15. Advertising and Public Relations: The Pretty Package

Why did Richard Nixon fail in the 1960 presidential election and succeed in Opinions vary. The author has his perspective and it has much to do with the power of advertising, with the significance of image rather than substance. But does the importance of image mean that the integrity of a person is now less important in winning public office? Or is it more important? Read on and find out.

Back in 1960, when the role of advertising and PR in politics first became apparent, Life magazine quoted one campaign strategist as saying, "I can elect any person to office if he has $60 000, an IQ of at least 120, and can keep his mouth shut."

Since the 1896 campaign, the election of a President has been determined largely by the ability of information specialists to generate favorable publicity. In recent years that publicity has been supplanted by heavy spot buying on electronic media.

So many factors are involved in choosing a President that it is hard to say with any real empirical confidence how important any single medium is. The most talked-about medium in American politics is television. Highly publicized debates between candidates in 1960, 1976, and 1980 appear to have affected the outcomes. Richard Nixon (the early favorite) would probably not have lost to Kennedy were it not for his poor showing on TV. Similarly, the 1976 debates probably clinched Jimmy Carter's narrow victory over Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan appeared to be the victor in the 1980 debates.

Yet there were other elections where, according to political analyst Edward Chester, no amount of TV exposure could have changed the outcome. Goldwater versus Johnson in 1964 and Nixon versus McGovern in 1972. Television commercials seem to work best in close elections or in those where there is a large undecided vote. According to the Associated Press, Ford's TV spots during the 1976 campaign probably swung over 100 000 undecided voters a day during the last few months of the campaign.

What effect does television have on the candidates themselves? It dictates priorities that are different from those of an earlier day. The physical appearance of the candidate is increasingly important. Does he or she look fit, well-rested, secure? Losing candidates like Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, and Richard Nixon all seemed to look "bad" on TV. Nixon overcame this problem in 1972 with ads that featured longer shots of him being "presidential"—flying off to China. Close-ups were avoided.

Both John F. Kennedy and Jimmy Carter seemed more at home with the medium, perhaps because both were youthful, informal, and physically active outdoor types. Dwight Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson seemed to have a paternal, fatherly image on the small screen. All of the recent Presidents have learned how to use the medium to their advantage, to "stage" events so as to receive maximum favorable coverage. This has added to the already awesome power of the incumbency.

Television has changed the importance of issues. It can be argued that since the 1960 presidential debates we have elected people, not platforms. This is a major departure from earlier years. Franklin Roosevelt's radio charisma cannot be denied, but he was swept to power by one issue—the Great Depression.

All the print information we now receive is simpler and more condensed than ever before. Issues and print go together. Television is images, not issues. We develop a more personal, emotional feeling about the candidates. Jimmy Carter's spectacular rise to power was a testament to this new image orientation. No one really knew what he was going to do when he took office, since his entire campaign had been geared toward developing a relationship of trust with the electorate, "Trust me," he said. "I'll never lie to you."

A more recent example was the election of Reagan in 1980. For some this represented the ultimate television victory. After all, what other country can claim that it has actually elected an actor President? It can be argued that Americans were tired of Carter and that Reagan simply offered an alternative. Yet throughout the campaign he offered us a media "vision" of a "shining city on a hill". And what about his constant references to John Wayne, one of the "last great Americans"?

My father, a long-time politician in southern California, has a favorite saying—"The worst thing a candidate can do is get bogged down in the issues." This trend has alarmed countless media critics. Politicians, newscasters, and others have stood in line to denounce it. They assert that the important thing is what candidates stand for, not the candidates themselves. Almost everyone seems to agree that television has been harmful to American politics; it has clouded the issues and confused the electorate.

Media researchers Thomas E. Patterson and Robert D. McClure say the power of TV has been overrated and that (1) "Viewers of the nightly network newscasts learn almost nothing of importance about a presidential election," and (2) "People are not taken in by advertising images exaggerated and created in the minds ... exposure to televised ads has no effect on voters' images of the candidates." I disagree on both counts.

If the Watergate mess proved anything, it was that we need a President we are comfortable with, one we feel we know and can trust. Print afforded us no opportunity to get a "feel" for the person. We could study the issues, read the speeches, yes—but how would we "know" the candidate as we might a neighbor or casual acquaintance? Television (and television advertising) provides an audiovisual record of the candidate under all sorts of circumstances. It is with that knowledge that we can choose someone of integrity, at least someone with honorable intentions.

Of course, TV cannot guarantee honest candidates, but we rejected Richard Nixon in 1960 and we might have again had he not so successfully avoided any informal coverage. (Remember—he wouldn't let TV newscasters near him unless he had a suit on. For all we knew he wore a suit while walking on the beach.) Once he was President it was the intimate nature of the medium that helped bring him down. Even his well-rehearsed Watergate denials wouldn't work. He would sit there, surrounded by flags and piles of transcripts, and swear he was innocent. Yet the profuse sweat on his brow and the look in his eyes seemed to confirm his guilt.

Issues come and go, but we elect people to the presidency. In this fast-moving information environment, today's burning issue is tomorrow's historical footnote. It's far more important to develop a sense of what kind of person we are electing to the nation's highest office. Television affords us that opportunity in a way no other medium can.

From Mediamerica, Second Ed., Wadsworth, Inc, 1982.