1
Videostyles of Televised PresidentialDebates in the U.S. and Korea
Hyoungkoo Khang, Ph. D
Lecturer
HankukUniversity of Foreign Studies
.
INTRODUTION
Chaffee (1975) conceived of the role of communication in the political process as political communication, which involves the exchange of symbols and messages among political actors and institutions, the general public, and the news media (McLeod, Kosicki, & McLeod, 2002). We can assume that political communication will be more accelerated and intensify during political campaigning because political campaigns are periods of time during which candidates for public office transmit information to potential voters via mass media in an attempt to create support for their candidacies and try to convince voters that they should vote in a particular way on election day.
Echoing the criticism that television news’s “horse race” coverage of political campaigns, in which they focus on who is winning rather than on the issues with increasingly shorter sound bites, candidates have turned to another form of political communication, candidate debates, to convey their messages and images to the voters (Just, Crigler, & Wallach, 1990). Indeed, studies have shown that political debates are more effective than network news in providing issue information to voters. Viewers also can learn information about candidates (including their names, parties, images, and positions on issues) from candidate debates.
After the historic first presidential debates between Kennedy and Nixon in 1960 and the 1976 debates between Ford and Carter, debates have become one of the most significant events in political campaigning (Chaffee, 1979). Debates can reach large audiences (Pfau, 2003), and attract the greatest media coverage of any single campaign event (Kaid, McKinney, & Tedesco, 2000). Debates also provide voters the most convenient and direct access to the candidates, and offer a capsule summary of campaign issues (Carlin, 1992). Presidential debates, thus, generate the greatest amount of public interest and more citizen-to-citizen discussion than any other single campaign event (Patterson, 2002).
While political candidate debates have played a dominant role in U.S. elections for decades, “American-style” political debates have gained significance in the political processes of other democracies (McKinney & Carlin, 2004). Several comparative studies show that American campaign styles have been dominant in other countries, although concurrently, different parameters of culture, political systems, and media systems can promote or constrain symbols and messages exchanged between political candidates and voters via political debates (Kaid & Holtz-Bacha, 1995).
Indeed, there have been few studies that compare and contrast political debates across various cultural boundaries to unveil common patterns and highlight crucial differences. For this study, the researcher utilized videostyles (Kaid & Johnston, 2001) to explore similarities and differences in presidential debates between the two countries. The purpose of this study is, therefore, to present an alternative way of looking at communication by analyzing and categorizing cultural assumptions as they are found in American culture in comparison and contrast with those in the Korean counterpart.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Political Campaign Debates
Some scholars have suggested that presidential debates offer viewers the chance to see the major candidates in a face-to-face confrontation while addressing the same topics (Benoit & Wells, 1996; Hellweg et al., 1992).Jamieson (1987) explained that “as messages running an hour or longer, debates offer a level of contact with candidates clearly unmatched in spot ads and news segments” (p.28).Kraus (2000) also argued that presidential debates “serve the majority of the electorate better than any candidates’ personality and their positions on the issues” (p.5).
Many studies have addressed the question of “Do debates matter?” since general election televised presidential debates commenced in 1960. According to Bystrom, Roper, Gobets, Massey, and Beall (1991), presidential debate research has focused on three main areas: (1) the effects of decided versus undecided voters; (2) the effects of viewer’s perceptions on candidates’ issues and images; (3) the effects of preexisting candidate preferences and party affiliation, especially concerning “who won” the debate in the war of persuasive attack and defense.
Pfau (2002) argued that presidential debates conducted during the general election enhance viewer knowledge of the candidates and their issue positions. Holbrook (1996) reported that presidential debates influence candidate evaluations and voting intentions. His results demonstrated that receivers’ evaluations of candidate performance in TV debates significantly influence post-debate vote intention. Some scholars argue that exposure to debates may convey only minimal knowledge, but stimulates campaign interest and discussion in formulating voting decision (McLeod, Bybee, & Durall, 1979).
Although there are mixed results about the effects of the televised presidential debates, voters may obtain impressionsabout how candidates prepared for the debates. Voters may learn about issues and the personalities of the candidates, or about the candidates’ political parties (Sears & Chaffee, 1979).
Using functional theory (Benoit, 1998), that political campaign messages have three basic functions: acclaiming (self-praise), attacking (downgrade opponents), and defending (response to attacks); Benoit and other scholars have examined the content of debates (Benoit, 1999; Benoit, Blaney, & Pier, 2000, Benoit & Brazeal, 2002). In their analysis of the 1988 Bush-Dukakis presidential debates, Benoit and Brazeal (2002) found that acclaims were the most common function (59%), followed by attacks (33%), and defense (8%). Overall, debates focus overwhelmingly on campaign issues, rather than candidate character, and candidates in debates acclaim far more than attack their opponents, with attacks outnumbering defenses (McKinney & Carlin, 2004).
Some scholars argue, however, that political debate research tends to overemphasize the content of debates and ignore communication form (Hellweg et al., 1992). Although contemporary television is a unique communication medium that emphasizes visual component over verbal dimension (Graber, 1987; Jamieson, 1988), the visual content of debates is certainly not reflected in the existing analysis of campaign debates (McKinney & Carlin, 2004).
In his analysis of the visual component of television in the 1976 debates, Tiemens (1978) found an imbalanced visual presentation of the two candidates (i.e., camera shot), with Jimmy Carter favored over Ford. Davis (1978), however, found that Ford and Carter had a similar frequency of eye contact with the camera throughout their three debate series. McKinney and Carlin (2004) argued that visual presentation of debates may very well affect how and what viewers learn from debate viewing. In a similar view, Lang (1987) noted, “what matters most in debates is not substance of what the candidates say… but how well they say it and whether the candidate projects the image he strives to project”(p. 211).
Presidential debates have also changed dramatically in format and production techniques. The design and practice of presidential debates have evolved significantly from the earlier press conference format to a single moderator questioning candidates, the town hall debate featuring citizen questioners, and the more informal candidate round-table conversation or “chat” debate utilized for the first time in 2000 (McKinney & Carlin, 2004).
The visual presentation and nonverbal dynamics of a town hall debate differ greatly from those of a traditional candidate-behind-podium debate. The town-hall debate is viewed as better, addressing issues of greatest concern to voters (McKinney & Carlin, 2004). Issues raised by citizens in a town-hall debate generally resulted in much more salience in the public mind than did questions asked by a journalist in the single moderator debate (Kaid et al., 2000). In his analysis of debate formats during the 1984 Democratic primary, Pfau (1984) also found that different debate formats produced differences in communication outcomes. Some studies (Carlin, Howard, Stanfield, & Reynolds, 1991; Carlin et al., 2001) have demonstrated several relationships between candidate clash and debate formats.
Videostyle. Kaid and Davidson (1986) originally conceived the videostyle perspective as a way of understanding the three major components of a candidate's presentation style used in political advertising: verbal, nonverbal and video production component. While verbal content elements focus on the semantic characteristics of the candidate’s messages (i.e., issue vs. image, negative vs. positive, or explicit strategy), nonverbal components of political advertising deal with the visual and audio elements without specific semantic meaning (i.e., gestures, facial expressions, or sounds). As a third component of videostyle, production techniques include camera angles and movement, staging and setting, editing, and other techniques that can cause us to interpret what we see in different ways.
Although the personal style of a candidate exists outside of mediated forms of communication, a candidate might necessarily adapt to elements of television language to reach voters through presidential debates ortelevised political advertising (Kaid & Johnston, 2001). Therefore, patterns of techniques used and strategies employed should be made evident by evaluating the candidate’s debates. Videostyle can be understood as a framework that has been used to analyze televised political debates and to describe the way candidates present themselves to voters through the television medium, encompassing the strategies, narratives, and symbols that candidates decide to use in political debates (Kaid & Johnston, 2001). The visual aspects of debates are thus a very important part of a candidate’s videostyle.
Cultural Assumptions
Foschi and Hales (1979) point out that when culture is treated as a theoretical variable “culture ‘x’ and culture ‘y’ serve to operationally define a characteristic ‘a’, which two cultures exhibit to different degrees” (p. 246). There are dimensions on which cultures can be different or similar that can be used to explain communication across cultures. Communication is unique within each culture, and at the same time, there are systematic similarities and differences across cultures.
A number of scholars in various disciplines have developed schemas that have shown to be relatively effectual in comparing culture (i.e., Hofstede’s, 1980, dimensions of cultural variability; Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck’s, 1961, value orientations; Parsons & Shils’s 1951, pattern variables). Gudykunst (1987) refers to these schemas as dimensions of socio-cultural variability that affect the specific values and norms that predominate in different cultures. In applying such schemas, it is important to remember that although individual differences exist in every culture, the purpose of these dimensions is to explore the dominant socio-cultural orientations for any given group. Although there are many dimensions on which cultures differ, this research will focus on Hall’s notion of high-low context culture, Hofstede’s dimensions of cultural variability, and nonverbal behaviors.
Hofstede (1983, 2001) empirically derived four dimensions of socio-cultural variability: individualism-collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, power distance,and long-term versus short-term orientation.
Individualism-collectivism is the major dimension of cultural variability used to explain cross-cultural similarities and differences in behavior. Individualism-collectivism exists at the cultural level (i.e., cultural norms/rules) and the individual level (i.e., individual values). For the objective of this study, the researcher intends to focus on the cultural level individualism-collectivism.
Emphasis is placed on individual goals in individualistic cultures, while group goals have precedence over individual goals in collectivistic cultures. The emphasis in individualistic societies is on individual initiative and achievement, while emphasis is placed on belonging to groups in collectivistic societies. This dimension is expected to affect communication mainly through its influence on group identities and the differentiation between in-group and out-group communication (Gudykunst & Kim, 1992). In collectivistic culture, social control over individual behavior is stringently reinforced through the maintenance of rigid hierarchical structure. This narrows the range of acceptable individual variation in social behavior (Stewart, 1972). However, Americans tend to believe that the individual has control of, and is responsible for, his or her own life. In this cultural pattern, competition is encouraged and frontal attack is considered as a matter of course (Stewart, 1972). Hofstede identified the U.S. as most individualistic, while Korea as highly collectivistic. A recent study, however, suggests that Koreans have as high a level of individualistic values as Americans, which implies that traditional Korean values might have changed rather drastically since Hofstede’s seminal study (Yoon, Kim, & Kim, 1998).
Another dimension that distinguishes Western from Eastern culture is uncertainty avoidance. Uncertainty avoidance captures the cultural pattern of seeking stability, predictability, and low stress rather than change and new experiences (Hofstede, 2001). In other words, it involves a lack of tolerance in a socio-cultural system for ambiguity and uncertainty, which expresses less tolerance for people or groups with deviant ideas or behaviors and greater need for formal rules and absolute truth. People in high uncertainty avoidance cultures try to avoid ambiguity. While Korean culture is placed high on the uncertainty avoidance scale, American culture is low in uncertainty avoidance.
Power distance is the degree to which people tolerate inequality of power distribution. In a high power distance society, hierarchy is strong and power is centralized at the top. Individuals are very conscious of their rank, and superiors and subordinates feel separate from one another. Korea is an example of a high power distance society. In a low power distance society, members of an organization feel relatively close to one another and have a sense of equality as human beings.
In addition, Hofstede (1991) added time orientation to the former four dimensions. This dimension focuses on the long-term versus short-term orientation that is related to the choice of focus for people’s efforts: the future or the present. Generally, people from East Asian countries such as China, Japan and Korea tend to have tradition based orientation, while Latin Americans are more oriented to the present, and Western countries such as Americans, Canadians and Europeans have more of a future orientation.
While individualism-collectivism defines broad differences between cultures, Hall’s (1976) high-low context notion focuses on cultural differences on a basis of communication processes. Although some scholars have argued that all the cultures Hall labels as low-context are individualistic, and high-context are collectivistic in Hofstede’s scheme (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988), this notion has been one of the most well known dimensions used to describe and account for cultural differences. Hall focuses on communication patterns within cultures along the four dimensions of context, space, time, and information flow. High context communication is characterized by a dominant dependence on implicit, rather than explicit, message. Meaning in a high context culture is derived primarily from the physical context or, is internalized within individuals in the culture. In contrast, communication in low context cultures relies primarily on verbal codes. Hall describes the United States and some Western countries as low context cultures and Korea, Japan and Taiwan as high context culture (Gudykunst & Kim, 1992).
During everyday communication, nonverbal behaviors (i.e., dress, gestures, eye contact, or intonation) are typically coordinated in ways that provide for their mutual performance. Historically, however, verbal and nonverbal messages have been studied separately, as though they were independent rather than co-occurring and interrelated phenomena (Jones & LeBaron, 2001). Research has strongly suggested that major cultural differences are embedded in nonverbal behaviors, because they are basic core values that are slow to change (Kim, 1992).
Everyday experience suggests that smiling is one of the most common nonverbal signals used for communication among humans (Ekman & Friesen, 1971). While a smile of happiness may be a universal expression, cultural, contextual, and personal influences can affect its meaning and frequency, as well as degree of expansiveness (Kim, 1992). Many Asian cultures suppress facial expression as much as possible. This has made them seem less communicative and less expressive in both verbal and nonverbal behavior than Americans (Yim, 1970). Adults, especially men, are not expected to smile frequently in Korea because it seems to be a sign of shallowness and lack of respect.
Hand and arm gestures are another form of culture-specific expression that indicates the intensity of an emotional state. Clearly, there are differences among cultural groups as to what is considered an appropriate frequency and style of hand and arm gestures (Eisenberg & Smith, 1971). In the Eastern view, adults who use many gestures when they speak are thought to be childish, because repression of overt bodily expression connotes self-control (Ramsey, 1984). On the other hand, Western culture is likely to use strong expressive gestures to convey messages.
Cross-Cultural Perspectives of Political Debates
While political debates have been a dominant part of U.S. political campaigns, they have not gained significance in the political culture of most other countries until recently. This may be a result of differences in the institutional and political systems, cultural tradition, or history of democracy in the countries. As Kaid (2004) noted, most European systems are characterized by multiparty systems, shorter campaign periods, party-centered political culture, and public-controlled media. Compared to their European counterparts, democracies in Asian and African countries have a relatively short history. Seib (2000) noted that debates can symbolize the coming of political maturity, where democracy is young and struggling. This assertion can be well illustrated by the 1994 debate in South Africa between Mandela and Klerk.
Although a number of countries have followed the U.S. in developing televised debate traditions of their own, few studies of televised campaign debates occurring in the democracies of the world (McKinney & Carlin, 2004): analysis of televised debates in Canada (Blais & Boyer, 1996), in the former West Germany (Baker & Norpoth, 1981; Schrott, 1990), in South Korea (Kang & Jaung, 1999), in Australia (Ward & Walsh, 1999), in Israel (Blum-Kulka & Liebes, 1999), and in New Zealand (Clark, 1999). Furthermore , a majority of these studies failed to adopt diverse approaches across national boundaries; except for Schrott’s (1984) comparative study of the 1980 U.S. and West German debates and Matsaganis and Weingarten’s (2001) comparison of the 2000 U.S. presidential and Greek prime minister debates.