Everything You Think You Know About Politics...and Why You're Wrong

Media:	Paperback
Author:	Kathleen Jamieson, Kathleen Hall Jamieson
Publisher:	Basic Books
Release date:	20 June, 2000
List price:	~~$15.00~~
Our price:	$10.20 that is 32% off!

Everything You Think You Know About Politics...and Why You're Wrong

Average rating: Stars

Boring presentation, but very useful information.

I've long felt that the critics of negative advertising have over-simplified negative advertising by lumping perfectly fair criticisms of a candidate's record into the same class with ad hominem attacks.

At last we have some statistical analysis which differentiates and shows how to properly use negative advertising without suppressing voter turnout.

The author concludes low key ads that "contrast" one candidate's record and views against the other do not suppress voter turnout and may even increase interest in a campaign. Great stuff there that I intend to use in my brother's race.

Having given the author her due for the good information she presents, reading this book is tedious. After I managed to plow through the first 2 chapters I couldn't take it anymore and skipped to the summary.

The author also states some things as fact which I consider to be personal opinions, such as her critique of the Pat Robertson, Warren Rudman imbroglio. A regrettable flaw in an otherwise scholarly book.

Everything You Think You Know About Politics...and Why You're Wrong - Kathleen Jamieson, Kathleen Hall Jamieson

Academically Challenged

Given the book is from Kathleen Jamieson I was a tad dubious the book would offer objective information. I've seen her commentary on PBS multipe times and she is a reliable spokesman for the Democrats. I thought perhaps the written word may provide her more latitude to provide alternate viewpoints, or at least express a more thorough examination of political issues than is possible in her tv clips. I could not have been more mistaken. The reviews on this page accurately describe most essays as dull, which they are. Anyone who is even remotely in touch with news sources outside of the Today Show is aware of the "sound bite" culture we live in, and the consistent disparity between public pronouncements of our elected officials and the telling details. Ho hum - we really don't need a dozen essays to tell us this. More telling would be a thorough examination of WHY this phenomenon persists, which requires more analysis of the news media which drive our political culture. Face it, most of what politicians do is performed with one finger in the wind, and that wind is largely blown from the network news studios. If they approve, then there is no problem; if they criticize and question, then our friend the politician has a problem. Preening on tv is the coin of the real for most politicians today, not the art of statecraft. The homogenous make-up of the news opinion leaders is proven left-leaning. Exhibit "A" is Walter Cronkite, once the most "trusted man in America" and now an outspoken liberal, who is also known for once saying in order to be a good journalist one HAD to be liberal. Have a look at the cumulative public and private pronouncements of Tom Brokaw, Jane Pauley (married to Gary Trudeau), Dan Rather, Judy Woodruff (married to the liberal Al Hunt), Peter Jennings, Barbara Walters, Diane Sawyer, Connie Chung, etc., etc., etc. They are all Democrat-friendly and critical of Republicans. When was the last time you heard ANY network anchor express admiration for Ronald Reagan? Of course you have not, because it hasn't happened. This is why the book is a yawner, it is mostly liberal academics decrying the state of political discourse in this nation, but they can't point the finger at the culprits of chronic misinformation because they are, in fact, their liberal brethren in the main-stream news media. Why, I may ask, is the nation over 2 years removed from economic recession, yet nearly 50% of the country still believes we are in recession? Putting aside your feelings on the economy, the empirical fact is we are NOT in recession. This is an indictment of the news media, that the people are so terribly misinformed about something so important as the economic state of their country. They should be ashamed at their terrible reporting, but dont' bet a lobster on it. They are certainly proud, as they have somehow saddled a Republican president with the image of a bad economy in an election year. Clinton's economic numbers were not much better than Bush's, yet the media consistently trumpeted his handling of the economy (which was in strong growth when he came into office, and was in negative growth when he left). For a truly informative book on understanding the underpinnings of American political discourse, ignore this book and pick up "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman. It is neither liberal nor conservative, but the watershed work on how our basic cultural values limit what we are capable (collectively, not individually) of understanding about politics and the nation in general. Good times come and go, but stupid is forever. The title of Ms. Jamieon's book is as misleading as its contents, and the perfect embodiment of the empty-headed academic pseudo-insights we'd all benefit by avoiding.

Kathleen Jamieson, Kathleen Hall Jamieson - Everything You Think You Know About Politics...and Why You're Wrong

A real yawner

A very interesting title, but it does not live up to its name. A lot of compelling statistics, but after awhile I began to question the statistics. For instance, the author credited Clinton with the economy improvement (with a tax increase!) on page 24, when it is doubtful any President can take credit for such a broad "promise" because there are too many things the President has no control over. You may as well credit Clinton for promising the sun will rise every morning.

The book is definitely pro-Clinton, which makes me suspicious of the data being gathered. For instance, on page 64 the author states that Clinton was being misquoted about "lying" about the Lewinsky matter. Most people would say that Clinton may not be lying, but was definitely not forthcoming with the American public. The book paints Clinton as keeping more of his campaign promises as being hardworking, dedicated, and more even handed than Bush or Reagan.

The problem with this book is it is passed off as being a textbook (I pity the students who have to use it), but itself leaves a lot to interpretation. They lumped a lot of promises and comments which are meaningless into their sample to make it more credible. But most campaign promises are useless and just rhetoric at best.

One good part of the book was when they dissected actual speeches (not very many, so don't get excited) and then proceeded to show how the networks chop them up for the sound bites on the news. If they had more of that type of reporting, the book would be more interesting and actually mean more.

Too bad. A good analysis would have been interesting. This book is a Clintonite trying to make a case for Bill Clinton being the greatest President of the 20th century and how the press maligned him. Could have been written by any Democratic operative.

Best Buys Bookstore