Over a hundred years ago William Jennings Bryan delivered his famous "Cross of Gold" speech at the Democratic National Convention in a voice that was heard throughout the hall without any electronic amplification. But now we live in an age of microphones and Teleprompters, and as Kathleen Hall Jamieson points out in "Eloquence in an Electronic Age," political speaking in the United States has been radically transformed. Now presidents are remembered not for great speeches but rather for memorable sound bites. In fact, John F. Kennedy's inaugural address has now effectively been transformed into a single line ("Ask not...").

Jamieson looks at successful public rhetoric from the Greeks to Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan (the paradigm for the new eloquence), but also, and equally important, the problems of less successful communicators such as Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter. The historical examples and rhetorical analysis is to establish the concept of political eloquence, what it is and well and what it is not, and how our concept of it has changed (and remained the same). After all, when George H. W. Bush lost his reelection bid to Bill Clinton, you had those who distrusted Bush's ability to lead because of his problems with crafting a coherent sentence when speaking off the top of his head and those who feared Clinton's leadership because he was so convincing speaking off the cuff. Jamieson wants to know if television has changed our concept of eloquence so that audiences we are no longer receptive to eloquence in the way they were in the past, or whether it is just a convenient scapegoat for other influences.

Ultimately, Jamieson argues that "the old eloquence of fire and sword has given way to an intimate disclosive art bent on conciliation, not conquest." The things taught to Cicero and Churchill that allowed them to be so eloquent are no longer taught in schools. Meanwhile, we have learned that images on television of civil rights protestors being attacked by guard dogs and fire hose or American soldiers dying in Vietnam are more potent than any words spoken by elected officials. In the final analysis, Jamieson explains not only what "Eloquence in an Electronic Age" is, but also the whys and wherefores. This is a valuable book for anyone studying contemporary political rhetoric.

More than a decade after its publication, this book remains a excellent read on how the rise of first radio, then television, as preferred channels of political speech-making went hand-in-hand with changes in speaking style. Unlike many discussions of the impact of television, Dr. Jamieson's approach is far less interested in condemning the rise of the visual than in exploring what kinds of strategies work with television. It's a pity there isn't a later edition that brings the history of political speaking into the internet age.

Jamison has successfully covered the intricasies of presidential campaign advertising from the beginning of the Republic up to the 1992 campaign. A well organized and thoughtful book that is easy to read.

I was required to read this book for a course on Campaign and Social Movement Rhetoric. This was my first experience with Kathleen Hall Jamieson and I am now one of her biggest fans.

She provides thoughtful, non-partisan analysis (rare in this age of personal commentary) of political advertisements. She discusses what worked, what didn't and why in a clear, thought-provoking yet easy to read manner.

Some of her best work. If you are interested in advertising or politics this book is a must have.

This book is probably the msot thoughful about presidential campaign advertising. You read it like a novel!

Jamieson and Waldman offer a highly critical overview of media coverage, focusing on the 2000 Presidential election, but also touching on historical issues such as the Nixon Presidency and the Gulf of Tonkin incident. They are equally critical of the coverage given to Bush and Gore, in an impressive display of non-partisanship that is lacking in our media today. They encourage reporters to research the statements by candidates and to not simply accept the frame given to them by interested parties but to investigate and to put a truly fair and balanced frame around it. One issue that they note but could have gone into more detail on is that the media almost universally present issues as a for/against disagreement, whereas in reality there are often (I might argue almost always) more than two points of view on a given issue and the press ignores all but the two that are most easily reduced to sound bites.

The press is in crisis--it no longer serves its most important role, which is to cut through political spin to get at the facts. Jamieson and Waldman make a convincing case that the press is so intent on creating compelling storylines that it has lost its critical edge.

For all journalists out there--please read it!

Not as accessible as other books in the journalism reform genre (in other words, a little stat-heavy), but it provides a good framework for discussion. Anyone who thinks cynicism and journalism MUST go hand in hand should read this for a refutation and perhaps a few ideas of how to take the journalist's natural *skepticism* (which is very different) and use it a healthy manner.

A compilation of a number of experimental studies on the impact of the framing effects of news. The authors point out that political news nowadays uses mostly the strategic frame - focus on strategies of actors - rather than issue frame - focus on substantive aspects of the issues. And the authors try to test if the use of strategic frame would lead to enhanced cynicism.

The findings of the experiments are actually not very clear-cut, at least not clear-cut than what the authors said in the book. But the book contains very good discussions about the likely impact of news on cynicism, definition of cynicism vs. skepticism, the nature of framing effects etc.

There is no argument Jamieson knows her stuff. The problem is this book reads like a textbook. Interesting at points, yet not a real "page turner."

This author deserves high praise as she bases her findings on original data. Many political books only present an author's opinions, which are useful in their own way. This book presents academic interpretation of survey findings.
This book explores how contrasting political information is useful in mobilizing support for candidates, yet false political information does tend to be recognized by voters for being incorrect and is rejected and leads to political backlashes against the candidate making the false statements. Further, the manner in which media reports campaigns is a major influence on how voters ultimately form their opinions.
This is an excellent book grounded in documented evidence. Readers interested in politics will find this one of the best books ever on politics and the media.

I just finished listening to the audible.com version of this fascinating book by Kathleen Hall Jamieson. The book is filled with interesting and, at times, surprising facts about politics and political campaigning. What I particularly liked about this book is that its claims are based on research and hard evidence. The author is not just spouting her opinions, but backs up her assertions with evidence. It is clear that a lot of work went into the preparation of this text.

The book is written in a lively, concise, and entertaining style and should appeal to all types of readers, even those that might not normally read a book on politics.

If I had a criticism it is that the title overstates what the book really contains. While this book did change some of my beliefs about politics, it did not make a wholesale change in my understanding of our political system. But, catchy titles sell books so I am not going to fault the author or publisher (too much) for wanting to make this book commercially successful. My only other negative comment is that this book focuses almost entirely on politics and campaigning as they related to the presidency. Information on congressional and local politics is sparse.

The audible.com version was read by the author is she does a very good job. She has a clear, upbeat tempo that makes it easy to listen to.

Whether you're a political junkie who can't get enough of CSPAN, or someone that would just like to learn more about our political system, I think that you will enjoy reading (or listening to) this wonderful book.

Upon entering 1oth grade Honors Government and Economy, I was forced to read this book to enhance my summer project. Throughout reading this book I came to the conclusion that this was a poorly written book. Although Kathleen Hall Jamieson's book contains good thoughts, she uses an over-exceedingly amount of adjectives in the process of communicating her philosophies. However, despite my distaste for her writing, Kathleen Hall Jamieson's book, "Dirty Politics", contains valuable information and is a decent book for someone who enjoys researching the medias' influence on presidential campaigns.

As a professor of communication, I have enthusiastically used Kathleen Hall Jamieson's Dirty Politics as a text that makes sense of so much of what we see in nationally televised politics. Students invariably come away from reading Jamieson with a much deeper apprecation for politics--and what ails it. The strength of this text is in the attention to detail; specifically, Jamieson grounds her study in focus group research. And in those instances where she doesn't utilize such research, her readings of various televisual advertising is usually nuanced and insightful. The one drawback to the text, one that Jamieson would perhaps actually endorse, is its elitism; that is, only certain sorts of elites watch the Lehrer News Hour (to which she contributes frequently), and have the educational skills to do the hard work of argument, engagement and debate that she so heartily endorses. Politics isn't a spectator sport; in this text, Jamieson encourages us to get up off the couch and actually engage--and thereby hold candidates accountable for the discourse of Democracy.