Photojournalism and Elections

The Chinese Proverb that says a picture is worth a thousand words has been numerously quoted throughout the centuries.  Today, it has even more meaning as images in contemporary society have become even more prominent.    The photograph is one of the most powerful images and covers media forms such as newspapers, magazines and websites.  Although the image of a photograph is real, the photographer nevertheless has control over his subject.  Photojournalists who often photograph politicians, also have control over their subject and the portrayal of that subject. 

The Question at hand: What influence does photojournalism have upon voters during the upcoming Presidential election?

Hypothesis: Voters are indeed strongly influenced by photojournalism in their perceptions of the 2004 presidential candidates

Literature Review:  The following articles provide support for this theory.

§         Hacker, Kenneth L., Walter R. Zakahi, Maury J. Giles and Shaun McQuitty “Components of Candidate Images: Statistical Analysis of the Issue-Persona Dichotomy in the Presidential Campaign of 1996.”  Communication Monographs, Vol. 67, No. 3, 2000: pp. 227-238.

§         Miller, Mark M., Julie L. Andsanger and Bonnie P. Riechert “Framing the Candidates in Presidential Primaries: Issues and Images in Press Releases and News Coverage.”  Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 75, No. 2, 1998: pp. 312-324.

§         Moriarty, Sandra E. and Popovich, Mark N. “Newsmagazine Visuals and the 1988 Presidential Election.” Journalism Quarterly. Vol. 68, No. 3, 1991: pp. 371-380.

§         Stuckey, Mary E. and Antczak, Frederick J. “The Battle of Issues and Images: Establishing Interpretive Dominance.” Communication Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 2, 1994: pp. 120-132.

§         Waldman, Paul and Devitt, James.  “Newspaper Photographs and the 1996 Presidential Election: The Question of Bias.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly. Vol. 75, No. 2, 1998:pp. 302-311.

Literature Review: A Synopsis of Important Issues:

A.     Visual Communication

Doris Graber, an influential researcher on communication, has extensively argued that photographs in the media provide better information than the words that accompany them.  She believes that the pictures are easier to attend to and remember than words.  Graber attributes this to the belief that an image is more realistic, accurate and evokes more interest.  Often viewers have found that photographs have enabled them to create impressions of the person or event.  Graber has also discovered that viewers respond to different types of photographs in different ways.  For instance a close-up photograph of recognizable people would evoke more interest than one taken from a distance (Moriarty, 372). 

B.      Conventions of Visual Arts

There are certain conventions in the field of visual arts help evoke the interest of the viewer.  Setting, lighting, framing and camera angle are a few conventions that create a certain image that is appealing or disagreeable to the viewer.  For example, a camera angle from on high is used to diminish the importance of the subject, while a camera directed from below will emphasize the importance of the subject (Moriarty, 374).  Therefore, the photographer has control over the image of the subject. 

C.     Bias

Editors also have control over the perception of the viewer because they are the ones who chose which photograph is used and what the size of that photograph should be.  These decisions affect the presentation of the candidate and in turn, the perception of the viewer.  At times, photographs are used to portray a candidate as a potential President or at other times, as a coward.  Though editing is believed to be objective, it is very easy to see that subtle messages may be conveyed nonetheless (Moriarty, 373).  At the end of the 1996 Presidential campaign, Republican candidate Bob Dole argued that press was unfairly representing him by giving him less coverage than President Clinton.  Due to this complaint and others, a series of studies were conducted to discover whether the coverage was indeed biased (Waldman, 302).

D.     Findings from research conducted on photographs in Newspapers

Paul Waldman and John Devitt conducted a content analysis of photographs appearing in the five highest circulating newspapers in the country, representing the east, mid-west and west.  The analysis attempted to determine the pictorial representation during the 1996 presidential campaign.  The photos were evaluated using five measures: expression, activity, interaction, background, and camera angle.  Each measure contributes to the significance of the photograph and conveys certain ideas about a candidate’s strength and ability.  For instance, a smiling candidate seems more successful than one who is sulking.  Cheering crowds in the background denotes support.  American flags induce patriotic emotion and the list goes on.  The following tables show the results of this study (Waldman, 305-306).

Table 1: Guidelines for measures (Waldman, 306)

Each measure was assigned a specific score.  Other than the background measure, Clinton received higher scores.  However, when charting the photo scores week by week, the researchers were able to discover a pattern in which the two candidates increased in coverage and decreased in coverage.  Though it may seem that there is a bias towards the liberal candidate, the researchers concluded that an increase in coverage seemed to typically follow the front-runner candidate (Waldman, 306)

E.     Findings from research conducted on photographs in Magazine   

      The content analysis in this study by Sandra Moriarty and Mark Popovich examined all visuals (both photographs and illustrations) of the 1988 presidential and vice-presidential candidates printed in the three national weekly newsmagazines: U.S. News and World Report, Time, and Newsweek.  This study used fifteen measures to examine the photographs and assigned a numerical evaluation to each.  Additional measures included posture, position of arms, hands and eyes, portrayal, props, setting, dress and family association (Moriarty, 375).  The overall differences between the magazines, however, were not significant.  Overall, George Bush was in 44% of the visuals published by the newsmagazines, which was more than Dukakis who appeared in 37%.  Additionally, among the four candidates, Bush photos were significantly larger than pictures of Dukakis or Quayle photographs.  On the measure of facial expression, Bush was presented more often with a cheerful, confident look.  On the measure of camera angle and size, there was evidence that Bush visuals were being treated more favorably than the Dukakis visuals (Moriarty, 367-377).  The following table depicts the photographs depicting the candidate with his family.  

Table 2: Candidates and Family Interaction (Moriarty, 379)                                                                     

Under the guidelines for measures used, a candidate who is associated with  either with his family, spouse or with attentive colleagues in a photograph, is more favorable than a candidate alone or with an inattentive crowd or colleagues (Moriarty, 375).

The Bush advantage was evident in this study.  This was quite different from fluctuating visual portrayals of Bush and Reagan during the 1984 campaign. Vice Presidential coverage in 1988 was also different from coverage in 1984.  Geraldine Ferraro was given much attention because she was the first woman to attempt vice presidential office.  This attention was evident in 1984 coverage as she was not only portrayed more often than George Bush, but also more positively by the end of the campaign.  The 1988 study shows that there was less interest in the vice-presidential campaign as both candidates were under-represented.  Quayle believed there was bias in the coverage even though he did receive more attention than Bentsen.  The pictorial images of him, however, were scenes of him depicted as an observer rather than the center of attention.

F.     Images and the effect on the voter

Many studies have discovered that manipulations in different photo characteristics may produce changes in the evaluation of the candidates.  During a campaign, voters will view hundreds of photographs of the campaign from the media.  A study conducted by Rosenberg and McCafferty produced differing evaluations of hypothetical candidates by changing the facial expressions in the photograph.  Rosenberg, Kahn and Tran were ably to alter hypothetical votes by specifically altering facial features of female candidates.  Another study used filmed images of Ronald Reagan.  The clips depicted various emotions such as anger, fear and happiness.  The study found that facial displays of candidates affect viewers differently, depending upon their previous views of that specific candidate.  For example, those who had negative views of Reagan were only slightly affected by the pictures.  Those who were supporters of Reagan actually imitated his emotions.  When he was happy, so were they.  It was the viewers who were neutral to Reagan that displayed a variety of emotions.  This suggests that undecided voters may be easily swayed by visuals.  In a similar study, Sullivan and Masters studied results for both Reagan and other 1984 Democratic candidates.  In this study, the effects of the facial expressions were greater for Reagan.  Some stipulate that this is because of his skills as an actor.  Perhaps this is why Clinton’s expressions had a greater effect on viewers than those of Bob Dole.  Yet another study of the 1976 West German election found that television coverage put Helmut Schmidt in the advantage by showing him at favorable camera angles and with more positive supporters than his opponent, Helmut Kohl.  Another study by the same author concluded that eye-level shots produced the most favorable evaluations of candidates (Waldman, 303).  Waldman concludes, “These studies and others indicate that pictorial representations may have a substantial influence on opinions and attitudes towards candidates” (Waldman, 304).

Now that it has proven that images have an effect on voter perception, how important is perception in voter decision?  According to Hacker, Zakahi, Giles and McQuitty, voter perception are important influences on voter decisions.  They concluded that both the candidate’s position on issues as well as the personal impression they emit are factors involved in voter perception.  They also conclude that a voter’s evaluation of a candidate may change in the course of a campaign.  Along the course of a campaign a voter’s decision is formed by both long-term forces (political history, economic situation and partisanship) and short term forces (candidate images).  Many times, the short term forces may be very powerful.  Voters are not motivated to collect details about candidates and their political positions.  It is a fact that many voting decisions are based on judgments that are made with very few details (Hacker, 227-228).

The candidate, if saavy, may recognize that image is important to obtaining the attention of the voter.  Clinton was seen to be a master at this tactic.  He attempted to show a caring and understanding personality during presidential debates.  For instance, he often moved towards the audience and the cameras, holding out his hand to show confidence.  When asked questions, he nodded his head and never interrupted the speaker (Stuckey, 123).  Bush on the other hand, was not so talented.  Though the photographer may have power over the image, so may the subject.

Theoretical Framework:

There is limited literature about the effects of photojournalism on voters.  However, what does exist, establishes some headway for this study.  The literature explored above indicates that there is some pictorial bias on the part of newspapers and newsmagazines.  There is also some evidence that pictorial representation of candidates may affect voter perception, which in turn, may affect voter decision.  There is yet a way of knowing whether photographs may actually affect the outcome of an election.  However, this study attempts to prove that voter perception is changeable and it is the photograph that has the power to change.  Using this research, I have narrowed down my study tremendously.  Because some of the literature has proved that there was very little distinction in the bias of different newsmagazines, I have chosen to focus on the photographs solely present in Newsweek.  I have also used some of the research on the conventions of visual arts as well as the measures used to evaluate photographic characteristics.  This information proved helpful when selecting the photographs of candidates.  The methodology employed in this study will further be discussed later in this study.

Restatement of Hypothesis: Photojournalism affects voter perception of Presidential candidates in the 2004 election

Data Collection:

• I observed, as stated above, pictorial representations of candidates in Newsweek from 2003 to the present. 
• I decided to choose three widely discussed candidates in the Democratic primaries and now in the upcoming election.  The candidates chosen were Howard Dean, John Kerry and George W. Bush.
• I collected pictures that I believed employed some of the measures of photo characteristics examined in the literature studied.
• After collecting a variety of photographs, I chose two photographs for each candidate.  One of the photographs employed less favorable measures, while the other employed more favorable measures
• Using these photographs, I developed an online survey.  To view this survey, click here
• The survey was sent to both male and female college students.  Though sent to several students, only 58 responded.
• There are certainly many limitations to the data collected.  For one, the number of candidates and periodicals studied were very limited due to a time restraint.  The survey collected a convenience sample, one that does not meet the conditions of being random and independent, but rather one that is available to me as a student. 

Findings:

To view the results of this survey click here

The following set of pictures and corresponding text are an organized and visual way in which I was able to evaluate the data obtained from this survey.  Beside each photograph are the statistics which denote whether the responses were favorable or unfavorable.  By additionally summarizing the explanations for these responses, I was able to get a greater grasp on what turned the away or attracted the viewer's interest.  

The first picture of Howard Dean resulted in a majority of unfavorable responses.  

  - 53% responded that they were unsure of him as President. 28% responded that they were very unsure of him as President.  Combined, these statistics equal out to 81% of response that is unfavorable to Howard Dean.

  - Explanations for these responses included comments on the fuzzy quality of the photograph.  Others commented on the angle of the camera shot.

  - Those who wrote unfavorable responses believed that he did not appear very confident.

The second picture of Howard Dean resulted in a majority of favorable responses

  - 28% responded that they were very confident if Dean were to be their President.  45% responded that they were somewhat confident if Dean were to be their President.  Combined these statistics equal out to 73% of response that is favorable to Howard Dean.

-  Explanations for these responses included comments that Dean appeared friendly, happy, and supported by followers.

-  The few responses that were negative believed that Dean looked like a football coach or as if he was leading a protest.  This made them feel unsure about him as President.

-  Those who changed their position on the candidate attributed the change to certain characteristics of the photograph.

The first picture of George W. Bush resulted in a mixture of responses, though the majority wrote favorable responses

    -  29% responded that they were very confident in Bush as President.  33% responded that they were somewhat confident.  16% were unsure and 22% were very unsure

    -  Explanations for these responses included comments that Bush appeared confident, strong and authoritative.

    -  For those who did not feel confident with Bush found him to appear "larger than life" and this made them nervous.

    -  Another person responded: "It's hard to answer this question in an unbiased way since  think George Bush is the worst thing to ever happen to our country."  Another person similarly admitted, "If it were anyone else  would say "very confident", but I have some issues with the subject of the picture."

This second picture of George W. Bush resulted in a majority of unfavorable responses

    -  40% responded that they were unsure of Bush as President.  38% were very unsure.  Combined, these statistics equal out to 78% of response that is unfavorable to Bush

    -  Explanations for these responses include comments that Bush appeared nervous, confused and unsure.  Some even believed he looked stupid

    -   A few responses indicated that this photograph could be interpreted entirely different.  One person saw concern and empathy in his facial expression.

    -  Those who changed their position on the candidate attributed the change to certain characteristics of the photograph.

The first picture of John Kerry resulted in a majority of unfavorable responses, though there was a mixture of opinions

    -  47% responded that they were unsure of Kerry as President.  However there were 33% who were somewhat confident.

    -  Explanations for less favorable responses include comments that he appears as if he is covering his eyes

    -  One person wrote: "A hidden face makes me uneasy.

    -  Those who responded favorably perceived the image to be Kerry looking dramatically into the future.  Others who were apparently strong Kerry supporters, could not feel anything but confident about the candidate.  Obviously their long term evaluations of the candidate were stronger than the short term influence of an image.

The second picture of John Kerry resulted in a majority of favorable responses 

    - 43% responded that they were very confident in Kerry as their President.  40% were somewhat confident.  Combined these statistics equal out to 83% of response that is favorable to     Kerry.  

    -  Explanations for these responses include comments that Kerry looked domineering, optimistic, powerful and focused.

    -  Those who changed their position on the candidate attributed the change to lighting, camera angle and other characteristics of the photograph.

Analysis and Conclusion:

This study proves that changing perception is indeed possible with simple alterations in  lighting, camera angle, background, facial expression and other conventions of visual art and photography.  Not only did the majority of people who responded to this survey change their own perception of a candidate, but they also noticed the conventions of visual art that spurred these changes.  Interestingly enough, the candidate who demonstrated the most disparity in opinion, was George W. Bush. This could be due to a variety of factors.  Some people admitted that they had difficulty eliminating their negative attitudes towards Bush.  Others were quite faithfully attached to the incumbent President.  It is possible to assume that long term factors in voter decision-making may be strong enough as to override the short term influences such as images in the media.

This study has not only successfully passed my hypothesized test, but has filled in some holes in previous research and literature on the topic.  Unlike previous studies, this has allowed the viewer to recognize and hypothesize what specific components of the photograph spurred their change in perception.  Some future research may be to test what is more influential to voter decision: long term forces or short term forces.  Do prior conclusions about a candidate override all other influences such as media and campaign development or can images and media override strong partisan values?

By Tessa Moran