Understanding the Evolution of Modern Journalism: The Last Campaign and The Boys on the Bus
In a digital world dominated by instant, widespread and convenient communication, it is difficult to imagine a time that preceded cable television, mobile devices and the Internet – all of which are enhanced daily with new capabilities and innovations. To put this evolution of communication in the context of the media is fascinating.
I appreciated The Last Campaign and The Boys on the Bus, for a multitude of reasons. I was able to clearly understand how prominent members of the press crafted messages and framed the candidates of two notable U.S. presidential campaigns. I learned how the candidates themselves engaged with the press and most importantly, how different modes of communication (newspapers and television) affected the outcome of each election.
Perception
Before I analyze the differences between the 1948 and 1972 campaigns, I think it is important to note the truth that both books revealed in the concept that perception is reality. Whether it was Truman, Dewey, Nixon, McGovern or a journalist from the national news desk at the New York Times or a political reporter from the Washington Post, an overarching premise remained true that the perception that was created and then communicated to the public was largely what inspired a vote for or against a particular candidate. As time progressed however, and even more so now in present day, candidates seem to be more concerned with how their personal image would transpire to their audiences. And, as new forms of technology became available to use for a candidate or journalist (television, in the case of the 1972 election), so too did the concern increase to be a candidate who was perceived as a particular person to the rest of America – whether or not that is who they really were.
In the 1948 election for example, when television was still in its infancy and the newspaper was the primary means of communication, journalism seemed to be fairly consistent in the realm of political reporting. Truman and McGovern owned their campaigns and mostly relied on themselves to speak on the issues to voters via speeches, debates and public engagements. Before television was able to alter reality as well as the perceptions of the public, journalists traveled in packs and, in many cases, reported stories collectively by bouncing ideas off of each other. While this certainly left room for error – the classic ‘Dewey Defeats Truman’ headline is the paragon of faulty reporting – pack journalism drove reporters to “all feed from the same pool report, the same daily handout, the same speech by the candidate; the whole pack was isolated in the same mobile village. After a while, they began to believe the same rumors, subscribe to the same theories, and write the same stories” (Crouse, 2003, p.8). This sense of communal reporting still, for the most part, kept campaigns in the hands of the candidates. At this point in political campaigning, it seemed the press was still struggling to define the importance of their role in the election and kept their reporting relevant to the facts, issues and informed inferences.
Conversely, in 1972, television became the primary means of receiving information and campaigns seemed to be more and more about the ‘visual appeal’ and less about the actual issues. Networks were competing with one another and had to ensure they kept their ratings up with entertaining material that would sustain a viewer’s attention. Whereas newspapers were more of a public service, television was a business and spent time condensing long speeches and focused on captivating imagery to deliver news stories. With the rise of the television, candidates themselves had a heightened awareness of the new role that journalism would play in determining the success of their campaign and staged “media events,” most of which did not have much relevance to an economic or national issue; the intention was mostly to strengthen the perception of a candidate.
I found both books extremely insightful in describing the shift that journalism and presidential campaigning took with the rise of technology. The most significant conclusion I drew from the readings was the obvious shift in political campaigning that was inspired by the rise of television reporting. Now that the Internet and several other forms of savvy technologies are ubiquitous across the world, it will be interesting to study the role that these forms of communication play in the election process, as well as whether the ‘perception is reality’ concept is still consistent with the increased number of ‘citizen journalists’ (bloggers, etc), digital publications and instantaneous reporting.
