20130412164339753295_book_an-introduction-to-political-communication

POLITICS IN THE AGE OF MEDIATION
of a particular candidate tend to project their views on to the candidate’s
advertising – they will hear what they want to hear, almost regardless of
what the favoured candidate says. A number of studies have concluded
that few people actually change votes due to political advertising’ (1984,
p. 351). Advertising, these authors suggest, may reinforce existing political
attitudes and behaviour patterns, but will rarely change them. Cundy
discusses research suggesting that the effects of political advertising are in
inverse proportion to the audience’s knowledge of the party or candidate
being advertised, and that ‘once a candidate’s image has been developed,
new information is unlikely to generate any appreciable change’ (1986,
p. 232).
This is true regardless of the aesthetic qualities of the advert. Advertising
may receive praise from commentators and analysts, while failing to improve
a party’s votes. In the 1987 general election, the ‘Kinnock – the Movie’ PEB,
as we have already noted, attracted numerous accolades for the skill of its
construction, to the extent that it was shown twice on television during the
campaign (a first for British political advertising). Labour’s vote on polling
day was not substantially affected, however, unless one believes that it would
have been even lower without the positive image of Kinnock presented in
director Hugh Hudson’s film. In the 1988 US presidential election, on the
other hand, the Republicans’ infamous ‘Willie Horton’ spot, accusing
Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis of being dangerously liberal on
crime, is widely believed to have contributed substantially to Bush’s victory.
When all the empirical evidence is taken into account (and there is not so
much of it as one might expect, given the extent to which image-management
has become a central feature of political campaigning) we can conclude that
there do appear to be ways in which a political message can be constructed
so as to produce a favourable response in the audience. The cut of a suit, a
hairstyle, a camera angle or the colour of a stage-set, are examples of formal
aspects of the message which might, all other things being equal, positively
influence audience perceptions of the communicator and his or her message.
In other words, there are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ examples of political communication,
as judged by aesthetic criteria. Political communication can be
directed, and increasingly is, by the political public relations industry (see
Chapters 6 and 7). Like other types of communicator, the politician must
work within conventions which are known and understood by the audience.
These conventions may be poorly executed, competently realised or
creatively subverted, in the manner of aesthetic innovation through the ages.
The political communicator is a performer, and will be judged by the
audience, at least partly, on the quality of a performance.
It must not be forgotten, however, that an array of mediating factors
intervene in the communicator–receiver relationship, affecting the meaning
of the message and its likely impact on attitudes and behaviour. The status
of the communicator is important (incumbent president or outlawed terror-
34