Mass Communication and Society

ISSN: 1520-5436 (Print) 1532-7825 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmcs20

Studies of Communication in the 2016 Presidential

Campaign, edited by Robert Denton

Jay Hmielowski

To cite this article: Jay Hmielowski (2018): Studies of Communication in the 2016
Presidential Campaign, edited by Robert Denton, Mass Communication and Society, DOI:
10.1080/15205436.2018.1466544

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2018.1466544

Accepted author version posted online: 19

Apr 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hmcs20
Denton, Robert (Editor). Studies of Communication in the 2016 Presidential Campaign.

Lexington Press, 2017, 278 pp., ISBN No. 978-1-4985-6029-0 (hardback).

Reviewed by Jay Hmielowski

t
ip
Edward R. Murrow College of Communication

Washington State University

cr
The 2016 Presidential Election defied logic and challenged some of the assumptions

us
made by political science and communication researchers (e.g., The Party Decides- Cohen,
an
Karol, Noel, & Zaller, 2008). As academics and pundits alike have noted, a great deal will be

written about the 2016 Presidential Election. One of these is Robert Denton’s edited book, titled
M
Studies of Communication in the 2016 Presidential Campaign. In general, this set of papers

make several contributions to the extant political communication literature, including social
ed

identities in politics, the coverage of political campaigns, and the rhetorical strategies used by

candidates. However, it also answered questions specific to this election such as whether the
pt

candidates ran peripheral (expansive) or base campaigns. This set of papers would be of interest

to political communication scholars whose research focuses on mass media and rhetoric. They
ce

would also be a place to pull from when looking to build syllabi for graduate classes.
Ac

To begin with, several chapters focused on campaign events. For example, Jennings et al.

examines the role of gender identification relative to perceived debate performance of the two

candidates. They found that women with a strong gender identity viewed Clinton’s performance

as superior to Trump’s, while men with a strong gender identity viewed Trump as putting

1
together better performances in the debates compared to Clinton. The authors note that such

perceptions may influence candidate evaluations and vote choice. This argument falls in line

with a great deal of work looking at the role of social identity in politics. For example, the

research on reinforcing spirals emphasizes the importance of identity threat relative to

t
information-seeking behaviors (Slater, 2015). In this case, debates may trigger these identities

ip
and influence people’s views of the debates. This chapter adds to the growing body of research

cr
that steps beyond focusing on political identities (Achen & Bartles, 2016).

us
The book also looked at campaign strategies utilized by candidates during the election.

One big question was whether the two main presidential candidates ran peripheral campaigns,
an
focused on expanding the electorate, or base campaigns, focused on getting out hard-core

supporters. The results from Devine’s chapter, contrary to claims by some pundits, showed that
M

Trump focused on expanding the electorate, while Clinton focused on getting out her base. It

does seem Trump expanded the electorate by bringing in people who had become disengaged
ed

with the political process. Given the unpopularity of both candidates, Kopko and Devine
pt

examine reasons why the Libertarian ticket failed to gain traction among the electorate. Kopko

and Devine argue that campaign gaffs and structural factors derailed the Libertarian ticket. For
ce

example, Gary Johnson’s ‘Aleppo moment’ showed he was ill prepared to talk about important

issues, despite arguing he offered the most experienced ticket. Moreover, the structural factors
Ac

such as restrictions on who can be part of Presidential debates within the U.S. political system

played a significant role in weakening the Libertarian ticket.

2
 A couple of chapters looked at media coverage during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Eko and Hetherington examined the process of news creation through an analysis of the Podesta

emails. Their chapter argues that journalists engaged in ethically questionable behaviors, such as

sending their articles to members of the Clinton campaign and allowing them to make changes to

t
the articles. Another chapter, by Conners, highlights the variability in campaign coverage across

ip
states. One assumption is that media spend most of their time on the presidential campaign.

cr
Conners reported this was true, but also showed the proportion of coverage for the Presidential

us
election was lower in states that also had races for governor and senate. In other words, when

scholars think about the nature of competitive campaigns and media coverage (Shaw, 2006), they
an
should look at both the competitiveness of the Presidential race and whether the state has

additional campaigns (e.g., Governor and Senate).

M

A number of chapters also looked at the rhetoric used by the candidates during the

campaign. For example, Valenzano applied apologia to Trump’s performance in the second
ed

presidential debate and found Trump utilized several apologia tactics such as minimization and
pt

mortification to deflect attention away from the Access Hollywood tape. Scheckels also took a

rhetorical approach to Clinton’s concession speech. One of the interesting findings was that
ce

Clinton focused more on continuing the fight and generally ignored calls for unity. Scheckels

notes that Clinton’s speech follows a trend of losing candidates spending less time emphasizing
Ac

the need to bring the country together to placing a greater emphasis on continuing the fight.

Given the seemingly constant campaign media environment (Ornstein & Mann, 2000) and

greater distain for the out party (Iyengar, Sood, & Lelkes, 2012), it makes sense that concession

speeches have also become more divisive.

3
 Finally, Jones focuses on how Trump used Twitter during the campaign. Jones argued

that Trump understood that any coverage is good coverage, and entertainment is paramount to

success. In essence, Jones builds on Postman’s work that TV changed the nature of political

rhetoric from a focus on logic and truth to a focus on entertainment. Moreover, he argued that

t
Trump’s use of Twitter made him more available to voters and highlighted his authenticity. In

ip
essence, his use of Twitter removed the aura of the presidency that is typically free of

cr
communication errors to one that accepted and relished these mistakes.

us
Overall, this book provides an excellent overview of important research being done on

the campaign. It will certainly be a piece of work scholars look to when doing their own research
an
on the 2016 Presidential election.
M
References

Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2016). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce
ed

responsive government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

pt

Cohen, M., Karol, D., Noel, H., & Zaller, J. (2009). The party decides: Presidential nominations

before and after reform. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

ce

Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective
Ac

on Polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405-431.

Ornstein, N. J., & Mann, T. E. (2000). The permanent campaign and its future. Washington, DC:

American Enterprise Institute.

4
Shaw, D. R. (2006). The race to 270: The Electoral College and the campaign strategies of 2000

and 2004. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Slater, M. D. (2015). Reinforcing spirals model: Conceptualizing the relationship between media

content exposure and the development and maintenance of attitudes. Media Psychology, 18(3),

t
ip
370-395. doi: 10.1080/15213269.2014.897236.

cr
us
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac