The Press Effect : Politicians, Journalists, and the Stories That Shape the Political World

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. 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 beginning of 2002. 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 "Was the 2000 presidential campaign merely a contest between Pinocchio and Dumbo? In fact, Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Paul Waldman argue in The Press Effect, these stereotypes, while containing some elements of 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 press coverage of one of the most interesting periods of modern presidential history, from the summer of 2000 through the events 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 government 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 campaign and the reality of governance. They explore the role of the campaigns and the press in the 2000 general election 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."--BOOK JACKET. ## Abstract What Americans know, understand, and believe about the world of politics is the product of a negotiation between journalists and political actors. The news is primarily shaped not by a liberal or conservative bias, but by the need for news to be dramatic and easily packaged. Consequently, the frames into which events are fit – more than any objective idea of truth – determine what information passes through the news filter. The Press Effect surveys events in a critical period of American history, from the election of 2000 through the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. In each of the events that took place, journalists inhabited a different role that shaped the news. During the election between Bush and Gore, they acted as amateur psychologists, delving into the minds of the candidates in an attempt to reveal their true character. On election night, they acted as soothsayers, while in the postelection events in Florida, the press actively shaped events. On September 11 and after, journalists functioned as patriots, seeking to unify the country. In each case, the role inhabited by the press left critical questions unanswered and allowed distortions of the facts to pass into news. The book closes with a discussion of the means by which the press can enhance its most critical role, that of custodian of fact. Was the 2000 US presidential campaign merely a contest between Pinocchio and Dumbo? And did Dumbo miraculously transform after September 11? The authors argue that these types of stereotypes represent the failure of the press and citizenry to engage with the political process in a critical fashion Kathleen Hall Jamieson & Paul Waldman. Includes Bibliographical References (p. 199-207) And Index.