Product Description

Why are our politicians almost universally perceived as liars? What made candidate Bill Clinton's draft record more newsworthy than his policy statements? How did George Bush's masculinity, Ronald Reagan's theatrics with a microphone, and Walter Mondale's appropriation of a Wendy's hamburger ad make or break their presidential campaigns?

Ever since Watergate, says Thomas E. Patterson, the road to the presidency has led through the newsrooms, which in turn impose their own values on American politics. The results are campaigns that resemble inquisitions or contests in which the candidates' game plans are considered more important than their goals. Lucid and aphoristic, historically informed and as timely as a satellite feed, Out of Order mounts a devastating inquest into the press's hijacking of the campaign process -- and shows what citizens and legislators can do to win it back.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #19454 in Books
• Published on: 1994-08-02
• Released on: 1994-08-02
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 336 pages

Amazon.com
Thomas E. Patterson, a professor of political science at Syracuse University, argues that the process of electing presidents to office is "out of order." The culprits include poorly planned performances by the news media in which newscasters speak more than candidates and the numerous primaries that only weaken the parties and create a vacuum of political leadership. Patterson calls for a shortened nominating primary season--just six weeks--and an institutionalized televised forum in which candidates could speak, debate and be questioned. Until this is done, he maintains, American will suffer from a lack of communication of the issues and an incomplete translation of voter feedback, things that smack of the demise of democracy.

From Library Journal
Patterson (political science, Syracuse Univ.) makes his points early and often, contending that the system used to elect our presidents is "out of order" and clearly identifying the reasons: poor and "miscast" performances of the news media, the proliferation of presidential primaries across the United States, and the subsequent decline of the place of political parties in national elections. Patterson's remedy is to shorten the campaign by bunching up the primaries in a six-week period starting in June. He would also provide candidates with "adequate broadcast opportunities to present themselves and their policies as they wished them to be seen." There's nothing really new in any of this, although the author distills his views from nearly every modern source available. For large political science collections.
- Chet Hagan, Berks Cty. P.L. System, Pa.
Copyright 1993 Reed Business Information, Inc.

The New York Times Book Review
. . . a perversely useful book on the press and Presidential campaigns.

Customer Reviews

A Devastating Critique of Media Coverage of Presidential Races
If you are unhappy about press coverage for a Presidential candidate you are supporting, you will love this book. The author offers detailed examples from both daily press coverage and scholarly articles and books as to how the media is harming American democracy by trivializing the campaigns and obscuring the messages the candidates are trying to get out. He thinks all major party candidates are poorly covered, and he unhappily blames the media for Ross Perot's strong 1992 showing.

The author blames the McGovern-Fraser Commission of 1969-1970 for empowering the press to play a major political role under the guise of opening up the system to the voters and taking control away from party bosses. He believes the party bosses produced far better candidates and Presidents--Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson--than did the voters. This reviewer certainly agrees that the boldness of Presidential leadership has become greatly attenuated in the modern era.

The author blames the media for relentless negative coverage which demeans government and the Presidency in the eyes of the people, and thus makes governing effectively extremely difficult. The greater the exposure to media coverage, the more negative toward the candidates the voters feel.

The media, he says, is a "miscast institution" in the Presidential primary process. They are concerned with what is new and newsworthy, and not what is significant over the long run. The voters are much more concerned with issues of long-range significance than the media is, he argues. A position paper on a major issue will perhaps get a day's worth of coverage, while a gaffe by the candidate can last for a week or two or more.

The media, he finds, is more about game than governing. The initiatives of candidates to build a broad coalition capable of leading our country is reduced to game elements. We learn of day by day strategical considerations, but do not learn of consistently pursued goals over the length of the candidate's career. The candidate is left with having who he or she is personified by strategical campaign decisions, since the candidate's record and plans for the future are essentially only on the table on those rare occasions--often in new media--where the candidate can get his or her message across without having it distorted by media interpretation.

The images of the campaign are all important. Media coverage can create a bandwagon effect, where candidates are backed by voters largely because other voters are backing them. He quotes the Markle Commission analysis of the 1988 Presidential campaign: "Viewers and readers are implicitly invited to assume that the strategic political game is a worthy and possibly a sufficent test of suitablity for office, and that the shrewdest candidate with the most effective campaign both wins and deserves the Presidency for that reason alone."

The author's conclusion about campaign imagery states that "The voters, as V.O. Key noted, 'are not fools.' But their decisions can be foolish when they are forced to choice without adequate guidance. They depend on the press for information about the candidates. Much of the information they receive is useful, but much of it consists of fanciful imagery."

There is a major difference, the author writes, between reporter' issues and voters' issues. Reporters want to know what a candidate thinks about what a rival did last night, while voters want to know what the candidate will do that affects their lives if he or she is elected President. The voter issues are gnerally far more relevant to the actual conduct of the Presidency than are the media issues.

The author quotes Walter Lippman, a keen Washington observer from the administration of Woodrow Wilson to that of Lyndon Johnson, many times, including the Lippman quote that "News and truth are not the same thing, and must be clearly distinguished." News, Lippman says, is found in particular events rather than in the underlying forces that create them. News is a small and unrepresentative manifestation of a vastly more intricate reality. It is what is new and out of the ordinary and thus atypical and a weak base for judging trends that are powerful and lasting.

The author further blames the media for its fascination with early winners and electability, and says that these foci "fails to distribute power evenly across the electorate." He sees the media as especially strong in primaries, where "Voters are not anchored by party loyalties, and most of them are feebly motivated and poorly informed. In these circumstances, the press' interpretations of wht is happening in the race, and the glare of its spotlight, can significantly influence the vote."

He calls the voter's process of decision the "whimsical vote" and says it is analagous to Herbert Krugman's "learning without involvement" in which "attitudes and motiavations are weak, but people do absorb some information. People 'learn ' the message, and since they are 'uninvolved' do not resist it." This contrasts with a "situation where people have strong attitudes" and "information is tested against existing beliefs, and affected by these beliefs....In this case, the individual is largely in control. Wheras, in the case of 'learning without involvement,' power rests primarily with the communicator."

The way to fix the campaign, the author concludes, is to shorten it. He envisions primaries right before the national conventions. What is actually happening, of course, is that the nomination process is being shortened to end in February, but the campaign is being lengthened, with a long period of two virtual nominees facing each other.

It is difficult for any review to do this book justice. The arguments the author makes are so filled with facts and cogent analysis that they are not easy to adequately summarize. Few sentences are wasted. Few references to scholarly texts can be dismissed as being pedantic, and few references to actual media coverage can be dismissed as anecdotal irrelevance.

With a scope of coverage from the election of John Kennedy in 1960 to the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, as well as prior historical references, this book may well be the most thorough and analytical treatment of the modern Presidential nominating process ever written. No reporter should attempt to cover a Presidential campaign without it. No candidate or campaign manager should attempt to win the Presidency without studying it closely.

A Must Read
This book is a must-read for any student of the media or politics. Thomas Patterson writes a terrific critique of the role the media has played in corrupting politics - particularly the political election process - arguing persuasively that things are now "out of order." Patterson provides numerous examples of how the media has negatively impacted elections. Some of these are:

1. Articles about campaigns focus on the "horse race," or the constant jockeying between candidates and their campaigns, rather than on the actual platforms of the candidates or the important issues being discussed.

2. Great emphasis is placed on poll results, and on candidates' rise and fall in the polls, rather than on their stated goals or positions on various issues.

3. Reporters travel around with a candidate for months on end (as the candidate travels around the country or state to meet with voters) and as a result start focusing more on internal problems within the campaign (campaign staffers disagreeing with each other, for example) than on the substance of the candidates' speeches. Minor gaffes, such as a candidate tripping, or a candidate's spouse saying something odd, take on much greater importance in the media than they should.

4. Media "talking heads" become celebrities in their own right and dominate news casts. They may show 30 seconds of a candidate's speech and then spend 5 minutes talking about their spin on the speech. This hardly gives the candidate much opportunity to communicate directly with the voter.

We've gotten to the point now where a substantial portion of articles about campaigns tell you everything about the campaigns *except* for the candidates' stances on actual issues. Patterson proposes a number of remedies for this: shorten the nominating primary season to 6 weeks, and make it so that candidates all have the opportunity to communicate with the electorate in some sort of national broadcast. Patterson believes that this will help reduce the impact of the media on the election and give the candidates a more direct communication vehicle with voters.

This is a fascinating read, and it has greatly influenced my understanding of the media and how it affects politics. I highly recommend it.

Not bad
My jerk, hippy, liberally biased professor made Out of Order a required reading. So I went into it expecting to cringe with disagreement. A nice surprise to me, what Patterson had to say was well thought out and really made a lot of good points about the media and its role in elections. It was a bit repetitive at times but I don't even care because it was the only book that I didn't loathe reading in my government class.