Image vs Substance in the 2016 Presidential Election Campaign

Running head: 2016 ELECTION–IMAGE VS. SUBSTANCE 1 2016 Election–Image vs. Substance Donald Snodgrass Murray State UniversityTheories of Mass Communications, JMC-630 Bellarmine A. Ezumah, PhD October 21, 2016

2016 ELECTION–IMAGE VS. SUBSTANCE 2 Abstract This research paper examines the validity of the author’s hypothesis that image (persona)dominates substance (worthiness) in the minds of voters in presidential election campaigns. Theresults of a rigorous review of existing references confirm the long-standing existence of theimage vs. substance phenomenon, and it’s steady growth since the advent of television in the1950’s. Two separate online public opinion surveys conducted by the author substantiate thesignificant effects of this phenomenon during the 2016 presidential election campaign.Concerned voters and members of the news media who endured the “political circus”atmosphere of the 2016 campaign will find this paper especially illuminative. Based on a carefulanalysis, the author’s hypothesis is validated resulting in the proposal of a new masscommunications theory. An atypical “constructive” research philosophy (Pasian, 2015, p. 4)aimed at the creation of problem solutions (constructs) was a key element of the author’sresearch. The paper concludes by offering a construct designed to improve media objectivityduring the coverage of future presidential election campaigns. Keywords: 2016 presidential election campaign, Image dominating substance duringpresidential election campaigns

2016 ELECTION–IMAGE VS. SUBSTANCE 3 2016 Election–Image vs. Substance Introduction Truthful and objective coverage of American presidential election campaigns is a criticalpublic service role of the news media. Without truth and objectivity, the least fit candidatecould potentially become president. As such, political processes in the United States rely heavilyon journalistic objectivity to effectively inform the voting public. This objectivity requires themedia to be especially vigilant in carrying out their important “watchdog” role in electioncampaigns by holding candidates accountable for their truthfulness. The media is also expectedto enlighten the public in a neutral, and objective fashion. During the final days of the 2016presidential election campaign, many voters became frustrated with the media’s overallsuperfluous coverage of the campaign. Making matters worse, neither candidate seemed tomeasure up to voter expectations. Donald Trump’s competency to be president remainedquestionable while Hilliary Clinton’s truthfulness continued to be her Achilles’ heel. The authorcontends that voter dissatisfaction was largely the result of the phenomenon of image dominatingsubstance in the media’s coverage of the campaign. “Image” is the persona or personality that acandidate projects to the public. “Substance” connotes the public’s perception of a candidate's

2016 ELECTION–IMAGE VS. SUBSTANCE 4substantive worthiness to become president. Image vs. substance is a phenomenon described incontext with a changing paradigm in American society where ideology and political party loyaltyare giving way to a cultural struggle between the grieved masses and social elites. This anomalywas especially evident during the 2016 election campaign where the “populist” movementgained significant momentum for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. This paper providesconvincing evidence that media coverage of the 2016 presidential election campaign lackedvoter-centric journalistic objectivity which facilitated image to triumph over substance (Morris,2009) and “horse race journalism”(Patterson, 2016) to prevail. The author offers a workinghypothesis contending that image did indeed dominate substance in the media’s coverage of the2016 presidential election campaign. Sufficient evidence is also presented to show that thishypothesis is sufficiently valid to warrant the creation of a new mass media theory. The researchprocess itself utilized a constructive research framework aimed at the creation of a problemresolution initiate (construct) designed to facilitate a higher degree of objective media coveragefor the 2020 campaign. Research Hypothesis The author’s hypothesis contends that “image dominates substance in Americanpresidential election campaigns” resulting in many voters to become increasingly cynical aboutthe presidential election process. This cynicism tends to negatively affect objectivity to the pointwhere some voters may consider it pointless to analyze further any candidate's true potential tosucceed in the presidency. Many will vote along party lines while others will decide not vote atall or simply cast an opposing vote. The author also believes that the existing knowledgebetween voters further impacted the outcome of the 2016 presidential election campaign. Themajority of polls conducted just before the 2016 presidential election strongly indicated that the

2016 ELECTION–IMAGE VS. SUBSTANCE 5majority of white male non-college graduates favored the “populist” candidate, Donald Trump.This correlation did not exist during previous election campaigns. Literature ReviewTelevision’s Impact The 1960 American presidential debate between Senator Kennedy and Vice PresidentNixon demonstrated the power of live television’s coverage of campaign events. This debatewas the first one ever televised. Kennedy was impressive in every respect while Nixon presenteda largely nervous demeanor. Those who watched the debate recall that Nixon perspired heavilyduring the debate which resulted in a dramatic shift in the campaign for Kennedy and eventuallythe election itself. Nixon later acknowledged the significance of the debate by saying “At theconclusion of our post-mortem, I recognized the basic mistake I had made. I had concentrated onsubstance and not enough on appearance. I should have remembered that ‘a picture is worth athousand words.” (Nixon, 1962)Public Relations and ImageThe emergence of television in the 60s had an equally profound effect on public relationsmethods. Until then, organizations and businesses conducted public relations on a face-to-facebasis. This highly personal “substance” based approach would soon give way to “image” basedadvertising and impersonal public relations campaigns. However, it didn’t take long forcompanies to realize that visual stimulation alone is often ineffective in accurately portraying thepublic’s perception of the true nature of an organization or company. (Grunig, 1993) A criticaland often misunderstood relationship exists between symbolic image and substance in thepractice of public relations. Olaskey (1987) discusses the history of public relations andconfirms the shift in emphasis from substance to image symbology in public relation’s practices.

2016 ELECTION–IMAGE VS. SUBSTANCE 6Grunig concludes that Olasky’s contentions are as valid today as they were in 1987. He stressesthe necessity for “image” and “substance” to work closely together to achieve truly effectivepublic relations efforts between companies and their publics. In the final analysis, the Grunigarticle addresses research on a profoundly important topic to mass media’s coverage of electioncampaigns including the influences of social media.Media Hype emerges Nightly network news coverage of the 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000 presidential electioncampaigns demonstrated the relative emphasis on hype (image) vs. substance in both the audioand visual content of the broadcast. A study reported in the Journalism and MassCommunications Quarterly (Fox, Angelini, & Goble, 2005) included an examination of theresults of exit polls which confirmed the belief that many voters often remain undecided untiljust before election day. More importantly, this study determined from content analyses, thatindeed the hype aspects of media coverage of particular campaign events often receive greateremphasis than a candidate’s substance including their experience level and position on importantissues facing the country. Hype in the context of this study suggests anything that elicitsemotional reactions from voters. As expected, visual stimulations from the video itself have afar greater audience impact than the accompanying audio narrative. The research team’s studygroup then established several hypotheses based on their findings. From these hypotheses thestudy group formulated a sophisticated “sampling” research method implemented by a team ofpeople charged with evaluating achieves of newscasts from ABC, CBS, and NBC during thefinal two weeks leading up to each of the four election cycles. Their research method relied on amixed quantitative and qualitative “coding’ approach to collect data for subsequent analysis.Ultimately, their analysis supported their initial hypotheses that hype does indeed prevail over

2016 ELECTION–IMAGE VS. SUBSTANCE 7substance nearly 4 to 1. Most importantly, the study group concluded that the United States hasreason to be concerned about the hype versus substance phenomenon. They contend thattelevision news media is ineffective in holding candidates accountable for the substance of theircandidacy which is necessary for enabling voters to choose which candidate exhibits the greatestpotential to succeed as our president. The three authors of this article were certainly well-credentialed to conduct a study of this magnitude and importance. Each one is a highlyexperienced journalism and mass communication scholar from well-known educationalinstitutions. As such, they understand the importance of mass communications theory as thebasic underpinning of the study that they conducted. Although, not stated per se, their articlecertainly infers that the mass communications propaganda theory was especially pertinent totheir findings. Presidential candidates seem to believe that effective marketing and brandingmeans more to voters than truth and integrity. From all indications this research team remainedobjective during the study itself as well as drafting the article. They exhibited entirely ethicalconduct especially in detailing the human aspects of their observations. The intellectual honestythat they displayed by formulating hypotheses and then testing the validity of each is admirableand indicative of their superior individual professionalism. The conclusions they reached cameabout through a predominately inductive thought process. The impact of this study and thearticle itself to the 2016 American presidential election campaign is indeed significant.The 2016 election primaries Media coverage was more unbalanced than it had ever been before (Pazzanese, 2016).Most observers felt strongly that the emergence of the Republican candidate Donald Trump wasthe catalyst. His victory in the Republican party primary came as a result of his deliberateemphasis on sensationalism and brash rhetoric while his opponents unsuccessfully relied on the

2016 ELECTION–IMAGE VS. SUBSTANCE 8substance of their candidacy. Trump’s unpredictable and bombastic demeanor createdconsiderably more “media theater” than all of his opponents combined. Objectivity succumbedto sensationalism throughout the media’s coverage. Fortunately, the Democratic party primariespresented a greater degree of objectivity but at the expense of media coverage. Neither HilaryClinton nor her opponent, Berny Sanders, came close to achieving the same degree of mediaattention as Trump. As such, the attention of the media to both Democratic party candidatessignificantly lagged Trump’s coverage. Figure 1 below clearly demonstrates the validity of thisclaim:Figure 1. Volume and tone of top candidates issue coverage.Figure 1. A bar graph depiction of the volume of ad tone to positive and negative issue coverageof each of the top four candidates. The source of this table is Media Tenor, January 1-December31, 2015.(Patterson, 2016)

2016 ELECTION–IMAGE VS. SUBSTANCE 9The 2016 general election campaign Media bias prevailed albeit with much less ideological overtones. The behavior ofcandidate Donald Trump himself directly influenced media bias. (Childress, 2016) Althoughmany in media may have despised him personally, they couldn’t resist his “star power.” Theywere always on hand to provide coverage of his unexpected outbursts which were rarelysubstantive. As such, “media bias” might be more accurately termed “trump’s advantage.”More to the point of this research project, figure 2 below graphically displays the considerablenews coverage imbalance between at 79 % “image” and only 11 % “substance during theseconventions. This figure speaks volumes as to the validity of the author’s hypothesis that imagedominates substance in presidential election campaigns. Sadly, only 11 percent of newscoverage pertains to substantive topics!Figure 2. Percentage of news coverage. Source: Media Tenor.

2016 ELECTION–IMAGE VS. SUBSTANCE 10Widening Educational Divide Prior presidential elections did not demonstrate a significant difference between thevoting preferences of college educated voters and non-college educated voters. However, pollstaken before the 2016 general election show a changing paradigm. In Pew Research Center’sAugust survey, college degreed college voters are favoring Clinton over Trump by 23percentage points. Voters without a college degree preferred Trump over Clinton.(Suls, 2016)Pivotable Third Debate Presidential debates conducted during previous general election campaigns have typicallyproven to be critical in determining the outcome of the election. All three of the 2016 campaigndebates were no exception. Perceived debate winners and losers were inconsequential.Fortunately, the third debate was far more journalistic objective than any previous campaignevent. Potentially pivotal to the outcome of the election was Donald Trump’s third debateproclamation which occurred when he was questioned directly as to whether he would accept theoutcome should Hillary Clinton prevail on Nov. 8. Trump responded that “I will keep you insuspense.” Clinton called Trump’s answer “horrifying,” saying he was “talking down ourdemocracy.” (Tumulty & Rucker, 2016) Theoretical Framework The author’s literature review did not highlight any specific mass media theory that couldbe considered directly applicable to the “image over substance” phenomenon observed duringthe 2016 presidential election campaign. Nonetheless, his research shows that mass mediatheory indeed applies to the underlying political processes. A good example is the politicaleffects theory (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, & Gaudet, 1944) which includes “people's choice” effectsof political campaigns on voter choice. This study theorizes that voters who don’t closely follow

2016 ELECTION–IMAGE VS. SUBSTANCE 11media coverage of election campaign events tend to follow the advice of family and friends.Conversely, voters who do consume media coverage most likely had already decided theirpreferred candidate. This study provides convincing evidence that media largely perform areinforcement role in the political process. Additionally, the media logic theory (Mazzoleni,1987) applies to this research. This theory supports the belief that physical image matters in thetelevision coverage of campaign events, especially debates. Of further significance is an articlereporting the 1983 Italian general election stresses that author’s perception of the influence ofmedia logic on politics including “the reliance on personality and image more than on substanceand policy” (Mazzoleni, 1987). Mazzoleni also contends that “the ups and downs of thecampaign and electioneering strategies become the news, not the substance of policy proposalsand the related arguments.” He insists that election campaigns have skillfully transformed fromtraditional politics into events similar to advertising, public relations, and marketing. Littlewonder then why image dominates substance in presidential election campaigns. Lastly, thewell know “knowledge gap theory” is somewhat more applicable to the 2016 presidentialelection campaign than was the case during previous elections. This theory suggests that voterswith higher levels of education are likely to be more politically connected than those with lowerlevels of education.(Holbrook, 2002) Research Methodology In addition to the preceding literature review, the author conducted two unbiased onlinesurveys to sample public opinion regarding the 2016 presidential election campaign. The surveymethod was utilized to sample the opinions of voters since they are the ones who have the mostat stake in the outcome of the presidential election campaign. The questions posed in bothsurveys were designed to solicit voter opinion regarding the author’s hypothesis that image

2016 ELECTION–IMAGE VS. SUBSTANCE 12dominated substance in the 2016 American presidential election campaign. Survey participantswere asked to decide if this phenomenon has caused them to become increasingly cynical aboutthe presidential election process and whether this cynicism negatively affected their objectivity.If so, do they consider it pointless to analyze further a candidate's true potential to succeed in thepresidency? This study employs a largely inductive research approach including problemobservation, identification of social patterns, development of hypotheses, determining constructsfor improvement and arriving at a new mass media theory. This project used a “constructive”research approach designed to produce several constructs (problem resolution solutions) forevaluation. This approach also serves to bridge the gap between the pursuit of conventionalacademic research and practical problem solving (Pasian, 2015, Chapter 8).Random sampling survey one Appendix A tabulates the results of random sampling of 50 anonymous potential voters.This survey was administered by the author online September 5-7, 2016. This timeframe waswhen the CNN 2016 presidential campaign was essentially in a “dead heat” between SenatorHillary Clinton and her opponent Donald Trump. Donald Trump had managed to close a 10point gap in the polls between himself and Senator Clinton who had lost ground due to voterperceptions that she lacked honesty and trustworthiness. Donald Trumps’ critics continued toquestion his overall competency to become president.Random sampling survey two Appendix B shows the results of random sampling of another 50 anonymous potentialvoters. This survey largely served as a follow-on to the first survey. As such, the questionsposed are somewhat more in-depth. This survey was administered online October 2-4, 2016, bythe author midway between the first and second presidential debates between Senator Hillary

2016 ELECTION–IMAGE VS. SUBSTANCE 13Clinton and her opponent Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton was 5 points ahead of Donald Trumpaccording to an October 3, 2016, CNN national poll. Most political observers credited the firstdebate as the primary reason for this “bump” in the polls. FindingsSurvey one Most respondents were Republican, over 65 years old, and claimed that they had alreadydecided who would receive their vote. Moreover, most said that TV media coverage of debatesand interviews influenced them more than friends and family. The vast majority of the samplingstrongly indicated that a candidate’s overall image was inconsequential and often a negativefactor. The final question of the survey canvased participants for recommendations on whatshould be done to make the 2020 presidential campaign more meaningful. Many suggested thatcandidates cease from name calling and other forms of personal attack. Likewise, many felt thatthe media should take more positive steps to enable their coverage to be more objective ratherthan entertaining. In short, survey participants insisted that the media should do better in makingcandidates stick to qualifications, policy, ideology, transparency, and honesty. The overalltone of their recommendations was one of disappointment in the candidates themselves, themedia’s coverage and the resultant lack of a clear favorite to become the nation’s next president.Survey two Results from this survey followed the same general vein as survey one. 62 % ofrespondents felt that the negative effects of technological advances in mass communicationsoutweigh its virtues. The majority favored Donald Trump while 6% said they didn’t intend tovote out of disgust and frustration. Most watched the first presidential debate. 89% felt mediacoverage of the campaign was overly biased and lacked objectivity. Nearly half agreed that the

2016 ELECTION–IMAGE VS. SUBSTANCE 14candidate’s image, unfortunately, has a greater impact on voters than their substance. 68% feltthat the media and the actions of the candidates themselves contributed to voter cynicism. Twoquestions solicited opinions on the roles of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and theCommission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Nearly half of the respondents felt that the FEC’srole should be expanded to include the creation of standards of conduct for candidates. 52%recommended that the CPD and media find ways to work more closely together to improve theobjectivity of presidential debates. Conclusions Media coverage of the 2016 American presidential election campaign was a departurefrom the norm of previous election campaigns. Indeed, the entire affair was much like a zoowithout zoo keepers. The public expected the media to control the zoo and blamed them forfailing to do so. The results of two opinion surveys, as well as numerous national polls, blamethe media for their lack of journalistic objectivity. The author of this paper considers this viewto be an over-simplification and largely unfounded. He considers the candidates themselves tobe the ones that deserve most of the blame, Donald Trump. He alone defied political conventionby successful manipulating the media into covering has hourly antics at the expense ofsubstantive issues that matter most to voters. Indeed, the campaign became a “soap opera” ofembarrassing proportions and was sadly watched by a worldwide audience.Proposed new media effects theory The author is convinced that image does indeed prevail over substance in presidentialelection campaigns. Only 11 percent of coverage in the 2016 presidential election campaignfocused on a candidates’ policy positions, leadership abilities or personal and professionalbackground. (Frontline Enterprise Journalism Group, 2016) This lack of emphasis on

2016 ELECTION–IMAGE VS. SUBSTANCE 15“substance” may explain why many voters have became increasingly cynical about politics ingeneral and the American presidential election process in particular. Moreover, this over-emphasis on image tends to impact journalistic objectivity negatively. Some voters becomefrustrated to the point where they give up on the system entirely rather than analyze a candidate'strue potential to succeed in the presidency. Worse yet, the least fit candidate could end upwinning an election. Perhaps journalists and opinion leaders need to exercise greater diligence ininforming voters what to think about objectively regarding each candidate’s potential to succeedas the next president of the United States. Accordingly, the author proposes the following newmass communications political effects theory:“Image over substance political effects theory” The media’s coverage of electioncampaign events often looses journalistic objectivity due to the dominance of imageover substance. The actions of the candidates themselves and the media’s coverage ofthe campaign are to share the blame. Voters are caught up in useless political theaterwhile substantive information about the candidates is lost in the shuffle.Proposed construct The author offers the following construct to facilitate improvements to the mass mediarelated issues analyzed in this research paper: 1. Media objectivity in political processes – This construct calls for the creation of a federal agency to govern public service and the media. As confirmed by the results of two public opinion surveys conducted during this research project, media objectivity continues to erode at an alarming pace. This erosion was especially evident in the media’s coverage of the 2016 presidential election campaign. News media typically fulfills their public service role in the

2016 ELECTION–IMAGE VS. SUBSTANCE 16 face of natural disasters in a highly objective manner. They are also tasked to provide an important public service by objectively covering presidential election campaigns. As such, the voting public rightfully expects a high degree of objectivity for coverage of an election as they do for a storm. This expectation should be achievable without infringing on the public’s and media’s rights of free speech. Although not feasible as a construct per se, the FEC’s role in election campaigns deservesconsideration. The majority of this research project survey two respondents indicated that theywere supportive of an initiative to reorganize and expand the Federal Election Commission(FEC). The FEC’s current role is limited to administering federal campaign finance laws. Somecritics suggest that the FEC “be abolished or entirely redone.” (Beckel, 2016) Others claim thatthe FEC is bogged down in administrative details and is “rotting from the inside out.” (Levinthal,2013). Lessons learned during the 2016 presidential election campaign as detailed in thisresearch paper strongly suggest that the federal government take charge of the election campaignprocess both financially and otherwise. The federal government ought to be able to accomplishthis task without infringing on the rights of free speech.

2016 ELECTION–IMAGE VS. SUBSTANCE 17 ReferencesChildress, S. (2016). Study: Election coverable skewed by “Journalistic Bias.” Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/study-election-coverage-skewed-by- journalistic-bias/Fox, J. R., Angelini, J. R., & Goble, C. (2005). Hype versus substance in Network television coverage of presidential election campaigns. Journalism & Mass Communications Quarterly, 97-109.Frontline Enterprise Journalism Group. (2016, July 12, 2016). Election Coverage Skewed By “Journalistic Bias. Frontline. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/study-election-coverage-skewed-by- journalistic-bias/Grunig, J. E. (1993). Image and substance: from symbolic to behavioral relationships. Public relations review, 19(2), 121-139.Lazarsfeld, Berelson, & Gaudet (1944). The People’s Choice. , (), . http://dx.doi.org/Retrieved fromMazzoleni, G. (1987). Media logic and party logic in campaign coverage: The Italian general election of 1983. European journal of communications, 2(), 81-103.Morris, T. (2009, May 25, 2011). The triumph of symbolism over substance [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-morris/the-triumph-of- symbolism_b_257956.htmlNixon, R. M. (1962). Six Crises. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Olasky, M. N. (1987). Corporate public relations: A new historical perspective.

2016 ELECTION–IMAGE VS. SUBSTANCE 18Pasian, B. (2015). Designs, methods and practices for research of project management. New York, NY: Routledge.Patterson, T. E. (2016, June 13, 2016). Pre-primary news coverage of the 2016 presidential race. Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy. Retrieved from http://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/Patterson, T. E. (2016). News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Primaries: Horse Race Reporting Has Consequences. Retrieved from http://shorensteincenter.org/news- coverage-2016-presidential-primaries/Pazzanese, C. (2016, June 13). The making of the campaign, 2016. Harvard Gazette. Retrieved from http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/06/the-making-of-the-campaign-2016/Smith, K. N. (2011). Social media and political campaigns. University of Tennessee Honors Thesis Projects. Retrieved from http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/1470

2016 ELECTION–IMAGE VS. SUBSTANCE 19Appendix A Survey One ResultsThe author conducted this online survey September 5, 2016, when the 2016 presidential electionpoll from CNN showed the presidential campaign in a dead heat.1. What is your preferred political party?2. Are you male or female?

2016 ELECTION–IMAGE VS. SUBSTANCE 203. What is your age?4. What best describes where you are in deciding who will get your vote?

2016 ELECTION–IMAGE VS. SUBSTANCE 215. Which type of campaign event is most important in deciding who will get your vote?6. Which type of TV media events is most important in deciding who will get your vote?

2016 ELECTION–IMAGE VS. SUBSTANCE 227. I tend to be heavily influenced by friends, family and \"coffee shop\" type local area opinion in deciding who I will receive my vote.8. What influences you the most in deciding who will get your vote?

2016 ELECTION–IMAGE VS. SUBSTANCE 239. For me, the 2016 presidential campaign has been:10. Looking ahead, what can be done by the media and the candidates to make the 2020 presidential campaign more meaningful? Responses They start too early running for office, and I don't like the name-calling and inaccuracies of statements. Nothing Eliminate attack ads and accept only ads that state the candidate's position on issues. That should go far in promoting informed voters. I am not sure. I believe the problem today is that campaigns are \"press spectacles,\" more about making headlines for the day as opposed to truly covering the candidate and their stance on issues. By not covering the entertainment vs. meaningful stuff.

2016 ELECTION–IMAGE VS. SUBSTANCE 24ResponsesStop hyping \"entertainment\" vs. meaningful stuff. Trump made it because ofentertainment value and unending media coverage. He's aMedia could be less biased. Candidates could be more honest.All candidates should discuss their policy plans and how they will implement them, plusclearly indicate the consequences--both pro and con--that could result. Media needs toprobe for specifics and not let candidates simply state slogans without substance anddetails.Report the facts and leave personal opinions out of it.Less obnoxious rhetoric and clearer, truthful discussion on the issues.Respectful, meaningful discussion of important issues.Find decent candidates. Act with dignity and integrity the office deserves.Stop attacking each other and provide honest ways on improving the lives of allAmericans. Compromise is the only solution.Find decent candidates. Act with dignity and integrityPlease tell the truth & less media bias. Present the issues with truth & honesty. Involvethe people in what they would like to see in a candidate.Both parties need to elect reasonable, thoughtful candidates.Be honest, stop lying and name calling, and stick to the important issues.Must define and stay focused on key issues such as international issues, supporting ourinfrastructure, developing positions which encourage investment and hard work, etc.Incorporate honesty in reporting without interjecting editorialization with either personalideology, network ideology or publisher ideology. I am making sick to death of mediathat feels obligated to tell viewers/readers what to believe and how to vote while filteringinformation and making it up as they go. I find journalists and the media dishonest,biased, and unable to partake in honest reporting.The media has focused too much on Donald Trump and his outrageous comments thusgiving him too much attention.Well, it's getting rid of Citizen's United and the unlimited $$$$ funding and buying allcandidates, not just the presidential nominees. The media has to obey their sponsors, so

2016 ELECTION–IMAGE VS. SUBSTANCE 25Responsesthey, also, are bought. I'm looking forward to the debates. Hopefully, through them, wecan see more of the truth. Or should we say caught in lies, no real strategy, etc.?I don't know how they would accomplish it but if there were a way to eliminate thenegative campaigning I would love it....stick to the facts and the issues and offersolutions.Candidates should avoid negativity and emotion. Emphasize your priorities and real,implementable plans to achieve them. Media should expect substance and report it. Callout candidates when it is not there. THINK and ANALYZE. Don't just take the easy roadof parroting garbage.Cut the crap and give me facts and the goals along with the means to accomplish thosegoals.A series, e.g., 6 - 8, of 2-hour debates, each of which has a singular focus, e.g., defense,budget, foreign affairs, etc. so that policy issues can be discussed in much more detail.Clarity of responses to key issues:The candidates could engage in meaningful, thoughtful, balanced discussions instead ofname-calling and put-downs and fear-tactics.As I said, I don't like either candidate, but I will vote for Trump. Sad that America can'tproduce better candidates. Feel sorry for my grandkids with the new Supreme Court thatwill be in place in the not too distant future.Be more informative and fair!Depending on the outcome of this election 2016, I may never vote for a presidentialcandidate again. I believe the elections are so swayed by the media and various politicalmachines that we have no real say as to the direction of the country. If the Supreme Courtis so very tilted to the left, as it very well maybe, we are likely to be a socialist country by2020 and it will not matter anymore. The country we have had all these years will be deadand gone.nothing....I think the media is essentially biasedJust knowing how important 2020's elections are will be more meaningful by default, iffor no other reason than whoever wins that election will most likely have their hands fulland need to be up to the task in regards to cleaning up the messes inevitably left behindby whoever wins this year's elections.

2016 ELECTION–IMAGE VS. SUBSTANCE 26ResponsesMake journalism and news reporting unbiased, keep editorials and editorializing out ofthe news reporting. Networks have to stay neutral, but that is pie in the sky and will neverhappen, unfortunate for all of us.The elimination of Yellow Dog JournalismDiscuss positions on important issues they will face and avoid personal attackshave less biasThe media needs to do a better job keeping each candidate honest with the voters.

2016 ELECTION–IMAGE VS. SUBSTANCE 27Appendix B Survey Two ResultsThis survey was administered online October 2-4, 2016, by the author midway between the firstand second presidential debate between Senator Hillary Clinton and her opponent DonaldTrump. Hillary Clinton was 5 points ahead of Donald Trump according to an October 3, 2016,CNN national poll.• Which presidential candidate do you intend to vote for in the upcoming November 8th general election?Donald Trump 60%Hilliary Clinton 28%Don't intend to voteOther 6%Still undecided 4% 2%• Why are you either still undecided or do not intend to vote at all? 77% Made up my mind and plan to vote 14% Disappointed and disgusted with the candidates Frustrated by the media's coverage of the campaign 5% Don't favor any of the candidates 2% I've made up my mind and planned to vote. 2% Still need more information before deciding

2016 ELECTION–IMAGE VS. SUBSTANCE 28• What is your assessment of the first presidential debate held September 27th? 62% Didn't change my mind as to who will get my vote 26% Disappointing as it failed to be objective Didn't watch the debate 6% Helpful in deciding who will get my vote 4% Watching the debate didn't change my mind as to who will get my vote. 2%• The Federal Election Commission (FEC) governs campaign spending. Do you feel that their roleshould be expanded? o1Role of the FEC needs to be expanded including the creation of standards of conduct forcandidates and their respective national committees 43%No opinion 26%Unnecessary and should be abolished 15%FEC should continue to govern the financing of federal elections 13%Yes, the role of the FEC needs to be expanded including the creation of standards of conduct forcandidates and their respective national committees. 2%• Should the role of the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) be expanded? Should work more in unison with media to conduct more objective debates 52% No opinion 34% Doing a good job in their limited role as a private, nonpartisan administrator of the presidential debates 3%

2016 ELECTION–IMAGE VS. SUBSTANCE 29• Achieving a high level of journalistic objectivity is a vital goal of the news media. Has the media met this goal during the coverage of the campaign? Media is overly biased in their coverage of the campaign 51% Media needs to re-examine their effectiveness in carrying out their \"watchdog\" role over the candidates in a more objective manner 38% As good as can be expected given the unorthodox behavior of Donald Trump and evasiveness of Hillary Clinton 6% Could be much better. The media needs to re-examine their effectiveness in carrying out their \"watchdog\" role over the candidates in a more objective manner. 2% No opinion 2%• Some people believe that image dominates substance in the minds of many voters in determining who they will vote for. Do you consider this to be a valid hypothesis? Image sways some voters to act more on emotion than objectivity 46% Image and substance are equally important to voters 30% Substance enables voters to make better choices objectively 17% No opinion 4% No. I consider myself politically informed. As such I will cast my vote for the candidate that I consider is best equipped to succeed as President. 2%

2016 ELECTION–IMAGE VS. SUBSTANCE 30• Mass communications nirvana continues to evolve. Many people celebrate its virtues while others feel it is responsible for the breakdown in the way humans effectively interact with one another. Which side are you on?Negatively affects youth whose social skills may become permanently impaired 32%Harmful to the society in general 30%More helpful than harmful 23%Negatively affects youth whose social skills may become permanently impaired 11%No opinion 2%• Is voter cynicism primarily caused by the actions of the candidates or the media's incompetence?Candidates and media both share the blame 68%Media's incompetence 17%Actions of the candidates 13%Actions of the candidates.No opinion 2%• How confident are you in the future of our country? 49% Somewhat depends on the outcome of the general election 28% Pessimistic for the most part 19% Quite confident No opinion 2% Quite confident. 2%