Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
5
result(s) for
"Hart, Roderick P., author"
Sort by:
Campaign Talk
Roderick Hart may be among the few Americans who believe that what politicians say in a campaign actually matters. He also believes that campaigns work. Even as television coverage, political ads, and opinion polls turn elections into field days for marketing professionals, Hart argues convincingly that campaigns do play their role in sustaining democracy, mainly because they bring about a dialogue among candidates, the press, and the people. Here he takes a close look at the exchange of ideas through language used in campaign speeches, political advertising, public debates, print and broadcast news, and a wide variety of letters to the editor. In each case, the participants choose their words differently, and this, according to Hart, can be a frustrating challenge to anyone trying to make sense of the issues. Yet he finds that the process is good for Americans: campaigns inform us about issues, sensitize us to the concerns of others, and either encourage us to vote or at least heighten our sense of the political world.
Hart comes to his conclusions by using DICTION, a computer program that has enabled him to unearth substantive data, such as the many subtle shifts found in political language, over the past fifty years. This approach yields a rich variety of insights, including empirically based explanations of impressions created by political candidates. For example, in 1996 Bill Clinton successfully connected with voters by using many human-interest words--\"you,\" \"us,\" \"people,\" \"family.\" Bob Dole, however, alienated the public and even undermined his own claims of optimism by using an abundance of denial words--\"can't,\" \"shouldn't,\" \"couldn't.\" Hart also tracks issue buzzwords such as \"Medicare\" to show how candidates and voters define and readjust their positions throughout the campaign dialogue.
In the midst of today's increased media hype surrounding elections, Americans and the candidates they elect do seem to be listening to each other--as much as they did in years gone by. Hart's wide-ranging, objective investigation upends many of our stereotypes about political life and presents a new, more bracing, understanding of contemporary electoral behavior.
eBook
Campaign talk
Roderick Hart may be among the few Americans who believe that what politicians say in a campaign actually matters. He also believes that campaigns work. Even as television coverage, political ads, and opinion polls turn elections into field days for marketing professionals, Hart argues convincingly that campaigns do play their role in sustaining democracy, mainly because they bring about a dialogue among candidates, the press, and the people. Here he takes a close look at the exchange of ideas through language used in campaign speeches, political advertising, public debates, print and broadcast news, and a wide variety of letters to the editor. In each case, the participants choose their words differently, and this, according to Hart, can be a frustrating challenge to anyone trying to make sense of the issues. Yet he finds that the process is good for Americans: campaigns inform us about issues, sensitize us to the concerns of others, and either encourage us to vote or at least heighten our sense of the political world.
eBook
Three Ways of Looking at a Race / WORD
Consider the current situation. In the first presidential debate between Al Gore and George W. Bush, the vice president did not, contrary to popular opinion, babble on. During the debate he uttered 7,315 words compared to Bush's 7,883. But didn't Gore dominate by interrupting? No. Bush had 80 interruptions and Gore only 72. Gore did dilate a bit more, averaging 101 words per turn compared to Bush's 98. Why did Gore seem so dominant? His words were active and specific. During the debate, Bush referred to \"money\" 37 times compared to Gore's 22 mentions. Bush also stressed \"government\" (18 uses vs. 10 for Gore) and \"plan\" (25 vs. 10). There is a grayness to such words. Gore stressed \"new\" (25 vs. 12 for Bush), Medicare (21 vs. 11), and \"education\" (11 vs. only four for Bush). Gore's words tapped into energy, specificity, demographics. The DICTION program also detected an important problem in the Bush campaign. In the debate, Bush scored a 46 on insistence (repeating a main point), 14 points below the average for the last 18 presidential debaters. Gore was considerably more focused (re: his \"wealthiest one- percent\" mantra). These findings correspond to what others have said about Bush: His campaign needs a theme.
Newspaper Article
Seducing America : how television charms the modern voter
This volume offers a revealing examination of how television′s format of presenting politics has changed the way viewers act, vote and feel about politics in the United States.
eBook