Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

Style over Substance

An analysis of the 2008 Presidential Campaigns


Charlotte Davis

COMM 202 Pupchek

The 2008 election was important, as all presidential elections are, but it was a type of election, which the United States had never seen. As US News & World Report said, It could be a campaign of historic firsts. Americans could elect the first woman president in Hillary Clinton. Or the first African-American president in Barack Obama. The first Mormon, Mitt Romney. The first Hispanic, Bill Richardson. The oldest president, John McCain (Walsh, 2007, par. 1). In 2008, the democratic and republican primaries gave the nation two candidates for the presidency. John McCain, a 72-year-old Phoenix resident, was the victor of the republican primary, defeating many famous faces including Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. After a long and heated primary, Barack Obama, the 42-year-old Illinois senator, received the democratic bid. As in any election, the candidates underwent debates, speaking engagements, interviews and media coverage during the two-year campaigning period. While campaigning, candidates were analyzed, discussed, written about and judged for their every move. This scrutiny brought about the question of the role of style and substance in the campaigns of both candidates. Why did Obama win in 2008? This subject has been discussed widely throughout the last three years, but it is hard to determine a conclusive outcome when reading the research available. Some say that he won because he was a great orator, who was able to swoon the democrats into giving him the candidacy (Daniels, 2008). Others cite his intense campaigning, even in states normally ignored by the Democrats (Kromm, 2008). The poor state of the United States economy has also been pointed to as the reason Obama was successful (Wenzhao, 2008). Through a study of both campaigns during this election this

3 essay will shed light on to this contested issue. This essay hopes to explain that, although a younger and much more personable candidate won the presidency in 2008, the election of Barack Obama was not a triumph of style over substance. LITERATURE REVIEW. According to Webster, style is manner which is deemed elegant and appropriate, especially in social demeanor (Merriam-Webster.com) and substance is the characteristic and essential components of anything; the main part (MerriamWebster.com). From the beginning of the 2008 presidential election the notion that style was more effective than substance was common. Kurtz (2006) states that most of Obamas early coverage was focusing on star potential rather than plans for withdrawal in Iraq. Bostdorff (2009) wrote that Obamas celebrity popularity was not a damper on the validity or substance of his campaign. She noted, 57 percent of voters said Obama had the right judgment to be a good president (pg. 269). Some sources seemed unsure as to whether the campaign was more about style triumphing or that the Democrats may have ran a much better campaign than the Republicans. For example Jackson (2010) said Obama understood this generation, using digital technology to create new forms of political mobilization (pg. 41). Similarly, Kaid (2009) stated that although Obama had much more campaign funding through this use of social medias, the basis of the two campaigns was very similar. Both candidates spent a majority of their funds on televised campaign ads and used the effective negative campaigning strategy (pg.418). In fact, according to Gelman (2009) Democrats merely benefited from the extremely low ratings of the outgoing, President Bush (pg. 15). Still attributing success to style rather than substance, but Bushs style as a negative factor rather than Obamas substance as a positive one.

4 While little scholarly research has been done on the effectiveness of style and substance in the 2008 presidential election, many elections have been studied in order to analyze the importance of style and substance in political campaigns. Many of these studies involve the medias impact in portraying and interacting with candidates. Fox, Angelini and Goble (2005) found that campaign coverage on television covered more hype than substantive information on candidates in elections between 1988 and 1996 (pg. 104). They did this by sampling radio and visual broadcasts. They researched this by using coverage of issues or candidate qualifications to define substance and using Horserace information such as stats or polls and hoopla, images like handshaking or ball throwing to define hype (pg. 101). Fox, Koloen, and Sahin (2007) found that the amount of substantive coverage of the 2004 election was the same on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and broadcast network television (pg. 213). They found this information using the same definitions of hype and substance used in the study by Fox, Angelini and Goble (2005) noted above (pg.218). In a study of campaign media, Just et al. (1999) researched the differences between several media outlets and how they portrayed voice, substance and cynicism on political campaigns. They found the televised media allows candidates more voice than newspapers, which gives them more substance, with the exception of local television broadcasts (pg 38). Yoger (2010) states that fashion can make or break your campaign (Pg. 26), which implies that style is still a major part of campaigning. Was the Obama victory actually a triumph of style over substance? The most effective way to answer that question is to review what happened on the campaign trail using the method discussed above that was used by Fox et al. in 2005 and 2007. This proven research process will assist in answering this question.

5 METHODOLOGY. This paper will examine style and substance as components of the 2008 presidential campaign to determine if the outcome was based more on style or substance. I choose to conduct my research by selecting two pieces of media from three broadcast networks and calculating the amount of substantive information, in comparison to the amount of hoopla or horserace information. This method, which was also used by Fox (2005, 2007), has had proven results in analyzing recent political campaigns. The three networks analyzed were Fox News, Cable News Network (CNN), and National Public Radio). These were selected due to their diverse coverage and overall popularity. Fox News is generally considered a left wing news source (Ackerman, para. 14), while CNN is generally considered more right and allows more airtime to proponents of right wing policy (Hart, para. 2). Finally, NPR was chosen because it is a radio broadcast so it will give a different view of this issue than television broadcasts and also because it considered moderate and unbiased (NPR code of ethics, para. 6). From each network two videos/audio segments were analyzed. In order to get more balanced results, one of the two videos/audios focused on the Obama campaign, while the other focused on the McCain campaign or both video/audio segments had equal segments on Obama and McCain. All of the videos/audios were from October of 2008. This date was chosen because it was after both partys national conventions (where candidates are officially chosen and vice presidential candidates are announced) and it is the last full month of the Presidential campaigns.

6 Analysis was procured through viewing each video and tallying the amount of hoopla and horserace information as well as tallying the amount of substantive coverage of candidates and issues. RESULTS. The results were broken down by network and put into to two sections, style (or hoopla) and substance. These categories were then split into sections for each candidate. Fox news was the first network examined. Ten counts of stylistic material were counted for every seven counts of substantive material. Obama had five counts of style for every four counts of substance. McCain had five counts for style for every three counts for substance. On this network Obama had more style than he did substance and also had more style and substance points than McCain overall. CNN had slightly different results. They had nine points on style for every three on substance. McCain had five style points for every one substance point, while Obama had four style points for every two substance points. Obama once again had more substance than style on this station and he had more points than McCain overall. NPR had varying results as well. On this station there were nine points for style and six points for substance. Obama had three points for style and three points for substance. McCain had six points on style and three points on substance. In this data, Obama had the same amount of style as substance and still had more points that McCain overall. Looking at all the stations as one unit, it was found that Obama had more style than substance, with twelve points for style and nine for substance. The same was true for McCain, who had sixteen points for style and five points for substance. When looking at the same candidates against each other, Obamas campaign was based on substance 33% of the

7 time and McCains campaigning was based on substance 24% of the time. Both campaigns were mostly style, but Obama did spend more time on substance than McCain. ANALYSIS. The study found that both candidates relied heavily on style throughout their campaigns. This could be seen through the overall percentages listed in the results section. In part, it could be said that the election of Barack Obama was a triumph of style over substance, because more of his campaign was based on style and less on substance. It can also be looked at in a different way. Obama was the most substantive choice during this election. His election over John McCain is a triumph of substance over style because he used more substance and gave the people of America more hard facts throughout his campaign. Like Fox (2005), the research shows that style is much more prevalent in political campaigns and in the media than substantive facts on issues. I found that Fox News and NPR gave the most even air time to both candidates and had more even coverage of style and substance overall. CNN was considerably more biased towards one campaign or the other. In the two CNN videos randomly chosen one video had covered no substance for Barack Obama while the other video had no substance for John McCain. This lack of variation in programming made CNN seem substantially more biased. They also had much more coverage of style than substance in both videos that were viewed for this research. This research has shown that although both candidates used more style than substance in their campaigns, the election of Barack Obama was not a triumph of style over substance due to the fact that his campaign was more substantial and less effected by style than that of his competitor, John McCain.

8 CONCLUSION This brings us back to our original question; why did Barack Obama get elected? The reason he was elected is due in part to his ability to convey to the American public substantial information on issues that were effecting their every day lives while having enough style to attract the masses and the media. He was able to beat McCain not because he was more stylish (are research has shown that this was not the case), but because he melded style and substance into a cohesive campaign strategy. Since this research did have some gaps such as, the low sampling number and the short period of time that I studied with the campaign, there is room for further research. I would like to see this same research done over the entire campaign period and with a larger sampling number. Another good idea would be to research different broadcasting networks such as BBC or local news in swing states. This research method could be used in upcoming elections including the 2012 presidential race. These methods could also be used on smaller scale races to determine if style or substance is more important in presidential races or local races. The way candidates communicate with their constituents at all levels of government should be researched and discussed to better the political process in the United States.

9 References (2011). NPRs code of ethics. Retrieved from http://www.vpr.net/inside_vpr/policies_and_practices/npr_news_code_of_ethics/ Ackerman, S. (2001). The most biased name in news. Retrieved from http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067 Bostdorff, D. M. (2009). Judgment, Experience, and Leadership: Candidate Debates on the Iraq War in the 2008 Presidential Primaries. Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 12(2), 223278. doi:10.1353/rap.0.0082 Daniels, M. (2008, June). Why did Barack Obama win? Retrieved from http://themoderatevoice.com/ Fox, J. R., Angelini, J. R., & Gable, C. (2005). HYPE VERSUS SUBSTANCE IN NETWORK TELEVISION COVERAGE OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(1), 97-109. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Fox, J. R., Koloen, G., & Sahin, V. (2007). No Joke: A Comparison of Substance in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Broadcast Network Television Coverage of the 2004 Presidential Election Campaign. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51(2), 213-227. doi:10.1080/08838150701304621 Gelman, A., & Sides, J. (2009). Stories and Stats: The truth about Obama's victory wasn't in the papers. Boston Review, 34(5), 15-19. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Hart, P. (2011). More Liberal bias at CNN. Retrieved from http://www.fair.org/blog/2011/02/11/more-liberal-bias-at-cnn/

10 Jackson, K., Dorton, H., & Heindl, B. (2010). A Celebration That Defined a Generation: Grant Park, New Media, and Barack Obama's Historic Victory of the US Presidency. Journal of American Culture, 33(1), 40-51. doi:10.1111/j.1542-734X.2010.00729.x Just, M., Crigler, A., & Buhr, T. (1999). Voice, Substance, and Cynicism in Presidential Campaign Media. Political Communication, 16(1), 25-44. doi:10.1080/105846099198758 Kaid, L. (2009). CHANGING AND STAYING THE SAME: COMMUNICATION IN CAMPAIGN 2008. Journalism Studies, 10(3), 417-423. doi:10.1080/14616700902812728 Kromm, C. (2008, November). Election 2008: How did Obama win in NC? Retrieved from http://www.southernstudies.org/ Kurtz, H. (2006, Dec. 12). The medias new rock star, The Washington Post. Retrieved Mar. 22, 2011 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/blog/2006/12/12/BL2006121200358.html Style. (1913). Merriam-Webster.com. Encyclopedia Britannica Company. Retrieved Mar 23, 2011 from http://www.merriam-webster.com/ Substance. (1913). Merriam-Webster.com. Encyclopedia Britannica Company. Retrieved Mar 23, 2011 from http://www.merriam-webster.com/ Walsh, K. T. (2007). The Candidates. (Cover story). U.S. News & World Report, 143(2), 36-38. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Wenzhao, T. (2008, November). How did Obama win the presidential election? Retrieved from http://watchingamerica.com/ Yoger, J., & Hooper, M. K. (2010, June 8). The campaign image. Hill. p. 25. Retrieved from EBSCOhost..

11

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi