A Narrative Approach to the Examination of Political Advertising: Perspective on the 1990 Gantt/Helms Senate Campaign

A Narrative Approach to the Examination ofPolitical Advertising: Perspective on the 1990

Gantt/Helms Senate Campaign

As North Carolinians entered 1990 election year they expected to be "subjected" to yet one more heated senate campaign featuring the irascible Jesse Helms, his fourth. As predictable as the campaign's negative tone were sentiments echoed in the national press that, perhaps, this was the year that Jesse Helms' controversial tenure would end. The contest gained added drama when the mild upset winner of the Democrat primary runoff was the former Mayor of Charlotte, Harvey Gantt, pitting as it did the champion of the "far right" against the rising breed of primarily liberal black politicians. Of course the pundits were once again disappointed. Helms emerged with his largest plurality.

In many ways the 1990 rivalry was an extension of the 1984watershed senate election between Governor James Hunt and Helms.Among the notable similarities were corresponding constituents of the state's polarized political spectrum-- right of center republicans and left of center democrats, copious amounts of money for both candidates, and utilization of the same media consultants--Sawyer for Gantt and Jefferson Marketing for Helms.Finding important parallels therefore is not surprising.

The race also was different from the acrimonious 1984 contest. Despite the national attention focusing on negative advertising aired in North Carolina--reporting characteristic ofthe media's "recency bias"-- the 1990 race was shorter by several months, less strident in tone, and focused more closely on "mainstream" issues. Perhaps the tamer version was due, in

SPOT NARRATIVES - PAGE 2

part, to the assumed constraints of navigating the sensitive race issue, as one Helms' advisor suggested. Nonetheless, the selection process was hardly sedate. Of the seventy-six ads examined for this paper, fully 76% (n = 42 Helms; 34 Gantt) were attacks on the opponent's issue positions, competency, job performance, campaign practices, or character. Even positive spots were most often indirect answers to charges raised by their respective opponents.

This paper does not attempt to offer a comprehensive overview of the Gantt/Helms senate election, nor does it attemptto explore that many application of conceptualizing spot advertising as competing storylines offered to voters for their selection. Rather the scope is more modest. This report seeks to illustrate the utility of applying narrative theory, as articulated by Walter Fisher (1989), for fathoming how candidates' spot messages interact to achieve voter's trust. Itis also argued that the approach compliments present approaches to spot research, providing insights presently unavailable to less flexible theoretical framework. Two general aspects suggested by the narrative perspective are more fully addressed in the context of the North Carolina Senate race: first, how thebroadcast spot interacted to further the candidates' stories andsecond, how this interaction served to develop and subvert the voter's images of candidate character.

The Narrative ApproachSeveral attributes shared by political advertising inform

the selection the narrative framework. I begin with the assumption that televised political spots, rather than being an illegitimate communicative form (as some contend "little more than snake oil politics e.g., MacDougall, 1980) are, in fact, powerful vehicles for conveying the candidates styles, personalities, goals, and vision of the future, as well as the values and institutions with which they are associated.


Spot advertising largely consists of embracing or attacking ideologies and values by associating praise or blame with candidates. Candidates can choose to promote positive images, thereby encouraging a vote for themselves, or negative images of the opponent, encouraging a vote against the competitor. Most campaigns utilize a combination of positive and negative messages, but regardless of their overt message, all political imagery inherently implies an evaluation of the opponent.

When candidates utilize positive advertising, they engage in a narrative of self-enhancement. Campaigns, however, involvea "forced choice" and thus affirmation also contains an implicitrejection of the opponent (Edelman, 1988; Fisher,1970). Claims that exalt one candidate's virtue necessarily bring to mind relative deficiencies in the opponent. In a campaign, for everyhero, there has to be a villain.

Negative ads are the more direct manner in which candidates attempt to depreciate the image of an opponent. Because campaigns are so deeply tied to candidates as the central actor, it is not surprising that pitting two persona against one another promotes the embodiment of evil in the opponent. Negative spots operate to debunk, subvert, and unmask(Burke, 1969; Fisher,1970, Merelman, 1976), that is, to expose what has appeared to be desirable as undesirable. As with positive messages, negative ads not only subvert the target, butthey also promote the source by implying an inverse judgment. In a campaign, for every scapegoat, there is likely to be a savior.

Televised political spots, however, are less often praisedfor their contribution in defining acceptable candidates than they are blamed for subverting judgement. It is obvious to mostobservers that spots are more concerned with creating adherence than with presenting a logically precise argument. I find


concern when researcher dismiss the communicative legitimacy of spot advertising because it for example becomes more a choice endorsing "cultural icons and values than . . . an appreciation of policy alternatives" (Joslyn, 1986, p.183). I am even more amused when newspaper reporter conferred on themselves, as the public's surrogate, the onerous role of "trying to separate the rhetoric from the facts" (Geis, 1990). It is true that the standards normally associated with traditional rationality (as canonized in formal and informal logics) are essentially absent in most political advertising.

Television is an "emotional" medium. The "hype" of "production values," combined with the visual nature of the medium, promote an intimacy and immediacy with the audience; asking not for reflection but rather acquiescence (Postman, 1986). Spot ads, with their truncated exposition and powerful imagery, are more effective in appealing to the hopes and fears,aspirations and uncertainties, prejudices and nobility among voters than in constructing a reasoned treatise in behalf of a candidate. Not only does brevity tend to disallow formal argument, spots also combine discursive and nondiscursive elements in their appeal. Often the pictures in political television have more to do with the meaning of an ad than the overt content offered in a voiceover (Schram, 1987). The pattern of organization is more nearly, using Jamieson's (1984) label, one of "enthymematic complicity" in which the audience isrecruited to supply the reasons for embracing an ad campaign.

The above, however, is not meant to argue that spots are all powerful and voters defenseless for their evaluation. Rather, the focus is on believability, not "arguments" in their traditional sense. Spots are appeals to rationality--narrative rationality , which includes a concern for and assessment of "reasons" as one form of warrant.


Televised political spots necessarily seek images which resonate with voters lives. If practitioners are unanimous about anything, it is that ads must, above all else, be credible(Ailes, 1988; Diamond & Bates, 1984). It is less clear, however, what message components make an ad campaign credible. Certainly campaigns cannot manufacture an image for a candidate "out of whole cloth." As Jamieson (1984) argues, advertising alone is unable to "create important public perceptions of candidates that are fundamentally different from the candidates themselves" (p.262). Of course, there is latitude between the "private" person and his or her "public" image, yet the candidate as a public actor, before and during the campaign, places real boundaries on messages voters find credible. Resonating with voters, however, requires more than simply the candidate acting as an echo chamber for polling data. At a morefundamental level, campaigners' messages must also ring true with the experience of voters. They may "want" to hear certain panaceas but still may reject them as untruthful.

Spot ads, then, can be thought of as "stories," complete with a storyteller, actors, plot, and dramatic conflict. Spots function to place the world within a context which helps voters make sense of their environment and provide, as Brummett (1985) describes the symbolic process of mass media, "equipment for living."

The above observations point to a set of assumptions whichconstrain the selection of an appropriate theoretical perspective. Consequently, any theory designed to explain the efficacy of spot advertising must be concerned with symbols and symbolic inducement. The task is to sort out of which messages count for rationality in political advertising. The theoreticalperspective adopted herein provides quidelines for such an accounting.


Political spots' dramatic qualities derive in part from the conjunction of competing spots or "stories." When spots are broadcast, they become the most public manifestations of the competing stories. Certainly little can be more dramatic than the confrontation of individuals who personify the value systemsof the voting public. The candidate, being the visual and emotional focus of a campaign, comes to symbolize the larger "causes" for voters' conditions. Whatever dramatic effect exists in the juxtaposition of "candidates-in-conflict," it is uniquely enhanced in the mini-dramas of television spots. In addition to the actor, the ongoing story of a campaign is dramatically staged in spots, complete with a surrounding scene,action, production values, and an unfolding story line climaxingin the final curtain.

Part of the drama is found in the way, over the course of the campaign, the ads unfold to tell a story. When themes are disjunctured, lacking in a central focus, the campaign's story may be lost in a myriad of information emanating from television. Smith and Golden (1988), who examined ads from the Hunt/Helms senate race, observed that "an essential element in persuasive electronic storytelling involves the continuity of the narrative throughout a strategically selected period of time. In other words, the discourse must be unified by some story line or plot line lest it be rendered too diffuse to be persuasive" (p.256). Of course, the story is also defined by and in competition with the opposing candidate's image, thereby adding further dimension to the narrative presented to voters.

Walter R. Fisher (1989) defines "narration" as "symbolic actions--words and/or deeds--that have sequences and meaning forthose who live, create, or interpret them" (p.58). Narratives, therefore, are inherently rhetorical since the storyteller, knowingly or unknowingly, invites the listener to act in accord with the "reality" embraced in the story.


The central tenet of the narrative perspective is the extension of traditional rationality. The perspective observes that communicative forms, devoid of "argument," still "argue" inways which have meaning for people. Humans, conceived of as storytellers and arbitrators of stories, are far from irrationalwhen discerning symbolic constructions. Individuals are able tochoose between competing stories in ways that are meaningful to their everyday lives based on the values which define and sustain those lives. Fisher writes:

Narrative rationality differs from prior logics in several. . . fundamental ways. It implies that reason, the movement of thought that occurs in communicative transactions, is not restricted to clear-cut argumentativeforms. The concept of narrative rationality asserts that it is not the individual form of argument that is ultimately persuasive in discourse. That is important, but values are more persuasive, and they may be expressed in a variety of modes, of which argument is only one. Hence narrative rationality focuses on "good reasons" - elements that provide warrants for accepting or adhering to the advice fostered by any form of communication that can be considered rhetorical. (1989, p.48) If good reasons are those elements which lead to

adherence, the formats, content, and interactions of spot messages, all may function to make one story more worthy than another. The political arena, as Edelman (1985) reminds us, maybe a poor forum to expect "rationality" but an excellent one to discern how individuals make sense of their political environments.

The perspective reminds us that the stories spots convey are understood and assigned meaning within a context. As Fisher(1989) states, "no text is devoid of historical, situational, and biographical context" (p. 144). Spots are not created or


viewed in a vacuum but are the product of a dynamic campaign, the candidates involved, and the perceived character of those candidates.

Fisher further maintains that individuals test the storiesthey encounter by assessing their narrative coherence and fidelity, that is, communication is judged by its coherence or whether the story "hangs together" and by its reliability or if the story "rings true." It is the first test, narrative coherence, that is of primary concern here, examining as it does, the projected messages of two candidates. Narrative coherence can be revealed, in part, by a close examination of the actual spot campaigns. That is, to understand stories and their component parts requires examining the story as told.

Fisher points to three assessments of coherence which affect the credibility of a story: structural coherence (internal consistency), material coherence (comparison with other accepted stories), and characterological coherence . While theinternal consistency of ad campaigns and their fit with the world as it is known offer insight into the efficacy of the stories portrayed in spots, it is the third test, the question of character, which Fisher contends is one of the "key difference between traditional logics and narrative rationality"(p.47).

It is my contention that political spots are centrally concerned with character. Candidates are poised as the "master characters" in an ongoing drama and become the symbolic containers for the hopes, fears, and identifications which constitute the meaning of a campaign. Political advertising necessarily contrasts two individuals seeking an exclusionary goal. Candidates, through their actions and political history, develop a persona which the extended exposure in television spots visually elevates the candidate as the apex of the drama, heightening public perceptions that character is of central


concern. Additionally, in spot advertising the candidate is theteller of the tale--the source--the one who is assumed responsible for campaign messages.

Fisher (p. 47) offers several criteria by which characterological coherence is judged. Specifically he suggests: (1) believability is dependent on the reliability of characters, (2) determination of one's character is made by evaluations of the person's decisions and actions--"an organizedset of actional tendencies," (3) inconsistencies in these tendencies leads to questioning of character, (4) coherence requires that characters behave characteristically, and (5) determinations of motivation or why the person acts as he does are made.

A candidate's public persona often developed after periodsof extended exposure to the public-- those patterns of attributes, character traits, values, and expected behaviors widely shared among the voting public. Certainly that history becomes one important measure against which he/she is judged. The evaluation of a candidate, however, is not made simply by invoking some prior assessment of his or her character and ability. Importantly, public figures are actors in an ongoing drama, they necessarily act and are judged by those actions. Bruce Gronbeck (1984) likens campaigns to "'Queen For a Day,' with everyone telling his or her own story and offering reasons why he or she would be the best crownee." Gronbeck adds that candidates must also "show those qualifications and live out those good intentions" (p.391). Obviously candidates attempt toadopt the actions appropriate to their role and give an appropriate performance, but the process is ongoing in a campaign.

It remains important, however, to recall that spots frame candidates within situations, events, or symbolic environments not always of their own choosing. Actional frames, whether friendly or unfriendly, provide a context within which to judge


the candidate as appropriate or inappropriate. In addition, thecandidate's actions themselves, be they the enactment of roles, taking a stand on an issue, or attacking the people's enemy, suggest "actional tendencies" and thereby become evaluative criteria for judging the candidate. It is the fit of the candidate's persona with their own or their opponent's stories which place character at the center of the narratives. In sum, messages necessarily reveal the source or his/her opponent as a particular kind of person with a particular kind of ideology, role, and self conception.

Interacting Nature of StorylinesOne manifest implication of above perspective is that

candidates weave storylines which evolve over the course of a campaign and are, in part, forged in the presence of a distinct and contradictory alternative. Unfortuately former investigations of televised political advertising have nearly universally treated spots as autonomous, self-contained events.1Researchers typically either isolate spots and discuss their individual features or generate aggregate data to describe spot characteristics. While these approaches are useful for understanding some properties of spots, they treat campaigns as static rather than dynamic, and spots as discrete rather than part of a matrix of communication forms. The argument presentedhere is that when ads are addressed exclusively as discrete or aggregate phenomenon significant features influencing the voters' interpretation of candidates are ignored. Spots are deployed in a campaign so as to interact with one another, creating interpretive contexts which are integrative rather thanseparate. Voters cannot isolate their understanding to single spots. Rather, their perspective is temporal, cumulative, and includes information from both campaigns.


It is helpful, therefore to conceive of spots as part of the strategic fabric of the campaign; a web of relationships building friendly and unfriendly storylines; an ongoing dialogue designed to influence the electorate. Spot campaigns, however, are a special case of dialogue, marked not by cooperation, but by competition. The characteristics associated with cooperativeinterchanges in normal conversations--to be clear, complete, relevant, and truthful--are reversed when the adversaries deliberately seek to discredit the opponent. A primary focus this paper, therefore is to suggest some of the interactive strategies found in the unique environment of political advertising and how these operate to enhance or undermine candidates' storylines and promote or expose the storyteller's character. Specifically the papers contends that spot interaction provides candidate's opportunities to further the whole of their respective narratives and choice points in undermining the competing narratives.

The presentation here limits itself to a discussion of theprimary forms of interaction found in the Gantt/Helms ad set. The aim is to identify principles found to be associated with efficiently advancing positive and negative storylines in this campaign. Entertaining the notion that ads dialogue serves to encourage thinking of campaign as interactive and suggests potential lines of inquiry to be tested in additional campaigns.

Interaction Patterns Among SpotsWhen candidates converse through their spots, they must

manage a series of topics which are raised during the course of the campaign. Generally topics which dominate spots tend to be policy issues, campaign conduct, and candidate attributes (Louden, 1990a). In manipulating these topics, campaigns have agreat deal at stake and must show flexibility in formulating responses to their opponent.Topic Initiation


An important aspect of campaign decisions is when and if one introduces topics. The disadvantage of facing an unfriendlyagenda or assuming a primarily defensive position are well known. In the Gantt/Helms contest both candidates were successful in introducing their own set of issues and carried their themes forward throughout the campaign. It appeared from examining the spots, each candidate was effective in establishing a preferred agenda (at the issue level at least). Each ad set was effective, in that, they forced the opponent to respond. Among the sample of seventy six spots only six were not introductions or responding in some manner to the fundamental issues.

The following Gantt spot is illustrative of the practice (shared by both candidates) of extending their own central issues. The ad clearly rests the voters understanding, in part,upon already established themes. Each candidate's ad set interacted with their own prior advertising, thereby setting up a dependency which assured internal coherence of their own storyline. The ensuing spot also contains two of Gantt's major issues, environment and education.

NOT HIS JOBVIDEO AUDIO

[ST] (white on black - red underline) [VO] North Carolina ranks 49th out North Carolina of 50 in SAT scores. rank 49th out of 50 in S.A.T. scores

[SP] (full screen) Helms speaking with raised fist[ST] (imposed on picture of Helms) But Jesse Helms says, improving IMPROVING EDUCATION education? It's not his job.


(added) NOT HIS JOB

[ST] (white on black - red underline) Jesse Helms missed 19out of 20 Jesse Helms missed meetings on this year's Farm Bill, 19 out of 20 meetings then voted against it. on this year's Farm Bill

[SP] (repeat) Helms speaking with raised fist

[ST] (imposed on picture of Helms) Attending agriculture committee ATTENDING meetings? He says, just too busy AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE MEETINGS(added) JUST TOO BUSY

[ST] (white on black - red underline) North Carolina is in danger of becoming North Carolina is in a toxic waste dumpingground for danger of becoming the whole region a toxic waste dumping ground

[SP] (repeat) Helms speaking with raised fist

[ST] (imposed on picture of Helms) But Jesse Helms says fighting the FIGHTING THE INCINERATOR incinerator, it's not his job.(added) NOT HIS JOB

[ST] (white on black-red underline) It's time for a senator who'll do the


IT'S TIME FOR job for North Carolina A SENATOR WHO'LL DO THE JOB FOR NORTH CAROLINA

[ST] (background S of Gantt) It's time for a change. Harvey Gantt IT'S TIME FOR CHANGE for senate. HARVEY GANTT FOR U.S. SENATE

One of Helms' major issues was, not surprisingly, the sphere of tax increases. The following ad, much like Gantt's above, presupposes that voters are familiar with earlier attacks. Viewers are asked to interpret the appropriateness of the opponent's response (his actional tendencies) in light of the established issue.

RAISING REVENUEVIDEO AUDIO

[ST] (newspaper moves across screen to [VO] The Charlotte Observer reportedreveal list of taxes) that Harvey Gantt supported all these taxes. But listen to Harvey's slick-talking(Headline on newspaper) denial. Gantt Tries to Counter Tax Attack[ST]Local Gas Tax

Property TaxCity Income Tax

Sales TaxPayroll Tax

[F] Gantt (talking head - right screen)[SOF] "We didn't pushfor five tax


increases, we pushed for fiveways that

cities could raise revenue."

[ST] The word Revenue covers the word tax [VO] (incredulous tone) They're called in each bulleted phrases, one a time) taxes, Harvey. Well then, Harvey Gantt [ST]Local Gas Revenue supported a local gas revenue, Property Revenue a property revenueCity Income Revenue a city income revenue

Sales Revenue a sales revenuePayroll Revenue and a payroll revenue.

[F] Gantt (talking head - right screen)[SOF] "We didn't pushfor five tax

increases. . .

[ST] Harvey Gantt. . . [VO] . . . just five revenueincreases. Extremely Liberal Harvey Gantt, extremely liberal.(added) with the FACTS

Topic ManipulationOnce an issue has become part of the campaign's docket,

spots can then interact on the specific content area. The interchange begins when one or the other initiates a campaign issue and the opponent answers. Candidates' challenges of each other are by definition negative spots, which more often than not, demand a response. Candidates, when answering negative ads, are faced with a limited number of options. They can either counter the negative allegation or they can ignore their opponent. Should a candidate decides to pursue a topic, he/she can take a number of tacks, including denial, direct escalation of a topic, recasting the topic, or limiting the scope of discussion. These strategies were


all evident in the Gantt/Helms contest, but as will be illustrated, the strategies were not equally proficient in advancing candidates' storylines.

As the first option denotes, candidates may elect to deny the claims. "Denial" spots are those which state the opponent'sclaims are untrue. Direct denials were common in this race but spots differed in how accomplished were in directing the dialogue. Direct denials are risky in that they assume a defensive posture and the continued debate only serves to grant legitimacy to accusation by keeping the issue before the public.As is noted shortly, the trick was to do more than deny, to change the context to fit with developing storylines.

Gantt and Helms on rare occasions choose not to directly deny challenges, but rather to extend the discussion focusing onan issue's merits. In each campaign a few issues are sufficiently important or inherent in the political context thatcandidates have little choice but to respond. The subsequent interchange on education took the form of a mini-debate in whichthe candidate's positions were clearly aired. One version of Gantt's education theme follows:

ART/EDUCATIONVIDEO AUDIO

[ST] (BANNER TITLE) WHAT'S MORE [VO] What's more important? IMPORTANT? Fighting a few pieces of art, or[ST] Fighting a few pieces of art. fighting the 32 percent dropout[ST] fighting the 32% dropout rate. rate in our schools?

[ST] HARVEY GANTT Harvey Gantt believes we can[ST] We can lower dropout rates. lower dropout rates.


[ST] Incentives for businesses to by providing incentives for business to work with schools. work with schools

[ST] Incentives for businesses that And provide jobs to kids who studyprovide jobs to kids who study hard hard and stay in schooland stay in school.

[ST] (title) JESSE HELMS but Jesse Helms has different[ST] Jesse Helms has different priorities priorities --

[ST] On education, he has the worst On education, he has the worst record record in the U.S. Senate. in the United States senate.

[ST] Never introduced a single bill to He's never introduceda single bill toreduce the dropout rate or improve our reduce the dropout rate or improve our schools. schools

[ST] WE'VE HAD ENOUGH OF We've had enough of Jesse Helms'JESSE HELMS' PRIORITIES. priorities.

[ST] (on background of S of Gantt) Harvey Gantt for SenateHARVEY GANTT FOR U.S. SENATE

[ST] EDUCATION REALLY MATTERS Because education really matters

One of Helms' responses extended the debate, providing his philosophy and using the issue to simultaneously indicate a act implying the nature of his character. One could easily quarrel with the list of "hot button" issues which are included but the consistency with Helms' constructions is undeniable.


SOLUTIONSVIDEO AUDIO

[F] Sen. Helms (talking head)[ST] Senator Jesse Helms [SOF] for twenty years, the Washington liberals have controlled education. Twenty years of mistakes. Forced busing, neighborhood schools wrecked, plummeting SAT scores, and now comes Ted Kennedy's quota bill -- hiring teachers based on racial quotas and not qualification. Mr. Gantt complaints that I voted against federal control of our schools, and you bet I did, And with your help, I'll fightfor conservative solutions that will work.

In these mini-debates candidates may be advised to avoid addressing the issue on it merits and instead change the interpretive framework for viewing the issue. In many cases a candidate may want to appear responsive but restricting that reaction to only an issue's merits would have negative effects (e.g., issues which inherently cut against one's party affiliation) requires an alternative strategy. Part of the dexterity, therefore, is to look responsive even when offering alternative constructions. Helms' answer to this dilemma was torecast or reinterpret the issue. His strategy was to "respond" to the issue by providing an alternative evaluative frame more friendly to his own storylines. Helms abandoned any defense of his own reasonableness and framed his rejoinders in terms of Gantt's duplicity. In other words, Helms counter attacked by attacking the man, keeping the focus on character. The following spot was typical of an extended series offered by Gantt dealing with environmental issues. The spot is


particularly effective in elevating what had traditionally been a marginal issue in North Carolina politics to the active agenda. The strategy furthered Gantt's theme that it was "time for a change" and advanced his story for Helms which characterized found him an absentee steward for the state's interests.

TOXIC WASTE SITESVIDEO AUDIO

[SP] Toxic waste site (camera zoom out) [VO] Of the 872 toxicwaste sites in this[ST] (banner over picture) state, only one has been cleaned up in 872TOXIC WASTE SITES the last ten years.(added) ONLY ONE CLEANED UP

[SP] River (camera zooms out) The Neuse and Pamlico rivers have[ST] NEUSE AND PAMLICO RIVERS been declared dead.(added) DECLARED DEAD

[S] River More than half of North Carolina's [S] Pollution sign rivers and streams are no longer safe[ST] (banner over pictures) for fishing and swimming HALF THE RIVERS AND STREAMS (added) NO LONGER SAFE

[ST] (banner) JESSE HELMS' RECORD And what is Jesse Helms' record on(each added below in list form) the environment? He's voted againstVOTED AGAINST THE CLEAR the clean water act, against the clean


WATER ACT air act, against cleaning up toxic waste.1/27/87 S.1VOTED AGAINST THECLEAN AIR ACT 4/3/90 S.1630VOTED AGAINST CLEANING UPTOXIC WASTE9/26/85

[ST] (newspaper clipping - headline) [VO] That's why environmentalists across Sierra Club says Helms Ad this state say Jesse Helms hasa disgraceful Distorts [circled] 'Disgraceful Record' record on the environment.

[ST] IT'S TIME FOR A CHANGE It's time for a change - Harvey Gantt forHARVEY GANTT FOR U.S. SENATE Senate.(Background still of Gantt)

Helms' apparently felt the heat, abandoning an often used blueprint of ignoring "non-central" issues in his advertising. In the following spot, Helms fails to defend his voting record (competency), instead denying the truth of the Gantt's original claim and subtly, in making his defense, shifting the evaluationto one of Gantt's trustworthiness. Not to be missed is the overt questioning of motive and Gantt's alleged violation of "trust" between voter and candidate, judgments closely related to notion of character.2

DEAD RIVERSVIDEO AUDIO

[ST] [VO] Harvey Gantt has gone toofar


Harvey Gantt has gone too far.[ST] Gantt ad (top left) Gantt's ads are now claiming that the[SP] Television set with picture of river Pamlico and Neuse Rivers are deadon it -- caption "NEUSE AND PAMLICO rivers. RIVERS DECLARED DEAD

[F] Gantt on right[ST] (large banner) That's not true. That's not true

[ST] (on TV) HALF THE RIVERS AND Gantt says that 50% of all rivers and STREAMS NO LONGER SAFE streams are unsafe for fishingand

swimming[ST] (large banner) That's not true That's not true, either.

[F] (talking head)The state's top environmental

official[ST] (at Top Press Conference says(at bottom) Bill Cobey, Secretary [SOF] Through outrageous distortion, Mr.Environment, Health & Natural Resources Gantt has perpetratedoutright lies.

[ST] (accompanied by picture of Gantt on right HARVEY GANTT [VO] Harvey Gantt will say will say anything anything to get votes. to get votes

HARVEY GANTT Harvey Gantt. Extremely liberal with Extremely Liberal the facts. with the FACTS


At another level, competence in managing spot interaction requires entering the discussion with timely responses. To forgo "taking a turn" concedes control to the opponent and even scurrilous charges can take on an air of "truth" through their unchallenged repetition (Napolitan, 1987). Thus manipulating the quick "give and take" becomes increasingly important creating an exchange much more like the instant responses in a conversation, albeit a public conversation with voters assessingthe actors actions.

An instance of turn-taking concerns a group of ads which "carefully" raised the race issue. For much of the campaign Helms' television spots seemed at a loss for how to address Gantt's ethnicity. Many spots were, by Helms' standards, almostbland. Most of Helms' negative spots did prominently featured Gantt in pictures and film, yet judiciously avoided directly raising the question of race.3 This changed in the closing weeks with the introduction of the now infamous "Quota" spot (Newsweek, 1991). The spot played on fears of job loss by telling the "representative" story of loosing ones employment.

QUALIFIEDVIDEO AUDIO

[F] Man opening letter, presumable to tell him [VO] You needed that job -- and you werehe did not receive a job. He crumples the letter. the best qualified. But they had to give it to a minority becauseof a racial quota. Is that really fair?

[ST] (accompanied by pictures of Gantt on Harvey Gantt says it is. Gnatt supports


left and Kennedy on right) Ted Kennedy's racial quota law that makes Harvey Gantt supports the color of your skin more important than Ted Kennedy's your qualifications racial quota law.

[F] Man crumpling paper again, making fists You'll vote on this issue next Tuesday

[ST] (accompanied by picture of Gantt on left, For racialquotas, Harvey Gantt,Helms on right) Against racial quotas. Jesse Helms. RACIAL QUOTAS For (underneath picture of Gnatt) Against (underneath picture of Helms

In another dramatic spot Helms' challenged Gantt's integrity (thereby tying an "issue" to character) while subtly raising thespecter of race. One has to wonder about personal virtue of a person who not only would use race for "personal gain" but also betray his "own people." The spot, however "unfair," works at several levels to indict Gantt's rectitude, including loyalty, uprightness, and incorrigibility. The text of the hardhitting ad follows:

BETRAYED

VIDEO AUDIO

[ST] How did Harvey Gantt [VO] How did Harvey Gantt become a

become a millionaire? millionaire?


[ST] (newspaper headline) The public record. He used his position

Gantt profits from government as Mayor and his minority status to

[ST] (Newspaper accompanied by S of Gantt) get himself and his friends a free TV

Influence peddling charged station license from the government.

[S] TV station WJZY 46 in Charlotte

[ST] (newspaper headline) Gantt, Partners Only weeks later, they sold out to a May Make Millions Selling Station white-owned corporation for three and

half million dollars.

[S] (newspaper headline) Group Including The black community felt betrayed, Gantt Might Make $3 Million but the deal made the Mayor a By Selling TV Station millionaire

[ST] (Newspaper headline in background)Influence Peddling Charged

[ST] (newspaper headline) Harvey Gantt made the government work

Gantt profits from government for Harvey Gantt.

The Gantt campaign answered in a manner typical of many current campaigns. The candidate himself appeared playing therole of the offended opponent. The charge of "wrongdoing" wasconfronted but remained short of an outright denial. Instead the attempt was to shift the grounds to Helms' advertising in the hope of triggering the often sought voter backlash; the response in theory attributed to negative spots but less often


experience in actual campaigns. Even as individual's lamentedthe untoward campaign, the efficacy of negative messages seemingly were not abated by candidate borne complaints. The candidate's actions as an active participant in the fray stoodin obvious contrast with the personally presented message.

ANSWERVIDEO AUDIO

[F] Gantt (talking head) [SOF] Jesse Helms is running another [ST] HARVEY GANTT smear campaign. Charging me with using

my race for financial advantage.Charging me with wanting to require gay teachers in schools. They're lies -- and Jesse Helms knows it. For eighteen years he's been playing on people's fears and killing this state's hopes in the process. This time, it's got to stop. Those smear campaigns haven't educated one child or cleaned up one toxic waste site. They haven't provided health care for one working family. They've helped only one person --Jesse Helms. You know, I've travelled to every part of this state, and I've listened. And Iknow that working families are having a hard time making ends meet. I know you'reworried about your children's education -- about our land, air and water. This election, you've got a choice. Think about it. You can continue Jesse Helms' way -- which is to continue to neglect our most important problems -- or you can choose to move forward, and start tackling the challenges we face. This time, don't [ST] HARVEY GANTTbe taken in by the smears. There's just


FOR U.S. SENATE too much at stake for North Carolina.

Another form of answer employed by Gantt was to offer flat denials, as in the following spot, while simultaneously attempting to reestablish his agenda. The message by focusing on several issues carries the risk of diverting attention from the one issue (Helms' meanness) with the potential for undermining Helms' character. The tone is more defensive than an idictment.

RACIAL QUOTASVIDEO AUDIO

[ST] JESSE HELMS' SMEAR [VO] Jesse Helms' smear campaign CAMPAIGN CONTINUES... continues

[ST] HELMS TV AD His ads about racial quota --out[SP] TV with Helms' ad on screen right lies.[ST] OUTRIGHT LIES

[S] Various newspaper clippings Harvey Gantt is explicitly opposed [ST] (close up of one headline) to racial quotas. North Carolina won't be "Harvey Gantt is explicitly fooled.opposed to racial quotas"

[ST] (Banner along top) WHAT 18 YEARS OF HELMS Look at what eighteen years of JesseHAS COST US Helms has cost us. SAT scores 49th


--S.A.T. scores 49th in the nation in the nation. A third of our school kids --A third of our school kids dropping out dropping out. 900 toxic waste sites. Acid --900 toxic waste sites rain. Contaminated rivers. --Acid rain --Contaminated rivers

[ST] JESSE HELMS JUST Jesse Helms just isn't doing the job. ISN'T DOING THE JOB

[ST] SAY NO TO THE SMEARS Say no to the smears.

[ST] SAY YES TO NORTH CAROLINA say yes to North Carolina

[ST] IT'S TIME FOR A CHANGE It's time for a change.

[ST] HARVEY GANTT FOR Harvey Gantt for Senate U.S. SENATE

Topic Commentary (using the opponent)As in a debate, in which the tables are turned, excerpts

from the opponent's comments were provided as convincing evidence, difficult for the opponent to deny. The practice had the effect of circumventing the opponent's responses so that thedenials were contradictions of what was said before. Numerous spots in the Gantt/Helms race made direct use of their opponent's public pronouncements to expose, in a dramatic manner, consistency claims. The quick excerpts were "evidence" which assured the opponent was the source documenting his own inconsistency. This method of advancing a topic had the advantage of placing voters in the position of being personal witnesses, thereby establishing an authenticity very difficult to explain away. In the following spot the repetition of Gantt's statement, combined with graduated use of slow-motion


made the actional contradiction unavoidable. (Of course there was outrage expressed by Gantt and the media that the statement was out of context)

SEX SELECTIONVIDEO AUDIO

[ST] Let's set the record straight [VO] Let's set the recordstraight

[ST] (accompanied by picture of Gantt on R) Harvey Gantt denied he would allow(text added line by line) abortion for sex selection, when Harvey Gantt parents want a boy, and not agirl. DENIES he would allow abortion for sex selection

[ST] (text added line by line) But Harvey Gantt told the press but Harvey Gantt he would allow abortion told the press he would allow abortions..

[F] (Zoom to full screen of Gantt and still [SOF] ". . . whether for sex selection, orbecomes film). Gantt talking head for what ever reason. . ."[ST] (at bottom)Gantt Press Conference - August 1990

[VO- incredulous tone] Did he say

even for sex selection?[F] (film is rewinding - accompanied by soundeffects and added crinkly lines over picture)


[ST] REWIND (superimposed in upper left)

[F] Gantt talking head [SOF] (slowed down) ". . . .whether for

sex selection or for whateverreason. . ."

[F} (Rewind repeated) [VO] Read his lips

[ST] Slow Motion Replay (lower left)

[F] Gantt talking head (repeated[SOF] (very slowed down) ". . . .whetherin super slow motion) for sex selection or for whatever reason."

[ST] (accompanied by picture of Gantt) [VO] Harvey Gantt denied he ever said Harvey Gantt that. Harvey Gantt, extremely liberal Extremely Liberal with the facts. with the FACTS.

Helms was more likely to use the opponent's pictures and words as self-indictments. The dominant occurrence was Helms' utilization of excerpts featuring Gantt's comments, juxtaposed with claims that the opposite was actually the case. Visuals were employed to document the claims of Helms' story for Gantt. The appearance became that Gantt was "caught in the act of lying." Gantt was portrayed as less than forthright, perhaps even furtive.

Three forms of using the opponent were found in the advertising. These included using excerpts from the opponent's own television spots, excerpts from the opponent's press conferences, and excerpts from television news. In several


instances, the same ad included more than one form of inclusion and singular excerpts were repeated in several ads. The other primary form of visual proof was the opponent's name and position displayed promptly in newspaper headlines, a tacticutilized extensively by both candidates.

Not all issues are as contextually compelling as are campaign "standards" like education and taxes. The candidates always possess the option of refusing to take part in the conversation, that is simply not respond. Although issue may simmer in the media, failure to engage in an airwaves dialogue avoids promoting the drama of "answers to answers" the media is so fond of amplifying. As in conversation some comments need not be dignified with a response.

The ability to ignore the opponent's spots is, in part, a negotiated process. In some instances, topics will escalate only when both candidates decide to engage in direct dialogue. Choosing to respond in kind raises the stakes of an issue, therebyconferring an informal legitimacy to a topic. Without the dramaof it being contested, an issue might fade. In other instances,one candidate can push an issue until it becomes salient, irrespective of the opponent's reactions. When this happens, the campaign would be ill-advised to attempt a strategy of neglect. In the Gantt/Helms' election few spots went unanswered. The contest was instead a continual dialogue with few turns spurned.

The following spot is included on a somewhat arbitrary basis. In the late stages of the campaign (last two weeks) it appeared that the Gantt campaign was more than holding its own, threatening (in the press at least) to establish a winning margin . Helms' campaign responded with a barrage of spots thateven the most insensitive auditor would find unjust. Rather than a backlash (other than media response) Helms surged in the polls (Otterbourg & Healey, 1990). Certainly, part of the


efficacy of ads may be attributed to Gantt's failure to successfully inoculate against Helms' campaign tactics, the "late hour" of the campaign, or Gantt's weak response (see the "Answer" spot). An alternative explanation is generated, however, when considering the spots as an overall narrative. The Helms' effort has developed their story of Gantt, following the same underlying themes throughout, incrementally allowing a progression of increased intensity and language. Gantt's positions on crime suggesting liberal tendencies became "extremely liberal with the FACTS" and by the last stages "dangerously liberal," as in the following example. The consistency of the storyline prepared voters for previously implausible claims. Additionally the hardhitting spots and subsequent media firestorm, were curiously fulfilling to Helms' tough outsider image.

FUNDRAISING

VIDEO AUDIO

[SP] Gantt (right screen - remains) [VO] It seems HarveyGantt is running[ST] (scroll) It seems two campaign and a secret

Harvey Gantt campaignis running twocampaigns . . .

a public campaignand a SECRET

campaign(overlay - newspaper - Headline) And Gantt's friends with liberal newspapers[ST] Gantt Aides Mum About Calif. Trip(Overlay - Red banner)[ST] Won't discuss SECRET campaign. won't discuss his secret campaign


[S] Washington Blade newspaper That Gantt has run fundraisingads in gay(overlay of ad) newspapers -- that in fundraising drives in [ST] Dance to Dump Helms gay bars in San Francisco, NewYork,(Gantt's name circled) and Washington Gantt has raised

(overlay - on outside view of gay bar)) raised thousands of dollars.[ST] GAY BARGantt Fund Raiser

October 5, 1990Washington, D.C.

And Harvey Gantt has promised to back(second overlay - on outside view of gay bar)[ST] GAY BARGantt Fund RaiserSan Francisco, CA

[S] Bay Area Reporter -newspaper(overlay of article - headline)[ST] Gantt Nets $80,000 on Bay Area Trip

[ST] (on background of paper with headline) mandatory gay rights laws, including

TEXAS GAYS requiring local schools to hire

SUPPORTING gay teachers.HARVEY GANTT

(Red banner overlay)[ST] Mandatory Gay Rights Laws

[ST] (picture of Gantt on right) Harvey Gantt is dangerously liberal HARVEY GANTT


is Dangerously Liberal[ST] (replaced with) Too liberal for North Carolina. Too Liberal for North Carolina

Implications for Managing Spot InteractionExamination of the Gantt/Helms senate race suggests some

ideas for effective spot management, which may contribute to an understanding of how candidates can, by attending to the nature of spot interactions, be more proficient in advancing their storylines. Considering these guidelines of managing interaction recognizes that they are "rules," not laws. They apply and work in some specific circumstances--not all.

The central recommendation, which emerges from the Gantt/Helms examples, is that dialogue choices must consistentlyadvance candidates' storylines. Coherence and fidelity are moreeasily maintained when candidates' messages demonstrate consistency across affirming and subversive storylines and over the duration of the campaign. It is not enough that candidates respond to each other in arguing the issues of the campaign, butthey should also frame their responses to further their own themes. In fact, it is the latter, consistency with one's own stories (for themselves and the opponent), which most effectively advances a candidates story.

Considering spots as interactive focuses attention on how candidates take turns and manage the discussion of issues. Several specific recommendations for managing topic development emerge from the discussion. First, candidates can often shape the relational dimensions of candidates' stories by taking


advantage of strategic openings through selection and introduction of issues which compliment qualities of the candidate's story.

Second, once a topic is current in the discussion, candidates should not overlook character as a central decisionalcriteria for voters (Louden, 1988). When extending a topic, therefore, issues should be acknowledged, but the underlying storyline describing the opponent's deficits or the sponsor's strengths should be the central focus. This means rather than addressing topics solely on their merits, issues should be recast in terms designed to reveal character. In addition, remembering to construct responses which highlight the opponent's deficits, simultaneously keeps control of the topic and promotes thematic consistency among one's own ads.

Third, candidates are advised to advance their storylines, rather than treating spots as a means of defense. Relying solely on denials and explanations nourishes the opponent's strategy; placing the accused on the defensive and deflecting critical focus from the opponent.

Fourth, candidates should carefully choose those topics which deserved to be extended or extinguished. Issues deservingelaboration would include those which inhere with the candidate's party affiliation (e.g., Gantt's environmentalism, Helms' tax increases), those complementary to the candidate's public persona (e.g., Gantt's steadiness, Helms' toughness), andthose taking advantage of their opponent's "mistakes." Issues which can be ignored are more problematic, depending on the election particulars, and the opponents eagerness to elevate a topic to prominence. Because campaigns are interactive, candidate's obviously do not always have a choice of which topics will be discussed. Some issues advanced by the opponent inherently place a candidate at a political disadvantage, yet must be addressed. In those cases, candidates should


reinterpret or recast the argument and ground their answers firmly within the tradition of their own themes.

Fifth, responses must be timely. Failure to "take a turn," with a consequential and contested topic, allows the issue to be defined by the opponent. Campaigns need streamlinedprocesses for defining, producing, and airing spots to take advantage of the moment or avoid time-lags which make their contributions irrelevant. In addition, since viewers use spots to get information on the campaign, extensions of topics may need to utilize the same medium (i.e., televised spots vs. newspapers) if their answer is to be understood as part of the unfolding debate and achieve the desired impact.

Finally, candidate need to adopt practices which allow them to wrest control of a topic. One method, illustrated in the Gantt/Helms race, is to take excerpts for the opponent's spots and public statement, and place them in spots to document their lack of coherence or truthfulness. As with personal conversation, utilizing the opponent's words against them tends to "leaves them speechless," circumscribing or even ending the progression of a topic. To avoid the difficulty of being placedin the position of documenting one's own inconsistency, candidates may need to "censor" those actions available to the opponent or those actions susceptible to misinterpretation. Oneapproach to achieve the latter, as indicated by the Helms' model, is to only take actions which are subservient to the larger story. That is, keep the story simple and refuse to deviate. Consistency with one's persona, as expressed in the candidate's underlying storyline, appears to be more important than being "politically correct" on every issue.

Conclusion Viewing spots as reflexive and interdependent focuses

attention on the management of turns in an ongoing dialogue. Storylines are advanced or undermined, dependent on their


perceived fit with the candidates' moves. Voters are invited toobserve the interaction, gathering information to help select between the competing narratives. The basic argument presented here is that the interaction of spots does effect interpretationof elections, and thus deserves continued attention.

The principles illustrated in this analysis need to be approached with caution. First, while the comparison drawn between Gantt and Helms' advertising highlight properties of interdependence, the distinctions noted earlier would not appearas clear-cut when viewed against the background of an overall campaign. Over the course of a campaign, advantage gained through spot exchanges would be subtle and mixed. Second, the importance of managing the campaign relationship between ads would be less decisive if both candidates made strategically sound moves. Assuming the competence of both candidates, effective management skills would give way to other factors influencing the outcome. Third, other factors (e.g., candidate qualities, financing, incumbency) may outweigh, even the best managed campaign. Finally, the quality of the ads produced for a campaign must be part of an larger strategy pursued by a candidate. Better spots alone do not lead to electoral success.

The interaction of spot advertising does, however, give insight into the Gantt/Helms contest, which in turn may inform future contests. Taken together, they point to the conclusion that the Gantt campaign was less skilled in managing the exchange of spot to further his story. Although many of Gantt'sspots were professionally constructed and individually effective, when they interacted with Helms' commercials their worth was depreciated. Taken as a whole, Helms' spots emerged as having the final word. Gantt's effectiveness was compromisedbecause his spots failed to undermine Helms' story for himself, and allowed Helms to reinterpret the judgment criteria for many campaign issues.


Part of the success of Helms' representation of Gantt was the thematic consistency with which he advanced in his claims. Helms' basic charge that Gantt was less than forthright was anchored within the context of specific issues. As a result, the audience knew where Helms stood on his carefully orchestrated list of issues, whereas Gantt's "reinterpreted" stance left listeners unsure of his commitment. Certainly many North Carolinians disagreed with specific Helms' policies but nonetheless were attracted to the image of a fighter solely motivated by principle.

Gantt's alternatives were not as limited as his "traditional" handlers seemed to assume. Gantt was remarkably forthright, never making the mistake of Dukakis or Hunt in 1984 of running from his positions ("liberal"). In fact, he shared with Helms a consistency of standing up for what he believed buthis story for self was never exploited. Similarly he could have developed a story for Helms which argued, despite Helms' protests to the contrary, he, in fact, lacked decency, devoted, as he was, to policies which offended fundamental human values of fairness, compassion, and affiliation. The arguments were present in Gantt's spots, but their telling was not consistent or focused enough to create a sufficient questioning of Helms' character. The picture of an self-serving and unreliable publicservant, which Gantt favored, was undermined because Helms' character was reliable--relentlessly defending the conservative agenda--and was therefore trustworthy.

Advertising must not only maintain consistency with the candidates other ads, they must also resonate with the candidates public persona. Voters expectations and beliefs place boundary conditions on what will be perceived as disingenuous. Although the point at which credulity is breachedis difficult to pinpoint, the essential consistency between candidates actions and character seem minimal. This may be the


case even when the public generally subscribes to evaluations considered negative. For candidates with "negative features," it may be advisable to recast the interpretive framework surrounding these attributes rather than engaging in defensive denial. It is much safer to take what people already believe and make it into a virtue, than risk the public concluding the candidate lacks integrity. This tack more easily allows the candidate to remain consistent not only with what is known (fidelity), but also is then consistent with his/her own past (coherence), and with the character revealed by their actions (characterological coherence). For example, Helms' historic obstinacy was elevated to his strongest recommendation. Similarly, candidates can grant the opponent's virtues, as Helmsdoes with Gantt's political acumen, and redefine the interpretive frame, such that the opponent's dexterity proves their inappropriateness.

Traditional democratic models of electoral choice ideally view voters as comparison shoppers rationally selecting among policy options (issues). Yet the picture which emerges here is that voters choose among competing stories which reveal the candidate's characters. Issues, of course, are important in a race, because they inform voters on candidates positions and independently influence some voting decisions. The argument here, however, is that presentation of issues does much more than position a candidate's policy stands. Voters engage in an evaluative process in which issues are evidence of actional tendencies, contributing to their more fundamental character evaluations. Issues, therefore, remain central to the construction of spots, but not always for the reasons presented in previous research on political advertising.

Finally, strong denunciations may be satisfying to those convinced negative spots are destroying the democratic process, but the complaints shed little light on understanding how they


work or discourage their use. Paul Taylor (1985), a Washington Post writer summarized, "Are they illuminating: rarely. Are they unfair: often. But they are dialogue. And they do get through" (p.C5). Gantt became painfully aware that negative advertising could effectively undercut a positive public image, even though the public professed to be disgusted with the ads (Christensen, 1990). The Gantt/Helms race becomes one more example that such public outrage seems to be unrelated to effectiveness.

Adopting a narrative perspective integrates the candidate with their actions--policy positions and campaign tactics included-- and begins to help explain the complexity of the judgments voters make. Realization of how character judgements evolve from campaign issues through spot advertising, for example, is much richer than exploring forced issue/image dichotomies4 Certainly appreciating this level of intricacy avoids confusing the apparent simplicity of spot messages with the messages voters interpret. Surprisingly, it is still in vogue among researchers to conclude that , ". . .most ads only have one theme or issue anyway" (Leland, 1990, p.8). Considering the role of character in the candidates narrative helps answer the question most external commentators ask each time Helms is reelected. How can this man ever get elected? Consider for a moment the public persona Helms has created for himself, or put other terms, what does Helms' storyline require of his character to achieve characterological coherence.

Helms often punctuated his stump speeches saying to the campaign audience "Most of you know where I stand," and, indeed,they did. The mere mention of Jesse Helms' name is seldom greeted by a neutral response. Helms had come to represent the best or worst instincts in American politics, depending on who was making the evaluation. The one attribute which no one


questions, however, is Helms' consistency. His views remain predictable and principled for the causes he believes are "right," and his actions complement the philosophy that "Victoryachieved by compromise is akin to heresy" (Snider, 1985, P.41).

Voters had grown accustomed to the kind of frontal assaultwhich characterized his public rhetoric. The vitiosity of Helmswas somehow consistent with his public character. The maverick posture that the Senator cultivated over his career, insulated Helms from responsibility for the negative tone of the campaign.In what was typically reported as a mean spirited and divisive campaigns (Riley, 1990), Helms' part in the mudslinging could beexplained away as just part of his combative style. Bill Peterson (1984) of the Times-Washington Post News Service reasoned in Helms' 1984 race that "Helms has placed himself almost beyondthe pale. He can say outrageous things and people think it's a badge of courage" (p.6). The campaign's tenor in an ironic manner served to bolster Helms and undermine Gantt. Helms' tough commercials complimented his self-portrait as hard-hitting, combative, direct, and uncompromising.

Overall, then, the perspective employed in this paper reveals that voters display narrative rationality when assessingads; that is, spots effectiveness are a function of their coherence, fidelity, and particularly the characterological coherence of the candidate. It is the latter, characterologicalcoherence which is particularly fitting for understanding how spots develop candidate image.

While character is implied in all stories, character in political advertising is of particular relevance. Voters are asked to assess identifiable actors who assume the symbolic mantle for issues, campaign conduct, and values. In spots, candidates' actional tendencies are transparent. Their actions--issue positions, statements, decisions--are intentionally displayed, criticized by the opponent, and


evaluated by auditors. Voters attend to these actions as evidence of character and form an evaluation of the candidate's reliability. These judgments are based on the consistency of the candidates character. Voters decide if the candidate is unreliable or lacks commitment to his/her own values. Voters, therefore, are rational when they endorse the person whose character can be relied upon to embody their values.


NOTES

1 Some notable exceptions include Pfau's (1990) work on inoculation, Kern's consideration of campaign ad sets (1990), and a few individual studies (e.g., Chasteen, 1988, Garramone, 1985). Johnson-Cartee & Copeland (1991) describe several interaction but note that "reactive response research is very limited" (p.247).

2 An additional consideration with the Helms' response is suggestion that while people may be concerned with the environment, their "experience" with rivers in the state did notmatch Gantt's claim (Otterbourg, 1990), and the spot after refutation may increasing lacked fidelity . Safe or not people use the rivers.

3 Helms did addressed the race issue more overtly in direct mail solicitations and newspaper ads.

4 I have argued elsewhere (Louden, 1990b) that issue spots are the more effective than directly addressing image in order for candidates to (re)focus voters' decision on the character while avoiding backlash effects.


REFERENCES

Ailes, R. (1988). You are the message: Secrets of the master communicators. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.

Brummett, B. (1985). Electric literature as equipment for living: Haunted house films. Critical Studies In Mass Communication, 2, 247-261.

Burke, K. (1969). A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Chasteen, D. (1988, November). Harriett Woods Vs. Kit Bond: Television commercials as argumentation. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association. New Orleans, LA.

Christensen (1990, October 15). Experts see little difference inHelms, Gantt ads. The News and Observer, p. A1.

Devlin, L.P. (1986). An analysis of presidential television commercials, 1952-1984. In L.L. Kaid, D. Nimmo, and K.R. Sanders (Eds.), New perspectives on political advertising (pp. 21-54). Carbondale IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Diamond, E., & Bates, S. (1984). The spot: The rise of political advertising on television. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Edelman, M. (1985). Political language and political reality. PS, 8, 10-19.

Edelman, M. (1988). Constructing the political spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fisher, W.R. (1970). A motive view of communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 56, 131-139.


Fisher, W.R. (1989). Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

Geis, C. (1990, November 4). Senate campaign ads target taxpayerissues. The Winston-Salem Journal, p. C1.

'Going for the Gut': How ads play on race (1991, May 6). Newsweek, 24-5.

Gronbeck, B.E. (1984). Functional and dramaturgical themes of presidential campaigning. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 14, 486-511.

Johnson-Cartee, K.S., & Copeland, G.A. (1991). Negative political advertising:Coming of age. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Joslyn, R. (1986). Political advertising and the meaning of elections. In L.L. Kaid, D. Nimmo, and K.R. Sanders (Eds.), New perspectives on political advertising (pp. 139-183). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Kern, M. (1989). 30-second politics: Political advertising in the eighties. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Leland, C.M. (1990, July). Heroes, hoaxes, and hucksters: The role of narrative in political campaign advertising. Paper presented at the Conference on Narrative in the Human Sciences, Iowa City, Iowa.

Louden, A.D. (1988, November). When issue becomes image: the emergence of 'character' in political advertising. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, New Orleans.

Louden, A.D. (1990a). Image construction in political spot advertising: the Gantt/Helms senate campaign, 1984 (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California).


Louden, A.D. (1990b, June). Transformation of issue to image and presence: Eliciting character evaluations in negative spot advertising. Paper presented atthe meeting of the International Communication Association, Dublin, Ireland.

MacDougall, M. (1980). The barkers of snake oil politics. Politics Today, 7, 34-37.

Merelman, R.M. (1976). The dramaturgy of politics. In J.E. Combsand M.W. Mansfield (Eds.), Drama in life: The use of communication in society (pp. 285-301). New York: HastingsHouse.

Napolitan, J. (1987). Joseph Napolitan's greatest hints. Campaigns & Elections, 8, 48-53.

Otterbourg, K. (1990, October 9). Official calls Gantt's ad on pollution 'outright lies'. Winston-Salem Journal, p. 17,24.

Otterbourg, K. & Healey, J. (1990, November 4). Helms gaining inpolls after a week of attacks on Gantt. Winston-Salem Journal, p.A1, A4.

Peterson, B. (1984, November 22). The victory, Helms proves he is an innovator. Greensboro News & Record, p.1A.

Pfau, M., & Kenski, H.C. (1990). Attack politics: Strategy and defense. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Postman, N. (1986). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discoursein the age of show business. New York: Penguin.

Riley, S. (1990, November 2). Senate campaign ads focus on racial issue. The News and Observer, p. B1.

Rothenberg, S. (1986). Prime time politics: Early returns on early media. Public Opinion, 9, 41-44.


Schram, M. (1987). The great American video game: Presidential politics in the television age. New York: William Morrow.

Sherwood, B. (1984, July 15). Experts, ex-governors rebut Helms claims of high N.C. taxes. The News and Observer, pp. 25A, 27A.

Smith, D.S., & Golden, J.L. (1988). Electronic storytelling in electoral politics: An anecdotal analysis of television advertising in the Helms-Hunt senate race. Southern SpeechCommunication Journal, 53, 244-258.

Taylor, P. (1985, September 22). Dump on your opponent: Negativecampaign ads are as American as Don Rickles. Washington Post, p. C5.

Documents

A Narrative Approach to the Examination of Political Advertising: Perspective on the 1990 Gantt/Helms Senate Campaign