The 1996 Presidential Campaign: A Communication Perspective (review)

Book Reviews 127 case analyses of this type, be wrong. For example, the authors found that the candidates placed greater emphasis acclaiming their own positive qualities than in attacking their opponents' negative ones, just about twice as much (211). There was much more attention given to policy in candidate communications than to issues of personal character, 72 percent compared to 28 percent (213). Republicans were more negative than Democrats in 1996. This negativity may not be surprising in light of the fact that the Democrats controUed the White House and the GOP did not. Also not unexpectedly, Republicans focused more on character issues than did the Democrats. Of course, it was the ethical and moral compass of the Clinton administration that was of issue, particularly to the sociaUy conservative Republican rank-and-file. AdditionaUy, the more attack-oriented Republican communications might also be reflective of that party's competitive nomination process in which Republicans attacked Republicans whereas Clinton ran unopposed. Of aU the communications, the television spots were the most negative and the candidates in their speeches and debates most laudatory—of themselves naturaUy (214-215). Television spots also had a larger character component than did speeches and talk radio which were more policy oriented (218). With the exception of Clinton's discourse in the debates, there were relatively few communications of a defensive nature. More interesting than these findings, however, was the methodology. The authors examined each message independently. Every coding decision was agreed to by two of the authors, thereby resulting in 100 percent coder reliabüity. Moreover, the breakdown of the communications into types and by campaign stages enabled the authors to note the varying effects of message form, time frame, partisanship, and incumbency on communications. The lesson is clear. If future researchers wish to understand communications in a campaign—why candidates say what they do—they must examine the purpose, form, and time frame as weU as the idiosyncratic factors that shape discourse within the public arena. Campaign '96: A Functional Analysis of Acclaiming, Attacking and Defending is a very good book, an exceUent case study, clearly written, weU analyzed, and a firstrate contribution to the political communications literature. Stephen J. Wayne Georgetown University The 1996 Presidential Campaign: A Communication Perspective. Edited by Robert E. Denton. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1998; pp xx + 299. $65.00 cloth; $24.95 paper. Denton has assembled a new companion piece to his volume on the 1992 presidential campaign. This text features eleven chapters written from a variety of 128 Rhetoric & Public Affairs perspectives and penned by an array of notable scholars. Denton opens the book with an overview that applies his communication model of presidential campaigns to the four stages of the 1996 campaign: surfacing, primary, nominating conventions , and general campaign. He argues that the importance of six elements—strategic environment, campaign organization, finances, poUs, image, and media—varies according to these four campaign stages, Ulustrating his argument with a discussion of these phases in the 1996 campaign. This essay provides an appropriate backdrop for the remainder of the volume. Two chapters focus on campaign stages. Judith Trent tackles the surfacing and primary phase, noting that three trends observed in 1992 recurred in 1996: new technologies, more and earlier use of television spots, and more money raised and spent before the first primaries. She also identifies the functions present in these stages. Timmerman and Weier analyze the nominating conventions from the standpoint of Burkean identification and values, suggesting that the Democrats presented a somewhat wider appeal than the RepubUcans. Several chapters address particular campaign media. Robert Friedenberg discusses the presidential debates. As is his wont, he considers the decision to debate and then notes highlights from each debate. He identifies simüarities and differences in their issues and personalities, concluding that Clinton debated more effectively than Dole. Lynda Lee Kaid analyzes videostyle in campaign spots. This chapter is somewhat unusual, albeit not in an undesirable way, because it offers both a content analysis of primary and general spots and the results of experimental research on several 1996 television spots. WhUe largely negative, these campaign messages did stress issues. The study portion of the essay elicited and reported voter reaction to...