Visual Literacy and Visual Politics: Photojournalism and the 2004 Presidential Debates

Abstract

While newspapers use conventional images to accompany reporting on presidential debates, the rhetorical aspect of these images is illustrated through an examination of the 2004 debates. In this essay, the author first establishes oppositional positioning and mirroring as visual literacy conventions that augment those previously identified by Paul Messaris in his examination of advertising images. Second, a critical analysis of the photographs depicting the first 2004 debate, in particular, demonstrates how photo editors deployed visual conventions that either intensified clash or neutralized candidate performance fragments to produce a false symmetry despite a discordant reality. In subsequent debates, however, many editors employed alternate visual conventions that provided an improved visual balance between fairness and accuracy.

Keywords:

• Photojournalism
• Presidential Debates
• Visual Literacy

Notes

Robert Hariman and John Louis Lucaities, No Caption Needed: Iconic Photographs, Public Culture, and Liberal Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007).

Maria Elizabeth Grabe and Erik Page Bucy, Image Bite Politics: News and the Visual Framing of Elections (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).

Nicholas Mirzoeff, Visual Culture (New York: Longman, 1999), 5.

Studies which explore the visual dimensions of rhetoric and public address include Carole Blair and Neil Michel's “Reproducing Civil Rights Tactics: The Rhetorical Performances of the Civil Rights Memorial,” Cara Finnegan's “Recognizing Lincoln: Image Vernaculars of Nineteenth Century Visual Culture,” Janis L. Edwards and Carol K. Winkler's “Representative Form and the Visual Ideograph,” Lester Olson's “Emblems of American Community in the Revolutionary Era: A Study in Rhetorical Iconography,” Bryan C. Taylor's “The Bodies of August: Photographic Realism and Controversy at the National Air and Space Museum,” Christine Harold and Kevin Michael DeLuca's “Behold the Corpse: Violent Images and the Case of Emmett Till,” Robert Hariman and John Louis Lucaites’ “Public Identity and Collective Memory in U.S. Iconic Photography,” and Victoria J. Gallagher and Kenneth Zagacki's “Visibility and Rhetoric: The Power of Visual Images in Norman Rockwell's Depictions of Civil Rights,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 91(2), (2005): 175–200.

David L. Vancil and S. D. Pedell, “The Myth of Viewer-Listener Disagreement in the First Kennedy-Nixon Debate,” Central States Speech Journal 38 (1987): 16–27.

Kate Kenski and Natalie Jomini Stroud, “Who Watches Presidential Debates? A Comparative Analysis of Presidential Debate Viewing in 2000 and 2004,” American Behavioral Scientist 49 (October 2005): 226.

Susan A. Hellweg, Michael Pfau, and Steven R. Brydon, Televised Presidential Debates: Advocacy in Contemporary America (New York: Praeger, 1992).

William L. Benoit and Heather Currie, “Inaccuracies in Media Coverage of the 1996 and 2000 Presidential Debates,” Argumentation and Advocacy 38 (Summer 2001): 28–40.

Lance Bennett, News: The Politics of Illusion (2nd ed.) (New York: Longman, 1988), 14.

Pierre Bourdieu, Photography: A Middle-Brow Art, trans. Shaun Whiteside (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990).

Still photographs often duplicate simultaneous film or television footage. At times, they exist as stills derived from film and television, integrating visual modes more than is often acknowledged.

Barbie Zelizer, About to Die: How News Images Move the Public (NY: Oxford University Press 2010), 1.

Hariman and Lucaites, No Caption Needed.

John Lucaites, “Boots and Hands,” lecture presented at University of Alabama, October 25, 2007.

Keith V. Erickson, “Presidential Spectacles: Political Illusionism and the Rhetoric of Travel,” Communication Monographs 65 (June 1998): 141–154. and “Presidential Rhetoric's Visual Turn: Performance Fragments and the Politics of Illusionism,” Communication Monographs 67 (June 2000): 138–158.

Grabe and Bucy, Image Bite Politics, 85.

See David Domke, David Perlmutter, and Meg Spratt, “The Primes of Our Times? An Examination of the ‘Power’ of Visual Images,” Journalism 3 (2002): 149; Sandra E. Moriarty and Gina Garramone, “A Study of Newsmagazine Photographs of the 1984 Presidential Campaign,” Journalism Quarterly 63 (1986): 728–734; Robert Tiemens, “A Content Analysis of Political Speeches on Television,” in Handbook of Visual Communication: Theory, Methods, and Media, ed. Ken Smith, Sandra Moriarty, Gretchen Barbatsis, and Keith Kenney (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005): 385–404; and Denis G. Sullivan and Roger D. Masters, “‘Happy Warriors': Leaders’ Facial Displays, Viewers’ Emotions, and Political Support,” American Journal of Political Science 32 (May 1988): 345–368.

See Carl Glassman and Keith Kenney, “Myths and Presidential Campaign Photographs,” Visual Communication Quarterly, 2, (1994): 4–7; and Jan Colbert, “Ho Hum, Another Hillary Clinton Photo,” Visual Communication Quarterly, 3, (1995): 4–6.

Shawn W. Rosenberg and Patrick McCafferty, “The Image and the Vote: Manipulating Voters’ Preferences,” Public Opinion Quarterly 51 (1987): 31–47.

Roger D. Masters and Denis G. Sullivan, “Nonverbal Behavior and Leadership: Emotion and Cognition in Political Information Processing,” in Explorations in Political Psychology, ed. Shanto Iyengar and William J. McGuire (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1993), 150–182.

James Elkins, Visual Studies: A Skeptical Introduction (New York: Routledge, 2003), 137.

Roberts Braden and John Hortin, “Identifying the Theoretical Foundations of Visual Literacy,” Journal of Visual/Verbal Languaging 2 (1982): 37–51.

Elkins, Visual Studies, 137.

Seppanen, The Power of the Gaze (NY: Peter Lang Publishing, 2006); Paul Messaris, Visual Literacy: Image, Mind, and Reality (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1994).

Paul Messaris, Visual Literacy: Image..

Paul Messaris, Visual Literacy, and Visual Persuasion: The Role of Images in Advertising (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997).

Messaris and Moriarty, “Visual Literacy Theory,” Handbook of Visual Communication (NY: Routledge, 2005): 479-502.

Grabe and Bucy argue that still photos of such manufactured scenes have particular suasive impact because there is no contradicting or reinforcing image stream (102).

For discussions of objectivity as a news standard, see, among others, Michael Schudson, The Sociology of News (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2003) and Patricia Leavy, Iconic Events: Media, Politics and Power in Retelling History (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2007).

Kiku Adatto, Picture Perfect: The Art and Artifice of Public Image Making (New York: Basic Books, 1993), 53.

Lance Bennett, News.

Objectivity remains a motivating journalistic standard, despite its practical dilemmas and removal from the ethics code of the Society of Professional Journalists in 1996. For discussions of objectivity's complications, see Richard Harwood, “How Objective Can the Media Really Be?” Washington Post, August 16, 1992, C7; and Brent Cunninham, “Re-Thinking Objectivity,” Columbia Journalism Review, July/August 2003, 24–33.

Due to the high cost of licensing Associate Press images, the author was unable to include figures. However, front pages from the 2008 debates, with many similar examples, are available in the archived section of “Today's Front Pages” on HYPERLINK “http://www.newseum.org” www.newseum.org.

Messaris and Moriarity, “Visual Literacy Theory,” 497.

Erickson maintains that the media expects chief executives to “perform photo-ops with subtle decorum,” 142. Grabe and Bucy suggest the same decorum from candidates is positively received (146–160).

The outcome of such manipulation usually means one candidate is shown in greater close-up than the other, a distortion that is not always readily apparent.

Mirroring is more apt to be employed in debates involving two candidates, rather than a group of candidates participating in primary contests.

Headline in the Erie, PA Times-News, October 1, 2004: 1.

Headline in the Hudson Valley, NY Times-Herald, October 1, 2004: 1.

Headline in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, October 1, 2004: 1.

A comparison between pictures and words is beyond the scope of this study, but may provide additional understanding of post-debate photojournalism and its conventions.

As Meyrowitz argues, and subsequent scholars have concurred, television contributes to an ethos of the “speaker over the speech,” where perceptions of character and personality hold dominion over ideas. Joshua Meyrowitz, No Sense of Place: The Impact of Electronic Media on Social Behavior (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), 183.

See, for example, Judi K. Burgoon, “Nonverbal Communication Research in the 1970's: An Overview,” in Communication Yearbook 4, ed. Dan Nimmo (Edison, NJ: 1980), 179–197.

Susan A. Hellweg et al., Televised Presidential Debates, 84.

See, for example, Paul Messaris, Bruce Eckman, and Gary Gumpert, “Editing Structure in the Televised Versions of the 1976 Presidential Debates,” Journal of Broadcasting 23 (1970): 359–69; John T. Morello, “Visual Structuring of the 1976 and 1984 Nationally Televised Presidential Debates: Implications,” Central States Speech Journal 39 (1988): 233–242; Morello, “The Look and Language of Clash: Visual Structuring of Argument in the 1988 Bush-Dukakis Debates,” Southern Communication Journal 57 (1992): 277–290; Morello, “Argument and Visual Structuring in the 1984 Mondale-Reagan Debates: The Medium's Influence on the Perception of Clash,” Western Journal of Communication 52 (1988): 277–290; and Robert Tiemens, “Television's Portrayal of the 1976 Presidential Debates: An Analysis of Visual Content,” Communication Monographs 45 (1978): 362–370.

Grabe and Bucy, 72.

Some define political debates as “joint appearances,” noting that they are characterized more by the delivery of scripted messages than interactive debating procedures.

William L. Benoit, Glenn J. Hansen, and R. M. Verser, “A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Viewing U.S. Presidential Debates,” Communication Monographs 70 (2003): 335–350.

Thomas A. Hollihan, Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns in a Media Age (Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2001), 170.

Mitchell S. McKinney and Diana B. Carlin, “Political Campaign Debates,” in Handbook of Political Communication Research, ed. Lynda Lee Kaid (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004), 203–234.

Susan A. Hellweg et al., Televised Presidential Debates.

Paul Kirk, Interview, Presidential Debates and Democracy, C-SPAN, October 28, 1995.

Walter R. Zakahi, “Presidential Debates and Candidate Image Formation: 1992, 1996, 2000,” in Presidential Candidate Images, ed. Kenneth Hacker (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004), 151.

Thomas A. Hollihan, Uncivil Wars, 167.

Robert V. Friedenberg, “Patterns and Trends in National Political Debates 1960–1996,” in Rhetorical Studies of National Political Debates-1996, ed. Robert V. Friedenberg (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1997), 61–90.

William L. Benoit and Heather Currie, “Inaccuracies in Media Coverage of the 1996 and 2000 Presidential Debates,” Argumentation and Advocacy 38 (2001): 28–40.

Thomas E. Patterson, The Mass Media Election: How Americans Choose Their President (New York: Praeger, 1980); Susan Hellweg et al., Televised Presidential Debates.

See Dale Herbeck and Sara Mehltretter, “A Beard and a Pasty Forehead.” Paper delivered at the International Communication Association, New York, 2005.

Michael Schudson, “The Nixon-Kennedy Debates,” Media Studies Journal 14 (Winter 2000): 122–23.

Adatto, Picture Perfect, 32.

Kathleen E. Kendall, “Presidential Debates Through Media Eyes,” American Behavioral Scientist 40 (August 1997): 1203.

Bob Shrum, “Debate Strategy and Effects,” in Electing the President 2004: The Insider's View, ed. Kathleen Hall Jamieson (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), 119.

See Jerry K. Frye and Bruce G. Bryski, “Accident and Design: Implications of Technical and Functional Factors of Network Television Coverage of the Ford/Carter Presidential Debates.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Communication Association Convention, Boston, 1978; Paul Messaris, B. Eckman, and Gary Gumpert, “Editing Structure in the Televised Versions of the 1976 Presidential Debates,” Journal of Broadcasting 23 (1979): 359–369; J. T. Morello, “Argument and Visual Structuring in the 1984 Mondale-Reagan Debates: The Medium's Influence on the Perception of Clash,” Western Journal of Speech Communication 52 (1988): 277–290; and Susan A. Hellweg et al., Televised Presidential Debates, 91.

Mitchell S. McKinney, “Let the People Speak: The Public's Agenda and Presidential Town Hall Debates,” American Behavioral Scientist 49: 198–212. According to McKinney, the 2004 debate memorandum was the most detailed in the history of presidential debates.

Leonard Shyles, “The 2004 Presidential Debates: Candidate Access or Image Control?” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Communication Association, Philadelphia, 2006:1.

Leonard Shyles, “The 2004 Presidential Debates,” 26. Unless otherwise noted, specifics about the content of television coverage of the first 2004 debate are primarily derived from my observation of the videotaped CBS public broadcast, although the CSPAN broadcast was also viewed in its totality.

L. Patrick Devlin, “The 1992 Gore-Quayle-Stockdale Vice-Presidential Debate,” in Robert V. Friedenberg, Ed. Rhetorical Studies of National Political Debates—1966, 2nd ed. (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994), 223.

I deeply appreciates the cooperation of colleagues across the country who provided print copies of their local newspaper front pages, providing the impetus for this study.

The exceptions were two photographs showing local viewers watching the debates.

The small variety of conventional views may also be attributed to the relatively static nature of debates themselves.

See Adatto, Picture Perfect, 51–54.

I conducted a simplified content analysis of the CBS split-screen coverage of the debate. Twenty-eight split-screen shots of Bush reactions were shown, twenty-two split screen-shots of Kerry reactions were shown, and four shots captured a transition between reactions by both Bush and Kerry. Of the shots (both split-screen and full stage) where candidate reactions could be seen, Kerry had no negative (frowning, angry, or disapproving) shots and two positive (nodding or laughing/smiling) shots, the remaining twenty-four being neutral (composed) in expression. While it was sometimes difficult to distinguish between Bush “negative” and “neutral” facial expressions, I determined that fourteen of the thirty-two reaction shots of Bush displayed a negative facial expression (exaggerated frowning, appearing nervous or irritated, scowling, head shaking, etc.) compared with one positive (laughing/smiling) shot, and seventeen relatively neutral shots.

As reported in Roger Simon, Angie C. Marek, Jeff Kass, Robert Zausner, James Burnett, and Brett Schulte; “Split Screen Nation: Has America Ever Been Quite So Divided?” U.S. News and World Report, October 25, 2004, 24.

Shrum, 114–139.

John Tierney, “Into Spin Alley Strode the 32.” The New York Times, October 3, 2004, p. 33. Accessed from Lexis Nexis Academic.

Simon et al., “Split Screen Nation,” p. 24.

Sheila Kast. Interview with Doyle McManus. “Weekend Edition Sunday.” National Public Radio, October 3, 2004. Accessed from EBSCOhost (http://web23.epnet.com).

Alan Schroeder, “There's No Debate About it: Face-to-Face, Candidates let their masks slip.” Washington Post, October 17, 2004, p. B1. Accessed from Lexus-Nexus Academic.

Robert V. Friedenberg, “The 2004 Presidential Debates,” in Robert E. Denton, Jr., Ed. The 2004 Presidential Campaign: A Communication Perspective. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005), 112.

Paul Eckman, Wallace V. Friesen, and Phoebe Ellsworth, Emotion in the Human Face (Elmsford, NY: Pergamon, 1972).

Ronald Brownstein and Kathleen Hennessy, “The Race for the White House, The Times Poll.” Los Angeles Times, October 3, 2004: 1. Accessed from Lexus Nexus Academic.

I held conversations about the 2004 debate with several photo editors of examined newspapers who reported their recognition of the problems of perceived bias posed by publication of photos of the negative Bush expressions.

At least one editor cited his conservative audience base as a motive for avoiding pictures of the Bush negative expressions. At least one of the papers that paired a negative Bush image with a conventional Kerry image serves an acknowledged liberal-leaning audience.

My observations of 2008 debate coverage suggest that editors have continued to employ the multiple photograph grid as a convention.

Erickson, 152.

Grabe and Bucy, 72.

Roger Simon et al., “Split Screen Nation.”.

Barbie Zelizer, About to Die, 242.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Janis L. Edwards

Janis L. Edwards (Ph.D., University of Massachusetts, 1993) is an associate professor in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Alabama.