOR? AM I REPORTING IT
FOR TIE LEGITIMATE PURPOSE OF
LETTING TIE PUBLIC KNOW. SO
TIEY HAVE TIE...TIEY CAN SIT
TIERE AND FIGURE OUT
WIETIER THIS IS IMPORTANT TO
TIEM WIEN TIEY GO TO VOTE.
AND WIETIER OR NOT TIIIS IS
SOMETIIING TIEY CARE ABOUT.”

Pat Robertson: “AND I THINK,
FRANKLY, IT’S OUTRAGEOUS TO
INTRUDE INTO A MAN’S FAMILY
AND TO TRY TO DO DAMAGE TO A
MAN’S WIFE AND CIIILDREN
UNDER TIE GUISE OF
JOURNALISM. IF SOMEBODY IS
CARRYING ON AN AFFAIR TODAY
AND IT’S DOING IT ON A REPEAT
BASIS, TIEN THAT’S SOMETHING
ELSE.”

Jonathan Alter: “I THINK THAT
TIERE SHOULD BE WHAT YOU
COULD CALL A STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS ON CHARACTER
QUESTIONS. IF SOMEBODY DID
SONETHING NOT THAT SERIOUS
SEVERAL YEARS AGO, IT’S NOT
MUCH OF AN ISSUE AS IF TIEY’RE
DOINGITINTIEMTDDLE OFTIE
CAMPAIGN. WIEN TIEY KNOW
THAT TIEY SHOULDN’T BE DOING
TIITS. AND IT TELLS YOU
SOMETHING ABOUT TIE KIND OF
RISKS TIEY ARE WILLING TO
TAKE. TIE LEVEL OF DECEPTION

Shots of voters at the poll (B-ROIL)

Medium close-up of Robert Engel

Medium close-up of Ron Nessen

95

THAT TIEY ARE WILLING TO
ENGAGE IN. AND IT BECOMES A
DIFFERENT KIND OF ISSUE THAN
IF IT HAD HAPPENED SEVERAL
YEARS AGO.”

Narrator: PERHAPS, THOUGH, TIE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR
MAINTAINING BALANCE AND
FAIRNESS IS THIS PROCESS OF
CHARACTER AND IMAGE TESTING
RESTS WITH TIE PEOPLE, WITH
TIE VOTING PUBLIC.

Robert Engel: “TIE CONSEQUENCES
OF TIE IMAGE OR CHARACTER
TEST IN TIE PROCESS IS TIE FACT
THAT PEOPLE WILL ONLY LOOK AT
IMAGE AND CHARACIER. THAT
WE’LL GET SO CAUGHT-UP IN NOT
LOOKING AT SOMEONE’S CAREER
LONG TERM AND LOOKING AT
TIEIR PROPOSALS. TIE TIIINGS
THAT TIEY WANT TO DO. WIERE
TIEY WANT TO TAKE TIE
COUNTRY. THAT WE’LL JUST
START TO FOCUS ON ONE OR TWO
SPECIFIC THINGS. WE’VE GOT TO
JUDGE INDIVIDUALS, AS WELL AS
POLITICIANS, ON TIE WHO .”

Ron Nessen: “IF A CAMPAIGN IS
DOMINATED, OR TIE COVERAGE
OF A CAMPAIGN IS DOMINATED BY
GAFFES, AND SLIP-OFFS AND SO
FORTH, TIEY’RE MISLEADING.
BECAUSE THAT IS CERTAINLY NOT
WHAT TIESE PEOPLE ARE ABOUT.
NOW MAYBE THIS CANDIDATE IS
TIE WRONG PERSON TO BE
PRESIDENT, BUT TIE REASON...I
MEAN TIE PUBLIC SHOULD NOT
GET TIE IDEA THAT TIE REASON
IE IS TIE WRONG PERSON TO BE
PRESIDENT IS BECAUSE IE SAID
IE WAS AT OHIO STATE WIEN IE

Medium close-up of Joseph Powell

Medium close-up of Geraldine Ferrarro

Medium close-up of Jesse Jackson

96

WAS REALLY AT IOWA STATE. OR
BECAUSE IE FELL DOWN WIIILE
SKIING IN VAIL. I MEAN, LETS
FIND OUT WHAT IIIS POLICES
ARE. WHAT IE STANDS FOR.
WHAT IE WOULD DO IN OFFICE.
AND IF WE DON’T LIKE THAT,
TIEN VOTE AGAINST TIE GUY.”

Joseph Powell: “DESPITE ALL WE
SAY AS AIVERICAN S ABOUT HOW
WE WANT MORE INFORMATION.
WE WANT TIERE TO BE MORE
SUBSTANCE. WE WANT TIEM TO
BE MORE SPECIFIC. WIEN TIEY
START DOING THAT OUR EYES
START TO GLAZE OVER. WE
SWITCH TIE CHANNEL. WE
TURNmWE FLIP TIE PAGE AND
GO TO ANOTIER STOR .”

Geraldine Ferrarro: “TIE AMERICAN
PUBLIC DOESN’T WANT TO SPEND
TTNE LISTENING TO IT. TIEY
WOULD RATIER WATCH A
COMEDY SHOW THAT GETS TIER
MINDS OFF TIER OWN
PROBLEMS, THAN WORRYING
ABOUT WHAT SIX PEOPLE ARE
DEBATING ABOUT, AND
PROBLEMS AND ISSUES THAT
NOBODY CAN SOLVE OR AT LEAST
TIEY CAN’T SOLVE IN TIER
LIVING ROOM. I DON’T KNOW
WHOSE FAULT IT IS.”

Jesse Jackson: “TIE PUBLIC NEED
NOT BE THAT CYNICAL, AFTER
ALL CANDIDATES ARE
EXTENTION S OF TIE PEOPLE.
CANDIDATES ARE MUCH LIKE
PEOPLE, AND ALL OF US ERROR.
ALL OF US HAVE FAULTS, AND TO
THAT EXTENT TIE CANDIDATE
HAS NO MORE PERFECITON, THAN
TIE PUBLIC IS. SO, TIERE MUST

Shots of people at national conventions
Super title: “Fatal Detractions: The Role of
Gaffes in Presidential Elections”
(B-ROLL)

Credits

97

BE SOME REASONABLE LATITUDE
FORTIE HUMAN FACTOR AS WE
JUDGE CANDIDATES, AND AS TIE
CANDIDATES JUDGE TIE PEOPLE.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF A GROUP OF
YOUTHS...IF I WENT TO A
COLLEGE OR SOMETHING, AND
TIERE BE A THOUSAND. I ASK
TIEM BIG QUESTIONS ABOUT
TIER FUTURE, I SAID ARE YOU
REGISTERED TO VOTE. NO?, BY
WHAT AUTHORITY DO YOU SPEAK.
IMEAN, YOUWANTTOMAKEA
DIFFERENCE AND YOU’RE DOING
LESS THAN YOUR BEST. YOU’RE
GOING TO DEMAND OF ME
PERFECITON, AND YOU DO LESS
THAN YOUR BEST. AND I’M AT
THAT DEMONSTRATION RISKING
MYLIFEFOR YOUTOHAVETIE
RIGHT TO VOTE. YOU HAVE
SURRENDERED TO CYNICISM. YOU
HAVE DROPPED OUT OF TIE
PROCESS. AND SO, I DON’T MIND
BEING CHALLENGED, BUT I WILL
CHALLENGE.”

Music full

Same music full

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

Overview

The primary objective and issue to be addressed is summarized in the attached statement of
Importance of Issue. At the most basic level, the program’s primary objective is to examine
the role of gaffes in presidential campaigns. The structure of framework for the program is
based on a theoretical construct provided by Lance Bennett. Bennett provides a powerful
argument for “taking gaffes seriously as central objects of electoral discourse.” Bennett
contends that when gaffes are viewed this way and taken seriously, they can be “Shown to
be the basis of clearly identifiable degradation rituals in campaigns.”

In simple terms, Bennett holds that campaigns serve as a stress test and that one of the
measures of performance in this test is the incidence and handling of gaffes. The media and
voting public evaluate candidates on those occasions when they blundenmakemistakes,

0 .‘ 0 I m I r‘ ‘r-_ i=3 .l It: .-. r' l _=. ' '.0 I.“ I 0 mm r. 0 Ila. '4'. Bennett also
argues that because so much attention is paid to these negative behaviors, they must
provide some useful information.

The perspective that is developed in Bennett’s article is the following. First, gaffes become
campaign issues when they can be defined in terms of general norms about leadership and
accountability. An evaluation about a gaffe sequence generates information about an
incident which becomes the basis for practical judgment. The handling of gaffes or such
incidents also generates meaningful information which is used to make practical judgments
about the candidate. ‘

98

Program Objectives

C"'

0 To clarify what criteria are being used by the voting public to evaluate candidates, and
by doing this, to provide a better understanding of the purpose of presidential election
campaigns.

0 To demonstrate the media’s role and impact on how we evaluate candidates.
0 To convince the viewer that the focus on candidates personal attributes and gaffes

reveals meaningful information which helps us assess how a candidate will
potentially perform in office.

Amy:

0 To make the public feel more positive about out presidential selection process.
° To increase the public interest about this as well as other political issues.
Behavioral

' To encourage the intention to vote.

0 To inspire the public to participate in local and/or national politics.

0 To encourage the intention to discuss political issues.

100
Evaluation Guidelines and Criteria

In evaluating the program, it is important to understand that there were some time, access
and budgetary constraints imposed upon us because of the program’s subject matter. First,
many of the targeted participants were individuals of national prominence and thus access
to them was an issue. In addition, because of the timeliness of the information, our goal
was to complete the production before the ‘88 campaign. And finally, as with most student
productions, we had a limited program budget.

With this in mind, the program should be evaluated in terms of the following:

1. How well it achieved the objectives Stated above.

2. The effectiveness of the program content and message.

3. How appropriate and well the medium was used to deliver the message.

Clear

Provocative

Discouraging

Thorough

Informative

Skewed - One Sided

Focused

Persuasive

Original

101

PROGRAM CONTENT AND MESSAGE

Confusing

Boring

Inspirational

Incomplete

Unenlightening

Balanced

Scattered/Dispersed

Unconvincing

Unimaginative

102

COMMERCIAL APPEAL OF PROGRAM

 

The program was entertaining:

‘_ Strongly Agree
Agree

Indifferent
__ Disagree
Strongly Disagree

 

 

 

 

 

The program held my attention:

Yes
No

If yes, what factors contributed to this?

 

Pacing of program
. Organization of material

. Individuals interviewed
. Archival video

 

 

Subject matter

 

 

103

 

 

—
—
_ ‘
—
—

The program was visually pleasing:

. Strongly Agree
A8168
‘ Indifferent

Disagree

 

Strongly Disagee

 

 

 

The archival video was used effectively:

Strongly Agree
Agree
Indifferent
Disagree

 

Strongly Disagree

 

 

 

 

The program had a professional appearance:

Strongly Agree
Agree
Indifferent

Disagree

 

Strongly Disagree

 

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(1984, August 27). ‘We Begin bombing in Five.’ Newsweek, p. 30.

(1987, June 1). The Loss of Hart. We. p. 9-11.

(1987, May 4). See How They Run. W, p. 7-9.

(1987, May 18). Private Life, Public Office. Time p.33.

Alter, J. (1987). Character Cops on Patrol. Newsweek, p. 26-27.

Alter, J. (1987, October 19). The Search for Personal Flaws. Wk, p. 79.
Alter, J. (1987, May 4). Sex and the Presidency. Newsweek, p. 26.

Alter, J. (1988, April 25). Political Sin and Forgiveness: A Guide to Redemption.
Nmmk. p. 23.

Alter, J. (1988, February 1, 1988). Nobody Knows What the Hell’s Goin’ On.
11mm. p. 24—26.

Armstron, R. (1988). In" k'.
Politics. New York: Beech Tree BOoks, William MOrrow.

Barber. ID. (1980). WWW (First
ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

 

Barber, JD. (1985). la. ' - ' =_ '
House (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

 

Barber, J .D. (1988). W. Durham and London: Duke University Press.

Barber, J. D. (1978). W (First ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall

Bennett, WL. (1981) Assessing Presidential Character: Degradation Rituals in Political
Campaigns. WW (August). 310-321.

104

105

Borger, G., Whitman, D., Chaze, WL., & Shapiro J. P. (1987, May 18). A Growing
Sense of Disillusion. W P- 22-24-

Borger, G., Sanoff, A.P., Whitman, D., Healy, M., & Kalb, D. (1987, July 27).
Television’s Binding Power. W p. 18-21.

Buchanan, B. (1991). W (First ed.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Davis, S. (1987). A Test of Candidate Equilibrium. W93 9 (1), 29-44.

Foley, J., Britton, D.A., and Everett, E.B. (ed.). (1980). W
W. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Glass, D. P. (1985). Evaluating Presidential Candidates: Who Focuses on Their Personal
Attributes? WW 517-534

Goldman, P. (1976, September 13). Sizing Up Carter. Newsweek, p. 22-25.
Greenfield, J. (1982). My (First ed.). New York: Summit Books.

Grogan, D. (1987, March 9). A Critic’s View of Reagan’s Tussles With the Truth. Rank,
p. 40-42.

Hess, S. (1978). mm (Revised ed.). Washington, DC: The
Brookings Institution.

Hinck, EA. (1993). W (First ed.). Wetsport, CT: Praeger
Publishers.

Hofstetter, RC, and Strand, R]. (1983). Mass Media and Political Issue Perceptions.
MW (Fall).

Joslyn, R. (1984). MW (First ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company.

Kamber, V. (1987, June 15). TV News as Political Kingmaker, W
Report. p. 8.

Kaus, M., & Fineman, H. (1988, February 15). A Penny-Ante Game. Newsweek, p.
24-26.

Keeter, S. (1987). The Illusion of Intimacy: Television and the Role of Candidate Personal
Qualities rn Voter Choice. W51 (Fall), 344-358.

Kessel, J. (1980). W (First ed.). Homewood: The Dorsey

Press.

106

Kinder, D.R., Peters, M.D., Abelson, RR, and Fiske, ST. (1980). Presidential
Prototypes. WW2“). 315-335.

Kramer, M. (1990, January 4). Shallow Sounds of Campaign ‘88. W
Recon P- 24-29.

Marcus, G. E. ( I988). The Structure of Emotional Response: 1984 Presidential Candidates.
W (September) 737-754

Malaney, 6D. and Buss, TE (1979). AP Wire Reports vs. CBS TV News Coverage of
a Presidential Campaign. W (Fall), 602-610.

Marshall. TR. (1981). W New York! ngcr
Publishers.

Morganthau, T., and Fmeman, H. (1988, February 29). Pit-Bull Politics. Newsweek, p.
16-20.

Nimmo, DD. (1974) W Englewood Cliffs, N .J .: Prentice-Hall,
Inc.

 

Owen,D..(l991) on. - -
Westport, CT: Greenwood PreSS.

Page. BL. (1978). Wm Chicagoz The University
of Chicago Press.

Polsby, N -W.. and Wildavsky. A. (1984)- WWW
Rouge: (6th ed.). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Pomper, GM. (1985). The Presidential Election. W
W (pp. 60-90). Chathanr, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.

Rabiger, M. (1992). W (Second ed.). Boston: Focal Press.

Roberts, C. L. (1979). Media Use and Difficulty of Decision- In the 1976 Presidential
Campaign Ioumalismmaucrlx (Winter) 794-802

Rooney, A. (1987, September 30). Issues Are Secondary to Candidates’ Honesty. The
W

107

Rosenberg, S. W. and McCafferty, P. (1987). The Image and the Vote: Manipulating
Voters’ Preferences W51 (Spring) 3147

Rubin, B. (1967). W. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Salmore, S ..,A and Salmore, B. G. (1985). =. ' ' '~ ._
Wee. Washington, D. C.: CQ Press/Division of congresSional Quarterly.

 

Schorr, D. (1987, November 16). The Public Image and Public Figures. W

Shapiro, W., Garrard, M., Fineman, H., and Abramson, P. (1984). Furor Over Ferraro
Finances. Newsweek, p. 20-22.

Shapiro, W. (1987, September 28). Biden’s Familiar Quotations. Time, p. 17.

Shyles, L. (1984). The Relationships of Images, Issues and Presentational Methods in
Televised Spot Advertisements for 1980’s American Presidential Primaries. W

W (Fall). 405-421-

Steele, R., Deka, T., Clift, E., and Doyle, J. (1976, October 18). Round Two to
Carter. Newsweek, p. 21-23.

Stokes, D. E. (1966). Some Dynamic Elements of Contests for the Presidency. Ameriean
W. 19- 28

Wattenberg, M. P. ( 1982). From Parties to Candidates: Examining the Role of the Media.
W (Summer). 216-227.

Weisberg, H. F., and Rusk, J. G. ( 1970). Dimensions of Candidate Evaluation. The
W. 1167-1185

White, TH. (1982). W. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.

Will, GE. (1988, February 2). The New Facts About US. Politics. W, p.

Wolverton. M (1983) W
W. Houston. Gulf Publishing Company.

Zimmerman, RD. (1987, July 27). But Will He, She or It Play in Peoria? mm
W P- 22-

Zoglin, R. (1987, May 18). Shakeouts and Shouted Questions. I'nne, p. 28-29.

 

"IIIIIIIIIIII