Author:
Title: The Functional Theory of Political
Campaign Discourse
Journal: Proceedings of Ural State
Pedagogical University. Linguistics.
Year: 2006
Volume: 18
Pages:
Language of publication: English
Full
text
BENOIT W.
University of Missouri
THE FUNCTIONAL THEORY OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGN
DISCOURSE
Many countries have political campaigns for elective office.а For example, political campaign debates have
been held in many countries, including Australia, Canada, France, Germany,
Greece, Holland, Israel, New Zealand, Scotland, South Korea, Sweden, Poland,
Taiwan, the Ukraine, and the United States.а
Political television advertisements have been broadcast in countries around
the world, including Britain, France, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, Korea,
Poland, Russia, Taiwan, Turkey, and the United States.а Of course, political systems and election
campaigns have some differences.а For
example, some nations cast votes for candidates; others have a parliamentary system
and vote for a political party rather than directly for a candidate.а Rules about who can vote, registering to
vote, as well as when and how candidates, political parties, and others can
campaign also vary from country to country.а
For example, in South Korea the president is restricted to one term in
office and there is no vice president.а
This aspect of that system of government the importance of incumbency in
that country (see Lee & Benoit, 2005).а
These cross-national differences can be important and we must remain
aware that such variations exist.а
Nevertheless, the basic situation Ц political candidates, parties, and
organizations try to convince enough voters to select me or my political party
Ц ensures some commonalities.а
Furthermore, as differences in the media systems around the world
diminish (Hallin & Mancini, 2005), the
comparability of many campaign message forms increases.а For example, political debates and television
advertising are regulated by laws, but such events can be considered more media
events than inherent aspects of the governmental system.
This essay explains the Functional Theory of Political Campaign
Discourse, which has been used to analyze political campaign messages in the
United States, and, more recently, in other countries (for a more complete
discussion, see Benoit, in press).а
Obviously, this is not the only possible approach to understanding
campaign communication, but it is one approach worth considering.а There can be no question that political
campaign message are instrumental, means to achieve a particular end (obtaining
political office) or functional, in nature.а
Of course, a few candidates who have no realistic change of winning do
run for office to publicize an issue, but they are in the minority.а Most candidates use their campaign messages
to persuade voters to choose them over opponents.а Political campaigns matter Ц because
presidents, prime ministers, and chancellors propose and implement vital
policies Ц and Functional Theory can help understand the messages from viable
candidates for office.
AXIOMS
Functional Theory of Political Campaign Discourse is based on six key
assumptions.а Each of these assumptions
will be explained next.а Those who are interested
in understanding political campaigns can consider these assumptions to decide
how well they fit the circumstances in the political systems of interest.
1. Voting Is a Comparative Act
When citizens cast their votes, have a fairly straightforward choice:
For which candidate (or political party) shall I vote?а This is a choice between two (or more)
competing options and it clearly involves a comparative judgment.а It is unreasonable to expect any candidate or
party to be perfect:а It is possible that
a voter would agree with a candidate or party on many, but not all,
issues.а Candidates and political parties
may have both good and bad points.а So,
each person is essentially deciding which candidate (or party) seems to be preferable
on whatever factor matters the most to that person.
2. Candidates Must Distinguish Themselves from Opponents
The first assumption of Functional Theory, that voting is a comparative
act, entails the second one: Because voting is a comparative action, candidates
must tell voters how they differ from other candidates.а If a citizen does not see any difference
between two candidates, he or she has no reason to prefer one candidate
over the other.а This means that
political candidates who run in contested races must develop and disseminate
clear distinctions between themselves and viable opponents.
This does not mean that candidates for elective office must differ on
every possible point of comparison.а
Surely all candidates would want to support a strong national defense,
plentiful jobs, low inflation (although they might disagree on the means of
achieving some of these goals).а For this
reason we should anticipate some similarities in the issue positions of the
candidates.а Still, if voters are to have
a basis for choosing one candidate instead of another, the candidates
must make clear to voters some points of distinction.
3. Political Campaign Messages Are Important Vehicles for Distinguishing
between Candidates
The first two assumptions lead directly to the third: Candidates use
campaign messages to convey the distinctions among competitors that they chose
to emphasize to voters.а Some campaign
messages reach voters directly, as they listen to a candidateТs speech, view a
television spot, read a political pamphlet, watch a televised debate, or visit
a candidateТs webpage.а On the other
hand, some information from candidate messages (including their press releases)
reaches voters through the news media, as journalists report on the campaign
(and, of course, other interested people and organizations also disseminate
information about the candidates).а
However, we must realize that research makes it clear that voters cannot
always depend on the news media to provide voters with this information.а Patterson and McClure (1976) concluded that
in the United States in 1972 Уduring the short period of the general election
campaign, presidential ads contain substantially more issue content than
network newscastersФ (p. 23).а It is
important to keep in mind three important facts about news coverage of
campaigns: (1) the news enacts a gate-keeping function, deciding which ideas
from the candidates to pass along to voters and which to ignore, (2) the news
media has the opportunity to provide commentary on the candidatesТ ideas,
evaluating the candidates positively or negatively, and (3) the news has a
strong tendency to focus on horse race issues (who is ahead, campaign strategy,
and campaign events) rather than the candidatesТ policy positions or
qualifications for office (see Farnsworth & Lichter,
2003; Patterson, 1980; Robinson & Sheehan, 1983).а The news, in addition to candidate messages,
is a way for voters to learn about the candidates and their positions on the
issues.
Third, many voters learn about the candidates and their policy positions
from other voters in political discussion (Lenart,
1994).а I want to make clear that I do
not subscribe to the theory of opinion leaders (Lazarsfeld,
Berelson, & Gaudet,
1948), in which a small number of people (the Уopinion leadersФ) take
information from candidate messages and the news and then pass that information
on to other citizens.а Rather, each
person in a conversation may have information about the campaign that is not
known to the other and they exchange that information in political discussion.а Or, perhaps today I tell my friend something
he did not know about the campaign and then tomorrow he will tell me something
else that I did not know.а So, many
people learn about the political campaign from interacting with other citizens.
So, voters acquire information about the candidates and the campaign
from several sources: candidate messages, news coverage of the campaign,
messages from other people and groups, and political discussion.а Keep in mind that all of these sources are
very complex: candidates may give speeches, participate in debates, broadcast
television commercials, appear on talk shows, create webpages,
and use other messages as well (and note also that candidates can give many
different speeches, participate in more than one debate, broadcast multiple TV
ads, and so forth).а Voters have access
to television news (on multiple networks, broadcast, cable, and Internet) and
various newspapers and news magazines.а A
citizen may discuss the campaign with several different people, each with his
or her own information and point of view.а
We must realize that messages from different sources can reinforce each
other, contradict one another, or treat different topics.а Clearly, the modern political campaign occurs
in a highly complex media environment with hundreds of thousands of different
messages.а Each voter cannot attend to
each message, but the information available on candidates for elective office
can be very complex (particularly campaigns for higher levels of office, where
candidates tend to have more money for messages and the news is more interested
in the campaign.а I also want to make it
clear that I do not assume that all voters (or even most voters) are keenly
interested in the campaign, actively seek out information about the candidates
and their positions on the issues, critically evaluate information (and the
sources of information) and work hard to make a rationale voting decision.а Clearly, campaign interest and information
seeking about the candidates and parties varies widely from citizen to
citizen.а Some people never seek out
information about the candidates; if they vote, they do so on the basis of
whatever information they happen to encounter during the campaign.а Nevertheless, campaign messages can inform
and persuade voters and clearly merit scholarly attention.
4. Candidates Establish Preferability Through
Acclaiming, Attacking, and Defending
Of course, it is not enough for political candidates to be distinctive
in their messages; they must strive to appear to be different from opponents in
ways that will attract voters.а Popkin (1994) explains that Уcandidates manage to get a
large proportion of the citizenry sorted into opposing camps, each of which is
convinced that the positions and interests of the other side add up to a less
desirable package of benefitsФ (p. 8).а
For example, a statement like УI am the only candidate who wants to
eliminate our national defenseФ would definitely differentiate that candidate
from opponents, but this distinction is not likely to win many votes for that
candidate.а So, candidates must be
distinctive from opponents in ways that make them appear preferable to
other contenders.
This need for a political candidate to appear preferable to voters means
that campaign messages have three potential functions.а First, a candidateТs message may acclaim,
or tell voters about his or her good points (see Benoit, 1997).а Stressing a candidateТs desirable attributes
or policies can make that candidate appear preferable to opponents,
particularly for citizens who value that attribute or policy.а So, one way to increase the impression that
one candidate is preferable is to send messages which acclaim, or emphasizes
his or her desirable features.а Of
course, candidates often proclaim the same goals: creating jobs, reducing
inflation, protecting the country.а An
acclaim can make a candidate appear preferable, but it may not do so.
A second potential function of political campaign messages is to attack
or criticize the opponent.а Identifying
an opponentТs weaknesses or disadvantages is likely to make that candidate
appear less enticing to voters (again, particularly with voters who believe the
topic of the attack is important).а This
means that an attack can improve a candidateТs net preferability
by reducing his or her opponentТs apparent desirability: The worse my opponent
looks, the better I look by comparison (and remember voting is a comparative
decision).
Some evidence indicates that voters tend to consider policy attacks more
acceptable than character attacks (Johnson-Cartee
& Copeland, 1989), so some attacks might be more likely to backfire than
others.а Other research reports that
positive advertisements are just as persuasive as negative ones (Allen &
Burrell, 2002; Lau, Sigelman, Heldman,
& Babbitt, 1999).а Clearly, attacking
is an option in a political campaign and it is capable of persuading voters
that candidate is preferable.а However,
research does not support the notion that negative advertising is generally
more effective than positive advertising.
Many voters say that they do not like mud-slinging (Merritt, 1984;
Stewart, 1975).а This does not mean that
attacks do not work: Voters may be persuaded to downgrade the target of an
attack even though they do not like mudslinging.а However, the fact that most voters dislike
mudslinging means that attacks have a potential disadvantage which does not
apply to acclaims.а There could be a
backlash from an attack, in which voters dislike the attacker more than they dislike
the target of the attack.а This possibility
may lead candidates to attack less than they acclaim.а Research on presidential television spots
(Benoit, 1999) found that one group of candidates who attacked more were those
who had trailed their opponents throughout the campaign.а So, presidential candidate may attack more
when they start to get desperate, when nothing else has allowed them to
overtake their opponents.
The third and final possible function of political campaign messages is
defense, a statement from a campaign message that refutes an attack (see
Benoit, 1995).а A timely and suitable
defense has the potential to prevent further damage from an attack and it may
help restore a candidateТs preferability from damage
caused by an attack.а However, it is
important to keep in mind that defenses have several possible
disadvantages.а First, a response to an
opponentТs attack could appear to place the candidate on the defensive.а Candidates may prefer to appear proactive
rather than reactive. Second, attacks are most likely to to
occur, of course, in areas where a candidate is weakest, so responding to
attacks are likely to take a candidate Уoff-message.Фа Generally it is a good idea for a candidate
to spend the most time on topics where he or she is strongest.а Third, a candidate must identify an attack
before refuting it.а Mentioning the
attack might remind or inform voters of an alleged weakness of the candidate.
It is worth mentioning that politicians and their advisors understand
the basic idea that campaign messages can perform these functions.а For example, in 1972, one of President
NixonТs aides, H. R. Haldeman, gave this advice for
NixonТs reelection campaign: УGetting one of those 20 [percent] who is an
undecided type to vote for you on the basis of your positive points is much
less likely than getting them to vote against McGovern by scaring them to death
about McGovernФ (Popkin et al., 1976, p. 794n).а So Haldeman
realized that Nixon could seek votes by praising himself (acclaiming NixonТs
positive points) or by attacking his opponent (frightening them with attacks
against his opponent).а Another advisor,
Vincent Breglio, who worked on Ronald ReaganТs
successful 1980 presidential campaign, explained that УIt has become vital in
campaigns today that you not only present all the reasons why people ought to
vote for you, but you also have an obligation to present the reasons why they
should not vote for the opponentФ (1987,а
p. 34).а Clearly, candidate
messages can establish preferability through the
functions of acclaims, attacks, and defenses.
This means it is reasonable to analyze political campaign discourse into
statements that acclaim oneself, attack oneТs opponent(s), and defend
oneself from an opponentТs attacks.а
Although these three message functions do not occur with equal frequency,
they are all options that candidates have available for use, they each have the
potential to increase a candidates preferability, and
all three functions are found in political campaign messages.
5. Campaign Discourse Occurs on Two Topics: Policy and Character
There are only two broad topics that are useful for candidates to try to
distinguish themselves from their opponents: They can discuss their character
(often referred to as УimageФ) and/or their policy stances
(УissuesФ).а One candidate might try to
show himself or herself as a competent and forceful leader.а Another might attempt to create the
impression that he or she is honest or compassionate.а Candidates can also discuss their positions
(proposals) or past accomplishments on policy, such as education, jobs,
national defense, or crime.а In the 2004
Ukrainian political debates, for example, candidates Yanukovych
and Yushchenko discussed such policy topics as the
economy, wages, prices, and pensions.а
Policy and character are the two general topics on which candidates can
try to establish their distinctiveness.
Some scholars have argued that policy is more important than
character.а Patterson and McClure (1976)
explained that Уof all the information voters obtain through the mass media
during a presidential campaign, knowledge about where the candidates stand on
the issues is among the most vitalФ (p. 49).а
Similarly, Hofstetter (1976) observed that
УIssue preferences are the key elements in the preferences of most, if not all,
votersФ (p. 77).а Public opinion poll
data from 1976 through 2000 indicate that more American voters report that the
most important determinant of their vote for president is issues rather than
character (Benoit, 2003).а Furthermore,
Benoit (2003) found that presidential candidates who won, as a group, discussed
policy more and character less in their campaign messages.а This does not mean that character is
unimportant; a substantial number of voters do believe that character is the most
important factor in their presidential vote choice.а Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that of
the two possible topics, policy is more important in American presidential
elections than character.а Of course, if voters
in the U.S. Ц or in other countries Ц believed that character was more important
than policy, presumably this situation would change and political candidates
would be more inclined to emphasize character over policy.
6. A Candidate Must Win a Majority (or a Plurality) of the Votes Cast in
an Election
Although this sounds obvious, this proposition has important
implications for political campaigns generally and presidential campaigns in
particular.а First, it is important to
realize that a political candidate does not need to persuade everyone that he or
she is preferable to opponents.а It is
neither practical nor necessary to win the support of every citizen in an
election.а One reason this is important
is that some policy positions (e.g., on abortion) will simultaneously attract
some voters and repel others.а That is,
support for many issues is dichotomous.а
For instance, in 2000 Governor Bush wanted to permit some citizens to
invest part of their Social Security in the stock market; Vice President Gore
opposed this proposal.а Voters were also
split on this suggestion, so the presidential candidates could not hope to win
the support of all voters on this issue.а
So, it is important to realize that political candidates do not have to
obtain all of the votes cast to win the election.
Second, we must realize that in a very real sense the only citizens who
really matter in an election are those who actually vote.а So, a candidate does not need the support of most
citizens, but of most citizens who actually vote.а Candidates need not try to appeal to citizens
who are not eligible to vote or those who choose not to vote (although, of
course, one cannot know for certain which citizens will actually vote in the
election).а For this reason, some public
opinion polls report results for only registered voters or likely voters.
Third, American presidential elections are unusual because candidates
only need to persuade enough people to win 270 electoral votes.а The importance of the Electoral College, and
this idea, became obvious in the 2000 American presidential election because Al
Gore won the popular vote by over 500,000 votes but lost the election, because
George Bush received a majority of the Electoral College votes (Duchneskie & Seplow,
2000).а The importance of the Electoral
College, and the Уwinner-take-allФ rules that operate in all but two states,
has led American presidential candidates in recent elections to campaign more
vigorously (e.g., spend more on airing political advertising; schedule more
speeches and political rallies) in some states than others.а Of course, rules for parliamentary
governments, in which citizens vote for parties rather than candidates, are
different.
Summary
So, presidential candidates disseminate their campaign messages through
various channels or media (such as speeches, television spots, debates, direct
mail advertising, radio spots, web pages) hoping to provide information to
whoever happens to be paying attention to that medium at the time of the
message.а Acclaiming, or providing
information about a candidateТs advantages (desirable issue stands or
qualities) works to enhance that candidateТs perceived preferability.а Attacking, or providing information about an
opponentТs disadvantages (policy or character) has a tendency to reduce the
opponentТs perceived preferability.а Defending or refuting an attack should help
restore a candidateТs perceived preferability.а These three functions work as an informal
form of cost-benefit analysis: When persuasive to the audience, acclaims
increase a candidateТs benefits, attacks increase an opponentТs costs, and
defenses reduce alleged costs.а Of
course, I want to make clear that I do not believe voters assign numerical
values to acclaims or attacks or that they perform mathematical operations to
make a vote choice (as in traditional cost-benefit analysis).а I believe the three functions contribute to
global evaluations of candidates.а
Acclaims, when persuasive, ought to increase the candidateТs apparent
benefits.а Attacks, if accepted by the
audience, should add to the targetТs perceived costs.а Defenses, if effective, should reduce the
candidateТs apparent costs.а Finally, the
cumulative effects of the messages encountered by voters (from candidates,
news, and other sources) containing these three kinds of messages, along with
the votersТ existing beliefs and values, should eventually determine their vote
choice.
This view explains why basic ideas are, and should be, repeated
throughout the campaign.а For those
voters who pay attention throughout the campaign, repetition serves to
reinforce the candidateТs message with those auditors.а On the other hand, candidates disseminate a
relatively constant message in hopes that voters who rarely pay attention to
the campaign will sooner or later notice their key campaign themes.
ADVANTAGES OF THE FUNCTIONAL APPROACH
The Functional Theory enjoys several important advantages over other
approaches to studying political campaign communication.а The assumptions of the theory allow it to
make predictions about the nature of campaign messages, as we shall see.а Political television spots are clearly the
most intensely studied form of presidential campaign message, so I will begin
by explaining the advantages of the Functional Approach compared with other
research on political advertising.а I
conceptualize TV ads as performing two functions, as most other research does
in studying the nature of political advertising: acclaiming (positive) and
attacking (negative).а However,
functional theory recognizes a third function, defenses, which is ignored in
other research.а For example, a TV spot
for Vice President Richard Nixon in the 1960 campaign began by explaining that
the ad contains a clear example of a defense, responding to an attack from the
opponent: УPresident Eisenhower answers the Kennedy-Johnson charges that
America has accomplished nothing in the last eight years.Ф This message
identifies an attack against Nixon and notes that President Eisenhower will
answer that attack.а The spot then
displayed a video clip from Eisenhower, who observed that УMy friends, never
have Americans achieved so much in so short a time,Ф clearly denying the
accusation identified earlier.а This
message cannot be really understood by considering it either as a negative or a
positive ad; clearly it contains something else.а It identifies an opponentТs attack and then
explicitly rejects that attack.а Thus, by
looking for defenses as well as attacks and acclaims the Functional Approach
provides a more comprehensive understanding of political campaign messages.
Second, unlike most other research, because so many TV spots include
multiple statements, we do not classify entire ads as either positive
(acclaiming) or negative (attacking).а
Some political ads are completely positive or entirely negative, but many
other messages are mixed, and that mix is not always 50/50.а For example, Kaid
and Tedesco (1999) offer this spot from Bill ClintonТs 1996 reelection campaign
to illustrate of a negative spot:
AmericaТs values.а The President
bans deadly assault weapons; Dole/Gingrich vote no.а The President passes family leave;
Dole/Gingrich vote no.а The President
stands firm: a balanced budget, protects Medicare, disabled children; No
again.а Now Dole resigns, leaves gridlock
he and Gingrich created.а The
PresidentТs plan: balance the budget, protect Medicare, reform welfare.а Do our duty to our parents, our
children.а AmericaТs values (p. 213;
emphasis added).
I italicized the attacks and left the acclaims in plain type in this
text.а In point of fact, even though this
messages is presented as an example of a negative ad, twice as many words are
devoted to positive than negative ideas (44 to 19).а Accordingly, we analyze and classify each
utterance in a given commercial, providing a more precise picture of the
degree to which a political spot is positive, negative, or defensive.а This means that a method that classifies this
spot as either positive or negative provides an inaccurate
picture of the content of this spot.
Notice that some scholars include a third option for classifying
television spots: positive, negative, and comparative (ads that are both
positive and negative).а However, we know
that not every ad which combines acclaims and attacks divides them evenly
(e.g., some have 25% or 10% acclaims and 75% or 90% attacks).а Using three categories is a little more
accurate than using two categories, but my approach of categorizing each remark
(theme) as acclaiming, attacking, or defending is still superior.
The same problem, of course, arises with topics as well.а Although some commercials are just about
policy (issues), or only about character (image), many spots contain a mixture
of these two topics.а Some past research
classifies the topic of ads according to the Уdominant focusФ of the ad.а Other research counts the number of ads that
УmentionФ an issue.а Classifying each
theme or statement in the ad as either policy or character provides a more
accurate measurement of the content of these messages than the approach taken in
other research.
Third, much research stops after classifying political spots as either
policy (issues) or character (image).а
Our analysis extends this work by analyzing both policy and character
into finer subdivisions than does most current research (I divide policy into
past deeds, future plans, and general goals; I split character into personal
qualities, leadership qualities, and ideals).а
Analysis of the 1996 presidential campaign, for example, revealed that
Bill ClintonТs television spots were more comprehensive than Bob DoleТs TV
ads.а Clinton addressed four potential
ideas (actually, he addressed more than four ideas; we focus on these
particular options to make this point) in his TV spots: Clinton acclaimed his both
past deeds (accomplishments) and his future plans (specific campaign promises),
and his ads attacked both Bob DoleТs past deeds (failures) and
his future plans (specific campaign promises).а
In sharp contrast, DoleТs ads acclaimed his own future plans (but
rarely praised his past deeds), and DoleТs spots attacked Bill ClintonТs
past deeds (but rarely criticized ClintonТs future plans).а An analysis that combined past deeds and
future plans together could not have detected the differences in their emphases
(some research, such as issue ownership theory [see, e.g., Petrocik,
Benoit, & Hansen, 2003/2004] examines particular issues such as crime,
education, jobs, or national defense).
Fourth, past research adopting the Functional approach (Benoit, Blaney, & Pier, 1998; Benoit et al., 2003) found that
during the primaries, campaign messages which attack may have several different
targets.а In the 2004 primary, for
example, Democratic primary TV spots attacked President Bush (and the
Republican party), other Democratic candidates, the Washington establishment (status
quo).а Clearly it is important to
realize whether Howard Dean was attacking Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, Dick
Gephardt (all Democrats) or Republican George W. Bush.а However, past research on presidential
television advertising employing other approaches ignores the target of attacks
in primary campaign messages.
Furthermore, the Functional approach combines analysis of function
(acclaim, attack, defend) and topic (policy, character).а Some studies of political TV spots only
investigate one topic or the other, but not both. аFurthermore, studies of other message forms,
such as debates or speeches, frequently do not to examine the topic of campaign
messages.а Thus, the Functional Approach
to political campaign research provides a more comprehensive understand of
political campaign messages than other research approaches.
Finally, Functional approach has been applied to several different kinds
of political campaign messages, such as televised political spots (primary and
general), debates (primary and general), talk radio appearances (primary and
general), web pages (primary and general), nominating convention speeches
(acceptances, keynotes) and news coverage of political campaigns (see Benoit,
in press).а We have also begun to apply
the Functional approach to non-presidential campaign messages in the U.S.
(e.g., Airne & Benoit, 2005a, 2005b; Brazeal & Benoit, 2001) as well as to political
campaign messages in other countries (Lee & Benoit, 2004, 2005; Wen, Benoit, & Yu, 2004).а Most political campaign research focuses on
television spots and debates -- and predominantly on general election campaign
spots and debates -- or on Keynote Speeches and Acceptance Addresses.а Thus, research from the Functional approach
offers insight into a variety of political campaign message forms.а It is surprising that the concepts which have
been used to study television spots (positive, negative; issue, image) rarely
are used in research on other message forms, such as debates or Acceptance
Addresses.а Our research is systematic
and has applied the same method to each message form we analyze, allowing for
comparisons across media.
PREDICTIONS AND FINDINGS
Relative frequency of the three functions.а As discussed earlier, Functional Theory
argues that acclaims have no drawbacks, attacks have one, and defenses have
three disadvantages.а Thus, it predicts
that:
F1. Candidates will use acclaims more frequently than attacks and
attacks more than defenses.
Research on a variety of candidate message forms over multiple American
presidential campaigns has supported this prediction.а The data displayed in Table 1 shows that
overall, 68% of utterances in these messages are acclaims, 30% attacks, and 3%
are defenses.а Acclaims ranged from 49%
to 85%, attacks varied from 15%-51%, and defenses comprised 0-8% of candidate
statements.а These three functions were
significantly different, and in the predicted direction, in all but one message
form (radio ads, in which there was no significant difference between acclaims
and attacks).а This may have occurred
because most radio stations have audiences that are more homogeneous than other
media, which would allow candidates to target attacks to those who might be
most receptive to them.
This relationship holds true in U.S. non-presidential television spots
(ads for local offices, state governor, U.S. House, and U.S. Senate).а 69% of theses were acclaims (the range was
61%-72%), 31% were attacks (27%-38%), and fewer than 1% were defenses (0.5%-2%;
see Table 2).а Non-presidential debates
in the U.S. conform to this relative emphasis for the three functions: 65%
acclaims, 29% attacks, and 5% defenses (Table 3).а Research on television spots and debates in
other countries (much of it not using Functional Theory, so not including
defenses) also reveals this basic relationship: 75% acclaims and 25% attacks
(Table 4).а Finally, studies of political
debates in other countries (Table 5), conform to the same basic pattern:
acclaims were 54%, attacks comprised 48%, and defenses constituted 8% of the
utterances in these debates.а There are a
few exceptions (there were a few more attacks than acclaims in the 2004 Ukraine
debates); however, this relationship is quite robust across years, level of
elective office, message form, and country.а
Therefore, the evidence suggests that the relative frequency of the
three basic functions of political campaign discourse is inherent in the
campaign situation.
Functional Theory also makes a prediction about the relative frequency of
the discussion of the two topics of political campaign discourse, policy and
character.а In the U.S., at least, most
voters report that policy is a more important factor in their presidential vote
than character (Benoit, 2003).а Benoit
(2003) also reports that as a group, U.S. presidential candidates who emphasize
policy more, and character less, than they opponents are significantly more
likely to win elections.а Because
political candidates monitor voter attitudes, and the majority of U.S. voters
consider policy more important in presidential votes than character, Functional
Theory predicts:
F2. Presidential candidates will discuss policy more than character.
Table 6 shows that in every U.S. presidential campaign message form
studied, policy (54%-78%) is discussed more often than character (22%-46%), 67%
to 33% overall.а This pattern also occurs
in American non-presidential television spots (policy 57%, character 43%) as
shown in Table 7.а In American
non-presidential debates, we also find policy more common than character,
72%-28% (Table 8).а Overall, non-U.S. political advertising emphasizes policy over
character, 59% o 41%, but in two countries the emphasis was equal (Israel 1992,
Korea 2002) and in three character was more common than policy (Greece 1996,
Taiwan 2000, and Turkey 1995) as Table 9 indicates.а Finally, policy was stressed more than
character (78% to 22%) in the non-U.S. political
debates studied (Table 10).а It is
possible these exceptions occurred for one of two reasons: those voters considered
character more important than policy and the candidates conformed to their
attitudes, or the candidates may have misread public sentiment.а Whatever the reason, we must keep in mind
that the relative emphasis of policy and character is not as consistent outside
the U.S.
Having shown that the basic ideas of Functional Theory can be employed
beyond U.S. presidential campaign messages (both to other levels of American
campaigns and in other countries), for reasons of space I want to cover other
topics in the remainder of this essay more briefly (and I will not discuss some
findings, such as the fact that the candidates who are ahead in the preference
polls during the primary campaign receive more attacks than less popular
candidates; Benoit et al., 2002).а
Communication can be conceptualized as a process with sources, a
context, and media.а Functional Theory
has investigated each of these communication variables in the context of
political campaigns and I will discuss some of that work briefly here.
Source of Political Campaign Messages
Two major political parties, Democratic and Republican, dominate
American politics.а Although each party,
and the candidates who affiliate with these organizations, do respond to voters
and historical events, the parties do have distinct ideologies and this has
been found to influence the campaign messages produced in presidential
campaigns.а Benoit (2004) found that
although virtually all candidates discuss policy more than character, Democrats
discuss policy even more, and character less, than Republicans.а Democrats have a tendency to advocate
governmental solutions to problems, which means they are naturally inclined to
emphasize policy.а Republicans often
argue for smaller government and, in fact, discuss policy less than Democrats
in campaign discourse.а We need research
from the functional perspective on the nature of discourse from political
parties in other countries.
Another aspect of source is the question of whether a candidate or
another person (an anonymous announcer, an Уordinary citizen,Ф or a public
figure who endorses the candidate) is talking.а
Benoit (in press) shows that at the American party nominating
conventions, Keynote Speeches (given by surrogates) have more attacks than
Acceptance Addresses (given by the nominee).а
Benoit (1999) found that attacks are more common in presidential TV
spots when someone other than the candidate is speaking in the ad.а Benoit (in press) also notes that campaign
messages sponsored by political parties include more attacks than messages
sponsored by the candidates themselves.а
So, in general, candidates tend to make fewer attacks than other sources
in political campaign messages.а The
theory presumably is that if there is a backlash from the attack (recall the
one potential drawback of attacks is that many voters do not like mudslinging),
it may damage the surrogate instead of the candidate.а Nevertheless, this work has identified two
ways in which source variables influence the messages produced by political
candidates.
Finally, research from the Functional perspective has begun to contrast
messages from candidates with messages from a different kind of source:
journalists.а Research on presidential
primary (Benoit, Hansen, & Stein, 2004) and general (Benoit, Stein, &
Hansen, 2004) debates shows that news coverage of these events is more negative
than the messages themselves.а And, of
course, the news obsesses over horse race coverage (who is ahead in the polls,
campaign strategy, and campaign events).а
For treatments of campaign news coverage, see Robinson and Sheehan
(1983), Farnsworth and Lichter (2003), and Benoit,
Stein, and Hansen (2005).
Context of Political Campaigns
Research from the Functional perspective has examined two contextual
variables in political campaigns.а In the
U.S., candidates for president must first win the nomination of one of the two
major political parties before they have a realistic chance of winning the
presidency.а This part of the election
process is termed the primary campaign.а
Benoit (in press) reports that American presidential primary campaign
messages have fewer attacks, and more acclaims, than messages in the general
election campaign.а Examination of Table
1 shows, for example, that primary TV spots have more acclaims and fewer attacks
than general TV spots (and the same pattern holds true for debates and direct
mail brochures in these two phases of the campaign).а This probably occurs for two reasons.а First, members of the same political party
(who are contesting the primary) are likely to have more policy agreement than
candidates of different political parties (who contest the general
election).а So, primary candidates, in
general, have fewer policy differences to discuss.а Second, the candidate who wins the primary
battle wants the support of other candidates of his or her political party Ц
and the voters who preferred those other candidates.а This concern was an incentive for John Kerry
not to attack Dennis Kucinich, Joe Lieberman, or other Democratic primary
candidates, too much. аCampaign phase
influences the amount of attacking in a political campaign.
Benoit (in press) also reports that primary campaigns emphasize policy
less, and character more, than general campaigns (keep in mind most candidates,
even in primary campaigns, stress policy; the point here is that policy is
emphasized even more in general campaigns than in primary
campaigns).а See Table 6 to for data on
this point.а Again, candidates from the
same party, who contest the primary, have fewer policy differences to discuss.а Furthermore, candidates in the general
election (e.g., President Bush and Senator Kerry in 2004; Vice President Gore
and Governor Bush in 2000; President Clinton and Senator Dole in 1996) tend to
be better known than many primary candidates (e.g., Dennis Kucinich, Carol
Moseley-Braun, or Al Sharpton in 2004).а This means candidates have a reason to spend
more time introducing themselves to the voters (emphasizing character more in
the primary than the general campaign).а
So, campaign phase also influences the topic of political discourse.
A second contextual variable is incumbency.а In many countries (although not South Korea,
for example) a president, chancellor, or prime minister is allowed to seek a
second office.а In the U.S., presidents
are limited to two terms in office.а
However, the Vice President usually seeks the presidency after the
president has served two terms in office, and the Vice President usually runs
as an incumbent with experience in the presidency (interestingly, Vice
President Dick Cheney has said he would not run for office in 2008 when
President George W. BushТs second term is complete).а Benoit (in press) reported that incumbents
acclaim more, and attack less, than challengers.а The key difference between these two groups
of candidates is that although both usually have experience in elective office,
only the incumbent has experience in the office being sought in the
campaign.а Unlike senators, for example,
presidents have administrative experience.а
Presidents have national defense and foreign policy experience that
governors do not have.аа So, the
incumbentТs experience is more relevant than the challengerТs experience.а Both candidates discuss the incumbentТs
record more than the challengerТs record, but they of course emphasize
different aspects.а Incumbents acclaim
their own past deeds (successes) more than they attack the challengersТ past
deeds (failures); challengers attack the incumbentsТ past deeds more than they
acclaim their own past deeds.а So,
whether the candidate is an incumbent, has a record in the office being sought,
can influence the nature of political campaign discourse.
Medium
I also want to briefly consider potential influence from campaign
medium.а Table 1 shows that American
presidential debates (both primary and general) have more defenses than any
other medium studied.а This probably
occurs for several reasons.а Functional
theory suggests that debates have three potential drawbacks and candidates
generally use relatively few defenses.а
However, one drawback does not apply to debates: everyone watching the
debate just heard the attack which provoked a defense.а This means that, unlike in other media, the
candidate using defense does not have to worry that he or she will inform or
remind voters of a potential weakness: the audience will have just seen the
attack.а Furthermore, although
presidential candidates do prepare for debates, it may be more difficult to
resist the urge to respond to an attack.а
Other message forms, such as TV spots and Acceptance Addresses, do not
have an opponent who attacks before the candidate speaks in the ad or
speech.а Those messages are carefully
scripted Ц with few defenses.а But in the
heat of debate candidates may be unable to stop from refuting attacks, even
though defenses have several drawbacks.а
This finding suggests that there can be differences between messages
given in different media.
CONCLUSION
The Functional Theory of political campaign discourse was developed and
initially applied to American presidential campaign discourse.а However, it has since been applied to
discourse in campaigns for other levels of office in the United States (e.g.,
governor, senator) and in other countries.а
We must keep in mind that there can be important differences between
elections in different countries.а As
mentioned earlier, there cannot be a true incumbent candidate in South Korea
because the president is limited to a single term and there is no vice
president in that country.а Research on
Israeli political debates (Benoit & Sheafer,
2006) found differences between incumbents and challengers except in 1988.а However, in 1984 the vote was very close and
the leader of each party served as Prime Minister for two years between the
1984 and 1988 elections.а This meant that
both candidates were, essentially, incumbents in 1988.а
Clearly, political campaigns, including speeches, TV spots, debates,
and, in recent years, other media such as candidate webpages,
are being used around the world for elections.а
Functional theory can help understand the nature of these campaign
messages.а Clearly, more work needs to be
done to extend this theory and improve our understanding of the messages which
help voters select the leaders of their countries.
Table
1.а Functions of U.S. Presidential
Campaign Discourse
|
Acclaims |
Attacks |
Defenses |
Primary TV Spots (1952-2004) |
4123
(72%) |
1544 (27%) |
56 (1%) |
Primary Debates (1948-2004) |
12525
(64%) |
6084 (31%) |
818 (4%) |
Primary Brochures (1948-2004) |
7776
(85%) |
1361 (15%) |
7 (0.08%) |
Acceptance Addresses (1952-2004) |
2193
(77%) |
652 (23%) |
20 (1%) |
Keynote Speeches (1960-1996) |
474
(50%) |
463 (49%) |
12 (1%) |
General TV Spots (1952-2004) |
3454
(59%) |
2339 (40%) |
71 (1%) |
General Debates (1960, 1976-2004) |
4050
(57%) |
2501 (35%) |
604 (8%) |
General Brochures (1952-2000) |
8036
(70%) |
3393 (39%) |
48 (0.4%) |
General Radio
Spots (1972-1992, 2000) |
429 (49%) |
454 (51%) |
0 |
Total |
43060
(68%) |
18791 (30%) |
1636 (3%) |
Benoit
(in press)
Table 2.
Functions of U.S. Non-Presidential TV Spots
|
Spots |
Acclaims |
Attacks |
Defenses |
US Senate
1980-2000 |
541 |
2355
(66%) |
1145 (34%) |
22 (0.6%) |
US House
1980-2000 |
438 |
1905
(68%) |
867 (31%) |
15а (0.5%) |
US Congress 1998 |
29 |
114 (61%) |
68 (37%) |
4 (2%) |
Governor
1974-1998 |
488 |
1444
(72%) |
544 (27%) |
16 (0.8%) |
Local 1998-2000 |
70 |
279
(71%) |
111 (28%) |
5 (1%) |
Total |
1566 |
6097
(69%) |
2735 (31%) |
62 (0.7%) |
χ2(df=2) = 6169.24, p < .0001
Benoit
(2000), Brazeal & Benoit (2001), Pier (2002)
Table 3.
Functions of U.S. Non-Presidential Debates
|
Acclaims |
Attacks |
Defenses |
U. S. Senate Debates аааа 1998-2004 |
1803 (61%) |
848 (29%) |
297 (10%) |
U. S. Governor Debates аааа 2000-2004 |
3007 (68%) |
1309 (30%) |
94 (2%) |
Total |
4810 (65%) |
2157 (29%) |
391 (5%) |
χ2(df=1) = 4034.35, p < .0001
Senate
debates: Benoit, Brazeal, & Airne
(2006)
Governor
debates: Airne, Benoit, & Brazeal
(2006)
Table 4.
Functions of Non-U.S. Political TV Spots
|
Acclaims |
Attacks |
Defenses |
France 1988 |
75% |
25% |
Ц |
Germany 1992 |
68% |
32% |
Ц |
Italy 1992 |
85% |
15% |
Ц |
Britain 1992,
1997 |
69% |
31% |
Ц |
Israel 1992 |
58% |
42% |
Ц |
Korea 1963-1992 |
67% |
33% |
Ц |
Poland 1995 |
93% |
7% |
Ц |
Turkey 1995 |
89% |
11% |
Ц |
Greece 1996 |
71% |
29% |
Ц |
Russia 1996 |
72% |
28% |
Ц |
Taiwan 1996 |
81% |
19% |
Ц |
SubtotalЖ |
а75% |
а25% |
Ц |
Taiwan 2000 |
63% |
35% |
3% |
Korea 2002 |
72% |
27% |
1% |
*These
samples included newspaper advertisements as well as TV spots.
Chang
(2000), Kaid (1999), Kaid
and Holtz-Bacha (1995), Lee and Benoit (2004); Tak, Kaid, and Lee (1997), Wen, Benoit, and Wu (2004)
ЖPercentages
of spots reported by authors converted into number of spots for statistical
analysis: χ2(df=1)=146.84, p<.0001.
Table 5.
Functions of Non-U.S. Political Debates
|
Acclaims |
Attacks |
Defenses |
France, 1988,
1995 |
716 (61%) |
386 (33%) |
66 (6%) |
Israel, 1984,
1988, 1992, 1996, 1999 |
165 (50%) |
124 (38%) |
38 (12%) |
South Korea,
1997, 2002 |
1044 (55%) |
668 (35%) |
180 (10%) |
Taiwan, 2004 |
320 (49%) |
303 (46%) |
35 (5%) |
Ukraine, 2004 |
256 (43%) |
290 (48%) |
52 (9%) |
Total |
2501 (54%) |
1771 (38%) |
371 (8%) |
χ2(df=2) = 1514.06, p < .0001
Benoit & Klyukovski (2006),
Benoit & Sheafer (2006), Benoit, Wen, & Yu (2006), Choi &
Benoit (2006).
Table 6.
Functions of U.S. Presidential Campaign Discourse
|
Policy |
Character |
Primary TV Spots (1952-2004) |
3066
(54%) |
2601 (46%) |
Primary Debates (1948-2004) |
12734
(78%) |
5875 (22%) |
Primary Brochures (1948-2004) |
5660
(62%) |
3424 (38%) |
Acceptance Addresses (1952-2004) |
1558
(55%) |
1287 (45%) |
Keynote Speeches (1960-1996) |
509
(54%) |
410 (46%) |
General TV Spots (1952-2004) |
3581
(59%) |
2212 (41%) |
General Debates (1960, 1976-2004) |
4885
(75%) |
1666 (25%) |
General Brochures (1952-2000) |
8742
(76%) |
2687 (24%) |
General Radio Spots (1972-1992, 2000) |
474
(57%) |
409 (43%) |
Total |
41209
(67%) |
20571 (33%) |
Benoit
(in press)
Table 7.
Topics of U.S. Non-Presidential TV Spots
|
Spots |
Policy |
Character |
US Senate
1980-2000 |
541 |
1930
(55%) |
1570 (45%) |
US House
1980-2000 |
438 |
1403
(51%) |
1370 (49%) |
US Congress 1998 |
29 |
120
(66%) |
62 (34%) |
Governor
1974-1998 |
488 |
1308
(66%) |
666 (34%) |
Local 1998-2000 |
70 |
229
(59%) |
161 (41%) |
Total |
1566 |
4990
(57%) |
3829 (43%) |
χ2(df=1) = 152.84, p < .0001
Benoit
(2000), Brazeal & Benoit (2001), Pier (2002)
Table 8.
Topics of U.S. Non-Presidential Political Debates
|
Policy |
Character |
U. S. Senate Debates аааа 1998-2004 |
1813 (70%) |
794 (30%) |
U. S. Governor Debates аа 1994-2004 |
3166 (73%) |
1150 (27%) |
Total |
4979 (72%) |
1944 (28%) |
χ2(df=1) = 1328.64, p < .0001
Senate
debates: Benoit, Brazeal, & Airne
(2006)
Governor
debates: Airne, Benoit, & Brazeal
(2006).
Table 9.
Topics of Non-U.S. TV Spots
|
Policy |
Character |
France 1988 |
100% |
0 |
Germany 1992* |
31% |
69% |
Germany 1994 |
69% |
31% |
Italy 1992 |
71% |
29% |
Britain 1992,
1997 |
88% |
12% |
Israel 1992 |
50% |
50% |
Korea 1992*Ж |
65% |
35% |
Poland 1995 |
66% |
34% |
Turkey 1995 |
33% |
67% |
Greece 1996 |
42% |
58% |
Russia 1996 |
58% |
42% |
SubtotalЗ |
59% |
41% |
Taiwan 2000 |
32% |
68% |
Korea 2002 |
50% |
50% |
*These
samples included newspaper ads as well as TV spots.
ЖThis study
included a third category, combination, which is excluded here.
Kaid (1999), Kaid and
Holtz-Bacha (1995), Lee and Benoit (2004); Tak, Kaid, and Lee (1997), Wen, Benoit, and Yu (2004)
ЗPercentages
of spots reported by authors converted into number of spots: χ2(df=1)=47.42, p<.0001.
Table
10. Topics of Non-U.S. Political Debates
|
Policy |
Character |
France, 1988,
1995 |
981 (89%) |
121 (11%) |
Israel, 1984,
1988, 1992, 1996, 1999 |
222 (77%) |
67 (23%) |
South Korea,
1997, 2002 |
1443 (84%) |
269 (16%) |
Taiwan, 2004 |
372 (60%) |
251 (40%) |
Ukraine, 2004 |
333 (61%) |
213 (39%) |
Total |
3351 (78%) |
921 (22%) |
χ2(df=1) = 1381.1, p < .0001
Benoit & Klyukovski (2006),
Benoit & Sheafer (2006), Benoit, Wen, & Yu (2006), Choi & Benoit
(2006).
References
Airne, D., & Benoit,
W. L. (2005a). 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate debates: Keyes versus Obama. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 343-352.
Airne, D., & Benoit,
W. L. (2005b). Political television advertising in campaign 2000. Communication
Quarterly, 53, 473-492.
Airne, D., Benoit, W.
L., & Brazeal, L. M. (2006). A functional
analysis of gubernatorial political debates. Unpublished manuscript.
Allen, M., & Burrell, N. (2002). The negativity
effect in political advertising: A meta-analysis. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in
theory and practice (pp. 83-96). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Benoit, P. J. (1997). Telling the success story:
Acclaiming and disclaiming discourse. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, apologies:
A theory of image restoration strategies. Albany: State University of New
York Press.
Benoit, W. L. (1999). Seeing spots: A functional
analysis of presidential television advertisements from 1952-1996. New
York: Praeger.
Benoit, W. L. (2000). A functional analysis of
political advertising across media, 1998. Communication Studies, 51,
274-295.
Benoit, W. L. (2003). Presidential campaign discourse
as a causal factor in election outcome. Western Journal of Communication, 67,
97-112.
Benoit, W. L. (2004). Political party affiliation and
presidential campaign discourse. Communication Quarterly, 52, 81-97.
Benoit, W. L. (in press). Communication in political
campaigns. New York: Peter Lang.
Benoit, W. L., Brazeal, L.
M., & Airne, D. (2006). A functional analysis
of U.S. senate debates, 1998-2004. Unpublished manuscript.
Benoit, W. L., Blaney, J. R.,
& Pier, P. M. (1998). Campaign С96: A functional analysis of acclaiming,
attacking, and defending. New York: Praeger.
Benoit, W. L., Hansen, G. J., & Stein, K. A.
(2004). Newspaper coverage of presidential primary debates. Argumentation
and Advocacy, 40, 246-258.
Benoit, W. L., & Klyukovski,
A. (2006). A functional analysis of 2004 Ukrainian political debates.
Unpublished manuscript.
Benoit, W. L., McHale, J. P, Hansen, G. J., Pier, P.
M., & McGuire, J. P. (2003). Campaign 2000: A functional analysis of
presidential campaign discourse. Lanham, MD: Rowman
& Littlefield.
Benoit, W. L., Pier, P. M., Brazeal,
L. M., McHale, J. P., Klyukovksi, A., & Airne, D. (2002). The primary decision: A functional
analysis of debates in presidential primaries. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Benoit, W. L., & Sheafer,
T. (2006). A functional analysis of Israeli Prime Ministerial debates.
Unpublished manuscript.
Benoit, W. L., Stein, K. A., & Hansen, G. J.
(2004). Newspaper coverage of presidential debates. Argumentation and
Advocacy, 41, 16-26.
Benoit, W. L., Stein, K. A., & Hansen, G. J.
(2005). New York Times coverage of presidential campaigns, 1952-2000. Journalism
& Mass Communication Quarterly, 82, 356-376.
Benoit, W. L., Wen, W-C.,
& Yu, H-T. (2006). A functional analysis of 2004 Taiwanese political
debates.а Unpublished manuscript.
Brazeal, L. M., & Benoit, W. L. (2001). A
functional analysis of Congressional television spots, 1986-2000. Communication
Quarterly, 49, 436-454.
Chang, C. (2000). Political advertising in Taiwan and
the U.S.: A cross-cultural comparison of the 1996 presidential election
campaigns. Asian Journal of Communication, 10, 1-17.
Choi, Y. S., &
Benoit, W. L. (2006). A functional analysis of French and South Korean
political debates. Unpublished manuscript.
Duchneskie, J.,
& Seplow, S. (2000, December 15). GoreТs vote
lead totals 540,435. Philadelphia Inquirer, p. A1.
Farnsworth, S. J., & Lichter,
S. R. (2003). The nightly news nightmare: Network televisionТs coverage of
U.S. presidential elections, 1988-2000. Lanham, MD: Rowman
& Littlefield.
Hallin, D. C.,
& Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems: Three models of media and
politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hofstetter, C. R.
(1976). Bias in the news: Network television coverage of the 1972 election
campaign. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
Johnson-Cartee, K. S., &
Copeland, G. (1989). Southern votersТ reactions to negative political ads in
the 1986 election. Journalism Quarterly, 66, 888-893, 986.
Kaid, L. L. (1999). Comparing
and contrasting the styles and effects of political advertising in European
democracies. In L. L. Kaid (Ed.), Television and
politics in evolving European democracies (pp. 219-236). Commack, NY: Nova
Science.
Kaid, L. L., &
Holtz-Bacha, C. (1995). Political advertising across
cultures.а In L. L. Kaid
& C. Holtz-Bacha (Eds.), Political advertising
in Western democracies (pp. 206-227). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lau, R. R., Sigelman, L., Heldman, C., & Babbitt,
P. R. (1999). The effectiveness of negative political advertising: A
meta-analytic assessment. American Political Science Review, 93,
851-876.
Lazarsfeld, P. F.,
Berelson, B., & Gaudet,
H. (1948). The peopleТs choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a
presidential campaign (2nd ed.). New York: Columbia University
Press.
Lee, C., & Benoit, W. L. (2004). A functional
analysis of presidential television spots: A comparison of Korean and American
ads. Communication Quarterly, 52, 68-79.
Lee, C., & Benoit, W. L. (2005). A functional
analysis of the 2002 Korean presidential debates. Asian Journal of
Communication, 15, 115-132.
Lenart, S.
(1994). Shaping political attitudes: The impact of interpersonal
communication and mass media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Merritt, S. (1984). Negative political advertising:
Some empirical findings. Journal of Advertising, 13, 27-38.
Patterson, T. E. (1980). The mass media election:
How Americans choose their president. New York: Praeger.
Patterson, T. E., & McClure, R. D. (1976). The
unseeing eye: The myth of television power in national politics. New York:
Putnam.
Petrocik, J. R., Benoit, W. L., & Hansen, G. L.
(2003-2004). Issue ownership and presidential campaigning, 1952-2000. Political
Science Quarterly, 118, 599-626.
Pier, P. M. (2002). He said she said: A functional
analysis of differences between male and female political campaign messages.
Unpublished dissertation, University of Missouri.
Popkin, S. L.
(1994). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential
campaigns (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Popkin, S. L.,
Gorman, J., Smith, J., & Phillips, C. (1976). Comment: toward an investment
theory of voting behavior: What have you done for me lately? American
Political Science Review, 70, 779-805.
Robinson, M. J., & Sheehan, M. A. (1983). Over
the wire and on tv: CBS and UPI in campaign С80.
New York: Russell Sage.
Stewart, C. J. (1975). Voter perception of mud-slinging
in political communication. Central States Speech Journal, 26, 279-286.
Tak, J., Kaid, L. L., & Lee, S. (1997). A
cross-cultural study of political advertising in the United States and Korea. Communication
Research, 24, 423-430.
Wen, W.-C., Benoit, W.
L., & Yu, T.-H. (2004). A functional analysis of the 2000 Taiwanese and U.
S. presidential spots. Asian Journal of Communication, 14, 140-155.