Synopses & Reviews
Was the 2000 presidential campaign merely a contest between Pinocchio and Dumbo? And did Dumbo miraculously turn into Abraham Lincoln after the events of September 11? In fact, Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Paul Waldman argue in
The Press Effect, these stereotypes, while containing some elements of the truth, represent the failure of the press and the citizenry to engage the most important part of our political process in a critical fashion. Jamieson and Waldman analyze both press coverage and public opinion, using the Annenberg 2000 survey, which interviewed more than 100,000 people, to examine one of the most interesting periods of modern presidential history, from the summer of 2000 through the aftermath of September 11th.
How does the press fail us during presidential elections? Jamieson and Waldman show that when political campaigns side-step or refuse to engage the facts of the opposing side, the press often fails to step into the void with the information citizens require to make sense of the political give-and-take. They look at the stories through which we understand political events--examining a number of fabrications that deceived the public about consequential governmental activities--and explore the ways in which political leaders and reporters select the language through which we talk and think about politics, and the relationship between the rhetoric of campaigns and the reality of governance. They explore the role of the campaigns and the press in casting the 2000 general election as a contest between Pinocchio and Dumbo, and ask whether in 2000 the press applied the same standards of truth-telling to both Bush and Gore. The unprecedented events of election night and the thirty-six days that followed revealed the role that preconceptions play in press interpretation and the importance of press frames in determining the tone of political coverage as well as the impact of network overconfidence in polls.
The Press Effect is, ultimately, a wide-ranging critique of the press's role in mediating between politicians and the citizens they are supposed to serve.
Review
"There is much to be learned from the book's point-by-point analysis and their appeal for higher standards in journalism."--Alexander Stille, New York Times
"A savvy critique."--Booklist
"A disturbing picture of how poorly the media cover political discourse [and] why the press so often fails."--Denver Post
"Based on meticulous research and pretty well scrubbed free of bias, this highly readable book is the latest work in an established vein of media criticism aimed at telling us why we are getting short-changed and telling reporters how to improve.... The book's analysis of what has gone wrong and what is likely to go wrong in the future constitutes a well-judged and useful dissection of our flawed media."--Andrew J. Glass, The New Leader
"This fascinating, well-documented critique of the national press makes the case that the mainstream media doesn't so much report the news as they create it, especially when journalists 'transform the raw stuff of experience into presumed fact and arrange facts into coherent stories.'... Jamieson and Waldman's analysis is eye opening, and much of it is highly provocative. Intelligent and timely, this is an important addition to the literature on media and current events."--Publishers Weekly
"Jamieson has authored a number of substantial books about politics, and her latest does not disappoint."--National Journal
Synopsis
Includes bibliographical references (p. 199-207) and index.
Synopsis
Was the 2000 presidential campaign merely a contest between Pinocchio and Dumbo? And did Dumbo miraculously turn into Abraham Lincoln after the events of September 11? In fact, Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Paul Waldman argue in
The Press Effect, these stereotypes, while containing some elements of the truth, represent the failure of the press and the citizenry to engage the most important part of our political process in a critical fashion. Jamieson and Waldman analyze both press coverage and public opinion, using the Annenberg 2000 survey, which interviewed more than 100,000 people, to examine one of the most interesting periods of modern presidential history, from the summer of 2000 through the aftermath of September 11th.
How does the press fail us during presidential elections? Jamieson and Waldman show that when political campaigns side-step or refuse to engage the facts of the opposing side, the press often fails to step into the void with the information citizens require to make sense of the political give-and-take. They look at the stories through which we understand political events--examining a number of fabrications that deceived the public about consequential governmental activities--and explore the ways in which political leaders and reporters select the language through which we talk and think about politics, and the relationship between the rhetoric of campaigns and the reality of governance. They explore the role of the campaigns and the press in casting the 2000 general election as a contest between Pinocchio and Dumbo, and ask whether in 2000 the press applied the same standards of truth-telling to both Bush and Gore. The unprecedented events of election night and the thirty-six days that followed revealed the role that preconceptions play in press interpretation and the importance of press frames in determining the tone of political coverage as well as the impact of network overconfidence in polls.
The Press Effect is, ultimately, a wide-ranging critique of the press's role in mediating between politicians and the citizens they are supposed to serve.
About the Author
Kathleen Hall Jamieson is Professor of Communication and the Walter H. Annenberg Dean of The Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. She is also the Director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center and the author of
Packaging the Presidency and
Eloquence in an Electronic Age, (both OUP).
Paul Waldman is Associate Director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, where he researches the influence of the media on public opinion.
Table of Contents
The Press as Storyteller -- The Press as Amateur Psychologist, Part I -- The Press as Amateur Psychologist, Part II -- The Press as Soothsayer -- The Press as Shaper of Events -- The Press as Patriot -- The Press as Custodian of Fact.