The rise and fall of Howard Dean: the media's role in the Iowa caucus "scream" debacle

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Summarize

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
THE RISE AND FALL OF HOWARD DEAN:
THE MEDIA’S ROLE IN THE IOWA CAUCUS “SCREAM” DEBACLE

by
Grant Michael Toups

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(STRATEGIC PUBLIC RELATIONS)

May 2007

Copyright 2007 Grant Michael Toups

ii

Acknowledgements

Working on this project has been a labor of love for me, but it simply would
not have been possible without the help and guidance of countless people.
First and foremost, I owe a debt of gratitude to Shannon Campbell, my
committee chair. Your insights and counsel made this possible; you’re an
inspiration, and, for that, I owe you one. To Jennifer Floto and Jonathan Kotler, my
committee members, I could not have asked for a better pair to keep me on track;
thank you both.
To my friends and colleagues, thanks for putting up with my tunnel vision;
lesser people would have run for the hills months ago. To my best friend, Ashlie,
what can I say? For ten years you’ve held me up, and I’ll never forget that. Thank
you!
Finally, to my family, Mom, Dad and Lainey, I’d be nowhere; I’d be lost in
the weeds, if it wasn’t for the three of you. I know you weren’t always interested in
my ramblings, but because this work meant something to me, it meant something to
you. Please don’t underestimate the power of that simple gesture, and add this to the
list of things I owe you all for. Thanks!

iii
Table of Contents

Acknowledgements.................................................................................................. ii

List of Figures.......................................................................................................... v

Abstract .................................................................................................................. vi

Chapter One: Introduction........................................................................................ 1
1.1 Let the Man Speak ......................................................................................... 2
1.2 Money and Support the New-Fashioned Way................................................. 4
1.3 The Scream and Fall....................................................................................... 6

Chapter Two: Literature Review .............................................................................. 8
2.1 Media in Modern Politics ............................................................................... 8
2.2 Democracy Versus Capitalism...................................................................... 10
2.2 Political Parties: Historical ........................................................................... 11
2.3 Political Parties: 20
th
Century / The Two-Party System ................................ 12
2.4 Media’s Capitalist Convergence................................................................... 13
2.5 Aim of this Paper ......................................................................................... 16

Chapter Three: Theory........................................................................................... 19
3.1 Hegemony.................................................................................................... 19
3.2 Power........................................................................................................... 21
3.3 Postmodernism............................................................................................. 22
3.4 Agenda-Setting ............................................................................................ 23
3.5 The Propaganda Model ................................................................................ 25

Chapter Four: Methodology................................................................................... 29
4.1 History of Quantitative Newspaper Analysis ................................................ 29
4.2 Content Analysis Today ............................................................................... 30

Chapter Five: Hypotheses ...................................................................................... 32

Chapter Six: Findings/Results ................................................................................ 34
6.1 Measures of Central Tendency ..................................................................... 44
6.2 Coefficient of Imbalance .............................................................................. 45

Chapter Seven: Discussion..................................................................................... 47

Chapter Eight: Conclusion ..................................................................................... 52

iv
References ............................................................................................................. 54

Appendices ............................................................................................................ 58
Appendix A: Codebook...................................................................................... 58
Appendix B: Coding Categories and Variables................................................... 62
Appendix C: Code Sheet.................................................................................... 70

v
List of Figures

Figure I: Distribution of Sample by Source ............................................................ 34

Figure II: Distribution of Sample by Publication Date............................................ 34

Figure III: Distribution of Sample by Day of the Week .......................................... 35

Figure IV: Distribution of Sample by Type…………………………………………36

Figure V: Distribution of Sample by Authorship…………………………………...36

Figure VI: Distribution of Sample by Author's Gender…………………………….36

Figure VII: Distribution of Sample by Author's Self-Identified Political
Political Affiliation………………………………………………………………….36

Figure VIII: Inclusion of Other Candidates in Sample............................................ 37

Figure IX: Overall Type of Mention....................................................................... 38

Figure X: Mentions by Publications and their Agents............................................. 39

Figure XI: Mentions by Self-Identified Republicans .............................................. 39

Figure XII: Mentions by Self-Identified Democrats ............................................... 40

Figure XIII: References to the Iowa Caucus "Scream" Speech ............................... 41

Figure XIV: References to Dean's Public Image..................................................... 41

Figure XV: References to Dean's Personal Life...................................................... 42

Figure XVI: References to Dean's Performance as Governor of Vermont............... 42

Figure XVII: Comparisons of Dean to Other Candidates........................................ 43

Figure XVIII: References to the Performance of Dean's Campaign ........................ 44

vi
Abstract

Howard Dean’s 2004 Presidential Primary Bid marked a number of firsts in
American politics and existed as a threat to the ruling hegemonic nexus of power.
This study, therefore, utilizes contextual content analysis to study the media’s
editorial treatment of Governor Dean on the heels of his Iowa Caucus “Scream”
speech. To provide a reasonable picture of overall media coverage, the editorial
sections of The New York Times and The Washington Post, identified by Gerbner as
the two intermedia agenda-setters, were studied with hopes of providing not only an
overall picture of the mediated depiction of Dean’s treatment but also insights into
the potential future of Presidential politics. The study found that, almost without
exception, coverage of Governor Dean was negative but coverage rarely mentioned
the speech specifically, instead calling into question his personal life, his demeanor
and his perceived ability to lead.

1
Chapter One: Introduction
More than two centuries ago, James Madison warned:
“A popular government without popular information or the
means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or a
tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern
ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own
governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge
gives.”

That sentiment is as appropriate today as it was in the 19
th
century. The
system of government and society at large depend upon an informed populace to
maintain order, so the importance of both the availability and the accuracy of
information is as important today as it ever was.
Politics and public affairs ultimately affect, in some way, all facets of
everyday life. Politicians make and enforce laws, appoint judges and members of
regulatory agencies, and set foreign and domestic policy, ergo politics impacts
everyone’s life. Therefore, the election process and the scrutiny politicians face via
the mass media, whether they deserve it or not, directly impacts the political
landscape and the day-to-day operations of government, the freedoms citizens enjoy
and the very future of democracy in the United States. Given these facts, evaluating
the media’s treatment of political candidates may provide valuable insight into not
only how citizens view and judge their leaders and potential leaders but also how the
media can be effectively employed to help advance the campaigns of politicians
running for public office.

2
In 2004 Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont and a medical
doctor, very quickly upgraded his status in both the Democratic Party and American
Politics as a whole. He entered the 2004 Democratic presidential primary season
unknown to much of the public, but by always speaking his mind, using emerging
technologies like blogging to his advantage, and distancing himself from most
special interest groups, he sent shockwaves through the American political
establishment. He turned his back on traditional fund-raising practices and
expensive advertising campaigns, and doing things his way actually seemed to work.
Traditionally candidates vying for their party’s nomination for the presidency follow
a tried-and-true system. There is perceived to be a right way and a wrong way to
run, but Dean provided an alternative method that proved appealing to a significant
portion of the voting public.
1.1 Let the Man Speak
Dean presented what Ann Gerhart of the Washington Post called the
“Straight Talk Express” (Gerhart, 2003, pg. C01). He addressed voter concerns
specifically offering practical solutions to address constituent’s issues instead of
rhetoric aimed at implying future action. He reminded voters that politicians are
people, too, that they have emotions and that perhaps showing those emotions is not
such a bad thing. Both the media and the public found it difficult to predict what
he’d say or do next because he was a man on a mission who refused to distance his
image from the fact that he was actually a human being. He successfully, albeit

3
temporarily, called to action the most politically apathetic demographic in this
country (young people ages 18-24). According to the National Youth Agency, in
2005 “only 52% of young people of voting age intended to vote” (Countering
Political Apathy, 2006). Hanna Rosin of the Washington Post noted the youth
participation in the Dean campaign saying, “an onslaught of college volunteers
taking an extended winter break has arrived to help” (Rosin, 2004, pg. C01). And at
least partially because of the way he carried himself, he defied the convention that a
governor from New England, where political leanings tend to fall left of center,
simply couldn’t play outside of the Northeast. “The parking lot of the Dean
headquarters is a national display of license plates—Alaska, Ohio, Louisiana,
Georgia [and] Maine” (ibid, pg. C01).
According to both Dean and members of the press, the relationship between
the parties was tense. Dean himself said, “I tend to get brusque and tough with the
press. When they push me, I push back, vigorously. But I never behave like that
with ordinary Americans” (Gerhart, 2003, pg. C01). Unsurprisingly, the press was
not amused by Dean’s attitude in their dealings with him. In the same Washington
Post piece where Dean is quoted commenting on his treatment of the press, the
following is said in reference to him:
• “Can the body politic tolerate flinty Howard Dean?”
• “arrogant and disrespectful”
• “Is he too cranky to be president?’
• “Brusque or blunt?”
• “Combative or candid?”
• “Dismissive or direct?”

4
• “Yelling and hollering is not an endearing quality in the
leader of the free world. And Dean can get plenty fiery
on the hustings …” (ibid, pg. C01).

1.2 Money and Support the New-Fashioned Way
The Dean campaign ran in the face of convention at every stage. He was the
first national candidate to use the Internet as an integral part of his election strategy.
He qualified the Internet activities of his campaign by saying:
“along comes this campaign to take back the country for
ordinary human beings, and the best way you can do that is
through the Net. We pay attention. If I give a speech and
the blog people don’t like it, next time I change the speech”
(Wolf, 2004).

He used the Internet as a channel to communicate with the people and capitalized on
its ability to provide the two-way symmetrical communication that mainstream
media cannot thereby circumventing the traditional media-candidate relationship and
straining his relationship with the traditional media. Additionally, his
unconventional methods for raising money not only circumvented but also angered
the power structure of his own party. “The Internet remains the key engine of
Dean’s election bid, and he has yet to merge his grassroots movement with the
traditional Democratic power structure” (Wolf, 2004). Dean said, “A lot of the
people on the Net have given up on traditional politics precisely because it was about
television and the ballot box, and they had no way to shout back” (ibid). His use of
the Internet involved the traditionally apathetic youth demographic without involving
the established media’s one-way communication or the Democratic Party. He did it

5
with a computer and an Internet connection. He used the Internet to organize a
network of support across the country, most of which organized their own Vote Dean
events (ibid). Furthermore, the fact that it worked wasn’t something segments of the
Democratic Party liked very much; “the Democratic Leadership Council [DLC] …
was loudly proclaiming that Dean’s nomination would lead to a debacle” (ibid). By
using new technology, he involved voters in a way they had not been in years, maybe
decades, Dean “revived an outdated form … politics as a type of active recreation”
(ibid).
The campaign may also have entirely changed the “marketing of presidents”
(Cone, 2003). The only way to win a national election is to raise enough money to
compete, a task traditionally impossible without sizable donations from wealthy
individuals or corporations, but Dean proved it was possible to bring in the necessary
funding by empowering the people. In a four-day period, Dean’s Internet campaign
raised “more than $500,000,” and the average donation was only $53 (ibid). He
distanced himself from special interest groups taking little money from them, when
compared with average national candidates (Presidential Data, 2006). According to
OpenSecrets.org, Dean accepted only $15,500 from Political Action Committees
(PACs) compared to Bush’ $2.9 million, Kerry’s $322,704 and Clark’s $45,950
(2004 Presidential Election, 2005). Dean continued to make the American
Presidency more about everyday people and less about the rich and powerful or
special interest groups. Cone noted that “[Democratic] party regulars find Dean’s

6
surge alarming,” and that the DLC recently asked in its own magazine “Could
[Howard Dean’s campaign] be the next dotcom bust?” (Tischler, 2003, pg. 109).
1.3 The Scream and Fall
On January 19, 2004, the day of the Iowa Caucus, Dean did what he’d done
throughout the campaign. Following the announcement of his third place finish, he
went on stage to deliver an impassioned concession speech. But this time, his
illustration of passion and fervor--which by now was routine--ruined his chances to
win the election. His scream during the speech was recorded, and in the four days
following the event, the speech was mentioned 633 times on cable news and the
Internet (Gerhart, 2004, pg. C01). News of the speech was everywhere, and
suddenly the candidate who had been “real” in the eyes of the public for so long was
now being framed by mainstream media as angry, crazy, and unstable. The speech
was even remixed and traded on the Internet (Squibs, 2004). Arguably, he did
nothing more than speak loudly enough to be heard over his excited, raucous
supporters, and, according to Marjorie Williams of the Washington Post, his actions
“probably … lost his last chance at the Democratic nomination” (Williams, 2004, pg.
B07).
If he had been a bit more tolerant of the media, if he had actually used them
to reach the people, they may have been less apt to turn on him so quickly, but after
he had spent months circumventing them and calling into question their power in the
political process, they, in a very public way, flexed their political power. Perhaps he

7
could have avoided the ultimate end to his candidacy if he had been on good terms
with his own party. But he spent months ignoring them, too, and when he needed
their help in softening the blow of the media-mediated interpretation of the scream,
they abandoned him and supported the more traditional John Kerry. Kerry was a
part of the hegemonic system of power, while Dean threatened that power. It was,
therefore, not surprising that the hegemonic strata chose one of its own and watched
Dean, the man who had broken all the rules, crumble.
Indeed Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential primary run broke all the rules. It
contradicted tradition, prudence and this country’s well-established political power
structure, and … it almost worked. But in doing things his way, Dean made
enemies, powerful ones, and when it looked like he just might win, his threat to the
nexus of power became too much, so he was removed from the equation. By
becoming Chairman of the Democratic National Committee Dean was neutralized as
a threat by the very power structure he had successfully challenged for months. He
ultimately abandoned what he believed American politics should be. The hegemonic
system itself negated any other option he may have enjoyed and folded him into the
system itself, voiding his ability to question the system at all. But a thorough
understanding of the Howard Dean campaign for President of the United States
requires an in-depth understanding of the landscape of the issue both then and now.

8
Chapter Two: Literature Review
2.1 Media in Modern Politics
The story of Howard Dean’s 2004 Presidential Primary bid spans over a year
and includes countless public addresses, policy speeches and campaign appearances,
but for the purposes of this study, the editorial coverage in The Washington Post and
The New York Times (long considered the inter-media agenda setters) of Howard
Dean’s Iowa Caucus performance from January 17-26, 2004 will be analyzed.
Agenda-setting theory suggests that the media don’t tell the public what to
think, but do tell the public what to think about. It establishes the parameters of
public discourse, so the content of political coverage ultimately determines whether,
to what degree and with what slant politics and public affairs are a part of the public
discussion.
The impact of media coverage on politics and public affairs is hard to
underestimate. According to Nelson Polsby and Aaron Wildavsky, “there are,
however, features of the overall system by which information is manufactured and
distributed in the United States that materially affect the fortunes of candidates and
the ways in which they are perceived by electorates” (Polsby & Wildavsky, 2004, p.
69). Furthermore, the media’s coverage of these topics also seems to provide a
barometer for the health of the democracy in which it operates. In Media Control

9
Noam Chomsky offers:
“it’s whether we want to live in a free society or whether
we want to live under what amounts to a form of self-
imposed totalitarianism, with the bewildered herd
marginalized, directed elsewhere, terrified, screaming
patriotic slogans, fearing for their lives and admiring with
awe the leader who saved them from destruction while the
educated masses goose-step on command and repeat the
slogans they’re supposed to repeat and the society
deteriorates at home” (Chomsky, Excerpts from Media
Control).

McChesney continues by identifying a surprising number of similarities between our
media system and those of non-democratic societies.
“In non-democratic societies those in power invariably
dominate the communication systems to maintain their rule.
In democratic societies the manner by which the media
system is structured, controlled and subsidized is of central
political importance. Control over the means of
communication is an integral aspect of political and
economic power” (McChesney, Excerpts from Corporate
Media ...).

But media is the United States is controlled by “private commercial” entities whose
“control over communication is often regarded as innately democratic and
benevolent, and therefore not subject to political discussion” (ibid). Since the media
influences public debate which influences how the country operates, the topics the
media chooses to cover and the reasons for those choices directly impact the
operations of politics and governance. “By defining the news as being based on
specific events or on the activities of official sources, the news media neglects
coverage of long-term social issues that dominate society. Moreover, by sanitizing

10
coverage and seemingly depriving it of ideological content, the news [makes] public
affairs increasingly obtuse, confusing and boring” (ibid).
2.2 Democracy Versus Capitalism
Webster’s College Dictionary defines capitalism as, “an economic system in
which natural resources and means of production are privately owned, investments
are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and prices,
production, and the distribution of goods are determined mainly by competition in a
free market” (Webster’s, 2003, p. 128). Additionally, it defines democracy as,
“government by the people, rule of the majority” (Webster’s, 2003, p. 234). But
these two classic definitions fail to provide the insight required to compare the two
concepts. The two concepts simultaneously depend upon and oppose each other in
almost equal measure. Robert Samuelson describes the relationship between the two
in Newsweek as follows:
“Capitalism (by which I mean an economic system that
relies heavily on markets and private ownership) and
democracy need each other. The one generates rising
living standards; the other cushions capitalism’s injustices
and, thereby anchors public support. But this mutual
dependence is tricky because if democratic prerogatives are
overused, they may strangle capitalism. Capitalism thrives
on change—it inspires new technologies, products and
profit opportunities. Democracy resists change—it creates
powerful constituencies with a stake in the status quo”
(Samuelson, 2005).

But not all scholars agree with the idea that the two ideas can coexist; for example,
“… democracy and capitalism are, in their pure forms, fundamentally incompatible”

11
(Nesmith, 2002, v.122, n.54). Perhaps the disagreement over the relationship
between capitalism and democracy explains, at least in part, why the lines between
the two have been blurred.
“In the view of ‘free market’ conservatives, the market should rule and the
political system should logically deal with how best to protect private property and
not much else” (McChesney, Excerpts from Corporate Media ...). Despite all of the
scholarly work to the contrary, much of the political discourse, and by extension the
public debate, seems to treat the two as indistinguishable ideas. Furthermore, it is
presented as though democracy simply cannot exist without capitalism, and that’s
why as the United States conquers and converts what seems like country after
country to democracy, our political leaders continue to espouse the virtues, and in
fact the necessity, of capitalism as well.
2.2 Political Parties: Historical
According to Benjamin Ginsberg on Microsoft Encarta Online, “the framers
of the United States Constitution made no provision in the governmental structure
for functioning of political parties because they believed that parties were a source of
corruption and an impediment to the freedom of people to judge issues on their
merits” (Ginsberg, 2006, sect. II). But the practical application of this idea never
really bore fruit. Soon after the writing of the Constitution, the Federalist and the
Democratic-Republican parties formed despite the fact that “their adherents still
insisted they disapproved of parties as a permanent feature in American politics”

12
(Ginsberg, 2006, sect. III). In time, however, the Federalist Party fell out of favor
and a rift within the Democratic-Republicans led to another two party system: the
National Republicans and the Democratic-Republicans (Ginsberg, 2006, sect. V). In
1828, the Democratic-Republicans became simply the Democratic Party, the
beginning of the today’s party of the same name (ibid).
2.3 Political Parties: 20
th
Century / The Two-Party System
After the turn of the century and during the Great Depression, the landslide
election of Franklin D. Roosevelt marked an end to seventy years of Republican
dominance (Republican Party, 2006). Roosevelt’s New Deal Policies drove a
realignment within major party membership, and “one of Roosevelt’s major
accomplishments was wooing the black vote away from the Republicans” (ibid).
This set the stage for the Democratic and Republican parties we know today.
Today, politics in the U.S. is yet again dominated by two major parties: The
Republican Party and the Democratic Party. According to Ginsberg, “while the GOP
[Republican Party] appealed [sic] to social conservatives, the Democrats appealed
[sic] strongly to Americans concerned with abortion rights, gay rights, feminism,
environmentalism, and other progressive social causes” (Ginsberg, 2006, sect. X).
But party membership has proven to be fluid over time. The South has
transitioned from Democratic to Republican largely because black Democrats moved
out while white Republicans moved in and conservative Southern Democrats
switched parties (Polsby & Wildavsky, 2004, p. 15). Influxes in immigration in the

13
Northeast increased Democratic support when the Republican Party, once the power
party of the area, balked at welcoming new immigrants into its ranks (ibid, p. 15-16).
Also, displeasure over the Democrats leading the country into two wars against
Germany, caused many in the Midwest to tend “toward the more isolationist
Republicans” (ibid, p. 16).
The final important note about modern political structure is the value of the
third party. According to Polsby & Wildavsky:
“Third [party] candidates can be seen to have a significant
role in presidential elections. They can act as a spoiler if
they draw votes disproportionately from one major side or
the other. They can focus discontent. They can raise
issues. But because of the rules for counting votes in the
Electoral College, the electoral system is stacked strongly
against third-party candidates actually winning” (Polsby &
Wildavsky, 2004, p. 49).

2.4 Media’s Capitalist Convergence
In addition to understanding today’s political landscape, this analysis requires
an understanding of today’s media landscape and the convergence that dominates the
industry. A discussion of the convergence of media requires first an exploration of
the President Clinton-endorsed Telecommunications Act of 1996, a law that was
passed with little debate in the public sphere. According to Robert McChesney:
“Almost all of the important laws and policies that created
our media system—like the dreadful 1996
Telecommunications Act, which opened the door to an
unprecedented wave of corporate mergers—have been
made with zero public input. They are the direct result of
super-powered corporate lobbies muscling their way to the
public trough. The corruption of the policy-making process

14
can hardly be exaggerated” (McChesney, Excerpts from
Rich Media, Poor Democracy).

But what does the law really do? “The overarching purpose of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 is to deregulate all communication industries and
to permit the market, not public policy, to determine the course of the information
highway and the communications system (McChesney, Excerpts from Corporate
Media ...). In fact, lobbyists for the industries most impacted wrote a substantial
portion of the law (ibid).
The lack of public debate on the Telecommunications Act itself presents a
perfect example what happens to the public discourse when the media has an interest
in not allowing for public debate. McChesney sums the situation up best saying,
“the only grounds for political independence in this case would be if there were an
informed and mobilized citizenry ready to do battle for alternative policies. But
where would citizens get informed? Only through the news media, where news
coverage is minimal and restricted to the range of legitimate debate, which, in this
case, means almost no debate at all” (ibid). So if the media controls the public
debate, the media moguls--the owners of the communication industry--seem to
dictate everything. Furthermore, presidential elections don’t seem to provide an
exception to a practically universal rule.
Given the media’s power over the public debate, and the power of the media
moguls over programming and content, understanding the landscape of the industry
is of vital importance. According to United States Congressman Bernie Sanders

15
(Independent-Vermont), “one of our best kept secrets is the degree to which a
handful of huge corporations control the flow of information in the United States.
Whether it is television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books or the Internet, a few
giant conglomerates are determining what we see, hear and read” (Sanders, 2002).
Less than 24 colossal corporations own practically every media outlet in the U.S.,
and those companies make the majority of their income from selling advertisements
to other enormous corporations (McChesney, Excerpts from Corporate Media ...).
Furthermore, each of these companies is burdened by what Sanders calls “enormous
conflicts of interest” (Sanders, 2002). That simple fact keeps coverage squarely
within the ideological norms of the moguls themselves.
Congressman Sanders said it best: “The average American does not see his or
her reality reflected on the television screen” (ibid). While the consequences of any
individual not being able to connect with his or her own reality through the media
may be negligible, the problems it causes with regard to politics and public affairs
has the potential to be devastating to the democracy of this country. “Crucial
political issues are barely covered by the corporate media, or else are warped to fit
the confines of elite debate, stripping the ordinary citizenry of the tools they need to
be informed, active participants in a democracy” (McChesney, Excerpts from Rich
Media, Poor Democracy).

16
2.5 Aim of this Paper
Two parties dominate the political landscape in this country: Democrats and
Republicans, each of which is controlled by a relatively small group of individuals
that dictate their activities. Quite simply, the nexus of power within each party is
concentrated within small groups of members, and the powerful aren’t always
identified by their official roles in the party.
Additionally, “politics today is increasingly being influenced by marketing,
and the same technological methods used by corporate America to market products
are also being used by politicians to market themselves and their ideas (Kaid, 2004,
pg. 18). But the process of incorporating innovation into politics is neither quick nor
easy to swallow for the respective political establishments. Furthermore, image in
politics is becoming increasingly important (ibid). Therefore, no discussion of image
can exist without acknowledging the importance of media in image management.
Another significant part of the political establishment is the role of the media
in both campaigning and governing. For the purposes of this analysis, the focus will
rest on the role of media during the 2004 Presidential Primary campaign of Howard
Dean. The system itself consists of media institutions, political organizations and
audiences (Blumler & Gurevitch, 1995). In the first process, they work together to
produce messages; politicians provide content, and media interprets and frames said
content before passing it on to the audience (ibid). In the second, they work
independently to disseminate information to the public (ibid). For the purposes of
this analysis, the focus will be on the first process.

17
As the political establishment and the media work together to craft messages,
the inherent power structures in each are naturally at odds (ibid). Blumler and
Gurevitch argue “the power of political institutions is inherent in their functions as
articulators of interest and mobilizers of social power for purposes of political action
(ibid, pg. 12). Additionally, they identify “three sources of media power” (ibid, pg.
12). First, the media have a structural power by virtue of its ability to reach very
large audiences that are otherwise out of reach to politicians (ibid). Second, the
credibility and trust that specific media outlets have been able to cultivate give them
psychological power, and finally, it has normative power “that enable[s] the media to
interpose themselves between politicians and the audience and to ‘intervene’ in other
political processes as well” (ibid, pg. 13). The significance of the normative power
of the media is in its ability to present situations as crises thereby requiring reaction
and issues as important thereby requiring comment (ibid). On the other hand, there
are also forces that behold the media to political institutions (ibid). Blumler and
Gurevitch identify three “constraints” the political establishment places on the
media: legal, normative and structural (ibid). What is of ultimate consequence is that
“the system gives a rather privileged position in political communication output to
the views of already established power holders” (ibid, pg. 43). This, in effect, means
that those who have power have their messages spread more often and more widely,
thereby reinforcing the hegemonic nexus of power (ibid). Given the agenda-setting
role of the media and the preference it gives to those in power, candidates with new
ideas who are separate from the hegemonic political structure are rarely ever actually

18
heard. Furthermore, when they are heard, they aren’t given equal coverage with
their powerful counterparts and the hegemonic nexus of power is perpetuated.
The advent of technology has made it easier for candidates to reach voters
directly thereby circumventing the media establishment and indirectly calling into
question both its role and power in society. Sometimes that strategy fails, but when
it succeeds, it seems to bring about intense ill will from the media whose traditional
roles in the political process become seemingly obsolete. By circumventing the The
Propaganda Model (see Section 3.5) in reaching out directly to audiences and
forcing the media to feature candidates and issues they would not normally cover,
candidates almost always bring about backlash from the media. The media can use
its power to set the public agenda, frame stories and prime issues against candidates.
McChesney put it best saying:
“The biggest problem facing all who challenge the
prerogatives of corporate rule is that the overwhelming
majority of Americans are never exposed to anything
remotely close to a reasoned, coherent, consistent,
democratic socialist, pro-labor, or even old-fashioned New
Deal Democratic perspective” (McChesney, Excerpts from
Corporate Media…).

So the candidate who embraces the ideals at the core of democracy, and presents the
people with opportunities for change is crushed in the backlash. Ultimately, the act
defies the competitive ideals of capitalism and of democracy in general by expanding
a communications environment that represents the small group in power. But to
understand the impact of these forces on the campaign, one must first explore the
theory impacting the situation.

19
Chapter Three: Theory
To more fully comprehend the situational pressures and environmental
circumstances applicable to this study, one must explore the theoretical framework
within which these events occurred.
3.1 Hegemony
Traditional Marxism, the work of Marx and Lenin, in exploring Capitalism
called for a revolution by the people against their economic oppressors thereby
establishing the Communist movement (Limon, 1983). The intention of this paper is
not to explore in any depth Marxism or Communism but to note that Antonio
Gramsci, the developer of the theory of hegemony, was himself a product of the
Communist school of thought, and his Marxist perspectives of power and coercion
not only inform the notion of but also provide the basis for his theory of hegemony.
Gramsci argued that, at its most basic level, society is a series of
relationships, none of which provide equal power or influence between the parties
(Gramsci, 1995). Gramsci defines relationships as existing between “intellectual and
non-intellectual sections of the population, between governors and the governed,
between elites and their followers, between leaders and the led, between vanguards
and the body of the army” (ibid, pg. 285). After exploring the relationships that
compose a society, Gramsci espoused “that man is not ruled by force alone, but also
by ideas” (Bates, 1975, pg. 351). Furthermore, the approval by the governed of the
ideals of the governors arises through the systematic dissemination of the ideals of

20
the governors to the governed cloaked to resemble the ideals of the governed
themselves (ibid). Ultimately, the governors maintain their power by balancing force
over the people with the consensus of the people (ibid), and in doing so, convince the
people that the power is in fact in their hands. This action removes the concept of
revolution from the social consciousness entirely. Additionally, by its very nature,
capitalism creates divides between the “capitalist class” and “wage-laborers”
(Rosenthal, 1988, pg. 49). Additionally, under hegemonic powers the concept of
free choice ceases to exist (ibid). Rosenthal says, “We are by all means ‘free to
choose,’ but there is a right choice and a wrong, which is to say that however we
may choose, the very fact of the opposition will have already done the choosing for
us” (ibid, pg. 25). Gramsci continues, “ … ruling classes were essentially
conservative in the sense that they did not tend to construct an organic passage from
other classes into their own, i.e., to enlarge their class sphere” (ibid, pg. 45). That is
not to say that people cannot be adopted by the hegemonic system itself in turn
negating any threat they may pose to the system. Also, embedded in the concept of
hegemony is a clear disgust within the strata of power for postmodern acts and
actors.
Michael Burawoy further examines both Gramsci’s forms and impacts of
hegemony and other class activities with an emphasis on political society (Burawoy,
2003). Burawoy segmented the class formation hegemony causes, and requires, into
three levels: 1) economic corporate - “members of a class act in their local economic
interests;” 2) economic class - the activities of groups within the same class structure

21
acting in the economic interest of the entire class, and 3) hegemonic - “a class
presents its own interests as the interests—present and future—of all” (ibid, pg. 223).
Therefore, the ruled remain the ruled in part because “the ideas, values, and
experiences of dominant groups are validated in public discourse; those of
subordinate groups are not, though they may continue to thrive beyond the
boundaries of received opinion” (Lears, 1985, pg. 574). Furthermore, the success of
a hegemonic class is dependent upon its ability to provide “economic concession” to
other classes to secure their consent while maintaining the principal capital that gave
the nexus of power its power in the first place (Burawoy, 2003, pg. 224).
3.2 Power
In his exploration of power and the subjects upon whom said power is
exerted, Michel Foucault espouses that “power applies itself to immediate everyday
life which categorizes the individual, marks him by his own individuality, attaches
him to his own identity, imposes a law of truth on him which he must recognize and
which others have to recognize in him” (Foucault, 1982, pg. 781). He continues by
defining what he believes are the three types of struggles against power: against
domination, against exploitation and “against that which ties the individual to
himself and submits him to others in this way” (ibid, pg. 781). In addition, he
establishes that the types of struggles are not mutually exclusive and are capable of
independent existence (ibid).

22
The role of power in a society is, quite simply, an inextricable part of that
society (ibid). Power exists as part of a society, and neither can exist without the
other in any way other than complete abstraction (ibid). Without power, society
would spiral into chaos, but in whose hands power rests is the ultimate definer of
each society. When power rests in the hands of the governors, the “model of
domination” half of the theory of hegemony seems to hold while the concept of
resistance fades from possible to improbable to simply outside the realm of
conscious thought (ibid).
3.3 Postmodernism
The simple act of defining postmodernism is problematic because its basic
concept requires that multiple definitions exist:
“…any attempt to define the word will necessarily and
simultaneously have both positive and negative
dimensions. It will aim to say what postmodernism is but
at the same time it will have to say what it is not. Perhaps
this is an appropriate condition, for postmodernism is a
phenomenon whose mode is resolutely contradictory …”
(Hutcheon, 1989, pg. 1).

It is like “saying something is whilst at the same time putting inverted commas
around what is being said” (ibid, pg. 1). At its most basic, postmodernism seems to
imply that since each individual defines his or her own truth, so there is, in effect, no
actual truth, at least not on a scale capable of including societies or even pieces of
societies. But despite the difficulties in defining the idea, its main goal seems to
establish that parts of our way of life, no matter how broadly that term is taken, are in

23
fact not natural; they are cultural; they are created and levied upon a people by the
people themselves (ibid). The concept of postmodernism, in providing for multiple
truths that are no more or less valid than each other, results in constructs of the world
that are truth for someone and fiction for his neighbor (ibid). But above all,
postmodernism seems to be an affront to the status quo (ibid).
3.4 Agenda-Setting
McCombs and Shaw said:
“In choosing and displaying news, editors, newsroom staff,
and broadcasters play an important part in shaping political
reality. Readers learn not only about a given issue, but also
how much importance to attach to that issue from the
amount of information in a news story and its positions. In
reflecting what candidates are saying during a campaign,
the mass media may well determine the important issues—
that is, the media may set the ‘agenda’ of the campaign”
(McCombs & Shaw, 1972, pg. 176).

Additionally, they found that the impact of media coverage on society’s values,
beliefs and behaviors is causally linked to the “composite of the mass media
coverage” (ibid, pg. 181). This establishes that the number of times and the number
of mediums or sources by which an issue is presented causes a far greater impact
than simply the number of eyes exposed to the very same issue once through one
source. Furthermore, agenda-setting is composed of two different levels (Kiousis &
McCombs, 2004). They continued to say, “the salience of objects—issues,
candidates, public figures, organizations or whatever—is the first level of agenda-
setting, and the salience of attitudes is the second level of agenda-setting” (ibid, pg.

24
38). Additionally, the impact of agenda-setting on politics is substantial. A notable
and measurable relationship exists between the media coverage of a political
candidate and “public recognition” of said candidate (ibid). The study also found
that “attitude dispersion would increase as media salience increased” and “attitude
polarization would increase as media salience increased” (ibid, pg. 47). The real
effects of these findings indicate that the volume of coverage of political candidates
“plays a role both in recognition and the strength of public opinion concerning those
persons” (ibid, pg. 47-48).
Another central aspect of the media’s agenda-setting role is the issue of
framing. Entman (1993) espouses that “to frame is to select some aspects of a
perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way
as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation
and/or treatment recommendation for the item described” (Kaid, 2004, pg. 263).
Essentially, framing influences the ways in which the audience interprets the overall
message (ibid). It is also important to note the concept of priming which is, at its
most basic, agenda-setting with regards to public opinion wherein media coverage of
issues form a higher degree of salience for the audience and make the audience more
likely to use said information in the decision making process (ibid). This can be
critical in politics because voters have little if any direct contact with candidates and
learn about them only through the media.

25
3.5 The Propaganda Model
Herman and Chomsky’s book Manufacturing Consent (1988) established
what they call the Propaganda Model of mass media. They acknowledge the
difficulty in identifying such systems in effect when media privatization and legal
statutes make direct government intervention impossible (Herman & Chomsky,
1988). They espouse that the model “focuses on this inequality of wealth and power
and its multilevel effects on mass-media interests and choices (ibid, pg. 2).
Furthermore, they categorize their model by saying:
“it traces the routes by which money and power are able to
filter out the news fit to print, marginalize dissent, and
allow the government and dominant private interests to get
their messages across to the public” (ibid).

Basically, the Propaganda Model establishes a set of filters of the news (ibid). They
establish five levels of filters that they argue affect the content of the media, which
are discussed individually below (ibid).
1) Size, ownership, and profit orientation of the mass media - The composition
of the media landscape and its own inner orientations affect what is and isn’t
covered (ibid, pg. 2).
2) Advertising as the primary income source of the mass media - Because the
media relies heavily on advertising revenue to operate, it is ultimately
controlled by the interests of advertisers for fear of losing their business (ibid,
pg. 2).

26
3) Reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and
‘experts’ funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power
- In its search for credible sources of news, the media tends to utilize
information gathered from a very small number of very powerful politicians
and government officials (ibid, pg. 2). There are additional facets to their
explanation of this filter, but for the purposes of this analysis, the focus will
be on this facet in particular.
4) Flak as a means of disciplining the media - Backlash from powerful
individuals and institutions provide another means by which the content of
the media is filtered (ibid, pg. 2).
5) Anticommunism as a national religion and control mechanism - By uniting
the population against a “common enemy,” anticommunism effectively
provided for a test by which news content is deemed either acceptable or not
(ibid, pg. 2). Today’s equivalent of “anticommunism” may very well be
“unpatriotic” or “anti-American,” and in a post-9/11 world, that may have
even more of an impact.
Ultimately, Herman argues that “the power of the U.S. propaganda system lies in its
ability to mobilize an elite consensus, to give the appearance of democratic consent,
and to create enough confusion, misunderstanding and apathy in the general
population to allow elite programs to go forward” (Herman, 2003).
These findings provide the basis for the following analysis of Howard Dean’s
2004 Presidential campaign.

27
In expanding upon their theory of cultivation, Gerbner et al explored the role
of television programming (in addition to news coverage) on the political
orientations of the viewing populace (Gerbner et al, 1984). They observed “that
television’s mainstream runs well to the right of center on political issues and closer
to traditional liberal positions on demands for government services to a consumer-
oriented economy” (ibid, pg. 285). It is also true that as news strives for objectivity,
it portrays a “middle-of-the-road” political ideology as the norm (ibid).
Additionally, their research showed empirically that the more television a viewer
consumes, the more likely they are to be moderate (ibid). Moreover, heavy
consumers of newspapers tend to categorize themselves as conservative whereas
heavy consumers of radio consider themselves liberal (ibid).
Also of interest for this analysis is the concept of the 80/20 Rule. As Halberg
(1995) outlined, “the ‘80/20 Rule of Thumb’ is shorthand for the idea that 80 percent
of a brand’s volume is accounted for by 20 percent of its buyers (Anschuetz, 1997,
pg. 51). Ultimately, the rule outlines the idea that the majority of an organizations
“business” is done by a minority of its consumers (ibid). It seems reasonable then to
follow that 80% of news coverage will represent only 20% of opinion in the
populace, and Gerbner’s work suggests that coverage in newspapers will present a
conservative point-of-view, one that would logically oppose a Dean candidacy.
Ultimately, his downfall was both inescapable and predictable. One only
needed to examine relevant communication and media theories outlined in this
project to predict the inevitable action of the hegemonic structure. It’s happened

28
time and again over the course of history. Typically, when someone poses a threat to
the nexus of powers, he is co-opted by the very structure he is threatening, redressed,
and put on display for the masses as an example of how people can succeed and gain
power in an acceptable manner when their inclusion in the system is actually a sign
of their ultimate powerlessness. In actuality, the adoptee becomes an active
participant in the perpetuation of the very hegemonic structure he threatened in the
first place. And this data seeks to show that this is, albeit predictable, the rise, the
scream, and the fall of Howard Dean.

29
Chapter Four: Methodology
4.1 History of Quantitative Newspaper Analysis

The advent of the printing press in the late 19
th
Century led to an influx of
newspaper production and increased circulation. In fact, the prevalence of
newspapers in the early 20
th
Century led researchers to begin examining the content
of the media in a more quantitative way (Krippendorff, 2004, pg. 5). Speed’s 1893
work exploring coverage in New York newspapers provided what Krippendorff
considers the first example of quantitative newspaper analysis (ibid, pg. 5).
In addition to providing a background for the methodological constructs of
content analysis, Krippendorff also provides examples of research areas/questions
for which content analysis is effective. One example he provides is that of
“describ[ing] how something is ‘covered’ by, ‘portrayed’ in, or ‘represented’ in the
media invoke a picture theory of content” (ibid, pg. 28). Additionally, “there is no
point in counting unless the frequencies lead to inferences about the conditions
surrounding what is counted” (Lazersfeld, 1948; Krippendorff, 2004, pg. 28). In this
case, said inferences will be explored as trends in political campaigning.
Finally, “content analyses are most likely to succeed when analysts address
linguistically constituted social realities that are rooted in the kinds of conversations
that produced the texts being analyzed” (ibid, pg. 77). Here, that social reality is
politics and governance as considered from the perspective outlined in section two.

30
4.2 Content Analysis Today

Today, content analysis is regularly practiced across many disciplines
including: mass communication, psychology, anthropology and history (ibid, pg. 11-
12). Krippendorff also identifies qualitative methods of content analysis (ibid, pg.
15), a category into which this study can be partially classified. More specifically,
this study is modeled as an “ethnographic content analysis,” an approach advocated
by Altheide (1987) (ibid, pg. 16). This approach, by definition “does not avoid
quantification but encourages content analysis accounts to emerge from reading of
texts” (Altheide, 1987; Krippendorff, 20034, pg. 16). According to Krippendorff, a
study of this type “shares the following characteristics:
• They require a close reading of relatively small
amounts of textual matter.
• They involve the rearticulation (interpretations) of
given tests into new (analytical, deconstructive,
emancipatory, or critical) narrative that are accepted
within particular scholarly communities that are
sometimes opposed to positivist traditions of inquiry.
• The analysts acknowledge working within hermeneutic
circles in which their own socially or culturally
conditioned understanding constitutively participate …”
(Krippendorff, 2004, pg. 17).

Additionally, this study is developed to be reliable in that it is replicable by other
“researchers working at different points in time and perhaps under different
circumstances” (ibid, pg. 18).

31
Krippendorff’s exploration of qualitative content analysis provides the most
reasonable method for answering this study’s research hypotheses, so that
methodological construct has been chosen as the most sound avenue to answers.
Therefore, a content analysis will be conducted examining articles in the New
York Times and the Washington Post where sampling units include article section
(editorial and op-ed sections), date (January 17, 2004 to January 26, 2004) and
references to Howard Dean. These dates were chosen to coincide with Howard
Dean’s “scream” speech given during the Iowa Primary of the 2004 Presidential
campaign cycle. Articles will be considered qualifying if they mention Howard
Dean at least once in the body of the piece.
Within each qualifying article, all adjectives, adjectival phrases and other
descriptors used in correlation with Dean will be analyzed and categorized based on
the recording units outlined in the codebook found as an appendix to this document.
Additionally, the overall tone of the piece with regard to Dean will also be
categorized according to the guidelines outlined in the codebook.
The author of this study will complete all coding to avoid any inter-coder
inconsistencies.

32
Chapter Five: Hypotheses
H1: Negative mentions will outnumber positive mentions across both sources and
irrespective of authorship and category.
H2: Negative mentions will outnumber positive mentions across both text sources
when authorship is associated with the publication or its agents (Editorial only)
irrespective of category.
H3: Negative mentions will outnumber positive mentions across both sources when
authorship is associated with self-designated members or affiliates of the Republican
Party irrespective of category.
H4: Negative mentions will outnumber positive mentions across both sources when
authorship is associated with self-designated members or affiliates of the Democratic
Party irrespective of category.
H5: Negative references to the Iowa Caucus speech (Coding Category 001) will
outnumber positive references.
H6: Negative references to Dean’s public image (002) will outnumber positive ones.
H7: Negative references to Dean’s personal life (003) will outnumber positive ones.
H8: Negative references to Dean’s performance as governor of Vermont (004) will
outnumber positive ones.
H9: Negative comparisons with other candidates (Democrat or Republican - 005)
will outnumber positive ones.

33
H10: Negative references to Dean’s campaign operations (006) will outnumber
positive references.

34
Chapter Six: Findings/Results
After applying the standards for sample selection laid out in the Code Book
for this study (Appendix A), 33 articles were included. Nineteen (58%) were from
The Washington Post, and 14 (42%) were from The New York Times (Figure I).
The sample articles also exhibited the following
characteristics:
• Published between January 17 and
January 26, 2004 (Figures II, III);
• Sixteen (49%) were editorials, 13 (39%)
were letters-to-the-editor, and four (12%)
were op-eds (Figure IV);
• Twenty-seven (82%) were signed, and six (18%) were unsigned (Figure V);

Figure II: Distribution of Sample by Publication Date

Figure I: Distribution of
Sample by Source

35

• Eighteen (55%) were written by men, six (18%) were written by women, and
nine (27%) were written by an author whose gender is unclear to the author
(Figure VI);

Figure III: Distribution of Sample by Day of the Week

• Four (12%) directly affiliated themselves with the Republican Party, two
(6%) with the Democratic Party, and 27 (82%) did not directly attach
themselves to either major party (Figure VII);
• In addition to mentioning Howard Dean, Bush was mentioned in 18 articles,
Kerry in 17, Edwards in 13, Clark in 11, Lieberman in seven, Gephardt in
seven and Sharpton in one (Figure VIII);

36
Figure IV: Distribution by Type
Figure V: Distribution of
Sample by Authorship
Figure VI: Distribution
by Author's Gender
Figure VII: Distribution of Sample by
Author's Self-Identified Political
Affiliation
The data was then analyzed to confirm or reject
each of the study’s hypotheses.
H1: Negative mentions will outnumber positive
mentions across both sources and irrespective
of authorship and category. CONFIRMED
When authorship, coding category, and
publication are ignored and the entire sample is included, negative references to
Howard Dean outnumber positive references 93 to 37 with 23 neutral references
(Figure IX).
H2: Negative mentions will outnumber positive
mentions across both text sources when
authorship is associated with the publication or
its agents (editorial only) irrespective of
category. CONFIRMED
When the sample is adjusted to include only

37
articles written by the newspaper or its agents, irrespective of which publication and
within which coding category the mentions fall, negative mentions outnumber
positive mentions 55 to 21 with 15 neutral references. The sample includes 16
articles (Figure X).

Figure VIII: Inclusion of Other Candidates in Sample

38

Figure IX: Overall Type of Mention

H3: Negative mentions will outnumber positive mentions across both sources when
authorship is associated with self-designated members or affiliates of the Republican
Party irrespective of category. CONFIRMED
When the sample is adjusted to include only the four pieces authored by self-
identified Republicans, negative mentions outnumber positive mentions 22 to two
with two neutral mentions (Figure XI).
H4: Negative mentions will outnumber positive mentions across both sources when
authorship is associated with self-designated members or affiliates of the
Democratic Party irrespective of category. REJECTED
When the sample is adjusted to include only the two pieces authored by self-
identified Democrats, positive mentions outnumber negative mentions four to zero
with zero neutral mentions (Figure XII).

39

Figure X: Mentions by Publications and their Agents

H5: Negative references to the Iowa Caucus speech (Category 001) will outnumber
positive references. CONFIRMED
An analysis of the entire 33 piece sample with regard to references classified under
Coding Category 001, The Iowa Caucus “Scream” speech, provides 10 negative
mentions to one positive with two neutral mentions (Figure XIII).

Figure XI: Mentions by Self-Identified Republicans

40
H6: Negative references to Dean’s public image (002) will outnumber positive ones.
CONFIRMED
An analysis of references to Dean’s public image (Coding Category 002) considering
the entire sample provides a 14 negative to one positive with no neutral references
(Figure XIV).
H7: Negative references to Dean’s personal life (003) will outnumber positive ones.
CONFIRMED
An analysis of references to Dean’s personal life (Coding Category 003) including
the entire sample provides a 13 negative to 10 positive with seven neutral references
(Figure XV).

Figure XII: Mentions by Self-Identified Democrats

41

Figure XIII: References to the Iowa Caucus "Scream" Speech

H8: Negative references to Dean’s performance as governor of Vermont (004) will
outnumber positive ones. REJECTED
An analysis of references to Dean’s performance as governor of Vermont (Coding
Category 004) considering the entire sample provides five negative and five positive
references with 6 neutral references (Figure XVI).

Figure XIV: References to Dean's Public Image

42

Figure XV: References to Dean's Personal Life

Figure XVI: References to Dean's Performance as Governor of Vermont

H9: Negative comparisons with other candidates (Democrat or Republican - 005)
will outnumber positive ones. CONFIRMED

43
An analysis of comparisons between Dean and other candidates, both Democrat and
Republican, (Coding Category 005) considering the entire sample provides 23
negative, nine positive and five neutral responses (Figure XVII).

Figure XVII: Comparisons of Dean to Other Candidates

H10: Negative references to Dean’s campaign operations (006) will outnumber
positive references. CONFIRMED
An analysis of references to Dean’s campaign operations (Coding Category 006)
considering the entire sample provides 28 negative responses, 11 positive responses
and three neutral responses (Figure XVIII).

44

Figure XVIII: References to the Performance of Dean's Campaign

6.1 Measures of Central Tendency
Articles included in the study averaged 2.818 negative, 1.121 positive, and
0.697 neutral mentions each. It should be noted, however, that multiple references
within any coding variable were counted only once, so if multiple references had
been tracked, these numbers would likely be higher. Means for mentions per article
in select categories are listed below:
• In articles written by Republicans – Negative: 6.000, Positive: 0.500, Neutral:
0.500
• In articles written about the Scream Speech – Negative: 0.303, Positive:
0.030, Neutral: 0.061
• In articles written about Dean’s Public Image – Negative: 0.424, Positive:
0.030, Neutral: 0
• In articles written about Dean’s Personal Life – Negative: 0.394, Positive:
0.303, Neutral: 0.212
• In articles written comparing Dean to other candidates – Negative: 0.697,
Positive: 0.273, Neutral: 0.152
• In articles written about the performance of the Dean campaign – Negative:
0.848, Positive: 0.333, Neutral: 0.091

45
Because references were considered in binary format (one being at least one
qualified reference, zero being no qualified reference) median and mode calculations
will always fall between zero and one where numbers above 0.5 lean toward the yes
state, present qualified mentions, and numbers below 0.5 lean toward the no state, no
present qualified mentions. That being said, the number of coding variables being as
large as it was led to overall median and mode calculations of 0 in positive, negative
and neutral categories.
6.2 Coefficient of Imbalance

To provide additional statistical evidence of the skew toward negative
portrayals over positive ones, Janis and Fadner’s (1943/1965) coefficient of
imbalance was calculated using the overall results, those used to answer hypothesis
one (Krippendorff, 2004, pg. 55-56). The coefficient of imbalance, ‘C,’ is:
C=fu-u
2
rt
where ‘f’ is the number of favorable mentions, here 37; ‘u’ is the number of
unfavorable mentions, here 93; ‘r’ is the number of relevant mentions, here 130; and
‘t’ is the total number of mentions, here 153. The difference between total and
relevant mentions for purposes of this calculation accounts for neutral mentions.
Therefore the coefficient of imbalance is -0.262, where positive values signify a
positive skew, negative values represent a negative skew and the distance from zero

46
on a number line represents the magnitude or intensity of the skew. It should be
noted that all values for ‘C’ would fall between -1 and +1.

47
Chapter Seven: Discussion
The power of the media frame and its influence on public discourse is well
established, and its depiction of Howard Dean during his 2004 Presidential Primary
run was clearly negative. If, as Gramsci contends, man is not ruled by force alone
but also by ideas, the role of the media becomes even more important. The media
influence the public’s creation of ideas and when it presents skewed or inaccurate
information because of its place in the hegemonic power structure, it becomes an
agent for the substitution of force in rule. The media ultimately ousted Dean as a
viable candidate by portraying him as an angry, uncontrollably emotional, wild man.
Understandably, that portrayal became the underpinning upon which public
discourse surrounding Dean was built. Dean’s record, his campaign and his
messages for the electorate were obscured by the media’s decision to negatively
depict his actions. While further study is required to provide a clear picture of the
reason(s) for the media’s portrayals, Dean’s decision to use the Internet in lieu of the
traditional politician-reporter model provides one potential explanation.
Dean avoided relating to the media in practically every way politicians
traditionally do; he was brusque in interviews, animated behind press podiums and
nothing short of forceful in his interactions with the press, and the press made its
feelings about Dean’s actions clear (See Section 1.1). They called him, among other
colorful descriptors, “arrogant and disrespectful.” Dean bucked the traditional
campaign dynamic of the press and the politician; his actions made him a threat to

48
the system of power in this country, and he failed to recognize the theoretical
implications of his actions on the media. It forced the people to march to the beat of
its drum squarely away from the candidate. The media, led by the wishes of its card-
carrying nexus member corporate executives and unwilling to relinquish its share of
the power, portrayed Dean as unpresidential in practically every aspect of his life. It
questioned his personality, his enthusiasm, his wife’s viability as a First Lady, his
fund-raising, his campaign operations and his overall suitability as an occupant of the
West Wing. The data herein provides numerous examples of the media using its
editorial pages to call the issues into questions. The corporate-owned, corporate-
operated, corporate-directed media forced Dean into a place of limited and externally
controlled power. It played a role in maintaining the nexus of power by preventing
what may have been the closest thing this country’s seen to a revolution in decades, a
Dean Presidency.
Furthermore, for every detail this study provides for the specific case of
Howard Dean, this author believes that it also speaks to the broader picture of the
relationships between traditional mainstream media and alternative politicians, those
that are not members of the hegemonic nexus. It speaks, I believe, to the causes of
the items herein and provides insights into the modern meaning of the First
Amendment to the Constitution, the modern media structure, and the modern ideals
of running for high Constitutional Office.
Media convergence, fueled by capitalism and untempered by regulation,
provides a potential and reasonably likely contributing factor to the media’s

49
treatment of Howard Dean. He was not an ideal presidential candidate in the eyes of
the power structure that made up the management of the media. I do not intend to
imply impropriety on the part of journalists but instead that press freedom ceases to
exist in the face of corporate media convergence, leaving the public’s agenda-setters
without the freedom to provide well-rounded, fair accounts of the viability of
candidates like Dean. The corporate ownership of media, where a very small
number of multi-national media companies led by interconnected executives form
something of a silent ministry of information that contradicts the very ideals of free
press, and its interdependence with the country’s political power structure likely
contributed to Dean’s public treatment, specifically his treatment in what can only be
called the aftermath of his public remarks during the Iowa Caucus. Hindsight has
provided evidence that his actions behind the podium that January day were nothing
more than an attempt to garner the attention of an excited, rowdy crowd. But the
media provided coverage, both constant and excessive, framing the speech as the
actions of a wild man. The power of the media armed with tapes from a set of noise
canceling microphones can no longer be questioned.
What is also interesting is the media’s motivation. What would have driven
the media to run with a story without providing evidence of its reasons for existing,
noise canceling microphones? I posit that the media and the political power
structure, the two that ultimately form the nexus of decision-making power in this
country, ended the candidacy of Howard Dean through a series of pointed attacks to
maintain their station in the very power structure he threatened. He sidestepped

50
traditional media outlets with his use of the Internet, and in doing so uncovered new
fund-raising avenues that circumvented the elite.
The overall coverage of Dean, independent of coding category or variable,
was overwhelmingly negative. In fact, negative references outnumbered positive
references in all but two measured categories, a surprising fact based on the immense
grassroots support for the candidate. Coverage penned by the papers studied and
their agents was also overwhelmingly negative as was coverage penned by self-
designated Republicans and coverage across all studied categories irrespective of
authorship or publication. What was perhaps most surprising was that negative
coverage of Dean’s personality while seemingly driven, at least in part, by his speech
after the Iowa Caucus, rarely directly mentioned the speech. Instead it called into
question his personality, and whether it was presidential, as though the motivation
for its mention was independent of the speech. Perhaps this is because there was fear
that the real events of the day would come to light, but more likely, the media’s
actions were driven by its quest for corporate superiority in a world where such
dominance is tantamount to power on a far larger scale.
Additionally, this study has provided a number of interesting avenues for
further study on the topic including interviews with the writers of the articles studied
herein to determine the specific motivations for their actions as well as studies of
public opinion to track the ultimate effect of this coverage on the reading public.
However, since these events occurred a number of years ago, this study may be
difficult to execute. Given that, it would also be interesting to conduct focus groups

51
with former Dean campaign staffers to explore the ways they attempted, albeit
unsuccessfully, to combat the nexus of power.

52
Chapter Eight: Conclusion
Howard Dean was, without question, an affront to the status quo. He was not
interested in what was acceptable in the realm of politics but what was possible,
perhaps even what he thought was right for democracy instead of what was right
politically. Those actions marked the end of his bid for the chance to make the
changes he seemed to so believe in.
However, this author believes Dean was ahead of his time. To expect a
revolution seems a bit too wishful a mode of thinking, but despite the short time that
has passed since the 2004 Primary season, some of Dean’s strategies and tactics are
seeping into everyday political life. The most obvious and profound example is his
use of the Internet. Bloggers, like Markos Zuniga of Daily Kos and Arianna
Huffington of the Huffington Post, regularly headline mainstream television media
coverage of politics. Many voters have come to expect, through the advent of
blogging, more of a say in practically every aspect of life, and politics provides no
exception.
Therefore, this author posits that Dean’s campaign likely provided a glimpse
into the future of American politics. It forecasted a system where voters expect to
not only be allowed to voice their opinions but to also have them heard and
addressed; a system where campaign fundraising is transparent and the power of
lobbies and other special interest groups is regulated; a system where the candidate is
expected to speak to and act in the public’s interest; a system that inspires and

53
invigorates a largely apathetic populace. While these shifts are clearly not
appropriate short-term expectations, they provide what this author believes to be a
reasonable picture of the future of the Democratic Party. This, I believe, will be
another factor that differentiates the two major parties as we move forward into a
world of politics where Republicans grasp tradition and Democrats embrace change.
That, I believe, is Howard Dean’s contribution to American politics in spite of his
image in the media.

54
References

2004 Presidential Election (2005). Opensecrets.org, Retrieved December 8, 2006
from http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/index.asp

Albig, W. (1938). The Content of Radio Programs 1925-1935. Social Forces, 16,
338-349.

Altheide, D.L. (1987). Ethnographic Content Analysis. Qualitative Sociology, 10,
65-77.

Anschuetz, N. (1997). Profiting from the “80/20 Rule of Thumb.” Journal of
Advertising, November/December, 51-56.

Bates, T. (1975). Gramsci and the Theory of Hegemony. Journal of the History of
Ideas 36, 351-366.

Blumler, J. & Gurevitch, M. (1995). The Crisis of Public Communication (pp. 12-
21, 42-43). New York: Routledge.

Burawoy, M. (2003). For a Sociological Marxism: The Complementary
Convergence of Antonio Gramsci and Karl Polanyi. Politics & Society, 31,
193-261.

Chomsky, Noam (n.d.) Excerpts from Media Control, Third World Traveler.
Retrieved September 9, 2006 from
www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/MediaControl_Chomsky.html

Cone, E. (2003, November 17). The Marketing of a President. Baseline Magazine,
Retrieved April 11, 2006, from
http://www.baselinemag.com/print_article2/0,1217,a=112601,00.asp.

Countering Political Apathy (2006). YouthInformation.com, Retrieved December
8, 2006, from http://www.youthinformation.com/Templates
/Internal.asp?NodeID=90857

Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.
Journal of Communication, 43 (4), 51-58.

Foucault, M. (1982). The Subject and Power. Critical Inquiry, 8, 777-795.

55
Gerbner, G., Gross, L, Morgan, M, Signorielli, N. (1984). Political Correlates of
Television Viewing. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 283-300.

Gerhart, A. (2003, August 4). This Won’t Hurt a Bit; Can the Body Politic
Tolerate Flinty Howard Dean? The Washington Post, p. C01.

Gerhart, A. (2004, January 24). Dear Dean Team: Tips on Defusing Your H
Bomb. The Washington Post, p. C01.

Ginsberg, B. (2006). Political Parties in the United States (sect. II-X), Microsoft
Encarta Online Encyclopedia. Retrieved September 9, 2006 from
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761558305/Political_Parties_in_the_U
nited_States.html

Gramsci, A. (1995). Hegemony. Prison Notebooks (pp. 285). London: Lawrence
& Wishart.

Halberg, G. (1995). All Consumers are Not Created Equal. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.

Herman, E. (2003). The Propaganda Model: A Retrospective. Retrieved April 11,
2006, from http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20031209.htm

Herman, E. & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political
Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon.

Hutcheon, L. (1989). Representing the Postmodern. The Politics of
Postmodernism (pp. 1-16). New York: Routledge.

Janis, I. & R. Fadner (1965). The Coefficient of Imbalance. In Harold D.
Lasswell, Nathan Leites, & Associates (Eds.), Language of Politics: Studies
in Quantitative Semantics (pp. 153-169). Cambridge: MIT Press (Original
work published 1943)

Kaid, L. (2004). Handbook of Political Communication Research (pp. 18-21, 263-
264, 272-273). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lazarsfeld, P., Berelson, B. & H. Gaudet (1948). The people’s choice: How the
voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Columbia
University Press

56
Lears, T.J. (1985). The Concept of Cultural Hegemony: Problems and
Possibilities. The American Historical Review, 90, 567-593.

Limon, J. (1983). Western Marxism and Folklore: A Critical Introduction. The
Journal of American Folklore, 96 (397), 34-52.

McChesney, R. (n.d.) Excerpts from Corporate Media and the Threat to
Democracy, Third World Traveler. Retrieved September 9, 2006 from
www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/CorpMedia_McChesney.html

McChesney, R. (n.d.) Excerpts from Rich Media, Poor Democracy, Third World
Traveler. Retrieved September 9, 2006 from
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/McChesney/RichMedia_PoorDemocracy.
html

McCombs, M. & Kiousis, S. (2004). Agenda-Setting Effects and Attitude
Strength: Political Figures During the 1996 Presidential Election.
Communication Research, 31 (1), 36-57.

McCombs, M. & Shaw, D. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media.
The Public Opinion Quarterly, 36 (2), 176-187.

Mumby, D. (1997). The problem of hegemony: Rereading Gramsci for
organizational communication studies. Western Journal of Communication,
61, 343-376.

Nesmith, Ken (2002). Democracy vs. Capitalism, MIT-Tech, v. 122, no. 54.
Retrieved September 9, 2006 from http://www-
tech.mit.edu/V122/N54/col54ken.54c.html

Polsby, N.W. & Wildavsky, A. (2004). Presidential Election: Strategies and
Structures of American Politics. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield

Presidential Data (2006). OpenSecrets.org, Retrieved April 11, 2006, from
http://www.crp.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00008072

Republican Party. Grolier-AP Encyclopedia. Retrieved January 9, 2007, from
http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0245550-0&templatename

Rosenthal, J. (1988). Who Practices Hegemony?: Class Division and the Subject
of Politics. Cultural Critique, 9, 25-52.

57
Rosin, H. (2004, January 21). The Big Production Number. The Washington Post,
p. C01.

Samuelson, R. J. (2005). Capitalism vs. Democracy, Newsweek, October 3, 2006
issue. Retrieved September 9, 2006 from
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9466948/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098

Sanders, B. (2002, Summer). Congress Can no Longer Ignore Corporate Control
of the Media, Sander’s Scoop. Retrieved September 9, 2006 from
www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporations/CorpControlMedia_Sanders.html

Squibs (2004, January 22). The Washington Post, p. C03.

Tischler, L. (2003, October). Joe Trippi’s Killer App. Fast Company, Retrieved
April 11, 2006, from http://pf.fastcompany.com/magazine/75/trippi.html

Webster’s College Dictionary (2003). New York: Barnes & Noble Books.

Williams, M. (2004, February 1). Dean’s Loss of Nerve. The Washington
Post.com, p. B07.

Wolf, G. (2004, January). How the Internet Invented Howard Dean. Wired.com,
Retrieved April 11, 2006, from
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.01/dean_pr.html

58
Appendices
Appendix A: Codebook
Overview:
This codebook is designed to:
1. assist primary investigator/coder in consistently identifying messages and
meanings of descriptors referencing Howard Dean;
2. define parameters of the study’s analysis;
3. provide a means for operationalizing the terms through which categories and
variables will be analyzed.
The newspaper source material will be coded based on the instructions below.

Instructions:
This is a study examining the content of articles in the New York Times and
the Washington Post editorial, letters-to the-editor and opposition editorial pagers
over a ten day period (January 17-26, 2004) coinciding with the 2004 Presidential
Iowa Primary. This study seeks to determine and explore the nature and implications
of editorial content about Howard Dean both before and after his famed “I have a
scream” speech. Each piece that mentions Howard Dean and was published in the
identified source material over the specified period of time shall be coded
alphanumerically on the corresponding code sheet.

59
Section I of the codebook provides a means for identifying general
characteristics about the article and the newspaper in which it was published.
Section II will provide a means for identifying the identity and characteristics
of the author/writer.
Section III will provide a means for identifying other persons of interest
mentioned in each qualifying piece.
Section IV will provide a means for coding the categories and variable
relevant to the study.
Each code sheet will also include a notes section in which any caveats or
other investigative notes can be included.

Section I-General Information
1. News Source – Enter the two-digit code of the newspaper in which the piece
appeared.
2. Edition – Input the volume number in three digits followed by the issue
number in three digits. If the story appeared in VOLUME 17 ISSUE 6, the
code would read 017006.
3. Story Date – Input the date on which the story was published in two digits.
January 18, 2004 would be coded as 18. Since all qualifying stories were
published in January 2004, only the day is to be coded.
4. Day – Input the two-digit code that corresponds to the day of the week on
which the story ran.

60
5. Section – Input the corresponding two-digit code to identify whether the
article appeared as an editorial, and op-ed or a letter to the editor.
6. Headline – Print as clearly as is possible the published headline of the piece.
Section II-Author Information
1. Author Name – Print the author(s) name in the space provided. If the piece is
unsigned please leave blank.
2. Gender – Input the corresponding two-digit code to identify the gender of the
author where possible. If the name does not provide enough information to
make an educated assumption, input the code for the option listed as
“unsure.”
3. Political Affiliation – Input the two-digit code to identify the author’s
political affiliation. If the author’s political affiliation is unknown, input the
code for “unsure.”

Section III-Other Candidates
1. Input the name and corresponding two digit code of each candidate
mentioned by name at least once in the piece. If a candidate not listed on the
code sheet is mentioned also circle “other.” NOTE: More than one response
may be appropriate for this question.

Section IV-Coding Categories and Variables

61
Before beginning to code this section, thoroughly read the attached Coding
Categories and Variable. Every story that contains the name Howard Dean must be
coded, so if a story does not qualify within one of the specific categories, select
“Other” and specify what topic the story falls within.
1. Coding Category – Input the corresponding three-digit code found in the
Coding Categories and Variables document. If the story does not fit
appropriately in the listed categories, input 999 for “Other” and write the
category in the blank. Input as many codes as are appropriate, but enter each
code only once.
2. Coding Variable – Input the corresponding three-digit code found in the
Coding Categories and Variables document. If the story does not fit
appropriately in the listed variables, input 999 for “Other” and write the
variable in the blank. Input as many codes as are appropriate, but enter each
code only once.

62
Appendix B: Coding Categories and Variables

Coding Category 001: The Scream
101: The Speech as a Whole-Positive
Favorable/positive coverage/mention of Dean’s Iowa Caucus speech during the 2004
Democratic Primary Caucus as a whole/in its entirety.

102: The Speech as a Whole-Negative
Same as 101 but negative coverage/mention

103: The Speech as a Whole-Neutral
Same as 101 but neutral coverage/mention

104: Just the Scream-Positive
Favorable/positive coverage/mention of Dean’s “Scream” during his Iowa Caucus
speech during the 2004 Democratic Primary Caucus.

105: Just the Scream-Negative
Same as 104 but negative coverage/mention

106: Just the Scream-Neutral
Same as 104 but neutral coverage/mention

Coding Category 002: Dean’s Public Image
201: In 1-on-1 Interviews: Positive
Favorable/positive coverage/mention of Dean’s personality/demeanor during 1-0n-1
interviews

202: In 1-on-1 Interviews: Negative
Same as 201 but negative

203: In 1-on-1 Interviews: Neutral
Same as 201 but neutral

204: In Press Conferences: Positive
Favorable/positive coverage/mention of Dean’s personality/demeanor during press
conferences

205: In Press Conferences: Negative
Same as 204 but negative

63

206: In Press Conferences: Neutral
Same as 204 but neutral

207: In Speeches: Positive
Favorable/positive coverage/mention of Dean’s personality/demeanor during
speeches

208: In Speeches: Negative
Same as 207 but negative

209: In Speeches: Neutral
Same as 207 but neutral

Coding Category 003: Personal Life
301: Coverage of his Wife: Positive
Favorable/positive coverage/mention of Dean’s wife

302: Coverage of his Wife: Negative
Same as 301 but negative

303: Coverage of his Wife: Neutral
Same as 201 but neutral

304: Coverage of his Children: Positive
Favorable/positive coverage/mention of Dean’s children

305: Coverage of his Children: Negative
Same as 304 but negative

306: Coverage of his Children: Neutral
Same as 304 but neutral

307: Coverage of his Profession: Positive
Favorable/positive coverage of Dean’s profession (M.D.)

308: Coverage of his Profession: Negative
Same as 307 but negative

309: Coverage of his Profession: Neutral
Same as 307 but neutral

310: Coverage of Dean’s Personality: Negative

64
Favorable/positive coverage of Dean’s personality in general

311: Coverage of Dean’s Personality: Negative
Same as 310 but negative

312: Coverage of Dean’s Personality: Neutral
Same as 310 but neutral

Coding Category 004: Performance as Governor
401: Healthcare: Positive
Favorable/positive mention/coverage of Dean’s performance as governor with
regards to Healthcare

402: Healthcare: Negative
Same as 401 but negative

403: Healthcare: Neutral
Same as 401 but neutral

404: Environment: Positive
Favorable/positive mention/coverage of Dean’s performance as governor with
regards to the Environment

405: Environment: Negative
Same as 404 but negative

406: Environment: Neutral
Same as 404 but neutral

407: Stem Cell Research: Positive
Favorable/positive mention/coverage of Dean’s performance as governor with
regards to Stem Cell Research

408: Stem Cell Research: Negative
Same as 407 but negative

409: Stem Cell Research: Neutral
Same as 407 but neutral

410: Taxes: Positive
Favorable/positive mention/coverage of Dean’s performance as governor with
regards to Taxes

65

411: Taxes: Negative
Same as 410 but negative

412: Taxes: Neutral
Same as 410 but neutral

413: Abortion: Positive
Favorable/positive mention/coverage of Dean’s performance as governor with
regards to abortion

414: Abortion: Negative
Same as 413 but negative

415: Abortion: Neutral
Same as 413 but neutral

416: Iraq War: Positive
Favorable/positive mention/coverage of Dean’s performance as governor with
regards to the Iraq War

417: Iraq War: Negative
Same as 416 but negative

418: Iraq War: Neutral
Same as 416 but neutral

419: National Security/Terrorism Prevention: Positive
Favorable/positive mention/coverage of Dean’s performance as governor with
regards to National Security/Terrorism Prevention

420: National Security/Terrorism Prevention: Negative
Same as 419 but negative

421: National Security/Terrorism Prevention: Neutral
Same as 419 but neutral

422: General Performance as Governor: Positive
Favorable/positive mention of Dean’s performance as Governor without specific
policy specification

423: General Performance as Governor: Negative
Same as 422 but negative

66

424: General Performance as Governor: Neutral
Same as 422 but neutral

Coding Category 005: Comparison with other Candidates
501: With Bush: Positive
Favorable/positive comparison with Bush

502: With Bush: Negative
Same as 501 but negative

503: With Bush: Neutral
Same as 501 but neutral

504: With Kerry: Positive
Favorable/positive comparison with other John Kerry

505: With Kerry: Negative
Same as 504 but negative

506: With Kerry: Neutral
Same as 504 but neutral

507: With Clark: Positive
Favorable/positive comparison with other Wesley Clark

508: With Clark: Negative
Same as 507 but negative

509: With Clark: Neutral
Same as 507 but neutral

510: With Edwards: Positive
Favorable/positive comparison with other John Edwards

511: With Edwards: Negative
Same as 510 but negative

512: With Edwards: Neutral
Same as 510 but neutral

513: With Lieberman: Positive
Favorable/positive comparison with other Joe Lieberman

67

514: With Lieberman: Negative
Same as 513 but negative

515: With Lieberman: Neutral
Same as 513 but neutral

516: With Gephardt: Positive
Favorable/positive comparison with other Dick Gephardt

517: With Gephardt: Negative
Same as 516 but negative

518: With Gephardt: Neutral
Same as 516 but neutral

519: With Sharpton: Positive
Favorable/positive comparison with other Al Sharpton

520: With Sharpton: Negative
Same as 519 but negative

521: With Sharpton: Neutral
Same as 519 but neutral

522: With Moseley-Braun: Positive
Favorable/positive comparison with other Carol Moseley-Braun

523: With Moseley-Braun: Negative
Same as 522 but negative

524: With Moseley-Braun: Neutral
Same as 522 but neutral

525: With Kucinich: Positive
Favorable/positive comparison with other Dennis Kucinich

526: With Kucinich: Negative
Same as 525 but negative

527: With Kucinich: Neutral
Same as 525 but neutral

68

528: With Graham: Positive
Favorable/positive comparison with other Bob Graham

529: With Graham: Negative
Same as 528 but negative

530: With Graham: Neutral
Same as 528 but neutral

531: With Candidate in other Parties: Positive
Favorable/positive comparison with candidates in other parties

532: With Candidate in other Parties: Negative
Same as 531 but negative

533: With Candidate in other Parties: Neutral
Same as 531 but neutral

Coding Category 006: Campaign Operations/Performance
601: Use of the Internet: Positive
Favorable/positive coverage/mention of Dean’s campaign’s use of the Internet

602: Use of the Internet: Negative
Same as 601 but negative

603: Use of the Internet: Neutral
Same as 601 but neutral

604: Involvement of Young People: Positive
Favorable/positive coverage/mention of the involvement of young people in Dean’s
campaign

605: Involvement of Young People: Negative
Same as 604 but negative

606; Involvement of Young People: Neutral
Same as 604 but neutral

607: Fundraising Policies: Positive
Favorable/positive coverage/mention of the fundraising policies of Dean’s campaign

608: Fundraising Policies: Negative

69
Same as 607 but negative

609: Fundraising Policies: Neutral
Same as 607 but neutral

610: Fundraising Results: Positive
Favorable/positive coverage/mention of the fundraising results of Dean’s campaign

611: Fundraising Results: Negative
Same as 610 but negative

612: Fundraising Results: Neutral
Same as 610 but neutral

613: Personal Energy/Enthusiasm: Positive
Favorable/positive coverage/mention of Dean’s personal energy/enthusiasm on the
campaign trail

614: Personal Energy/Enthusiasm: Negative
Same as 613 but negative

615: Personal Energy/Enthusiasm: Neutral
Same as 613 but neutral

616: General Campaign Operations: Positive
Favorable/positive mention of campaign operations without any specification

617: General Campaign Operations: Negative
Same as 616 but negative

618: General Campaign Operations: Neutral
Same as 616 but neutral

70
Appendix C: Code Sheet

Instructions: Using the Codebook and the Coding Categories and Variables
documents complete one form for each story by circling all that apply or by inputting
the appropriate codes.

Section I: GENERAL INFORMATION

1. News Source: 01. New York Times 02. Washington Post _____

2. Edition: _________ _________
volume issue

3. Story Date: ______

4. Day: 01. Sunday 02. Monday 03. Tuesday _____
04. Wednesday 05. Thursday 06. Friday 07 Saturday

5. Section: 01. Editorial 02. Op-Ed 03. Letter-to-the-Editor _____

6. Headline:
_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

Section II: AUTHOR INFORMATION

1. Author Name: __________________, __________ ___ 09. Unsigned ___
Last First

2. Gender: 01. Female 02. Male 03. Unsure ____

3. Political Affiliation: 01. Dem 02. Rep. ____

03. Other 04. Unsure

71

Section III: OTHER CANDIDATES

1. Other Candidates: 01. Bush 02. Kerry

04. Clark 05. Edwards 06. Lieberman

07. Gephardt 08. Sharpton 09. Moseley-Braun

10. Kucinich 11. Graham ______

Section IV: CODING CATEGORIES AND VARIABLES (use next page for
entries categorized as “Other”

Category: ___ ___ ___ Category: ___ ___ ___ Category: ___ ___ __

Variable: ___ ___ ___ Variable: ___ ___ ___ Variable: ___ ___ ___

Category: ___ ___ ___ Category: ___ ___ ___ Category: ___ ___ __

Variable: ___ ___ ___ Variable: ___ ___ ___ Variable: ___ ___ ___

Category: ___ ___ ___ Category: ___ ___ ___ Category: ___ ___ __

Variable: ___ ___ ___ Variable: ___ ___ ___ Variable: ___ ___ ___

Category: ___ ___ ___ Category: ___ ___ ___ Category: ___ ___ __

Variable: ___ ___ ___ Variable: ___ ___ ___ Variable: ___ ___ ___

Category: ___ ___ ___ Category: ___ ___ ___ Category: ___ ___ __

Variable: ___ ___ ___ Variable: ___ ___ ___ Variable: ___ ___ ___

Category: ___ ___ ___ Category: ___ ___ ___ Category: ___ ___ __

Variable: ___ ___ ___ Variable: ___ ___ ___ Variable: ___ ___ ___

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Howard Dean's 2004 Presidential Primary Bid marked a number of firsts in American politics and existed as a threat to the ruling hegemonic nexus of power. This study, therefore, utilizes contextual content analysis to study the media's editorial treatment of Governor Dean on the heels of his Iowa Caucus "Scream" speech. To provide a reasonable picture of overall media coverage, the editorial sections of The New York Times and The Washington Post, identified by Gerbner as the two intermedia agenda-setters, were studied with hopes of providing not only an overall picture of the mediated depiction of Dean's treatment but also insights into the potential future of Presidential politics. The study found that, almost without exception, coverage of Governor Dean was negative but coverage rarely mentioned the speech specifically, instead calling into question his personal life, his demeanor and his perceived ability to lead.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Democracy in the 21st century: social media and politics - global village or cyber-Balkans?

Asset Metadata

Creator Toups, Grant Michael (author)

Core Title The rise and fall of Howard Dean: the media's role in the Iowa caucus "scream" debacle

School Annenberg School for Communication

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Strategic Public Relations

Publication Date 04/06/2007

Defense Date 02/28/2007

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Howard Dean,OAI-PMH Harvest,Political communication

Language English

Advisor Campbell, Shannon B. (committee chair), Floto, Jennifer (committee member), Kotler, Jonathan (committee member)

Creator Email toups@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m357

Unique identifier UC1235148

Identifier etd-Toups-20070406 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-322643 (legacy record id),usctheses-m357 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Toups-20070406.pdf

Dmrecord 322643

Document Type Thesis

Rights Toups, Grant Michael

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu